The reason I wrote the first blog about this subject was because of a tendency I have seen to write off the Bible because "You know the Bible has changed and been re-written over the years by many different people right? You do realize this right?" In other words you are foolish to put too much stock in its pages.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen someone post this on comment sections about anything that has to do with Christianity. I know, why read the comments, it is the bane of our existence?!
But I wrote that last one to point out that actually we have extremely accurate Bibles that highly reflect authorial intent which Christians believe were God breathed.
2 Timothy 3:16
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15and
how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings,
which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus.
16All
Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
But I didn't address the other line of argumentation fully which is also used just as often: that the Bible is just not that "clear". Well I have mentioned this in passing a few times and after having read yet another article about how we all need to chill because the Bible is not that clear. I felt the need to stand up once again and defend Gotham. Not that Gotham needs my defending, nor am I Batman but the church has a history of good theology and I don't want that to go away with a flood of misinformation. Louder voices on the internet are not always good ones.
So in my response I wish the Christians would admit about the Bible though difficult can be understood with study and practice. Maybe not to full complete understanding or liking but that is why humility is important in knowing God. I may not understand everything fully but let's stop tossing babies around in bathwater.
Relevant Magazine had an article about things people need to admit about the Bible and they are right ; to undermine the scriptures is a great way to undermine the Christians faith which is very relevant to enemies of God. So I will respond to their five points.
Point 1 The Bible is not magic but a collection of Books with different Genres. Good, true point.
Point 2 The Bible isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. Um sometimes it isn't but I think that this is more of a passing blip than a point. It is awfully clear on many things. It is awfully clear on many things that people do not like. Just because we do not like something doesn't mean it becomes unclear. Let's not let the little ambiguous ones undermine its authority. It's little foxes that spoil the vineyard afterall. Well we are at it let's talk about the one you think are so ambiguous that you think we should create a principle that actually undermines its authority. See I have seen this point but people don't want to discuss it.
The example used the point of violence as God commands against it but at other times uses it as judgment. Why is God so inconsistent? It must be unclear. Well to understand this point apply your first one. In one way God is commanding obedience for his people to act as judgment on the nations, and in another he is commanding no personal vendettas. God says vengeance is mine. It is not inconsistent for him to carry out such vengeance with the hands of his people who he actively governs over. See distinctions which come about through study shouldn't make us conclude that the Bible is too difficult to make assertions, but that is always what this line of argumentation wants to argue.
Jesus often spent a lot of time quoting from the Old Testament saying it is written for his line of reasoning. It as is if he put a lot of stock in what was recorded in ink. Jesus even combated his own temptations with the words of scripture, but Satan tried to do the same. Jesus didn't throw up his hands and say "You are right Satan we are both using the same scriptures, it is just so unclear!" No, he seemed to believe that the words long written down had meaning when properly understood and applied.
This point should be the Bible doesn't always ask easy things of us; but a lack of understanding does not mean a lack of clarity.
Point 3 The Bible was inspired by God not dictated by God. True so what are you getting at? It seems since this was not fleshed out into any real reason, that this is simply to undermine the authority because "You know God didn't directly say it? This is that same argument that "You know it's not in red letters so Jesus doesn't believe that!" The Bible does give testimony on what its' readers should believe about it.
The Bible acknowledges that many people will rise up and misuse the word and that false teachers will abound. The answer is not to throw up our hands in hopelessness. No, the answer is to study to show yourself approved.
2 Tim 2:15
14Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Point 4 We all pick and choose the Bible we Believe, Preach and Defend. Well, some may I guess, but largely as a whole no we don't. But as you have displayed, the weak Bibliology that is being build on this premise will conclude from the flimsy foundation you are building with points 2 and 3.
People will do this if we continue to uphold a view of the Bible that is so grounded in man's own ability to comprehend God. But when we ground our view in the Bible's own testimony, that it does come from God then there will always be someone to point out that the Bible does in fact say something worth listening to. If this is really the truth about Christianity then we are a stupid people indeed. In fact if my Bible is simply the version that I like then who is to say who is right, or if anyone is? And for that matter why not go find one that is a little better, perhaps the book of Mormon or the Koran? See, if we have this little regard for the Bible than we really have no right to use it to make lists of 5 reasons that others should pay attention to.
Point 5 God is bigger than the Bible. Again true, to the point of obvious. But this is usually meant to mean that being spiritual is as and if not more important that understanding God's revelation. But then if you are not willing to submit to his own revelation about himself, if you are not willing to acknowledge that his delivery system was also for a reason, than who is now even bigger than God? Well, you are. All world religions believe this. They believe God is bigger than the pages of scripture so they inevitable leave them to find him elsewhere, and we get another religion. So which one will you let define your God? I will rely on the revelation that he gave from his disciples inspired by God himself. You can rely on your world experiences if you want to.
We live in the internet age where everyone is welcomed a comment. Ok sure, even I am using that privilege. But just because somebody writes something doesn't make it true, just as my own words are subject to scrutiny. I used to tell my students in ministry no speaker, no writer, no pastor, no blog, nobody is better than the word. Every speaker, writer, blogger, pod-caster whatever on matters of Christianity, God , Theology, everyone is this area is only as good as they are submitted to the word. Even Paul didn't just say "Well because I say so!" he commended the Bereans who went out studied what he said. Don't let someone convince you of something just because they are eloquent or they have a platform. Search it out, submit to God and he will lead you into truth. Solomon said it this way
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
If the truth sets you free, it shouldn't lead into a bondage of ambiguity. Because the author is right about this thing; everyone does have their version of the truth. The question is does it reflect God's or not? Is it submitted to God? People waver, people change, people fight, people argue, people disagree, but that is people not God's testimony. James gives a warning on this matter in his third chapter.
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
The clarity questions is really about accurately reflecting God's word or not. So take the time to make sure you are.
thanks
Showing posts with label answers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label answers. Show all posts
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Friday, July 3, 2015
God's Avenger
The fourth of July is here and it is a very testy time to say the least with the government and Christianity.
On everyone's mind right now is the role of government. What did it do? What should it have done etc? How should Christians react? Paul gives an interesting summary of the purpose of the Government and he calls it God's avenger. This doesn't so much hit on the ruling yet but setting some ground work for the discussion to happen. I know that Paul's discussion doesn't quite get to what everyone is so mad about right now. This isn't the hot topic of the day right now, but, the reach of the government is. In order to get there though we need to see what its purpose is supposed to be. We need to look at Romans 13.
I started writing about this honestly because I occasionally see someone comment about how Christians shouldn't be for the death penalty because we are pro life and believe we are made in the image of God. Rightly so, we are. But so much has happened historically that this will be a two part-er.
On more reflection on my previous needing a hero blog and our desire of justice, it got me thinking about another hero. Or rather an anti-hero The Punisher. I was familiar with the comic book character and so I watched the movie a few years ago and I remember struggling with a line in the movie where he says "It is not vengeance but punishment." In other words he was justified because it was not a personal vendetta but administering the due desert.
At the time I remember struggling with how it was any different, mostly because he was entirely spurned on by the personal loss of his family. But I do understand the intent. Vengeance in the our typical sense is reactionary despite justice, whereas punishment is in direct response measured by desert.
