The Leaky Jar

Urgent Prayer Needed for Kidnapped Pastor and His Captors

2010-01-28T05:10:00.001-08:00

UPDATE: I do not know all of the details yet, but Pastor Oseme is free! Thank God and thank you all for praying.

Hi Everyone,
I received a message from one of the leaders in my church family last night asking for urgent prayer for one of our Haitian pastors. He has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom under the threat of death and is urgently in need of prayer. The message I received is below. Please pray immediately and continuously for Pastor Oseme until you know that he is free.

Pastor Oseme is on the far right

"Pastor Raquens called me a few minutes ago with this message: Today Pastor Oseme of Haiti went into Port Au Prince to meet with the American Consulate. While he was there he was kidnapped. He is now being held for ransom. Unless $1500 US is paid in ransom by tomorrow, Pastor Oseme will be killed. It would appear that the logic here is that beings Pastor Oseme went to the American Consulate that he has contacts in the US who would pay. Otherwise, Haitians would not kidnap another Haitian. Pastor Raquens and I agreed that right now we need to bathe the situation in prayer and pray for his release. Remember Peter was released from prison by the power of prayer. If the Lord shows us something else to do, we will do it. But for now we need to generate as much prayer toward pastor Oseme, his captors and his family as possible. We will give updates as we get them. Please seriously pray and get the word out to other intercessors at this hour. Blessings."

The Architecture of Hospitality

2009-12-03T07:46:00.000-08:00

In his excellent work, The Devil Reads Derrida, James K.A. Smith shares a brief essay concerning the ways in which architectural attributes of a house can contribute to or deteriorate the experience of community within a neighborhood. There was, undoubtedly, a time when I would have rejected that sort of an idea, After all, I would have thought, only a person of weak moral fortitude would allow their relationships with others to be impacted by a house. Things have changed, however, and I now benefit from a slightly more robust understanding of the ways in which we humans are bodied beings. The old understanding of souls stuck in bodies was never a Christian idea, although it has proven to be a particularly infectious belief within the Church. The truth of the matter is that we are, in our wholeness, body and soul so united that the two cannot be separated from one another in a meaningful way. We were created good with our bodies and we hope for the day when we will live in our resurrected and perfected bodies in a physical New Jerusalem. Most importantly, we worship the God Who took on flesh and joined Himself to a body in the person of Jesus Christ.
With that being said, it is hard to deny the truth that our physical environment has a very real impact upon us. Smith points out a particular point in which contemporary American home architecture has been tainted by consumerism and individualism and, in response, encourages us to be consumers and individualists. His example is that of the disappearance of the front porch. It was not all that long ago that front porches were a staple in home construction, which moved the home's center of gravity toward the street and increased the likelihood that those living in a given house would interact with, know, and love their neighbors. Why is it that the front porch has suddenly disappeared? The answer is surprisingly obvious: the increasing importance of the garage. We treasure our cars and want to protect them from the elements and so we allow the garage to encroach upon the porch's allotment. As we buy more cars, we need more space in which to put them and so the garage expands to fit two or even three cars, leaving no space for a front porch. It becomes possible to drive home, open the garage door with a remote control, park, close the garage door and enter the home without ever being exposed to the threat of encountering one's neighbors.
Smith's example of the front porch leads me to consider what other architectural elements might encourage us to know and love our neighbors. The first to spring to my mind is the guest room. A guest room serves in several ways to encourage us to be hospitable. (I recommend this short article of Smith's concerning the loss of hospitality and the growth of the hotel industry). When friends and family, a missionary on furlough, or even a perfect stranger needs a place to stay, having a guest room prepared allows us to meet their need and to extend the hospitality and welcoming love of Christ and His Church. A guest room is, of course, a burden in a way. Having a place for someone to stay dismantles many of the comforting arguments we use to convince ourselves that we are excused from extending hospitality. Often, though, we need to remove our excuses in advance so that we might more readily live like Christ. Even during the majority of days when our guest rooms are empty, they will serve as a symbolic reminder that we have an empty place in our house yearning for a life to fill it. Not only does a guest room provide us with the means of hospitality, but also with a constant reminder of the virtue of hospitality.
The dining room must also be mentioned, as the breaking of bread and sharing of a meal is of key importance to Christians in particular. Although I am not sure what sort of a dining room design would most encourage us to actually have our neighbors over for dinner instead of meaning to have them over (and would appreciate your ideas in the comments section), I have a few ideas. The table should be big enough to accommodate at least two more people than there are in your family, so that, once again, you remove your excuses in advance. Furthermore, the table should not be allowed to become a collecting place for every loose item in your house (a tendency that afflicts me in particular), nor should it be decorated so extravagantly that it seems a crime to eat at it. Beautiful centerpieces are great, but if they ever begin to impede upon the table's intended purpose, fellowship, they must go.
Finally, one must consider the living room. It is now expected that the seating of a living room will be arranged around the television (our apartment is generally situated in this way, as well). I do not expect this to change completely, but we cannot allow our furniture to be directed toward the television in such a way that it inhibits our ability to have conversation. This, of course, rules out stadium seating, but also means that from any given seat on a chair or couch we should be able to easily make eye contact with a person in any other seat. Most of the seats should also enjoy healthy amounts of available light (for reading) and close access to a side or coffee table so that we can enjoy coffee with one another.
If you have any thoughts or ideas concerning how we can better design our houses for community, please share them below.

Swine Flu, Tsunamis, and Drug Wars: Are we right to see these as signs of sin?

2009-06-11T12:16:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I overhead a conversation that caught my attention. Three affable thirty-somethings, who were obviously Christians given much of their conversation, ended up discussing Mexico. This in and of itself is far from noteworthy, but it was what they had to say about Mexico that really struck me. One of the women said something along the lines of,
"They had that earthquake in Mexico City, they have these drug wars, and now the swine flu. It really kind of makes you wonder if they aren't being punished for something?"
The other two nodded their heads and made remarks of agreement.
This line of thought is not foreign to me, and I understand what they meant all too well. The fact of the matter is that I, too, am often quick to mentally label grave suffering as a form of punishment dealt out by the hand of God. It seems to make sense to us: Mexico must be caught up in some awful sin to be given an earthquake, a drug war, and a (newly labeled by the WHO) pandemic. In the same way, many people were quick to label Hurricane Katrina as God's judgment on New Orleans, and the 2004 Tsunami as an unmistakable act of God. If we are honest with ourselves, it is not only the disasters of such great proportions that cause us to think of God's wrath against sin, but also individual diseases and disabilities, financial setbacks, and untimely deaths. We can put the pieces together: people who are suffering (and usually who aren't us) are most likely being punished for some sin, whether flagrant or hidden. The problem with this line of reasoning for Christians is that it is expressly condemned in the Bible.
Please allow me to retell a story found in John chapter 9. One day while Jesus was travelling, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples, being religious people like ourselves, asked Jesus, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" What a reasonable question they must have thought that was, and open-minded too as they allowed for the possibility that either the man or his parents had sinned to cause his blindness. Jesus' answer refused to bend to the predetermined nature of the disciples' question however,
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." Jesus then spit on the ground, made mud with his saliva, put it on the man's eyes and told him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. When this man did so, he went home seeing.
One man's blindness, which was so obviously the result of sin to so many, was actually meant to be the occasion for God to do an outstanding miracle. This man would actually become an outspoken evangelist for Jesus later on in chapter 9, and the Pharisees who claimed to be able to see were blinded to the work of God because of their understanding that the man's disability must have been a divine punishment (verse 34).
This story does not stand alone in teaching this lesson. In Luke chapter 13, Jesus made a similar point while talking about Siloam once again. Some of the people accompanying Jesus told him about some people of Galilee whose blood Pilate (the Roman Ruler over Israel's region) had mixed with pagan sacrifices. Such a fate would have been horrific to the Jews, not only because of the implied murder of those people, but because the blood of those who only worshiped the one true God was offered to an idol. Hearing about these people, Jesus knew immediately what the tale-bearers were implying with the news and answered their unasked question,
"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Here, Jesus is not emphasizing the point made with the man born blind that his disability was a gift from God meant to show God's glory, but is instead teaching that those who make judgments about the sin of others in order to explain their catastrophes need to recognize that they are just as sinful as those they are judging. Yes, there are times when suffering comes as a judgment (such as the sacking of Jerusalem foretold by the prophet Jeremiah), but there are times when it does not, and we are incapable of judging which is the case without a word on the matter direct from God. If we are to learn any lesson concerning sin from the disaster that befalls others, it is that we are just as much sinners as they are and that the possibility of imminent death should lead us all to repent of our sins and turn to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
At this point, it is possible that some readers might think I am saying that the New Testament differs from the Old Testament in its understanding of suffering, but the Bible is in harmony with itself as God's inspired word and this is not the case. The Old Testament, like the New, teaches that we cannot simply understand the workings of the world as bad things happening to bad people and good things rewarding good people.
The Book of Job deals with this issue at length as the godly and righteous man Job suffers incredible loss (losing his children, his immense fortune, his health, his high status in his community, and the respect of his wife and friends) with God's permission. Over the course of the book, Job's friends and supposed comforters becoming increasingly dogmatic and aggressive in their understanding that Job's suffering is the result of his incredible sins. Job, however, remains steadfast in his confession of innocence and his claim that he has done nothing warranting the torment he suffers. Although God eventually silences Job by leading him to understand that he is not fit to question God's wisdom and power, He also says that Job has spoken what is right of Him whereas the comforters have not. This reiterates the point made once by the narrator, and twice by God that Job truly was blameless and upright. If Job could suffer more greatly than most humans who have ever lived while remaining blameless and upright, surely we cannot use suffering alone to judge the righteousness of others. This seems to line up quite well with the prophet Isaiah's understanding of the coming Messiah, who in perfect righteousness would suffer more than any human on a cross in order to bring salvation to sinners.
The Teacher in Ecclesiastes bore witness to a righteous man who perished in his righteousness and a wicked man who lived long in his wickedness. The Psalmist admitted envying the arrogant when he saw the prosperity of the wicked. The examples are plentiful throughout Scripture and it is clear that we are not to judge to judge individuals, cities, or nations by the calamities that befall them. Instead of judgment, we are to imitate our Lord by offering comfort to those who suffer. This lesson is well taught by Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians (chapter 1, verses 3 to 7):
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.

Bumper Stickers and Christian Fish

2009-03-04T14:21:00.000-08:00

Attending a Christian university, I see more than my fair share of Christian bumper stickers and icthus emblems (so-called Jesus fish, Christian fish, IXOYE fish, etc.). A fairly small sampling of stickers appear again and again:

The "Not of this World®" Stickers

The "Godz Gurl," "God's Girl," "Godz Girl," and "God's Gurl" variety

The similar "Daughter of the King" and "I am a Princess because my Daddy is the King" kinds

The "We kicked God out of our schools, so of course we have school shootings" kind

The "Darwin is Dead" and "Nietzsche is Dead" variety

The "Jesus is my Co-Pilot"

The "Know Jesus, Know Heaven... No Jesus, No Heaven"

The "In case of rapture... car's yours!"

The "Don't be fooled by the car, my treasure's in Heaven."

The "Got Jesus?" and "Got Jesus? It's Hell without Him."

The "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter"

The "Real Men Fight on their Knees" and "Real Men Love Jesus"

The Calvin and Hobbes knockoff praying before the cross

Let me begin by saying that I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with having such a bumper sticker or fish on your car, but I would like to point to a few inconsistencies and problems that can arise from these stickers. Not of this World commendably makes some of the most stylish Christian stickers around, but it is somewhat troubling that every sticker has a visible "®" symbol. The message comes across as conflicted when you are publicizing just how not of this world you are while also notifying everyone that this logo is registered and protected according to corporate law. Also, some people may find it hypocritical when they see the NOTW sticker on your new BMW, no matter how little your possessions actually matter to you.
The "Don't be fooled by the car, my treasure's in Heaven" sticker can be fairly humorous if your car is unlikely to be mistaken as an earthly treasure. If you have this on your Mercedes, you may have the same problem as mentioned above with regard to NOTW.
The "We kicked God out of our schools, so of course we have school shootings" is troublesome for several reasons. First of all, if by removing organized institutional prayer and Bible reading from American classrooms we think we kicked God out of the classroom, we have a very weak and shallow faith in God. The Creator of the universe does not need the compulsory prayer of a nonChristian teacher to enter a building. Furthermore, suggesting to the general public that something as tragic as school shootings is God's revenge for kicking Him out does not do justice to Christ. You might mean something far more nuanced than that, for example, that by removing compulsory Scriptural education students no longer have the moral base to prevent them from committing heinous acts of violence, but the bumper sticker is not exactly a medium capable of conveying nuance.
The stickers threatening Hell make sense in a way, and yet we should ask ourselves whether or not they are at all effective? Warning your friend with tears that he needs to know God's grace is one thing; damning strangers while cutting them off is another.
Aside from specific bumper sticker messages, Christians should reconsider their bumper stickers for two reasons. The first is derived from a recent study conducted by social psychologist William Szlemko of Colorado State University, which found that drivers with any bumper stickers at all, no matter their content, are more likely than those without to drive aggressively and exhibit road rage. By personalizing a car with stickers, a driver unwittingly indicates that he thinks of the car as his territory. This generally means that the driver is more territorial altogether, and is more likely to feel that the road is his and that his rights are infringed upon by other drivers. This means that even your "Pray for Peace" sticker indicates to others that you are more likely to drive with aggression.
The second and most compelling reason to reconsider your bumper sticker has to do with the nature of driving itself. If you are a kind and considerate driver, the kind of driver we all wish people knew was a Christian, almost every act of generosity on the road will be for the benefit of those in front of you. If you allow a car to merge ahead of you in your lane or to pull out of a driveway, they will end up in front of you. If you stop to let a pedestrian cross the street, they are in front of you. If you refuse to tailgate a slow driver, they will never see you rear bumper. Those driving behind you, however, will be the recipients of every one of your inconsiderate actions. If you hit the brakes suddenly, drive poorly while on the phone, cut somebody off, have a delayed reaction at a green light because you were not paying attention, or take to long to make a turn, the person behind you will be affected. Even if you are incredibly considerate, the very nature of driving will require you to do some things that will upset those behind you. Some of your considerate acts may even offend those to your rear: allowing a car to merge or a pedestrian to cross a street requires you to slow down or stop, which halts those following you; refusing to tailgate a slow driver causes you to look like the slow driver.
Undoubtedly, individuals have different motives for placing a Christian bumper sticker on their cars, and many of those motives are likely fantastic. I simply ask that we not feel pressured to buy into this trend and give each potential sticker a bit more reflection before applying it to our cars. They really aren't that easy to take off.

Who are my readers?

2009-01-11T14:43:00.000-08:00

Although I rarely update this blog, I somehow manage to retain a few consistent readers, and I cannot help but wonder who they are. For instance, my most regular reader consistently visits from Lemoore, CA. So, any readers, first time or regular, and especially my reader in Lemoore, if you see this, please leave a comment and tell me a little about yourself. Thank you for reading.

A Christmas Critique

2008-12-21T15:00:00.000-08:00

Please allow me to confess that I have a tendency to critique and criticize, which is a kind way to say that I am quick to complain and judge. Some things deserve judgment and complaint, and constructive criticism can prove quite useful, but my attitude often dips into these more negative aspects of such practices. Thus, there is a constant temptation for me to complain about the secularization of Christmas and the Advent season. I do not mean the tendency for stores to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or the many, many movies concerning Santa Claus. No, my temptation is to point out the crass commercialism of the Christmas season, the way it is inaugurated by "Black Friday" two days before the first Sunday of Advent on which humans act inhuman in order to acquire goods for low prices, or the tension-building stresses that invade our patient expectation of the coming Messiah.* There is no denying that Christ is often lost from Christmas, that the child Jesus is too often overshadowed by merry old Saint Nick, that Starbucks sells Advent calendars which eventually open to the 25th to find Santa, and that many people who celebrate Christmas do it for reasons which have nothing to do with the Nativity. It is worth noting, though, that the unique nature of the problems with the way Christmas is celebrated in the West today highlights the continuing impact of Christ on Christmas, even when He is removed from the central focus.
Take for example the problem of commercialism and consumerism. We spend so much money this time of year, particularly on non-essential items, and people are encouraged to make lists of things they want. The negative connotation here is obvious, but consider that this is the one time of year in which the great majority of people ask others what they want and use their time and money in order to give good gifts to others. Although consumerism exists, it is for a time altered to show concern for others instead of oneself.
Although many people believe that the point of Christmas is not the birth of the Incarnate God, they at least mistakenly believe that love, generosity, family, friendship, and human interaction are the "reasons for the season." Surely the birth of Jesus and God's love for mankind should properly have pride of place in the Christmas and Advent season, but at least those who forget this tend to replace it with a focus upon values better than those they hold to the rest of the year.
Let us not forget the common unofficial "Christmas Day Truces" which broke out throughout World War I and resulted in soldiers from both sides of the conflict temporarily ceasing their hostilities and enjoying meals and games together. Christmas also inspires many to care for the poor and homeless in their communities with food and clothing. Relatives who rarely speak to one another come together for a short time of fellowship that stands at odds with their usual routines.
The impact that God's self-giving, sacrificial, peacemaking love makes this time of year, even amongst those who have forgotten Him, declares Christ's perfect reign so that even those who are not listening might yet hear. Merry Christmas.

__________________________________
*Note that I still managed to subtly complain about these very things. I really do have a problem.

The Old and the New

2008-09-12T18:00:00.001-07:00

Let me first apologize, again, for having gone so long without updating. I am now getting back into the swing of my studies and have more inspiration for writing but less time in which to do it. Hopefully I will begin posting more frequently. For now, though, I would like to announce a second, conjoined blog called Pray for the News. It struck me this morning as I read about the potentially devastating impact of Hurricane Ike that I should pray for the people who would be affected by the hurricane, to pray that God works in the midst of the storm and protects the people, and that the hurricane might lose most of its force. It further occured to me that I almost never think to pray for the many situations badly in need of prayer in the news. By regularly highlighting one news story, I hope that I can be used to help draw attention to the importance of prayer for the many tragic and potentially tragic situations in the world, that we might band together in prayer and see God do great things.
It should be encouraging for us to note that so far neither the Georgian-Russian conflict nor Hurricane Gustav were nearly as horrendous as they might have been, and that I think can be largely attributed to God's sovereign work through His people's prayers.
Furthermore, in addition to our prayer, maybe some of us will be moved to use our resources to become involved in God's answer to these prayers, by providing relief, aid, money, medical care, and more to those who are hurting.
Let's get going.

Dream Church

2008-08-04T13:27:00.000-07:00

Have you ever decided to make a list of all the qualities you wish for in your dream guy or girl? Maybe you want to find someone who is intelligent, good-looking, enjoys playing badminton, and can never say no to a midnight run for Fourthmeal. You might have compiled a list so specific and outrageous that strict adherence to it will keep you from dating at all, or a more generic list touching on only the most important factors. I know that I once thought up a list, decided that a list beyond the most basic points (e.g. dedicated Christian, intelligent, etc) was a bad idea, and then found someone who is far better than I had hoped for. I will refrain from going into much detail on that point so that I don't make you jealous, but I would like to present you with a different list.

It is no secret that I hope to one day be a church-planting pastor, and believing that I am called to that while also believing that God can do astounding things through His Church constantly leads me to dream of those qualities that I hope to see in the church that God wants me to plant as well as in every church. Today, I offer you the first two qualities of my dream church with more to follow soon:

1. A Church of All Ages

The church is a place in which God brings about profound unity in the midst of diverse people, using every individual's different gifts to benefit the whole. The Church is a body made up of many parts. One area in which American churches now struggle (although many excel on this point) is in bringing together people of all ages into a single church. Different styles of music and conducting a church service tend to appeal to different age groups, and with so many churches in any given town people are presented with the opportunity to choose a church that lines up with their preferences. Unfortunately, this can have the by-product of separating different broad age groups from one another. Christians of all ages need Christians of all other ages, and every age group can be of benefit to all other age groups. Children bring a refreshing innocence, vitality, simplicity, and perspective to those who are older. Babies bring a special kind of joy, along with the opportunity for the rest of the church to remember that we are called to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Teens can bring an energy, a passion, an excitement, and a holy discontent to the church that can help all the members to ask whether or not they are missing the mark as a church in any ways. Those who are older in the church bring experience, a lifetime of discipleship, and wisdom to the rest of the church. There are more age groups, of course, but the point is clear that all ages can benefit all others and are meant to be drawn together to fully represent Christ.

2. A Church of All Economic Backgrounds

It is a sad truth that as the number of churches increases in any given place, the tendency to separate by socio-economic background is more easily given into. Groups with varying amounts of wealth may not feel comfortable around each other and fear coming into too close of contact. The wealthy and middle class may fear that they will feel guilty for their possessions around their neighbors with fewer material possessions, while those who are poorer may fear that they will be judged as inadequate by their neighbors with multiple flat-screen TVs. It may be true that none of these groups feel particularly comfortable around their homeless neighbors. The truth of the matter is that these different groups probably are not physical neighbors at all, but also live in different parts of town. While this is a bleak perspective on the separation of classes, it is all too often accurate, but it cannot be justified for Christians. We, as Christians, are all brothers and sisters in Christ, all children of one Father, are all members of one body, all partakers of one baptism, all neighbors, and all followers of one Lord. We need to not only be acquainted with those of different economic backgrounds, but to really know them, to love them, to be concerned for them as people made in God's image and brothers and sisters in Christ. Those with wealth are called to share their material blessings with their poor neighbors, and those who are poor are called to share their spiritual blessings with those who are rich. We must take care of one another, and to do that we must live in community with one another. The dream church needs the homeless, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy.

Check back soon for more qualities of the dream church...