Any vengeance is in a sense retribution but our typical vernacular tends to be more along the lines of a personal tit for tat, or payback with righting the wrong of personal feelings. True desert involves righting the wrong as in restitution, it is a measured response to the wrongdoing. The problems of vengeance tend to be emotional and thus the solution may be greater than the crime.
For example: "He should be in prison, but I want him dead."
This as I have said before is why God instructed the rule "An eye for an eye". So the punishment is measured. God is about just measures, remember?
So at the time I didn't understand it for the movie, I am not sure if it conveyed the idea well, but I do understand the difference in principle. The idea is that sometimes people escape through the system and true justice cannot be levied so the Punisher brings the desert for the crimes. This is the very premise of the Steven Seagal movie Above the Law (1988).
Now while I can grant them the premise for the fictional comic book character and for a movie, this doesn't work in real life. When real people do this they also have to give account.
A more realistic yet still fictional story tried to portray this as well. The movie A Time to Kill (1996) from a John Grisham book dealt with this exact premise. A Father whose daughter was brutally raped knew that the accused were going to be let go because of racial tension so he took it upon himself to punish them. He shot them both dead and the movie plays out about his own trial. Despite his own obvious guilt he feels justified because the system failed. His guilt is undeniable the question becomes should he be prosecuted? In the end he isn't because the jury realizes he acted as probably any father would because he was himself denied justice. A very good movie.
But the obvious point is sometimes the system isn't enough. Now this system is in fact what God has left behind to be his own avenger. Romans 13 calls the government a servant of God for the common good. The government is referred to as his avenger who carries out God's own wrath on the wrongdoer. In other words God is about punitive desert.
So what are the common responses?
People are the image of God. God told us we are made in his image and he believes in the death penalty. God enacted the penalty many times and had his people do the same. God is not so concerned about his image bearers that he refrains from snuffing them out when they corrupt his image by offense. But that was the Old Testament. Well in New Testament rightly so that responsibility has been handed over to God's Avengers: the Governments. Their primary purpose is to restrain evil and this is done by the sword (by force). But what about the woman caught in adultery? The scenario was that the mob wanted Jesus to allow them to put her to death. They actually didn't have the right under Roman law to act such. There was no formal trial and the man was mysteriously absent. But primarily Jesus' purpose was to save lives not destroy them. Jesus reminds his own disciples this in Luke 9:56 when they wanted to call down fire on his opponents. His purpose was to bring the gospel, his mission from God was to spread news of the Kingdom. It was not his responsibility to act under Old Testament laws when the New Covenant was being put in place. However he did teach Paul to instruct that Governments did hold that power as his servants. Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Because death is a great message. Really it is. The death penalty serves as an object lesson for sure but first and foremost is a just desert. It is also to curb evil. God gave us the example of punitive justice.
I would further point out the punishment for our sins was punitive; the death penalty. Furthermore when reading the New Testament at this point God is delaying punishment til his return for the purposes of showing mercy 2 Peter 3:15. God wants to grant grace in forgiveness through his Son. But a time will come when he shows up and the time for mercy will have expired. This is why everyone wants to put a date on the apocalypse. Read the New Testament about the Day of the Lord. God's justice is about the death penalty. The wadges of sin is death. God does offer a way out but if people don't take it then they deny the savior end up paying it themselves.
Now the purpose of this blog is not to defend the death penalty, but to advance the notion that sometimes justice is punitive. Justice doesn't really care about the rehabilitation, that is for a separate office. Rehabilitation is on the individual. A system can be put in place to help, but rehabilitation is not justice. Rehabilitation is necessary for a society to function but it is a luxury. A luxury that we all very much hope that people take advantage of, but it cannot take the place of just desert. God demands justice, he is not as much interested about his avenger creating programs to reintegrate the people into society, the avenger's job is justice. Rehabilitation is the Church's job. It is called the Gospel.
Before we get caught up in the why's of this or that tragedy let's not skip over the just desert. When we skip over desert we compound the trespass, multiply the victims, and encourage repeat offenses. The punishment must fit the crime after-all.
Without punishment we breed lawlessness. And thus we get a country that hates accountability and screams for little more than anarchy. If we need to change the system we should use the system lawfully or else our own lawlessness brings about more sin. Again in chapter 13 of Romans we are told to not resist the government as they act as the avengers or else we are found to be fighting against God himself.
If the Avengers go bad, they will give an account to new governments and ultimately to God. Avengers will give an account. Just as God punished those he used to punish Israel. Avengers are not above the law as Steven Seagal taught us.
Thus we leave punishment to the government and we leave the government to hands of God. But what about when they violate God's law? Well we can look at that next time.
thanks
On everyone's mind right now is the role of government. What did it do? What should it have done etc? How should Christians react? Paul gives an interesting summary of the purpose of the Government and he calls it God's avenger. This doesn't so much hit on the ruling yet but setting some ground work for the discussion to happen. I know that Paul's discussion doesn't quite get to what everyone is so mad about right now. This isn't the hot topic of the day right now, but, the reach of the government is. In order to get there though we need to see what its purpose is supposed to be. We need to look at Romans 13.
I started writing about this honestly because I occasionally see someone comment about how Christians shouldn't be for the death penalty because we are pro life and believe we are made in the image of God. Rightly so, we are. But so much has happened historically that this will be a two part-er.
On more reflection on my previous needing a hero blog and our desire of justice, it got me thinking about another hero. Or rather an anti-hero The Punisher. I was familiar with the comic book character and so I watched the movie a few years ago and I remember struggling with a line in the movie where he says "It is not vengeance but punishment." In other words he was justified because it was not a personal vendetta but administering the due desert.
At the time I remember struggling with how it was any different, mostly because he was entirely spurned on by the personal loss of his family. But I do understand the intent. Vengeance in the our typical sense is reactionary despite justice, whereas punishment is in direct response measured by desert.
Any vengeance is in a sense retribution but our typical vernacular tends to be more along the lines of a personal tit for tat, or payback with righting the wrong of personal feelings. True desert involves righting the wrong as in restitution, it is a measured response to the wrongdoing. The problems of vengeance tend to be emotional and thus the solution may be greater than the crime.
For example: "He should be in prison, but I want him dead."
This as I have said before is why God instructed the rule "An eye for an eye". So the punishment is measured. God is about just measures, remember?
So at the time I didn't understand it for the movie, I am not sure if it conveyed the idea well, but I do understand the difference in principle. The idea is that sometimes people escape through the system and true justice cannot be levied so the Punisher brings the desert for the crimes. This is the very premise of the Steven Seagal movie Above the Law (1988).
Now while I can grant them the premise for the fictional comic book character and for a movie, this doesn't work in real life. When real people do this they also have to give account.
A more realistic yet still fictional story tried to portray this as well. The movie A Time to Kill (1996) from a John Grisham book dealt with this exact premise. A Father whose daughter was brutally raped knew that the accused were going to be let go because of racial tension so he took it upon himself to punish them. He shot them both dead and the movie plays out about his own trial. Despite his own obvious guilt he feels justified because the system failed. His guilt is undeniable the question becomes should he be prosecuted? In the end he isn't because the jury realizes he acted as probably any father would because he was himself denied justice. A very good movie.