Street Preachers

2008-07-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

One evening a few years ago, my friend Michael and I were headed to downtown Modesto for some Starbucks, when we were confronted on a corner by three young men: two passing out small cards and one reading into a microphone on a portable PA system. If you have ever been in a similar situation, you have already guessed that the small cards were tracts and that the book being read was the Bible. The three young men were street preachers. As we walked by, they handed us their tracts, which on the front had a picture of the Starbucks logo (or at least very similar to it) and said something along the lines of "Good for One Free Coffee." If you turned over the card, however, you would find it explaining that the tract was not actually good for a coffee, but something even better... eternal life!
Now, don't misunderstand me. I firmly believe that the salvation offered through our Lord Jesus Christ is infinitely more valuable than a cup of coffee, and you cannot convince me otherwise. Still, I was pretty disappointed to find that I was not going to be getting a free cup of coffee. If I, as a Christian, was upset by that tract, I cannot help but wonder what a nonChristian would think. I am guessing that they would not be impressed by the most eternally beneficial bait-and-switch of their life, but would instead be angry about not getting a free cup of steaming coffee. I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem like a particularly effective way of reaching anyone with the Gospel.
More recently, my sister and her husband also headed downtown, dressed to the nines, for a fancy dinner to celebrate their anniversary. On their way, they were accosted by a street preacher yelling at them while condemning them for their sins. He warned Justin (my brother-in-law) that he was leading my sister to sin by taking her downtown for a night of drunkenness and dancing which would lead them straight to Hell. Justin responded, telling the man that they were in fact Christians on their way to dinner to celebrate their wedding anniversary. The street preacher simply repeated his accusations and generally expressed disbelief that Christians could be headed downtown for anything other than street preaching or losing their salvation. Ok, I paraphrased what he said, but that was the point of it. The anniversary couple walked away, not feeling particularly fond of this speaker, and wondering what kind of impact he was having on the nonChristians unfortunate enough to encounter him.
At this point, you might be getting the feeling that I only have a negative view of street preachers, and that must be cleared up right away. I generally have mixed feelings toward them. On the one hand, I respect them for their boldness in opening themselves up to ridicule for the sake of sharing the Gospel and I wish that I had such a burden for the souls of those who do not yet know Christ that I would join them on their soapboxes. On the other hand, I worry that some of them do more harm than good and poorly represent Christ with overly angry and hateful approaches to evangelism.
I recognize that God is not only merciful and loving but also just and righteous, which means that He is also a God of wrath. A Gospel made up only of God's mercy is not a full Gospel, because a person must know of God's justice and wrath in order to understand why they need God's mercy. At the same time, however, a Gospel presentation that emphasizes only the coming doom of sinners is not the Gospel at all, for there is no good news included.
Open air evangelism has been used by the Church throughout its history and by no means should be allowed to disappear, but we must be careful in how we use it and ask ourselves if our approach represents Jesus well. I submit that lying about free coffee and condemning fellow Christians would not pass such an inquisition.
As for the rest of us, the Christians who do not participate in open air evangelism and street preaching, we can do better by learning to respect our brothers and sisters who do proclaim the Gospel in the streets and encouraging those who go about doing so in a Christlike manner. We can also learn to confront those who poorly represent Christ while maintaining a loving approach on our own part, remembering that we too are held to Jesus' standards. With prayer, patience, truth, and love, we may just see street preaching become an effective witnessing tool once again.

- As a post-script, my sister and brother-in-law's story brings out a funny lesson for all of us: never condemn anyone for sins that you don't know they are committing, or for sins that aren't actually sins. While they were condemned for drunkenness and dancing, they were guilty of neither. Furthermore, dancing is not a sin. The end.

10 Books to Read Before You Die?

2008-07-09T10:04:00.000-07:00

Am I allowed to digress into a non-theological blog from time to time? I believe that I am, so that settles it.
Today on the AOL welcome screen, one of the headlines was "Books to Read Before You Die: 10 You Shouldn't Miss." I, of course, took the bait and wanted to see just what books were recommended, and now I present them to you:

1. Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
2. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
3. Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
4. The Stand by Stephen King
5. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
6. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
7. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown
8. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
9. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
10. The Holy Bible

To put it bluntly, this is not a good list of ten books you must read before you die. Of course I agree with the inclusion of the Bible in this list, as any person religious or not would have to. It is the best-selling book of all time and has had more impact on the world than any other. It is also the very word of God. That belongs on there.
The Lord of the Rings is a fantastic book series, one of my favorites, and arguably belongs on the list, but that could be my own bias coming through. It did jumpstart the fantasy genre of books in a time when most fiction aimed at realism, and that is a very good thing, but it may not have yet withstood the test of time.
To Kill a Mockingbird is also a fantastic read, and it is not hard to understand its inclusion in the list. The same goes for Catcher in the Rye, Atlas Shrugged, and Gone With the Wind (I've never read Atlas Shrugged or Gone With the Wind and did not like Catcher in the Rye but I know enough of the literary world to understand that they are truly considered great literature). A case can be made for these four books, although they are of course debatable members of such a list.
The remaining books: Harry Potter, Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, and The Stand are a different case altogether. They are all probably enjoyable and entertaining reads, I know. Perhaps they are more than just entertaining too (although I fundamentally disagree with their theological implications), but do they really belong on the list of ten books to read before you die? Not one of them has been given the chance to withstand the test of time, the most effective way to judge whether or not a book is strictly bound to its own time period, to a particular zeitgeist, to a fad or a trend.
It is also worth noting that every one of these books (with the exception of the Bible) was written within the last one-hundred years in English. Now, it is possible that nine of the ten most important books for you to read before dying were all written in the last hundred years in the English language (and seven of those nine in the United States), but drawing such a conclusion seems improbable at best and culturally and chronologically bound at worst. I understand that the production of this list was probably a last minute assignment, given to an already over-loaded writer at the last minute, but this hints that perhaps the books read by the average American are neither as wide nor as deep as we might hope.
Let us consider for a moment other writers and works that might have been given consideration (admittedly, this contains too high of a percentage of English and recent works, showing that I am part of the problem too):
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer
Jane Austen's Emma, Pride and Prejudice, and Sense and Sensibility
G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's August 1914 and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace and Anna Karenina
Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov
William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying
Albert Camus' The Stranger and The Plague
Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin
Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
Dante's Divine Comedy
Thomas More's Utopia
Erasmus' In Praise of Folly
Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels
Voltaire's Candide
Plato's Republic
Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales
Confucius' Analects
Miguel de Cervantes Don Quixote
Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo
Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey
Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis
Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling
John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
...

Clearly this is not anywhere close to an exhaustive list of possible inclusions in our top ten, and it has drawn almost entirely from the Western World, and I have not read all of these works but the point is made. If we want to become better and more thoughtful people, we must read more works written by those who inhabited other time periods, places, and cultures. As an American in the twenty-first century, there are many biases that I unwittingly hold in common with other Americans and Westerners in general from the last hundred years, which can only be exposed by seeing the world through the eyes of writer's in other contexts. We can also discover what we have right by seeing the mistakes made in other cultures and eras. To end on a theological note as an example, my view of what the Church is supposed to look like is primarily informed by my geographical and chronological context, which is fine and has been the case for all people throughout time. It is likely, though, that some of the thought of my particular time period is mistaken and ungodly, and I can learn from the wisdom of the past to avoid some of mistakes of the present. Innovation is great, but wisdom requires that we couple it with tradition.
For those of you who have read this far, what books do you think belong on a ten-book list to read before dying? Can you make a case for some that I felt did not belong?

The Trinity: A Primer

2008-07-03T17:13:00.000-07:00

I have decided to try something a little different and post something that I have already written for use elsewhere. I am currently teaching a high school boys discipleship class in which we just learned about the Trinity. I used the following curriculum which I originally wrote for my Utah mission team and used last summer for a high school theology class. It is intended as a primer on the theology of the Trinity, and hopefully it will prove useful for other people as well.

The Trinity
Throughout the history of the Christian Church, the doctrine of the Trinity has been one of its most distinctive and difficult characteristics. The Trinity is very hard to understand, but some sort of an understanding is not only important but needed for the Christian life. The struggle with the doctrine began in the early Church which saw itself as a branch of Judaism and monotheistic (believing in only one God; Greek mono = one + theo = God). At the same time, however, the Church worshipped not only God the Father but also Jesus Christ the Son as well as the Holy Spirit and their scripture also referred to all three with the characteristics of God. They apparently worshipped three persons but professed to worship only one God and so the doctrine of Trinity was, in a sense, discovered.
The doctrine of the Trinity would be refined over time by the Church, especially in the Apostles’, Nicene and Chalcedonian councils and creeds (statements of faith). The Church would find that the Trinity was best understood through a few statements of what it is, many statements of what it is not, and analogies that were able to help in some ways but were never perfect. Like the Church before us, we will look at the Trinity following this basic scheme.
Before moving on, though, it will be helpful to look at those sections of the Nicene Creed in particular that give insight into the Church’s understanding of the Trinity. They read:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father[1], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

What can we say about the Trinity?

The orthodox[2] Christian Church holds that the Trinity is one God in three persons. Each person of the Trinity is fully and completely God, is distinct from the other two, and is also completely and totally attached to the other two. Notice that we say the Trinity is “one God in three persons” and not “three persons in one God.” This may seem like a small point, but it helps us to remember a truth about the Trinity. We do not believe that if you add three persons of the Trinity together that you get one God, like God can be divided into three parts. God cannot be divided at all. Instead, we believe that the one God exists in three persons. By saying this, we remind ourselves that the Trinity is not a collection of three god-like persons who got together one day and decided to join forces. No, they have eternally existed together as one triune God.
Now on to the three members of the Trinity being distinct: each person of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is distinct from the other two. Thus, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
With some basic groundwork laid, we can move on to looking at a few different questions that come up in dealing with the Trinity.

If the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and maybe the Son), then is the Father older than the Son and the Holy Spirit, and is the Son older than the Holy Spirit?

The orthodox answer is simply no. No member of the Trinity is any older than the others. In order for one to be older than another, it would require that at one point a person of the Trinity did not yet exist. Every person of the Trinity has existed eternally; there was never a time when any one of the three did not exist. The Father did not make or create either the Son[3] or the Spirit. If He had, that would mean that the Son and the Spirit would not in fact be God but would instead be part of creation.
Early on in the Church’s history arose a heresy that dealt with this, which was called Arianism after its founder Arius. Arianism[4] believed that the Son was the very first, most important and most perfect creation of the Father. The Holy Spirit was, in turn, the first creation of the Son. Obviously, the problem with this heresy is that Son and Spirit are no longer God but instead part of creation which means that it is sinful and idolatrous to worship them. As we will see in a later section, it also robbed Jesus Christ of the ability to redeem humanity because only creator God and not creation is capable of redeeming a fallen creation.
The language the Church has used in describing the relationships among the members of the Trinity has been that the Father eternally begets the Son and generates the Holy Spirit, that the Son is eternally begotten[5] of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and maybe the Son). The language of “begetting,” “generating,” and “proceeding” has been specifically chosen because it hints at the relationships without implying that one person comes before another in time. For example, there is a world of difference between “begetting” and “making.” Human persons beget human persons, dogs beget dogs, fish beget fish, etc. Humans make other objects, such as art, buildings, tools, weapons, medicine, food, etc. One might say that like begets like and like makes unlike (that is, things beget things like themselves but make things different than themselves). Thus, to say that the Son is begotten of the Father is to say that the Son is of the same nature of the Father, whereas the universe was made by the Father and so does not share His nature in fullness.
C.S. Lewis offers a helpful analogy by telling us to imagine three books stacked on a table. The first book can be defined as being under the other two, the second can be defined as between the other two, and the third can be defined as being on top of the other two. Now imagine there were no table and that the three books had been like that forever. We can understand their relationships to one another without thinking of one existing before another.
Because all three members of the Trinity have existed eternally, it is not correct to speak of one member, say the Father, producing another, say the Son, through some sort of actual intercourse. Thus, while we speak of the Son as the Son, we do not mean that He is a literal child of God the Father. Furthermore, because the three members of the Trinity have eternally existed as God, we know that creatures do not become gods and that God has never existed as anything but God.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit just names we give to the one God when He does different things and fills certain roles?