But the obvious point is sometimes the system isn't enough. Now this system is in fact what God has left behind to be his own avenger. Romans 13 calls the government a servant of God for the common good. The government is referred to as his avenger who carries out God's own wrath on the wrongdoer. In other words God is about punitive desert.
So what are the common responses?
People are the image of God. God told us we are made in his image and he believes in the death penalty. God enacted the penalty many times and had his people do the same. God is not so concerned about his image bearers that he refrains from snuffing them out when they corrupt his image by offense. But that was the Old Testament. Well in New Testament rightly so that responsibility has been handed over to God's Avengers: the Governments. Their primary purpose is to restrain evil and this is done by the sword (by force). But what about the woman caught in adultery? The scenario was that the mob wanted Jesus to allow them to put her to death. They actually didn't have the right under Roman law to act such. There was no formal trial and the man was mysteriously absent. But primarily Jesus' purpose was to save lives not destroy them. Jesus reminds his own disciples this in Luke 9:56 when they wanted to call down fire on his opponents. His purpose was to bring the gospel, his mission from God was to spread news of the Kingdom. It was not his responsibility to act under Old Testament laws when the New Covenant was being put in place. However he did teach Paul to instruct that Governments did hold that power as his servants. Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Because death is a great message. Really it is. The death penalty serves as an object lesson for sure but first and foremost is a just desert. It is also to curb evil. God gave us the example of punitive justice.
I would further point out the punishment for our sins was punitive; the death penalty. Furthermore when reading the New Testament at this point God is delaying punishment til his return for the purposes of showing mercy 2 Peter 3:15. God wants to grant grace in forgiveness through his Son. But a time will come when he shows up and the time for mercy will have expired. This is why everyone wants to put a date on the apocalypse. Read the New Testament about the Day of the Lord. God's justice is about the death penalty. The wadges of sin is death. God does offer a way out but if people don't take it then they deny the savior end up paying it themselves.
Now the purpose of this blog is not to defend the death penalty, but to advance the notion that sometimes justice is punitive. Justice doesn't really care about the rehabilitation, that is for a separate office. Rehabilitation is on the individual. A system can be put in place to help, but rehabilitation is not justice. Rehabilitation is necessary for a society to function but it is a luxury. A luxury that we all very much hope that people take advantage of, but it cannot take the place of just desert. God demands justice, he is not as much interested about his avenger creating programs to reintegrate the people into society, the avenger's job is justice. Rehabilitation is the Church's job. It is called the Gospel.
Before we get caught up in the why's of this or that tragedy let's not skip over the just desert. When we skip over desert we compound the trespass, multiply the victims, and encourage repeat offenses. The punishment must fit the crime after-all.
Without punishment we breed lawlessness. And thus we get a country that hates accountability and screams for little more than anarchy. If we need to change the system we should use the system lawfully or else our own lawlessness brings about more sin. Again in chapter 13 of Romans we are told to not resist the government as they act as the avengers or else we are found to be fighting against God himself.
If the Avengers go bad, they will give an account to new governments and ultimately to God. Avengers will give an account. Just as God punished those he used to punish Israel. Avengers are not above the law as Steven Seagal taught us.
Thus we leave punishment to the government and we leave the government to hands of God. But what about when they violate God's law? Well we can look at that next time.
thanks
Thursday, June 25, 2015
All those versions
So I met a guy the other day while working. After he heard I went to bible college got a degree in theology and had a master's from seminary he informed me that while he wasn't spiritual he did take some philosophy from different religions such as Buddhism and from Christianity and even some from satanism. He had told me that he came from a very strict southern baptist church that wanted to control everything. He was an interesting guy. Later I don't if he was trying to poke me a bit or what but we asked me what my specialization was and i told him New Testament and he proceeded to ask of which version of the bible.
Now I have seen this question and seen this statement to mean there are many bibles out there and they keep changing over time because it is just a man made book. I was happy to explain to him that I studied the original Greek and that our translations were actually quite accurate, but it reminded me of this common objection to the bible itself.
It is actually a good objection in the sense that if you can undermine the Word than you can dismiss the content and the religion tied to it. If that were the case. So let's look at this objection, let's do some apologetics.
Aren't all the different versions a testimony that the Bible is unreliable?
Well a similar questions could be don't all those different denominations mean the Bible isn't clear or maybe even they are all serving a different God? The denominations questions first because it is really quite simple. This has to do with flavor. Some like their bodies to be traditional with hymns and deeply exegetical preaching and some like the worship to be more contemporary and the message to contain smaller words easier to digest. Some like to baptize after conversion with immersion and some prefer simply sprinkling or baby baptism. But these are all preferences that allow us to worship together without always breaking off to have a debate. Some like Calvin a lot and some like Arminius. We can agree to disagree on certain things and thus continue in unity in Christ. This is why Christianity can have many denominations.
So is that how the Bible versions work? Well yes and no. Yes in that they do meet people where they are and no because they do not give different doctrine. The different versions are actually about readability not content. When a Bible does change core doctrine it absolutely does become just another book written by man. This is why the Jehovah's Witness for example are not considered Christian. They tamper with key passages and make them out to say something completely different, they specifically undermine the deity of Christ.
Other religions such as Islam and Mormonism borrow a lot of ideas from the Bible but in the end their message contradicts, which is why they have they own books. By the way, both of these religions pay lip-service to the Bible while undermining it, they both were delivered to them by "angels". This is specifically pointed out by Paul in Galatians 1 as something that would still not validate the message as it undermines Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Paul again reminds that Satan deceives in 2 Corinthians 11.
12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
So Yes there are some bad books out there but the various versions of the Bible are different. They are written in such a way as to grant access to the reader's understanding. The NIV for example is what is called a dynamic equivalent to the original Greek. In other words it gives the thought for thought account of the Greek and Hebrew and communicates in a more understandable fashion to our post modern world. An ASV in a more direct translation a formal equivalence it focuses on word for word translations, it keeps all the difficult phrasing and abruptness in the language and is this more of a challenge to read but highly accurate. But these are examples of communicating mostly for accessibility not content. They will not be at odds in reflection to the original Greek.
This is the point: we have so many of the original Greek papyrus that we can simply go back and check if our translations are reliable or not. This is why I studied Greek in seminary to be able to work out the original text and see for myself. And our translations are quite good. I personally use the ESV as it combines the most current Greek manuscripts with an nice sounding verbiage similar to the NKJV. So Thees and Thous aside, this is not something that the church needs to divide over and certainly no reason to decide that one version is the only one to read. The Message and the New Living are more of a paraphrase than a true version for the purpose of putting it into the modern day vernacular. I feel that because of this we may miss out on the nuance of the 1st century message because of language barrier and cultural differences. I have a preference but I would want anyone to read what actually gets you into the Word.
I would also add the more accurate translation the better simply to be as close to the original intent as possible, but that may be something that one needs to work up to. If an ASV is too difficult then start with an NIV if that is too difficult start with the Living. I would hope we would work towards the ones that have the closest to the original as possible so as to not have the challenge be in our wording but in the actual commands of God.
Here are some useful testimonies:
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work
Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.
So to answer this line of attack one simple says "I have all the reasons I need to believe the reliability of the scriptures, but good sir, have you exhausted all the reasons to simply not engage? It seems to me that you run the bigger risk at being wrong among the two options. To accidentally attempt to live a life of virtue is better than to accidentally live a life that ends in hell."
thanks
Aren't all the different versions a testimony that the Bible is unreliable?
Well a similar questions could be don't all those different denominations mean the Bible isn't clear or maybe even they are all serving a different God? The denominations questions first because it is really quite simple. This has to do with flavor. Some like their bodies to be traditional with hymns and deeply exegetical preaching and some like the worship to be more contemporary and the message to contain smaller words easier to digest. Some like to baptize after conversion with immersion and some prefer simply sprinkling or baby baptism. But these are all preferences that allow us to worship together without always breaking off to have a debate. Some like Calvin a lot and some like Arminius. We can agree to disagree on certain things and thus continue in unity in Christ. This is why Christianity can have many denominations.
So is that how the Bible versions work? Well yes and no. Yes in that they do meet people where they are and no because they do not give different doctrine. The different versions are actually about readability not content. When a Bible does change core doctrine it absolutely does become just another book written by man. This is why the Jehovah's Witness for example are not considered Christian. They tamper with key passages and make them out to say something completely different, they specifically undermine the deity of Christ.
Other religions such as Islam and Mormonism borrow a lot of ideas from the Bible but in the end their message contradicts, which is why they have they own books. By the way, both of these religions pay lip-service to the Bible while undermining it, they both were delivered to them by "angels". This is specifically pointed out by Paul in Galatians 1 as something that would still not validate the message as it undermines Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Paul again reminds that Satan deceives in 2 Corinthians 11.
12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
So Yes there are some bad books out there but the various versions of the Bible are different. They are written in such a way as to grant access to the reader's understanding. The NIV for example is what is called a dynamic equivalent to the original Greek. In other words it gives the thought for thought account of the Greek and Hebrew and communicates in a more understandable fashion to our post modern world. An ASV in a more direct translation a formal equivalence it focuses on word for word translations, it keeps all the difficult phrasing and abruptness in the language and is this more of a challenge to read but highly accurate. But these are examples of communicating mostly for accessibility not content. They will not be at odds in reflection to the original Greek.
This is the point: we have so many of the original Greek papyrus that we can simply go back and check if our translations are reliable or not. This is why I studied Greek in seminary to be able to work out the original text and see for myself. And our translations are quite good. I personally use the ESV as it combines the most current Greek manuscripts with an nice sounding verbiage similar to the NKJV. So Thees and Thous aside, this is not something that the church needs to divide over and certainly no reason to decide that one version is the only one to read. The Message and the New Living are more of a paraphrase than a true version for the purpose of putting it into the modern day vernacular. I feel that because of this we may miss out on the nuance of the 1st century message because of language barrier and cultural differences. I have a preference but I would want anyone to read what actually gets you into the Word.
I would also add the more accurate translation the better simply to be as close to the original intent as possible, but that may be something that one needs to work up to. If an ASV is too difficult then start with an NIV if that is too difficult start with the Living. I would hope we would work towards the ones that have the closest to the original as possible so as to not have the challenge be in our wording but in the actual commands of God.
Here are some useful testimonies:
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work
Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.
So to answer this line of attack one simple says "I have all the reasons I need to believe the reliability of the scriptures, but good sir, have you exhausted all the reasons to simply not engage? It seems to me that you run the bigger risk at being wrong among the two options. To accidentally attempt to live a life of virtue is better than to accidentally live a life that ends in hell."
thanks
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Upon the Bible can I only claim
I was hoping to mop up all the messiness from the last entry in a self contained blog. But this problem is so big that it could not all fit in one entry. I hope I made the case that our current problem is our need to be accepted on both sides of the debate. It was inevitable that Christians would be outed as having issue with sin. But Christians have fallen for the very thing that homosexuals want: cultural acceptance.
This blog is for Christians to understand the Biblical view of this, if this was for homosexuals the conversation would be very different. Not in truth but in presentation. The Gospel trumps discussion of mastering personal sin.
This was never supposed to be about this specific sin but the way the cultural war has gone we cannot but comment at this point because we will inadvertently being backing a specific world view. At this point if we do not stand on the Bible on this issue we will be backing the worldview that makes it out to be not that big of a deal. This is about acceptance, if it would stay there that would be one thing but it will not and has not. It is coming to the point where Christians either cave or are bigots, as if honest communication is not an option anymore. Well it will not be if we continue to only capitulate or say nothing.
As I mentioned we all want to be accepted and all want to fit in. That is normal. And the Christian job is not to make people feel uncomfortable, however it may be that we are being called to that discomfort ourselves. If we stand for something that the culture does not like we should expect blow-back. The way we know this is because the Bible calls for us to be humble on what it teaches. It says we will suffer as he did. We are not free to seek comfort over what God asks of us. So let's look at why we are not free to capitulate on a topic that is so culturally hot that we would want to.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.
Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.
John 12:43
For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
Homosexuality is a hot topic not just because it is current but it affects the very lives of people, the very lives of people in a very intimate way. As I said before it also speaks to where we are culturally. This is something that the church has failed to recognize. We think it is a simple sin issue but it affects the way people view themselves and the way they find intimacy. It also is indicative that the culture is already in quite a different place. This is why we need to be clear on why we believe what we do, because it has such impact. And when we communicate it to non-believers we have to understand the sub-text of what we are saying and the depth that is affects people.
It is difficult, yes. It was a thing in the nineties to say that Christianity was counter cultural. It was fun and almost cool to say that, but well, it finally is.
But God doesn't ask people to combat sin, that is why he conquered sin in death himself. The Gospel is not "Straighten out your life and then come to me!" The message is "You can't straighten out yourself so you need to come to me." It does involve addressing the sin for sure but if we tell people about their sin problem as if it is something they need to fix without presenting it humbly within the context of the Gospel we leave people in a feeling of helplessness. If this is something that someone identifies with an identity then they are going to feel doubly lost aren't they? In order to present the Gospel to homosexuals or anyone really we have to understand what the Bible says about it. Why they need the Gospel.
So what does it say, is it really a sin?
Now a common objection is that the command against homosexual activity is given in the Old Testament. The Old Testament! case closed, right? Why aren't we more upset about all those other silly laws? This objection is not the smoking gun that is assumed. A lot of Americas saw the program West Wing when the fictional president gave this very objection to the fictional conservative talk show host condemning her to also focus on pigskins and mixing fabrics, oh my! So unless we want to impose all those other uncomfortable laws we are out of luck, or at least hypocrites?