Once again, the orthodox answer is no. The idea that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different names for the one God in the different roles He fulfills was rejected early on by the Church as the heresy of Modalism. Modalism basically states that the one God changes from mode to mode depending on what role He is playing at the moment. Thus we might refer to creator God and the God who takes care of the details of life as Father; the mode in which God redeems and saves us as God the Son; and the mode in which God lives in us, transforms us and inspires us as the Holy Spirit.
There are three major problems with Modalism. The first is that the Church and the Bible both portray the three members of the Trinity as distinct, without a hint of their being the same person. The second is that no role is assigned to just one member of the Trinity; all three members were involved in the creation of the world, in the redemption of humanity and within the transformation of believers. It would thus be meaningless to refer to the persons in different roles if they in fact are all involved in all roles. The third is that if the three members of the Trinity are simply names for different modes of God, there might be many more modes of God and therefore it is wrong to speak of a Trinity when there might be four, eleven or an infinite number of modes of God.
At this point some might be confused by referring to three distinct persons of the Trinity. When we think of person we usually think of human beings, but obviously that is not proper when referring to the members of the Trinity. Instead, person in this sense stems back to its Latin root, the word personae. This was a legal term in Rome which referred to a possessor of property. In the case of the Trinity, each person of the Trinity possesses the property of deity (god-ness), the nature or substance of God. A problem that came from this term in the early Church helps to highlight the rejection of Modalism by the Church. When (poorly) translated into the Greek of the Eastern Church, personae became prosopon which implied a mask that an actor would wear in Greek plays. The Eastern Church recognized that this translation hinted at a form of Modalism and rejected it. They instead used the term hypostasis which better represented personae and referred to the nature of God as ousia, so that in the Greek the Trinity was defined as one ousia in three hypostases. Remember that hypostasis refers to personhood; it will come up again later.

Are the members of the Trinity in a sort of hierarchy, with one having a higher rank than another?

You guessed it, the answer is no. Although the Bible sometimes sounds as if the Father has a higher position and rank than the Son and Spirit, such as when it says that they do the will of the Father, no member of the Trinity has more power or a higher rank than the others. To believe that one member has a higher rank than the others is to buy into another[6] early heresy known as Monarchianism. Monarchianism basically holds that there is a hierarchy among the persons of the Trinity and generally places God the Father as the most important member. The name Monarchianism comes from the same root as monarch and monarchy and holds a similar concept of kingship.
One of the major problems with Monarchianism is that it tends to divide the members of the Trinity too much from one another. It is, of course, true that the Son and the Holy Spirit do the will of the Father but we should not understand that to mean that they submit their own wills to the will of the Father because He is more powerful. Instead, they do the will of the Father as they will the same things that the Father wills. All three are perfect and so they each have a perfect will and so will the same things. Beyond that, if we look at the Son as submitting to the Father because the Father is more powerful than we are viewing the Trinity through a worldly lens. In the fallen, sinful world power is used to dominate and must be submitted to. In the Trinity, as seen through the Christian faith, true power is exerted through submission and love. If in any way a person of the Trinity does submit to another, it is not a sign of weakness but of strength.
The Bible can be easily read in such a way that we see a sort of hierarchy among the members, and that may in fact be true. If it is, however, we must remember that it is because the persons of the Trinity lovingly submit to one another and not because any one member is more powerful or more worthy of authority. The persons of the Trinity are equal in their nature and god-ness.

Looking at a few models of the Trinity.

Because the concept of the Trinity is so hard to understand, many Christians have tried to make it more understandable by developing models or analogies for the Trinity. No model is perfect but most are helpful in one way or another so we will look at a few important models and dig in to what they have to offer us.

1. We can understand the Trinity as Lover, Beloved and the Love that exists between them. The Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved of the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Love that exists between them. Without any one part, the whole no longer exists. If there is no Lover, there is no source of the Love and the Beloved is no longer Beloved. If there is no Beloved, there is nothing to make the Lover a Lover and there is no Love. If Love does not exist, it is meaningless to speak of a Lover or a Beloved.

This model was developed by St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the greatest theologians the Christian Church has ever known. It does a good job of capturing the importance of all the members for the existence of the whole and emphasizing the distinctiveness of each member (not to mention that it draws from the Song of Solomon). The model does suffer in a few important respects, though. It is not great for representing the essential unity of the Trinity. Although removing one member from the equation would dissolve the whole, the other members might still exist in some other way. If we removed Love, the Lover and the Beloved would still exist but they would be known by different names. This is unlike the Trinity in which the existence of each member is totally necessary. The second major flaw is that it downplays the personality of the Holy Spirit. When we think of Love, we tend to think of an emotion or possibly a force. We do not, however, think of an actual person with consciousness and a will and this analogy risks dropping the Holy Spirit to a mere force.

2. The Trinity is similar to water. Water is one essential substance but can exist in three different forms: liquid, solid or gas.

Most modern American Christians have probably heard this analogy before and it does in fact help to grasp the unity of three distinct things. It drives home the reality of God’s one essential nature. It really is not a great analogy, though, because it borders on Modalism as water simply changes from form to form but is in reality the same. It can lead to the misconception that the persons of the Trinity are just different forms of the one real unity.

3. The Trinity is like a family, with the Father as the parents, the Son as the children and the Holy Spirit as the love that binds the family together.

This model is basically an alteration of St. Augustine’s, but is not quite as useful. It has the strength of emphasizing the interpersonal relationships of a family within the Trinity, but fails in other areas. For instance, a family unit can greatly lack in unity and so the unity of the Trinity can be lost in this example. Beyond that, it does not seem that all of the members are necessary in order to make the whole, especially in a modern American context. Once parents have passed away, aren’t the children still a family? Is a married couple not yet a family if it has not yet produced children? Does a family need to be filled with love in order to be a family? There are really too many ideas of what constitutes a family for this model to be of much use.

4. The Trinity is like an electrical circuit, with the Father as the battery, the Son as the wire, and the Holy Spirit as the electrical current. If any one of these three is removed, an electrical circuit no longer exists.

The strength of this model is that it highlights the necessity of each part in order for the whole to exist. It also gives an example of relationships between the members of the Trinity and their intertwined nature. It fails to reveal a personal nature of any member, however, and although the removal of any one part means that the whole no longer exists the other parts do continue to exist.

In thinking about the Trinity, it is often best to hold many good analogies in mind at once, recognizing the weakness of each but counterbalancing their strengths. One model might put too much emphasis on unity at the cost of distinction whereas another might represent diversity well but fail in regard to unity. By holding these different models, as well as the basic orthodox rules for understanding the Trinity, together, we can maintain a tension that is faithful to the orthodox Christian faith.
As a final note on the Trinity, it might seem that the doctrine of the Trinity is too messy to be true and that it would be much tidier to have just one completely unified god or to have three separate gods. While these views would be tidier and easier to grasp, it is for that very reason that they seem inadequate. One uniform god makes sense, as do three separate gods, and so they seem to be the very sort of things that would be invented by humans who want to explain everything in a neat and tidy fashion. Why would early Christians have invented the doctrine of the Trinity, when it must have been just as hard to understand for them as it is for us? The answer would seem to be that they did not invent the doctrine, but held faithfully to it because it was the truth revealed by God.
We now know that light behaves in an extraordinarily odd way, with some characteristics of a wave and others of a particle, two things that we thought were totally separate. We only believe that light behaves this way because it has been observed to be true. It is too wild of a claim to invent. Similarly the triune God, whom we profess to be infinitely beyond our ability to grasp, has revealed Himself to be more complex than we would have guessed and that is simply a mystery of the Christian faith.

[1] In the Western Church this line reads “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” whereas the Eastern Church has only from the Father.
[2] When using the term orthodox in this work, we will intend it to mean the correct belief held by all Christians. If at some point we want to refer to specific orthodox Churches they will be named, such as “Greek Orthodox,” “Eastern Orthodox,” or “Coptic Orthodox.”
[3] Colossians 1:15-20, John 1:1-3, Isaiah 9:6, Hebrews 13:8.
[4] Interestingly, there are some major doctrinal similarities between the Arian heresy and today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[5] John 3:16.
[6] Notice that almost every form of heresy occurred within the first four centuries of the Church’s existence. Satan is not creative with his lies and simply recycles and repackages them again and again.

Wordle: Beautiful Word Clouds

2008-06-24T13:01:00.000-07:00

KJV Old Testament KJV New Testament

This isn't a particularly theological post, but yesterday the Boundless Line noted the Wordle website, which allows you to enter a bunch of text and have a sweet word cloud generated showing the most common words from the text. You might notice my new logo to the right was produced this way, as well as these King James Version Old and New Testament Word clouds I just made. It's worth checking out.

Rumors, Smears, Lies, and Slander

2008-06-17T12:13:00.000-07:00

Allow me to begin with a promise: This blog will not become dominated with the presidential race, although it may touch on it from time to time as the issues in that race collide with the Christian's pursuit of Christ.
When November finally arrives, I will cast my vote for Senator John McCain. I will do this because I agree with him on more issues than I do with Senator Barack Obama. I would really, honestly prefer that McCain win the election because I think he would be better for the United States and the world than Obama.
I make that clear primarily for the sake of integrity, because I abhor the rumors, smears and lies that are circulating already in this presidential race, mainly with regard to Senator Obama. There is no indication that Senator McCain is connected to the slander at all, and I commend both candidates for generally keeping their campaigns focused on issues and not personal attacks. The fact remains that rumors are arising at a grassroots level and are being propagated by people like you and me. For instance, haven't you heard that Obama helped finance his socialist, East Germany educated, cousin's presidential bid in Kenya; that he won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance, was or is a Muslim, or that he was sworn into office with his hand on the Quran; that his campaign is being financed by Hugo Chavez; that he has been endorsed by the KKK; that he attended a madrassa as a child? Haven't you been given a wink and a nod with regard to his name: Barack (a Swahili name that sounds Arabic) Hussein (remember Saddam?) Obama (rhymes with Osama)? The fact of the matter is that none of these claims are true, the truth is readily obtainable, and yet many people (Christians included) propagate these lies as if they are true or very well could be.
Why does this matter? Let us look back at that ninth commandment: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." Should we try to weasel our way out by asking whether or not a presidential candidate is our neighbor, let us remember what Jesus had to say in response to a similar question. Think back to the many things the Bible has to say about false witnesses. Remember that we worship the God who once described Himself as being the Truth. Remember the apostle Paul exhorting us to buckle on the belt of truth as part of our spiritual armor. Remember that love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
If the Word of God teaches us such things, how can we take part in passing on lies, in bearing false witness against our neighbor? We cannot excuse ourselves for not knowing these rumors to be false, because we know better than to believe everything we hear without examination.
We might argue that we don't care how the right candidate wins the election, as long as they win, but this kind of utilitarianism does not mesh with the teachings of Christ. If we use evil in order to do good, we corrupt the good that we were once seeking. Do we have so little faith in God that we feel the need to sin so that His purposes might be fulfilled? St. Paul did not allow for that kind of thinking.
Let us all trust God's wisdom and pray that the candidate He desires to place in office should win the election. I am not demanding McCain from Him and neither should you demand Obama. Let's simply pray that His wisdom rules the minds of America's citizens and that our votes would reflect His desire.
Perhaps we can even begin to refrain from bearing false witness against other people in our lives: our friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors. With God's help.

Alcohol

2008-06-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

When people find out that I don't drink they tend to fall into two camps, those who worry for a moment until they realize that I am not yet of legal drinking age and relax upon assuming that I will be drinking soon enough, and those who congratulate me for not giving in to the evils of alcohol. If I explain my position on alcohol any further, though, both camps tend to look at me with a wary eye.

The first camp becomes distressed because they discover that I do not just abstain from alcohol temporarily because I cannot yet imbibe it legally (although that would be enough to prevent me from doing so), but permanently as I have committed to not drinking alcohol (with two reservations, which I will address further down).

The second camp is unhappy because they soon learn that I am not abstaining from alcohol because I think it is inherently sinful and forbidden by God.

At that point, I usually hope that a complete explanation of my position will ease the tension with both camps.

Let me explain. I believe that drinking alcohol before you are legally permitted to do so is sinful because we are to obey the laws of our government unless they contradict the laws of God. Upon reaching the legal age, however, I do not think that consuming alcohol is inherently sinful. I realize this will ruffle some feathers among those who believe that such consumption is explicitly forbidden in Scripture, but I am thoroughly convinced through my study of the Bible that it is not: for example, wine was an acceptable offering to God in the Old Testament; abundant wine production was a blessing promised by God to His people; Jesus' first miracle was that of turning water into wine; Jesus used wine to implement the practice of sharing the communion meal; and Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine to help with his health problems. Saying that drinking alcohol is not inherently sinful does not mean that it is never sinful, however. The Bible soundly condemns drunkenness again and again. Drunkenness can lead to violence, sexual impurity, poverty, as well as woe, sorrow, strife, complaints, needless bruises, and bloodshot eyes. Paul directed Timothy not to appoint overseers or deacons who are given to drunkenness. Similarly, a person with a family or personal history of alcoholism is at least unwise to drink alcohol.

So why have I committed to abstaining from alcohol if I do not believe it is inherently sinful? I abstain for the sake of those who do drink and those who think it is sinful. The American culture is generally not one of moderation with regard to alcohol but instead one of abstinence or abuse. I hope to see a liberating moderation become the norm, however, and want to be an agent in bringing about that change. If I were to drink moderately and argue that moderate drinking was not sinful, I would be disregarded by those who believe all drinking to be sinful because I would be benefiting from my belief. My hope is that I can maintain a certain level respect from both camps through my stance and be used to bring about reconciliation.

I mentioned above that I have two reservations with my commitment to abstain from alcohol, and those deserve mention. The first is that I will drink wine when it is served as part of the Lord's Supper, because I could never in good conscience refuse that which was instituted by my God. The second is only a potential reservation that requires more consideration, but is loosely that I may take alcohol if I am ever abroad and could not help but offend my hosts if I were to refuse it.

After laying out my stance, I realize that this may not prove a terribly helpful post for others. What would I exhort my brothers and sisters in Christ to do with regard to alcohol, no matter which camp they are in? I would have them study this passage, and have those who enjoy alcohol in moderation do so in a way that does not put a stumbling block before those who cannot, and those who cannot believe that they can drink righteously refrain from condemning those who do in word or thought. Argue with one another about this in love, each seeking to come to know what Scripture teaches and to teach the other, but do not allow alcohol to drive a wedge through the Body of Christ.

Surrender

2008-05-24T12:19:00.001-07:00

"That's it, I finally get it, I surrender."
It seems that for several years God has been moving me to this point in my life, a point in which I can recognize a truth that He has been wanting me to grasp for so long. The lesson really began early in my high school years (in my memory, it likely stretches further back in time) when I ordered my second book from K.P. Yohannan, the founder of Gospel for Asia. I had already read his first book, Revolution in World Missions, which I found offered for free online. This book had introduced me to the awesome power of native missionary movements and I wanted desperately to read something, anything else written by this godly leader. This led me to Road to Reality, which was life-changing for me in ways that I had not foreseen. The book made a compelling case, without inducing feelings of guilt or despair, that Western Christians have far more wealth than we need so that we might give it to our brothers and sisters in need around the world. Yohannan has a gift for bringing conviction of sin without condemnation; diagnosing spiritual disease without coming across as hypocritical; and warning of churches veering away from the heart of the Gospel without a hint of judgmentalism. As his focus narrowed from megachurches spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Christmas decorations instead of helping the hungry to individual Christians spending needlessly on hundreds of little things, I became increasingly convicted. Yohannan's point was not so much that we should feel guilty over every purchase, but instead that we have been given the great gift of wealth so that we might share it with those in need.
Moving forward a couple of years, I enrolled at Azusa Pacific Univerity (APU). Any APU student would laugh in agreement when I say that social justice is a big deal on campus. I had, of course, always learned from my parents, my church, and the Bible itself that as a Christian I have the responsibility of helping the poor and feeding the hungry. Still, I had not expected such a constant cry for social justice within our three-times-a-week chapel services. Although it has not been the topic every day, it is fairly safe to assume that at least one chapel a week will address the needs of the billions of poor around the world, their hunger for just enough food to survive, their thirst for clean water, their need for some sort of sanitary shelter, their lack of access to even the most inexpensive and basic forms of health care, and their cry for a break from systems of injustice and oppression. My hat is off to my university for forcing several thousand wealthy (at very least by global standards) young Christian students to remember that genuine suffering exists in this world and that we are responsible to help alleviate it. With that said, however, such a constant harping unintentionally drives many of us into a mixture of despair and guilt.
Could I ever even fulfill my responsibility to the poor if I tried? It's not my fault I was born into a wealthy nation. With so many problems in the world, could I even make a difference at all?
I do not blame this response on the chapel speakers, as they are simply seeking to do their part in mobilizing future Christian leaders for the sake of the suffering, but the response does occur. With this large of an emphasis on social justice from chapel, it was not surprising to find that it was similarly a common topic of discussion and conversation among my friends. My friend Adam, in particular, and I would debate from time to time concerning whether or not social justice was just as integral to Jesus' work as evangelism. My role has always been that which argues that evangelism is the key component to the Gospel and that seeking to help those who suffer is extremely important but far inferior to the message of salvation. After all, if you have the choice between helping with someone's eternal life or making their short earthly life better, don't you have to choose their eternity?
This brings me to the present, having just finished Art Beals's Beyond Hunger: A Biblical Mandate for Social Responsibility. This work chronicles the author's development in which he went from at one point thinking that the term "justice" was inextricably tied to theological liberalism (which I can tell you as a conservative evangelical is generally seen as a warning sign, whether or not it deserves it) to seeing it as a necessary concern for any follower of Christ. Although the book does not offer much in the way of systems which, implemented, could help the world's poor, it is better for it. What the book does do is convince the reader that any follower of Christ must be not only concerned but active in seeking to help the world's poor, that despair is foolish and crippling to the Kingdom of God which must remain hopeful, and that individual believers coming together in dedication to serving Christ can and do bring the Kingdom of God to those who suffer.
This brings me to my surrender. I must finally accept the truth. The Gospel is not a choice of evangelism or mercy and justice. The good news of Jesus Christ, the work of the Kingdom of God is a work of both evangelism and mercy and justice. Being a redeemed person, a member of the Church, a saint entails introducing people to God Incarnate. We must introduce others to Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers them. We must exemplify Christ's love as His Spirit indwells us, using us as His body in order to demonstrate love in the flesh. We are bearers of the good news, which touches all of life. To borrow a metaphor from Beals, we as Christians are concerned neither with ghosts nor corpses, neither souls alone nor bodies alone, but with human beings, just as Christ is concerned with the people made in His very image. It has been a long time coming, but yes, I surrender.

Not just Baby Mama

2008-04-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

Just a few days ago, "Baby Mama," a comedy about surrogate motherhood premiered. Today, while watching TV, I saw a commercial for SurroGenesis, a surrogacy agency which helps infertile traditional couples, homosexual couples, and singles to have children by pairing them up with surrogate mothers and/or egg donors. They offer two options, one in which the potential parents supply a fertilized egg to the surrogate mother, and one in which only the father donates through artificial insemination. Either way, the surrogate mother is handsomely rewarded with rates starting at $18,000, with many other additional expenses covered as well.
Before I continue, let me express that I understand that great sensitivity is required when dealing with issues such as infertility, and I further understand that I cannot understand the pain, struggle, and disappointment of infertile couples, as I have never experienced it. I may inadvertantly speak with insensitivity, but I will do my best not to. With that said, I must speak from an outsider's perspective, although simply being on the outside does not negate the potential truthfulness of my view.
Returning from my aside, the role of the surrogacy agency appears to be a godsend, a beautiful helping hand reaching out to provide children for those who cannot have their own on their own. At this stage of the game, the agency may very well be that exactly. The future of surrogacy, however, is quite worrying. Assuming the best of surrogacy at present, it is a system of donors who want to help others struggling with infertility and so provide them with children, receiving financial compensation for their increased expenses and effort. There are, of course, moral questions that arise from even such ideal circumstances. For instance, why should so much money and effort be directed toward surrogacy when there are children in need of adoption? Such a question must be answered, but it is still not this situation that so concerns me. I worry for the future of surrogacy, when it will undoubtedly veer away from such ideal circumstances.
A time will likely come when surrogate mothers are no longer simply selfless donors, but will have become a full-time profession for poor women while in their peak years of health. It takes very little imagination to envision the eventual creation of a "breeder" or "bearer" class, a debased form of indentured servitude, in which bodies are signed away for nine-month leases. If such a practice were to arise, one must also wonder when the surrogate mothers will ever have the chance to bear their own children, if their peak years are spent in the business of surrogacy.
It is not just among the surrogates that problems will likely arise, but also among those who hire them. Currently, infertile couples seek out surrogates to bear their children, but why must it remain that way? Surely market forces, coupled with the cultural worship of youthfulness, thinness, and bodily perfection, will eventually lead to wealthy fertile couples hiring surrogates so that the wife will not need to risk her perfect figure in order to enjoy the life of motherhood. Having another woman bear one's own children may, in fact, become a respectable sign of class, wealth, and prestige.
Such possibilities may seem farfetched to some, but unless the government intervenes to regulate surrogacy practices, market forces practically demand such a development. And that would be a scary step, indeed.

Finally Returning

2008-04-29T15:54:00.000-07:00

Given the fact that a blog's popularity is tied largely to the regularity with which it is updated, I must assume that no one will read this post. In the off chance that someone does, thank you. I hope to begin writing regularly once again. As I neglected to explain a few months ago why my posting would die off, I will use this post to tell that tale, and hopefully soon return to more theological musings.
The fact is, I have been gone for three and a half months studying abroad in Oxford, England. Originally I had hoped to continue posting, but I neither had the time nor the desire to blog while there. "Why?" you might ask. I was kept busy learning to live in a new culture (surprisingly different than my own), doing more reading and writing than I have in any semester of my life save one, visiting famous sites, and falling in love. With a line-up like that, I hope that you can forgive me for my absence. The semester abroad was fantastic, and is almost impossible to recount in the blog medium (although a taste of my time can be found in my mom's blog, from the 11 days in which she, my dad, and I travelled around England together). For that reason, I will leave this post now, and hopefully return soon with a more theological post. Thanks again, anyone who might be reading this.