Well the issue is this, not only does the New Testament reiterate this specific command, but the very issue of what Old Testament laws gentiles-Christians needed to follow was addressed in the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts chapter 15. Also Paul also wrote a book about it called Galatians because this was a big topic in the first century. The conclusion of the council was this:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
The apostles teach that new converts still must uphold and continue to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, and food that was strangled and from blood. Idolatry is continued to be avoided by the church and rightfully so. As far as strangulation and blood, the issue was a strangled animal would not have been drained of blood. So drain the blood and then cook it, we pretty much already do this. But Paul speaks to this as well, if we do not know about the food preparation do not make inquiry unless a weaker brother is conflicted. In order for unity and love to continue.
But the central issue here is the gentile Christians are still to hold to the rules of sexual immorality. The question is where do rules for sexual immorality come from? Well rules for immoral sexual practice come from Leviticus 18 and 20 and there are rules for marriage covenants as well, which is always between a man and a woman. This is where the Jewish person is going to go for these instructions, this is where the Jewish person would point the Gentile wondering what defines sexual immorality. The Law does inform these practices. This is why Paul reiterates homosexuality, and why Jesus repeats adultery, and why Paul gets mad at the Corinthian church for allowing a man to have his Father's wife. Why not simply allow this if they are loving consenting adults? Why not let grace abound on this Paul? Paul knows that this act is specifically mentioned in this list. This is also why incest and bestiality is also still prohibited, despite what interests our culture.
To argue that this list is not still in vogue is to tell Paul he can't be mad about adultery, incest, bestiality, and specifically this episode from first Corinthians. This is to tell Paul that when he mentions homosexuality many times that he doesn't understand grace and certainly not love. Jesus furthers clarifies this list when speaking to the underlining problem of lust. Lust makes them all out of bounds, this is why pornography is also a problem. Lust makes sex about us. Lust means we throw off the commands of love and sex and demand our own ways. Lust says "This is how I feel", not what is right. Lust means we want it our way and we do not care about what the creator of our bodies and of sex says. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul further tells us that sexual sin seems to have a special problem for all people:
The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
This type of sin, sins against the temple of the Lord. The questions is are you a temple of the Lord or not? If so then you should avoid sexual immoral practices all the more. The non-Christian doesn't believe they are a temple so why belabor the point? Paul even mentions homosexuality specifically in the lists of sins that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. This should be scary enough to avoid. But if a homosexual does not believe in God or the Bible then they should simply say "Well I don't believe that." But instead what we get is reasons why it should be OK. Well to a Christian I have all the reasons I need. Just as I have all the reasons to believe that Jesus is Lord. If God created us then he gets to set the standard. If he is Lord then he gets to tell me "Yes" or "No" . Again these are Christian truths based on a Christian worldview.
As a Christian I have to agree with what God says about the way he designed sex to work. As I Christian I am not allowed to practice homosexual sex. As a Christian I am not allowed to practice adultery. As a Christian I am not supposed to have sex outside of the marital covenant. As a Christian I am not allowed to have sex with animals. As a Christian I am not allowed to have incestuous sex. If any of these pose a temptation, we have to recognize that and give it to God to be nailed to the cross, not identify with it.
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
This doesn't mean you will not fail but that there is a way out, if you are interested. And we remember...
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
There it is! The problem is that the wadges of sin is death. So the answer to our why question is that sin distances us from God and leaves us in eternal separation form him. The message here is not "God hates Fags!" It is that God hates people to die without relationship to him. He desires that none should perish. The reason that God has such strong language against sin is because it robs people of relationship with him.
If people are unwilling to even acknowledge sin, then they aren't going to be interested in the savior from it.
If homosexual sin is enticing to you, then that is your temptation, but you have to face it the same way a heterosexual man or woman faces their own sexual temptations: in obedience or rebellion, in humility or pride. As a Christian I have a responsibility of obedience because I am not the King, and the good news is when I fail there is a God who forgives. But a Christian needs to hold to what the Bible teaches on such matters. A non-Christian does not, that is their choice.
But our sinful proclivities do not excuse our acquiescence to them. God is inviting us all to himself if we will only come.
thanks
This blog is for Christians to understand the Biblical view of this, if this was for homosexuals the conversation would be very different. Not in truth but in presentation. The Gospel trumps discussion of mastering personal sin.
This was never supposed to be about this specific sin but the way the cultural war has gone we cannot but comment at this point because we will inadvertently being backing a specific world view. At this point if we do not stand on the Bible on this issue we will be backing the worldview that makes it out to be not that big of a deal. This is about acceptance, if it would stay there that would be one thing but it will not and has not. It is coming to the point where Christians either cave or are bigots, as if honest communication is not an option anymore. Well it will not be if we continue to only capitulate or say nothing.
As I mentioned we all want to be accepted and all want to fit in. That is normal. And the Christian job is not to make people feel uncomfortable, however it may be that we are being called to that discomfort ourselves. If we stand for something that the culture does not like we should expect blow-back. The way we know this is because the Bible calls for us to be humble on what it teaches. It says we will suffer as he did. We are not free to seek comfort over what God asks of us. So let's look at why we are not free to capitulate on a topic that is so culturally hot that we would want to.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.
Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.
John 12:43
For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
Homosexuality is a hot topic not just because it is current but it affects the very lives of people, the very lives of people in a very intimate way. As I said before it also speaks to where we are culturally. This is something that the church has failed to recognize. We think it is a simple sin issue but it affects the way people view themselves and the way they find intimacy. It also is indicative that the culture is already in quite a different place. This is why we need to be clear on why we believe what we do, because it has such impact. And when we communicate it to non-believers we have to understand the sub-text of what we are saying and the depth that is affects people.
It is difficult, yes. It was a thing in the nineties to say that Christianity was counter cultural. It was fun and almost cool to say that, but well, it finally is.
But God doesn't ask people to combat sin, that is why he conquered sin in death himself. The Gospel is not "Straighten out your life and then come to me!" The message is "You can't straighten out yourself so you need to come to me." It does involve addressing the sin for sure but if we tell people about their sin problem as if it is something they need to fix without presenting it humbly within the context of the Gospel we leave people in a feeling of helplessness. If this is something that someone identifies with an identity then they are going to feel doubly lost aren't they? In order to present the Gospel to homosexuals or anyone really we have to understand what the Bible says about it. Why they need the Gospel.
So what does it say, is it really a sin?
Now a common objection is that the command against homosexual activity is given in the Old Testament. The Old Testament! case closed, right? Why aren't we more upset about all those other silly laws? This objection is not the smoking gun that is assumed. A lot of Americas saw the program West Wing when the fictional president gave this very objection to the fictional conservative talk show host condemning her to also focus on pigskins and mixing fabrics, oh my! So unless we want to impose all those other uncomfortable laws we are out of luck, or at least hypocrites?
Well the issue is this, not only does the New Testament reiterate this specific command, but the very issue of what Old Testament laws gentiles-Christians needed to follow was addressed in the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts chapter 15. Also Paul also wrote a book about it called Galatians because this was a big topic in the first century. The conclusion of the council was this:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
The apostles teach that new converts still must uphold and continue to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, and food that was strangled and from blood. Idolatry is continued to be avoided by the church and rightfully so. As far as strangulation and blood, the issue was a strangled animal would not have been drained of blood. So drain the blood and then cook it, we pretty much already do this. But Paul speaks to this as well, if we do not know about the food preparation do not make inquiry unless a weaker brother is conflicted. In order for unity and love to continue.