Why did Jesus got born?

2007-12-24T13:42:00.000-08:00

My four-year-old nephew, Liam, has developed a keen interest in the meaning of Christmas this year. He has asked several of us why we celebrate Christmas (no doubt checking the facts in order to make sure that no one has given him a faulty answer), and upon hearing the answer to that question asks why we celebrate Jesus' birth. Not bad questions for a kid in preschool.
A few nights ago, Liam stepped up his questions and asked his dad, "Why did Jesus got born?" My brother kindly told him that he should ask me that question, because I am "good at answering questions like that." This was, no doubt, a compassionate act on my brother's part. He works as a paramedic, and because of his schooling, is capable of saving a person's life in an emergency. I, on the other hand, am now a senior theology student and the only thing I really can do is answer questions like this. Redirecting the question to me is something like asking a toddler to carry the apples into the house while unloading groceries. It one of the few things he really can carry and it makes him feel as if he is doing something.
In accordance with his father's directive, Liam found me in the next room and posed the same question to me, "Uncle Sam, why did Jesus got born?"
As I took a moment to think about how I would answer his question, it occurred to me that this was in fact a huge question, the question. Why was Jesus born? This is the question of the Virgin Birth, the question of the meaning of Christmas, the question of why we celebrate Jesus' birth, the question of the very Incarnation. How could such a profound question come from such a young boy?
As I continued to chew on the question, it occurred to me that explaining Christmas would require me to explain Easter. "Why did Jesus got born?" is the same question as "Why the Incarnation?" I chuckled a little to myself as I reflected on the fact that Liam's question was the same one that St. Anselm of Canterbury devoted a book to answering. His book was even titled similarly: Cur Deus Homo? or Why did God become Man?
Once I had gone through this process of thought, which thankfully happened more quickly than it appears here, I began to attempt an answer for Jesus.

"Well Liam, do you remember celebrating Easter this year?"
"Yeah."
"Do you remember why we celebrate Easter?"
He looked at me with a befuddled expression.
"Well, you have learned about Jesus in Sunday School and from your parents right?"
"Yup."
"And about all the great things He did?"
He nodded.

And then it occurred to me that he might not have ever heard what I was about to tell him. Thoughts shot through my head like darts, "Is he too young to hear this? Will it upset him to much? How will he respond?" I knew, though, that I had to tell him. It was the only way to answer his question, and he needed to know this anyway.

"Well Liam, after Jesus did all those great things, the people got together and, and killed Him."
"They killed Him?"

Liam's grin disappeared and his eyes crinkled as he clearly began to fight back tears. He had never heard this before, or at least he had been too young to understand it when he had heard it. Going on with this would be painful.

"Yeah, Liam. They did kill Him."
Liam fought harder against the tears that were trying to work their way out.
"Why did He die?"
"Hm. Have you ever done anything bad Liam?"
He looked down at the train in his hand, "Yes."
"Me too. Everyone has. Jesus never did though, and when He died He took the punishment that should have been ours for all the bad things we did."
"But! Liam, the great news is why we celebrate Easter. Three days after they killed Him He got back up! He came back to life!"
"He did?! How did He do that?"
"Well, you heard that Jesus is God right? And that Jesus' Dad is God too?"
"Uh huh."
"Well God raised Him from the dead."
He smiled, "That's strange."
"Yes. Yes it is, and great. And that is why Jesus was born. So that He could die for us and come back to life so that we don't have to stay dead when we die."

At this point Liam was satisfied and contentedly returned to playing with his train. In that conversation with a four-year-old, God reminded me of something profoundly important. In fact, God reminded me of the most profoundly important thing in the history of the world. Jesus was born to die and to return to life. The story is so familiar to us that it can lose its impact, but for a brief moment I was reintroduced to the tragedy of Christ's death and the joy of His resurrection through the face of a little boy understanding the Gospel story for the first time. I'll leave off with Philippians 2:5-11, the best Christmas summary of all,

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

The Sin of the Sober

2007-12-20T14:27:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have set myself upon the first five books of the Bible for my personal devotions. I have read these books (also known as the Torah, the Pentateuch, or the Law) before, but feel that it is time to read them again. Beginning in Genesis, my study has been interesting (especially with the accompaniment of the incredible Africa Bible Commentary), but up until now had not been particularly moving. Sometimes, it seems, simple familiarity with passages can cramp their impact upon me.
This changed, however, in reading Genesis 9:18-27. These verses contain a story of Noah, but not that story of Noah. This story takes place after the flood and after God's new covenant with His creation. Somehow (through the Holy Spirit, most likely) this passage jumped off the page to me. In it, Noah plants a vineyard, makes wine from his produce, drinks it until drunk, and passes out naked. His son, Ham, sees his father in his debauched and shameful state and goes off to tell his brothers about it. Shem and Japheth, Noah's other sons, walk in to Noah's tent backwards, so as not to see him in his shame, and cover him with a garment. Upon waking the next morning, and probably while hung over, Noah discovers what had gone on in the night and curses Ham's firstborn son. Clearly, this is the stuff of flannel-graphs.
While this story was familiar to me, it stood out as never before in my most recent reading. It abounds with important themes and lessons (e.g. honoring of parents, the dire consequences of family feuds, the bitter effects of drunkenness, etc.). One lesson in particular stands out among the rest, though. It is a lesson regarding the sin of the sober.
Although Noah's drunkenness stands out in our reading of the story, the sinfulness of his inebriated state does not appear to be the central theme of the passage. Instead, it is the wickedness of Ham's treatment of his drunken father that is most pronounced. This struck me as I realized that the vast majority of Christian literature regarding drunkenness focuses upon the sin involved in intoxication and the need for Christians to abstain from becoming drunk. This is, of course, an incredibly important principle for anyone who follows Christ (though I do not support a ban on drunkenness as a ban on all alcohol consumption). Still, this is not the only principle a Christian should have with regard to intoxication. A sober saint must learn to treat those who are drunk with respect.
Most know through experience or through story that there is a temptation for those who are sober around those who are inebriated to treat them worse than they generally would. This generally involves failing to discourage and sometimes encouraging the drunk person to do foolish things as their inhibitions have been lowered. The mental justification is something along the lines of, "It is their fault if they do what I am telling them to do. It is their decision and it was their decision to become drunk that allowed for it." The thought can be summed up with the words of Cain a few chapters before, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Such an excuse did not go well with God for Cain and will not serve the disciple of Jesus any better, for the answer to Cain's question stands out brilliantly against our ingrained individualism with a resounding "Yes!"
Although it was sinful for the drunk person to place themselves in a state of drunkenness, that in no way diminishes the responsibility of the saint. The drunk person is your brother or sister and you must love them as such. They are more easily taken advantage of, and so you must protect them. They are easily degraded but remain human made in God's image, and so you must respect them and preserve their integrity. They are often sick (or will be soon), and so must be cared for. There is almost no earthly reward for caring for a drunk or hungover person, but perhaps that should drive us to excel in caring for such a person all the more (see here, here, here, and here).
Following Christ entails the avoidance of intoxication, but what a shame it would be if it was defined by such avoidance. Would it not be an even higher example of true faith if Christians were known for their committed care for the drunk? I will end this post with the words of 1 Peter 4:8-10,
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms."

The Priesthood of All Believers (or "Long Live the Laity!")

2007-11-04T21:00:00.000-08:00

There is a very subtle and silent temptation present in my own life that I would wager exists in the lives of many people in similar situations to myself. There is an ever-present temptation to somehow think of myself as just a little bit more godly or wise or spiritual than others because I know that I am called to vocational ministry. The temptation is, in fact, quite subtle. It must remain that way if it is to retain its power. If I were to be asked directly whether or not I thought that someone in vocational ministry is necessarily a more godly person than anyone else I would immediately respond with an emphatic "No!" I really do know better.
It is clear in Scripture that all believers are members of a royal priesthood. It is from this principle that we Protestants derive the idea of the "priesthood of all believers," which believes that no Christian has a higher status than any other by simple virtue of an official position within a church.
We also see again and again Jesus commending the faith of "sinners," tax collectors, Gentiles and prostitutes while calling out many religious leaders as utterly unspiritual in the midst of all their obedience, knowledge and ritual.
There is no real justification for this temptation, but then again, such is the nature of temptation. And I will confess, to you, that I have recognized this temptation in myself. Thankfully, this is one of the temptations that is largely vanquished when its presence is realized.
I do not want to lead you to think that your pastor or Bible professor or youth pastor necessarily gives into this temptation nor even that they face it. This ungodly arrogance sits waiting for me to let it in the door, but it would not surprise me if this is not a universal temptation to those in ministry. So please, do not look down on them for this personal admission.
It is of some interest to note what, in particular, helped me come to this realization about myself. The simple truth is that Christian friends of mine who are neither in nor pursuing vocational ministry show me exemplary faith that cannot help but cause me to recognize my own silent sin of pride.
It takes almost no time spent with Dave the elementary school music teacher, Eric the engineering student, my brother Zach the paramedic, or Wes the junior high school teacher to not only be convicted of my arrogance but to have it utterly dashed upon the rocks of reality. In spending time with people like this, I realize that they have a more vibrant faith than myself. Without being paid to do ministry, they are all serving in ministry out of their love for Christ and His Church. They are the Church's most important and impactful evangelists, doing their jobs well and bringing the Good News to those with whom they work.
How, in the presence of such saints, can my pride be left in tact? Thankfully, it simply cannot. Long live the laity!

Does God favor the poor?