But the central issue here is the gentile Christians are still to hold to the rules of sexual immorality. The question is where do rules for sexual immorality come from? Well rules for immoral sexual practice come from Leviticus 18 and 20 and there are rules for marriage covenants as well, which is always between a man and a woman. This is where the Jewish person is going to go for these instructions, this is where the Jewish person would point the Gentile wondering what defines sexual immorality. The Law does inform these practices. This is why Paul reiterates homosexuality, and why Jesus repeats adultery, and why Paul gets mad at the Corinthian church for allowing a man to have his Father's wife. Why not simply allow this if they are loving consenting adults? Why not let grace abound on this Paul? Paul knows that this act is specifically mentioned in this list. This is also why incest and bestiality is also still prohibited, despite what interests our culture.
To argue that this list is not still in vogue is to tell Paul he can't be mad about adultery, incest, bestiality, and specifically this episode from first Corinthians. This is to tell Paul that when he mentions homosexuality many times that he doesn't understand grace and certainly not love. Jesus furthers clarifies this list when speaking to the underlining problem of lust. Lust makes them all out of bounds, this is why pornography is also a problem. Lust makes sex about us. Lust means we throw off the commands of love and sex and demand our own ways. Lust says "This is how I feel", not what is right. Lust means we want it our way and we do not care about what the creator of our bodies and of sex says. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul further tells us that sexual sin seems to have a special problem for all people:
The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
This type of sin, sins against the temple of the Lord. The questions is are you a temple of the Lord or not? If so then you should avoid sexual immoral practices all the more. The non-Christian doesn't believe they are a temple so why belabor the point? Paul even mentions homosexuality specifically in the lists of sins that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. This should be scary enough to avoid. But if a homosexual does not believe in God or the Bible then they should simply say "Well I don't believe that." But instead what we get is reasons why it should be OK. Well to a Christian I have all the reasons I need. Just as I have all the reasons to believe that Jesus is Lord. If God created us then he gets to set the standard. If he is Lord then he gets to tell me "Yes" or "No" . Again these are Christian truths based on a Christian worldview.
As a Christian I have to agree with what God says about the way he designed sex to work. As I Christian I am not allowed to practice homosexual sex. As a Christian I am not allowed to practice adultery. As a Christian I am not supposed to have sex outside of the marital covenant. As a Christian I am not allowed to have sex with animals. As a Christian I am not allowed to have incestuous sex. If any of these pose a temptation, we have to recognize that and give it to God to be nailed to the cross, not identify with it.
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
This doesn't mean you will not fail but that there is a way out, if you are interested. And we remember...
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
There it is! The problem is that the wadges of sin is death. So the answer to our why question is that sin distances us from God and leaves us in eternal separation form him. The message here is not "God hates Fags!" It is that God hates people to die without relationship to him. He desires that none should perish. The reason that God has such strong language against sin is because it robs people of relationship with him.
If people are unwilling to even acknowledge sin, then they aren't going to be interested in the savior from it.
If homosexual sin is enticing to you, then that is your temptation, but you have to face it the same way a heterosexual man or woman faces their own sexual temptations: in obedience or rebellion, in humility or pride. As a Christian I have a responsibility of obedience because I am not the King, and the good news is when I fail there is a God who forgives. But a Christian needs to hold to what the Bible teaches on such matters. A non-Christian does not, that is their choice.
But our sinful proclivities do not excuse our acquiescence to them. God is inviting us all to himself if we will only come.
thanks
Thursday, May 14, 2015
And Justice for All (I need a Hero)
No, this is not about Metallica's hit album from 1988 nor is this about AL Pacino's movie from 1979. But Justice for All is what we all want, what we all desire. And rightfully so, God created us in such a way that we recognize the lack of it, and desire wrongs to be righted.
Some may say they don't believe in evil but just pay attention to what's going on in the world for a day and see if that worldview holds up.
I was recently thinking about my post on the violence and entertainment. In fact I started thinking about this while watching the new show Daredevil; about a guy who looses his sight and gains super powers of smell and hearing to fight crime. Now some super hero shows are light hearted and very flashy and entertaining and others have a more harsher tone. This one has the latter. I was thinking about the harshness of the tone and I realized it served a purpose. The more harshness of the material the greater vacuum it causes in the void of hope and justice. This creates the need and desire for justice, this then calls out for and almost demands that a hero stand up. It is a workable formula.
I realized the level of the harshness speaks to the level of my desire for it to be stopped. I realized I was being taken in by the delivery and being hooked into the narrative, this is good writing. But I also wondered if this maybe is supposed to carry over into reality. Now bear with me here for a second. Often the horrible tragedies of this world make us call out for God, like with 9/11. We see human suffering and we want justice. We see human pain and we pain ourselves, this is a good human response. Empathy.
But sometimes we see the harshness in the world and instead of desiring a hero we desire an explanation.
In humility we desire help, accountability, we look for a hero. In pride we want vengeance and an explanation that satisfies our demands.
Now God does not want chaos to rule the land and for us to simply wait out evil, this is not the message. This is why he left governments in control, to curb sin. Romans 13 tells us this. But this desire and even demand for an explanation drives us to the point of compounding the offense. When we cannot rest in the deliverance we rend in the reasons why. We tend to harden our hearts and lose hope.
But the Christian response is supposed to drive us to him and realize that he will do justice. God will repay all evil. God does not wink at sin. Vengeance is indeed his. But our level of rest and trust in him reveals our level of discomfort in the waiting, our annoyance at the lack of salvation. It does not in any way alleviate the suffering but my demands of reasons will be laid to rest if I truly believed that God was just.
This is what the prophet Jonah struggled with in a reverse way. As much as God is just, he is also a forgiving God. Jonah did not want to preach repentance to the Ninevites because he wanted them to be judged. Even though vengeance is God's, God had a different desire for them, he wanted to offer repentance.
As much as it may comfort me that justice will come, God may want to show mercy. Ouch! Do I want blood more than God does? This is that harsh reality that I am not God. I have to realize that I am not supposed relent to God's justice because he will get them in the end, but because he is just and good he will always administer just and true judgment. In other words if someone will repent who am I to demand that they be denied mercy?
This is the reality of our world. It is a harsh place. It is meant to point us to a savior, it is meant to show us that we need God. The degree that we can come to terms with that is the degree we have accepted him as Lord. That is not to say that all suffering is merely an object lessen, but it does contain one if we are able and willing to see it. The world contains evil because of mankind's fall into sin. These are the consequences. It is not because God doesn't love or doesn't have enough power but that this is the reality of living apart from God which we chose. This is the quality of life we continue to choose. As much as we say we don't like it God agrees and says "Come away with me.
I have always had little compassion for kidnapers. One of the recent episodes of Daredevil was about a kidnapping. I have no room in my heart for this. It strikes me as the most vile unforgivable sin. To steal a person from their home and victimize them into fear and leave the rest in constant fear and worry and pain is just so emotionally horrible to me. It pains me and makes me cry our for justice. The show offered a hero and my pain was satiated.
But life does not always offer a hero as our stories do. A masked man does not show up and take away the evil and punish injustice. We get to read about it on the internet. We get to watch in on TV and we get to experience it in out communities. Where are the heroes? I think this is why the movie Boondock Saints (1999) was such a cult classic, why it became so popular. "Maybe someone should just kill them all?" This is our temptation. If we can just get rid of evil people we would feel better. But does simply getting rid of evil repair the reason for it? The reason for evil is that man's relationship with God is broken.
But our relationship with sin is so ingrained that evil begins to conjure desire for reasons rather than heroes. I should desire a time when wrongs are righted. I should be trusting in the one who will act justly whether with judgment or mercy. As a Christian I should rest in what Paul says from Acts 17.
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
A Christian should never lament that there is no justice. This is to say there is no God. God will come again and he will render judgment. I do not need to worry about anyone getting away with anything, no matter how long ago it happened, or how the system worked or failed to serve justice. God will be just and he will balance the books.
But do I believe that? As a Christian am I overly wrought with worry and overly distraught with the lack of justice? Do I scream at the evil in the world as a non believer does? Do I scream at the injustice in Washington as a non believer does? Do I really believe that things are so far out of God hands that nothing can be done?
It is one thing to pain over tragedy it is another to harden our hearts because justice is never done. As the Bible says "Be angry but do not sin."
Justice is coming, a hero is on the way. All those who thought they got away with it. All those who we wonder if they got away with it. All those who still cause death and destruction. All those travesties that we read about and don't. All the victims we know about and don't. All the times we have to stop watching, stop reading, and stop listening because it is just too overwhelming. All the unchecked evil will give account. This is the Christian worldview.
And when he comes he will stand on the Mount of Olives they will see him, him who was pierced for our sins and killed for our injustice. The world will bend the knee and every mouth will be stopped and every mouth will confess that he is Lord either willingly or not.
I don't have to grasp at answers. I don't have to worry about injustice. I can rest in my Hero.
thanks
Some may say they don't believe in evil but just pay attention to what's going on in the world for a day and see if that worldview holds up.
I was recently thinking about my post on the violence and entertainment. In fact I started thinking about this while watching the new show Daredevil; about a guy who looses his sight and gains super powers of smell and hearing to fight crime. Now some super hero shows are light hearted and very flashy and entertaining and others have a more harsher tone. This one has the latter. I was thinking about the harshness of the tone and I realized it served a purpose. The more harshness of the material the greater vacuum it causes in the void of hope and justice. This creates the need and desire for justice, this then calls out for and almost demands that a hero stand up. It is a workable formula.
I realized the level of the harshness speaks to the level of my desire for it to be stopped. I realized I was being taken in by the delivery and being hooked into the narrative, this is good writing. But I also wondered if this maybe is supposed to carry over into reality. Now bear with me here for a second. Often the horrible tragedies of this world make us call out for God, like with 9/11. We see human suffering and we want justice. We see human pain and we pain ourselves, this is a good human response. Empathy.
But sometimes we see the harshness in the world and instead of desiring a hero we desire an explanation.
In humility we desire help, accountability, we look for a hero. In pride we want vengeance and an explanation that satisfies our demands.
Now God does not want chaos to rule the land and for us to simply wait out evil, this is not the message. This is why he left governments in control, to curb sin. Romans 13 tells us this. But this desire and even demand for an explanation drives us to the point of compounding the offense. When we cannot rest in the deliverance we rend in the reasons why. We tend to harden our hearts and lose hope.
But the Christian response is supposed to drive us to him and realize that he will do justice. God will repay all evil. God does not wink at sin. Vengeance is indeed his. But our level of rest and trust in him reveals our level of discomfort in the waiting, our annoyance at the lack of salvation. It does not in any way alleviate the suffering but my demands of reasons will be laid to rest if I truly believed that God was just.
This is what the prophet Jonah struggled with in a reverse way. As much as God is just, he is also a forgiving God. Jonah did not want to preach repentance to the Ninevites because he wanted them to be judged. Even though vengeance is God's, God had a different desire for them, he wanted to offer repentance.
As much as it may comfort me that justice will come, God may want to show mercy. Ouch! Do I want blood more than God does? This is that harsh reality that I am not God. I have to realize that I am not supposed relent to God's justice because he will get them in the end, but because he is just and good he will always administer just and true judgment. In other words if someone will repent who am I to demand that they be denied mercy?
This is the reality of our world. It is a harsh place. It is meant to point us to a savior, it is meant to show us that we need God. The degree that we can come to terms with that is the degree we have accepted him as Lord. That is not to say that all suffering is merely an object lessen, but it does contain one if we are able and willing to see it. The world contains evil because of mankind's fall into sin. These are the consequences. It is not because God doesn't love or doesn't have enough power but that this is the reality of living apart from God which we chose. This is the quality of life we continue to choose. As much as we say we don't like it God agrees and says "Come away with me.
I have always had little compassion for kidnapers. One of the recent episodes of Daredevil was about a kidnapping. I have no room in my heart for this. It strikes me as the most vile unforgivable sin. To steal a person from their home and victimize them into fear and leave the rest in constant fear and worry and pain is just so emotionally horrible to me. It pains me and makes me cry our for justice. The show offered a hero and my pain was satiated.
But life does not always offer a hero as our stories do. A masked man does not show up and take away the evil and punish injustice. We get to read about it on the internet. We get to watch in on TV and we get to experience it in out communities. Where are the heroes? I think this is why the movie Boondock Saints (1999) was such a cult classic, why it became so popular. "Maybe someone should just kill them all?" This is our temptation. If we can just get rid of evil people we would feel better. But does simply getting rid of evil repair the reason for it? The reason for evil is that man's relationship with God is broken.
But our relationship with sin is so ingrained that evil begins to conjure desire for reasons rather than heroes. I should desire a time when wrongs are righted. I should be trusting in the one who will act justly whether with judgment or mercy. As a Christian I should rest in what Paul says from Acts 17.
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
A Christian should never lament that there is no justice. This is to say there is no God. God will come again and he will render judgment. I do not need to worry about anyone getting away with anything, no matter how long ago it happened, or how the system worked or failed to serve justice. God will be just and he will balance the books.
But do I believe that? As a Christian am I overly wrought with worry and overly distraught with the lack of justice? Do I scream at the evil in the world as a non believer does? Do I scream at the injustice in Washington as a non believer does? Do I really believe that things are so far out of God hands that nothing can be done?
It is one thing to pain over tragedy it is another to harden our hearts because justice is never done. As the Bible says "Be angry but do not sin."
Justice is coming, a hero is on the way. All those who thought they got away with it. All those who we wonder if they got away with it. All those who still cause death and destruction. All those travesties that we read about and don't. All the victims we know about and don't. All the times we have to stop watching, stop reading, and stop listening because it is just too overwhelming. All the unchecked evil will give account. This is the Christian worldview.
And when he comes he will stand on the Mount of Olives they will see him, him who was pierced for our sins and killed for our injustice. The world will bend the knee and every mouth will be stopped and every mouth will confess that he is Lord either willingly or not.