2007-10-16T08:59:00.001-07:00

While it is undeniably a common (mis)perception that God favors the rich, that the wealthy are wealthy because they are God's favorite, it seems as if there is a counter-view that sees the poor as being favored by God. On my Christian university campus, this is a fairly common stance and we find it in places such as Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. I must admit that until recently I have subconsciously held to this view as well. After all, aren't the rich generally proud and arrogant? Don't the rich idolatrously worship Money? Are not the rich the oppressors of the poor? Didn't Jesus commend the poor widow instead of the rich men? Are we not commanded to care for the poor and to refuse to show favoritism to the rich? This all made sense until a few weeks ago. Clearly I am commanded to love the poor and recognize that they are just as human and have the same dignity as the rich. Clearly God cares deeply for the poor. Clearly the poor make up the majority of those who worship Jesus. All things considered, however, where do I get the idea that the poor are the favorites of God? Does God have favorites? From my perspective as an Arminian, I believe strongly that God offers salvation and redemption to all human beings, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. From the perspective of my Calvinist brothers and sisters, God unconditionally elects those who are to be saved, meaning that He doesn't even elect them on the basis of being poor because their financial status is no more a condition for salvation than anything else. Jesus commended many poor people, but also commended some who were rich and powerful. Even though the rich young ruler would choose not to follow Christ, we know that Jesus loved him. We are not to show favoritism to the rich, but surprisingly we are not to show favoritism to the poor. In Exodus God even demands the same atonement offering from the rich and the poor. We are commanded to show partiality neither to the rich nor the poor, for doing so either way perverts justice. We are told that when we give to the poor, we are in reality giving to Jesus and storing treasure in Heaven. Why is this is not so when we give to the rich? When we give to the poor, we are giving to those who legitimately are in need and therefore we are fulfilling the law of love. When we give to the rich, we are often doing so in the expectation of receiving something in return: favors, social connections, invitations to events, etc. There is nothing particularly commendable about giving to those who can repay you (although it would be commendable to give something a rich person does need, e.g. a kidney), just as it is not particularly commendable to love your family (which is simply expected) whereas it is to love your enemy or annoying acquaintance. We are told again and again not to show favoritism to the rich, not to lead us to show partiality to the poor, but because our natural sinful tendency is to favor the rich and so the commands address our most common sin. If we are going to oppress anyone, it will generally be the poor and not the rich and so we are commanded with regard to that truth of sinful humanity. Of course we must be generous and care for the poor, but this does not mean that the rich do not matter to Christ. It has been my temptation on nights where my friends and I have spent some time with the homeless in Santa Monica to feel compassion for these poor and contempt for the rich who a few feet away in beach-side condos. I have even felt self-righteous for feeling this way, thinking that in doing so I was cutting myself off from the influence of materialism. This was the case until recently it occurred to me (through helpful insights of my friend, Adam) that Jesus was totally free from the concern of possessions, totally liberated from the chains of Mammon, and that it looked different than my own supposed freedom. Jesus could live and move among the rich and the poor. He could attend an extravagant wedding banquet, dine with Pharisees, and spends days among the masses and nights without a bed on which to lie. He recognized that people came rich and poor, and that their economic status had an impact on who they were, but they were never defined by their wealth or lack thereof in His eyes. He could love and have compassion for the poor in their suffering and the rich in their meaningless pursuit of money. To be like Christ, to be free from the influence of wealth, we cannot simply learn to hate money for in doing so we are simply defined negatively by it. We must become so free that money is simply no longer a concern except when it specifically stands in the way of a person's pursuit of discipleship. The implications of what it means to be a rich Christ-follower are difficult to discern and even more arduous to apply in obedience. We must plunge into these implications and applications, particularly because you and I are "the rich" and are most likely surrounded by communities of "the rich." We must seek to understand what it means to be rich and to be a disciple of Christ, even if in the end it requires us to sell our possessions and give them to the poor. Even in the midst of all this, we cannot allow ourselves to show partiality to the poor anymore than we may be excused for favoring the rich. For, "Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."

Does God favor the rich?

2007-10-07T23:19:00.000-07:00

I met Tony last night in Santa Monica. He was a very interesting man, probably in his late thirties and I talked with him for about an hour and a half. In the midst of our conversation, the topic of wealth and God came up again and again until we finally just addressed it specifically. Tony held that the wealthy are not only blessed but apparently favored by God, that financial provision was a sure sign of a life well-lived. He told me about a couple of pastors he knew and respected, largely due to their luxury cars, fine suits, and palace-like homes. He was particularly impressed with one pastor's house, "in a very nice gated community."
I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Those very traits in a pastor generally turn my stomach. How could he respect these signs of prosperity as clear indications of God's favor and a successful ministry when I see a minister indulging in wealth as a sign that portions of his heart still worship at the altar of Mammon?
If you are like me, you might be disappointed with Tony for his views on God and prosperity, but there is one thing you should know about him before you jump to conclusions: Tony is a homeless man.
The total mass of Tony's earthly possessions can be carried in a backpack and a gunny-sack. Whereas I am a middle-class university student with a general disdain for the pursuit of wealth (ignoring my own consumption, of course), Tony the man without a home sees the wealthy as blessed and favored by God. While I cannot deny that material provision is indeed a blessing from God, I cannot justify tying it to God's special favor.
I talked with Tony about the story of Job whom God loved so deeply and yet was so severely afflicted. We talked about Jesus who spent time with both the rich and the poor. We discussed the God-in-flesh Who had no place to call home.
At the end, I think both of our perspectives had changed a bit, but I am not yet sure what to make of it.

Theology: is there a point?

2007-10-01T23:51:00.000-07:00

I assume that it is fairly obvious to anyone who might read my blog that I am a theology major. I love theology and I study it. Recently, though, I have been reflecting on what being a theologian entails.
My two passions are to pastor and to one day train pastors, which has an impact on my view of theology. In my view, theology is at its best when it ascertains truths about Who God is and what His interaction with humanity is like, and when it is able to communicate these truths to all believers and help them to apply these truths within their own lives.
This view on theology drives me to generally have little use for innovative theology. It seems as if the truths of God have been revealed through Jesus Christ and Scripture, and that the task of theology is to discern these truths that are already present and to unpack their implications and meaning. In order to do this, we study Scripture well while begging God for the guidance of His Holy Spirit and we also look to Christians who have gone before us for wisdom in how exactly to unpack these truths.
Because I believe that God has maintained His Church on the earth since the time of Pentecost, I have got to believe that good theology has existed on the planet for about 1,970 years. I must assume that I can find good theology in the writings of such historical figures as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. The truth about God and His interaction with mankind has not changed since the inception of the Church, and so I expect the truth to be found in all ages of the Church. Real, radical innovation seems as if it must be a departure from the truth because it is a departure from that which the Church has maintained throughout her history.
Fortunately, what often seems to be radical new theology is often simply a re-appropriation of some of the most ancient and valued theology in the Church. This is not always the case, though, and theology is sometimes pursued for the sake of the truly new. God is infinitely multi-faceted and there will never be an end to our ability to learn more about Him and to know Him better and more intimately, but new insights into His character that contradict the ancient orthodox and Scriptural insights into His character cannot be true if the old beliefs were also true.
Of course, when we read ancient theologians we are reading words that were at one point the most cutting-edge theological works around. Still, it appears that when these seminal works are written, they are not written out of a desire to pursue new things but instead out of the desire to learn and appropriate ancient truths about God.
With all of this in mind, my vision for a great theologian is the theologian who (1) knows God intimately and also knows true things about Him, (2) is familiar and well-marinated in Scripture and the interpretations of Scripture seen through the history of the Church, and (3) is capable of delivering these truths to all believers and helping to apply them to the context of real life. In doing this, a theologian may develop something somewhat new (such as a new allegory or analogy to explain a bit of theology) or incorporate old truths in a new way (such as bringing greater clarity to the different Scriptural views on how exactly Christ conquered sin on the cross), but the pursuit is not for invention and innovation but truth and more importantly the Truth.
As I give this more thought, I will undoubtedly uncover myriad reasons for the pursuit of new avenues in theology and I have not given other approaches to theology a fair hearing. For the present, though, I will make this admonition of failure and leave it at that.

Thanks, I guess

2007-09-26T08:32:00.000-07:00

I do not have much time this week to write for pleasure, but there is one thing worth taking a moment to discuss. In the midst of a stressful few days of studying and finishing big assignments, God has taught me a little something about thankfulness. My roommates and I are all jam-packed at the moment, which means the apartment is falling into disrepair. Looking at the overflowing pile of dishes in the sink, my thoughts somehow drifted from annoyance to a sort of thankfulness that we apparently had enough to eat and enough support to have too many dishes.
Walking to class yesterday, it dawned on me that I was thankful for class. Class now serves as a respite from homework.
In the midst of my homework it occurred to me that I am being given the chance to attain an better education than 99% of humans have ever enjoyed. Not only that, but my studies are all in subjects that I want to learn.
Let's not say that I am "too blessed to be stressed." I am indeed blessed, but still fallen enough to be stressed. It does cast a different tint on the world, though, to see things through eyes of thanksgiving.

Social Distortion

2007-09-24T23:48:00.001-07:00

Do you have a MySpace or a Facebook? I do. One of each, to be honest. The fact of the matter is that you probably do as well, which means that you should read this article (which I was directed to by this blog). In it, Christine Rosen takes a fairly in depth look at the consequences that these sites have on the people who participate in them.
The article does not just speak of the dangers associated with the sites, but reading about the dangers gave me cause to pause. In my freshman year of college, especially, a large part of my life was dominated by Facebook. "Did that person I met in class friend me yet?" "Do I have any new wall posts?" "I need to look up that person I just met, to see what kind of books they like."
Fortunately, I am no longer there, but I do still check my Facebook daily and my MySpace (is "my MySpace" redundant?) whenever I get an e-mail telling me that I have a new message or comment. I could develop an argument for the benefits of these sites, but I am not sure I would believe it. For instance, I appreciate that they help me to keep in touch with others, but if my "keeping in touch" with those people is only through Facebook or MySpace is it really worth it? Were humans meant to have those kinds of relationships with one another?
As the article insightfully points out the sites, "encourage users to check in frequently, “poke” friends, and post comments on others’ pages. They favor interaction of greater quantity but less quality."
Greater quantity but less quality. Exactly. It is nice, when your birthday rolls around, to get 30 or so "Happy Birthdays," but they do not mean that much. Both Facebook and MySpace notify your friends when you have a birthday coming up. This results in more well-wishes but you cannot know whether or not any of your friends would have actually remembered had it not been for electronic updates.
I really just hope to raise these questions, not to necessarily answer them. I have no radical plans of cancelling my accounts on these sites. I really do value the benefits enough that I am not at a point where it seems advantageous to leave the networks. Still, I will have to work through these next few weeks whether or not I am distorting my view of human interaction by participating in these "communities." Perhaps you should, as well.
At the very least, we should refuse to neglect in any way pursuing communion with the Triune God and with our brothers and sisters. Let's focus more on our friends and less on our "Friends."