I don't have to grasp at answers. I don't have to worry about injustice. I can rest in my Hero.
thanks
Monday, November 10, 2014
A Tale of Two Fathers
So now that Raphael has come I am a father, I have been thinking.
I know that God is our father, but I have been grappling with a full translation of that means. When talking with people about what this looks like, it is easy to simply say that out father in heaven will take care of us and not allow bad things to happen and always come through, which are comforting things to say. But things do not always play out in this way. What I mean is that yes I understand that God is our father, but do we really understand what a good father is? I read verses like Mathew 7:7-11
7“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
I read that and I think it does seem quite simple. But in reality it rarely seems to work out that way.
I am sure that in a few years Raphael will come to me and ask not for a fish, as we tend to avoid seafood, but more appropriately for a burrito, and I being a great father, I will happily agree, assuming it is meal time and not spoiling any other planned food. I understand how the transaction/relationship works and yet I do not find that it is that simple with my heavenly father.
Things do not always seem to be given, get answered, get better, or become immediately clear.
I have spent many hours, days, years even asking for things that I do not see the answers to of yet. I know the qualifiers in James about not asking in selfishness and asking in doubt. Yet I still see very little answers to specific prayers and requests that this passage in Mathew makes so simple.
Is it my understanding of a good father that complicates matters? I would agree any good father would give something to a son that was within reason and relatively ease as the verse in Mathew seems to indicate. This jives with a human understanding of what a father would do, the verse even implies that evil fathers do this. But often my experience with God is not that simple. I ask and do not receive and after enough time my requests start to seem like they are being ignored. Sometimes though they do seem like they are answered, but with stones, and sometimes sharp ones that were hurled in my direction.
This would makes me conclude that God is not a father or at least not a good father, but, these are unacceptable options to a Christian. So perhaps my idea of what a father is, is not quite right.
So is it possible that when the Bible uses the term father that it is trying to communicate some theological truth to the way God loves and interacts with his creation rather than giving a label to how things actually work based on our limited knowledge of fathers? God after-all put his own son to death and asked a similar thing of Abraham. And Christ tells us that to follow him is meant to mean taking up our own crosses and following him to Calvary, death. Death seems more like a stone than a fish.
Perhaps my ideas of good parenting falls short of what God actually does with his people. Perhaps my idea that a father would do everything in his power to help his child avoid pain is wrong. Perhaps my idea that a father would give a child something that was easily within his power to do so is wrong. Perhaps my idea of even answering a child in what appears to be a timely manner is wrong. Perhaps my demanding that God act in a way that I interpret any good father would act towards a child is wrong. And that, is hard.
God has his own will that I am supposed to seek. I can ask but often my will is probably not what is best. I think the metaphor of the father does not always communicate what we think it means. I know that there are a lot of positive ways to answer the question of "well why not?" A parent will obviously refuse a child who asks a request that will cause them harm, I get that. The rub again is when the request is just for help or for a job or for relief or for direction or for protection, and they simply seem to go unanswered.
Answers come in his timing and will, now this is different from an earthy father. God our Father is sovereign, he is just, he is love, he is God. He has more behind the meaning of father than my limited understanding. His timing and will are perfect, our earthy fathers are not. It often feels like he is more interested in my growth than my happiness, and that is also different than an earthy father. In the asking, in the waiting, God is with us. Maybe he is not offering immediate relief. Maybe he is offering his presence. This is something much more than any earthy father can offer. I cannot always be there for Raphael simply because I will not always be present.
So maybe there is a better way that God fathers than I can manage, a way I can't fully understand, and that is good thing. He fathers by causing me to grow and being present with me. He fathers better than I can hope or imagine. He loves me.
thanks
I know that God is our father, but I have been grappling with a full translation of that means. When talking with people about what this looks like, it is easy to simply say that out father in heaven will take care of us and not allow bad things to happen and always come through, which are comforting things to say. But things do not always play out in this way. What I mean is that yes I understand that God is our father, but do we really understand what a good father is? I read verses like Mathew 7:7-11
7“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
I read that and I think it does seem quite simple. But in reality it rarely seems to work out that way.
I am sure that in a few years Raphael will come to me and ask not for a fish, as we tend to avoid seafood, but more appropriately for a burrito, and I being a great father, I will happily agree, assuming it is meal time and not spoiling any other planned food. I understand how the transaction/relationship works and yet I do not find that it is that simple with my heavenly father.
Things do not always seem to be given, get answered, get better, or become immediately clear.
I have spent many hours, days, years even asking for things that I do not see the answers to of yet. I know the qualifiers in James about not asking in selfishness and asking in doubt. Yet I still see very little answers to specific prayers and requests that this passage in Mathew makes so simple.
Is it my understanding of a good father that complicates matters? I would agree any good father would give something to a son that was within reason and relatively ease as the verse in Mathew seems to indicate. This jives with a human understanding of what a father would do, the verse even implies that evil fathers do this. But often my experience with God is not that simple. I ask and do not receive and after enough time my requests start to seem like they are being ignored. Sometimes though they do seem like they are answered, but with stones, and sometimes sharp ones that were hurled in my direction.
This would makes me conclude that God is not a father or at least not a good father, but, these are unacceptable options to a Christian. So perhaps my idea of what a father is, is not quite right.
So is it possible that when the Bible uses the term father that it is trying to communicate some theological truth to the way God loves and interacts with his creation rather than giving a label to how things actually work based on our limited knowledge of fathers? God after-all put his own son to death and asked a similar thing of Abraham. And Christ tells us that to follow him is meant to mean taking up our own crosses and following him to Calvary, death. Death seems more like a stone than a fish.
Perhaps my ideas of good parenting falls short of what God actually does with his people. Perhaps my idea that a father would do everything in his power to help his child avoid pain is wrong. Perhaps my idea that a father would give a child something that was easily within his power to do so is wrong. Perhaps my idea of even answering a child in what appears to be a timely manner is wrong. Perhaps my demanding that God act in a way that I interpret any good father would act towards a child is wrong. And that, is hard.
God has his own will that I am supposed to seek. I can ask but often my will is probably not what is best. I think the metaphor of the father does not always communicate what we think it means. I know that there are a lot of positive ways to answer the question of "well why not?" A parent will obviously refuse a child who asks a request that will cause them harm, I get that. The rub again is when the request is just for help or for a job or for relief or for direction or for protection, and they simply seem to go unanswered.
Answers come in his timing and will, now this is different from an earthy father. God our Father is sovereign, he is just, he is love, he is God. He has more behind the meaning of father than my limited understanding. His timing and will are perfect, our earthy fathers are not. It often feels like he is more interested in my growth than my happiness, and that is also different than an earthy father. In the asking, in the waiting, God is with us. Maybe he is not offering immediate relief. Maybe he is offering his presence. This is something much more than any earthy father can offer. I cannot always be there for Raphael simply because I will not always be present.
So maybe there is a better way that God fathers than I can manage, a way I can't fully understand, and that is good thing. He fathers by causing me to grow and being present with me. He fathers better than I can hope or imagine. He loves me.
thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)