The Sacred and the Secular

2007-09-17T23:35:00.000-07:00

I am currently taking a church history seminar focusing on the history of the Church in the United States. We are looking at the Puritans at the moment, and they are a thoroughly interesting people. They are generally nothing like the stereotypical image we receive through history classes and reading "The Scarlet Letter" or "The Crucible." I find myself admiring these people and being astonished at the impact that their practices and beliefs have had on the contemporary church in America. One of these influences stems from their view on the sacred and the secular. Unlike the Roman Catholic church on the European continent which tended to highlight somethings such as the sacraments and the altar as sacred, the Puritans held a view in which all things were sacred. They expected to meet God in their milk-barns just as they met him in their church buildings. They saw the opportunity for household chores to be acts of worship. God created all things, and so all things were sacred.
Reading this brief bit of Puritan history sparked my interest because I have grown into my faith in a way that has seen all things as sacred, undoubtedly an influence being exerted on me by some of America's earliest colonists. By and large I truly appreciate this view because it places so many things in the proper context. It assures me that when I especially feel God's presence while camping I am truly being pointed to the Creator by sacred creation. It reminds me that in the midst of my mundane tasks and responsibilities, I can choose to do them in such a way that they will be transformed into the worship of almighty God. It helps me to look at the Church and see the priesthood of all believers. It provides the framework within which every moment can be a holy moment, consecrated by the God of the universe.
To say that this view is wholly positive, however, seems to miss some of its propensities toward error. For instance, I am tempted to look at Easter Sunday and ask why it is so important to celebrate the Lord's resurrection that day. After all, that day is no more holy than any other day and I should be celebrating the resurrection of Christ every day. Unfortunately, this is unrealistic and gives me more credit than I am due. Perhaps some people could live up to this ideal, but I find it extremely difficult to truly celebrate the resurrection every day. There are some days, sadly, where the thought of that history-changing event never enters my mind. I am not capable of living as if every day is Easter. For this reason, I will try to return to a full-blown celebration of the resurrection on Easter Sunday. I am not giving up on celebrating my God's victory over death every day, but I do not want to be robbed of the one day in particular in which I should give my thoughts and energy to that event.
Similarly, my view of the Lord's Supper is not that of the good Catholic*. Although I also do not hold the bread and wine to be strictly symbolic and commemorative, my innate tendency is generally to view them as only representational. In that sense I might truly say that I hold the bread and wine of communion to be no more sacred than any other food. Unfortunately, in my commitment to the sacredness of all food I have given up the special sacredness of the elements of the Lord's Supper. In this way I easily convert it into a simple ritual and remove its transformative qualities.
This last example stems from the Christian culture that I am immersed in. In my circles it is no longer allowed to refer to the musical part of the church service as "worship." If you do so, it will quickly be pointed out that "everything is worship" and that we are denying our constant high calling to continuous worship by referring to that one time a week as worship. There is undoubtedly truth to this and I appreciate the sentiments represented by such gentle chastisements, but I think that they fail to live up to their spirit. Surely everything I do should be an act of worship, but this is simply not true of my life. Even at my best, when I am doing my homework as an act of worship, it is worship of a different quality. No doubt it is still an important and valuable form of worship, but my studies are done for various reasons. In singing at church, I really approach one of the few times in the week in which I am solely dedicating myself to the worship and contemplation of God. If I do the dishes for God, great, but whether or not I do them for God it is necessary that they be done. If my worship in church is not done for God then nothing of any value has been produced. I see no problem with referring to this act as "worship" as it is likely the most dedicated worship I offer to my Lord all week.
I do not reject the Puritan ideal of all things being sacred. I do not know how I could dispute that point. It does seem that a danger lies in not recognizing some things as more sacred, though, or perhaps the danger lies solely in the actual results often produced by such a view. Generally, when we point out that all things are sacred, we do not do so in a positive manner. We do not point out on Tuesday, "Today is a sacred day, let us dedicate ourselves to the Lord." Instead on Sunday we say, "Today is no more sacred than any other day; do not superstitiously treat it differently."
In Disney's "The Incredibles" Helen Parr tells her son Dash that everyone is special, to which he replies, "Which is another way of saying no one is." In the same way, it seems that in recognizing all things as sacred, we risk producing a worldview in which nothing is.

*For those not familiar with the theological positions on communion, Catholics believe in what is known as "transubstantiation." This position holds that when the bread and wine (known as "the host" or "the elements") are consecrated in Mass they actually become the real body and blood of Christ, although they still appear to be bread and wine to the senses. Protestant views tend to be "consubstantiation," "spiritual presence," and "symbolic." Consubstantiation holds that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but are infused with the presence of God just as a piece of metal in a fire remains a piece of metal but is infused with the heat and the light of the fire. Spiritual presence is similar and holds that in some way God is active in the act of taking communion. The symbolic view holds that the bread and wine are strictly memory aids that remind us of what Christ did for us on the cross.

September 13

2007-09-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

Today is a great day in the calendar of the Church as well as in my personal calendar. Most personally, today we celebrate my sister's birthday, just as we celebrated my sister-in-law's birthday. They are both outstanding, and are hands-down two of my favorite women in the entire world. They are both well-worth celebrating, and you would be wise to join in.
If you do not think that you will be able to join that celebration, however, then join me in celebrating the feast day of one of my four favorite saints: St. John Chrysostom. St. John was one of those few characters in the history of the church who brought no scandal on himself or on the church. He undoubtedly continued to sin throughout his life as we all do, but he was an excellent example of a servant of God. Being an amazingly gifted speaker, he earned the nickname Chrysostom which means "golden-mouthed." He had studied for law but decided to instead use his gift for the building up of the church. He was made Patriarch of Constantinople against his will, gained fame throughout Christendom for his gift and yet remained humbly devoted to the glory of God. He was twice banished from Constantinople, the first time on trumped-up and untrue charges of treason. After much protest by the people who loved him, he was restored to his post. He would later be exiled permanently for a sermon in which he commented on the excesses of a statue of the Empress, which had been greatly distorted and inflated by the time it reached her ears. While exiled, St. John kept up correspondence through letters with his church, continuing to love and care for it. He would finally be martyred by being forcibly marched through the mountains until he died of exhaustion. He is today remembered as one of the four great Doctors of the Church.
St. John Chrysostom is well worth looking to as a model for Christian discipleship and I encourage you to celebrate his feast day today. Let us give thanks to God for providing the Church with such a gifted and humble servant. You should also check out this site, which provides a more comprehensive story of his life and access to some of his outstanding sermons.

What am I "Ghana" do?

2007-09-10T23:34:00.000-07:00

I posted a while back in my pre-emptive blog that I would soon be posting on a "God possibly telling me something about Ghana." You could consider this the fulfillment of that promise. The story is best told long, so you are forewarned.

If you have ever checked out my brother's blog, you are probably aware that he has really felt a calling on his life in the area of medical missions. The short version of his story is that he is currently working as a paramedic, would like to start doing short-term medical missions, and I believe keeps the thought of full-time medical missions in the back of his head for the future. Africa is especially on his heart and particularly the region of Ghana and Togo in Western Africa. He has been talking about this with me since the beginning and gave me at least one book by missionaries in Ghana, which I devoured in about a day. It was all really fascinating; I was and still am terribly excited for what God is doing and plans to do in the life of my brother and his family.

Now for a bit of background on myself. In my freshman year of high school, I recognized a call to vocational ministry on my life, at the same time as 4 of my best friends. As time went by, I began to discern that my two primary spiritual gifts are teaching and preaching and that my heart beats for the church. With this in mind, and many other things as well, I began dreaming about being involved in pastoral ministry here in the United States. My hope was to plant a church, pastor that church for life, plant other churches out of that church's growth, and one day when I had acquired enough wisdom to raise up, train and disciple future pastors in that church. I say this as if this just was my dream, which is not entirely true. It really was, but in some ways it still is.

Before we continue with the story, there is one more factor that should be included. Around the time of my call to ministry, I offered myself fully to God. My prayer specifically stated that no matter where He called me, I would go. I offered to go overseas if that was what He had for me. At the time, I felt that He was pleased with that offer, but felt no prompting toward overseas work. This prayer would be repeated several times in the years since then and never would I feel as if I was in fact called to leave the United States.

Fast-forward now to May of this year. After reading the book on Ghana loaned to me by my brother, I started day-dreaming about one day serving in Africa, and particularly the area of Ghana and Togo. I did not expect anything to ever come of that dream, but couldn't stop thinking about it.

Two or three other factors come into play here. The first is that I have been reading Philip Jenkin's "The Next Christendom," which projects where the Church will be statistically in about 50 years if things continue as they currently are (a gutsy proposition no doubt, considering the Holy Spirit is intricately involved in the life of the Church). The projection of this book, however, states that 50 years from now, there will no longer be a global center of the church in North America. There will instead be three centers of the Church in Africa, South America and South-East Asia, with Africa serving as the primary center. There will still be a strong and thriving church in North America, but Africa in particular will be the most influential sector of the global Church, producing literature, theology and missionaries.

Although there are still unreached groups of people within Africa, the continent is presently in a different situation with regard to the Gospel than it once was. Africa (especially sub-Saharan Africa) is full of passionate, believing Christians. Two things are in shorter supply on the continent, though: finances and theological education. Some churches (by no means the majority however) are repeating old heresies, simply because their leaders have not had the opportunity for theological education.

As I was thinking about this and day-dreaming about serving in Africa, it dawned on me that my gifts and passions could coincide perfectly with the need in that continent. Thinking about one of my professors who regularly travels to Sudan for the summer to teach seminary classes, it occurred to me that I could serve as a full-time seminary professor in Africa. I could have the chance to teach, train and equip the upcoming leaders of the African Church. I could spend time with them, investing in their lives, and discipling them. My favorite topic within theology, Church History or Historical Theology, would be incredibly useful for educating the up-and-coming pastors about the precedents set by the Church, the examples of those who have gone before us, and the development of orthodox theology. I could be used to help shape the future leaders of the global Church for God's purposes. I really have none of the qualifications for such a task, but if God has called me He will qualify me. He used a stuttering Moses to lead His people to freedom; He used the runt of the litter, David, to serve as the best king Israel ever saw; He used the child Jeremiah to speak His mind to an adulterous nation; He used fishermen and tax-collecting traitors to establish His kingdom on the earth. As my pastor says, "God does not call the equipped but equips the called."

Still, at that point, it was still just something my thoughts continually turned to. I did not really expect anything to come of it. That began to change in August.

My church at home is non-denominational, but belongs to a community of churches (called Grace Covenant) across the country who have come together for fellowship, accountability, mutual support, and the support of new church plants and missions. Grace Covenant holds a few meetings a year, one of which takes place at my home church in Oakdale. I always look forward to the conference and was excited for this year's, especially as I somehow expected to hear something about this African dream.

The first night of the conference the founder of Grace Covenant, a man named Dallas, began the service by introducing another man to all of us. There were several faces from out of town, pastors from other Grace Covenant churches whom I recognized, but thankfully he was introducing the one man I did not know. Dallas explained that this man, Frank, had no actual connection to Grace Covenant whatsoever. He was in the United States for an extended trip, visiting a few churches across the country, and somehow stumbled upon the Grace Covenant website. Frank had gotten in touch with Dallas for some reason he did not really know and was invited to come to the conference if he wanted to. Frank, in Portland, Oregon at the time delayed his trip to Florida by a few days and headed down to Oakdale for the conference.

Dallas explained that Frank is actually Pastor Frank (really though, Bishop Frank). Frank hails from Kumasi, the second largest city of Ghana. He oversees more than twenty churches, two schools for more than 600 children and a vocational training school for teenage girls.

All of this was fascinating, I thought, but the next thing Dallas said would rock me. "Frank has a heart to start a training school pastors in Ghana, as well."

I actually had the nerve to think to myself, "Maybe this is why he is here."

I waited impatiently for the next two hours for the service to end so that I could get a chance to talk with Pastor Frank. When I finally introduced myself to him, I sat down and explained what had been on my heart, to which his first reply was, "Maybe this is why I am here."

He went on to tell me that this is currently the most pressing desire for him, that he hopes to start this training school and through it plant churches all over Ghana, but also throughout the continent of Africa. He explained that he hopes people might come internationally to teach there, as well. I couldn't believe it.

I told him about my brother's heart for Ghana as well and his desire to begin doing short-term medical missions. My brother was the one who got me thinking about Ghana. Frank told me that he had just met people at a church in New York who were planning on bringing out a medical mission sometime in the next year. He invited my brother and I to come out sometime in the upcoming year; my brother could work alongside the other medical missionaries and I could spend the time with Frank, seeing what he does and learning about his vision. From what I know so far, he sounds like exactly the kind of man I would like to learn from.

This brings me close to the present. I do not know if God is calling me to full-time service teaching and training pastors in Ghana, but I hope He is. If you know me, you likely know that I have at other times thought that I might be led to Alaska, Texas and Utah. Thus, I am now a little (but just a little) gun-shy about claiming to be called to a specific place. Things might change and if God leads me in a completely different direction I will gladly follow. Still, this is what is happening, and I think that God may finally be cashing in on my offer to go anywhere for Him. And I really hope that He is.

Them

2007-09-10T23:18:00.000-07:00

Do you know any people that just seem to make you feel a bit more alive? I am not talking about family members or even close friends; they are the people who keep you alive. They are of the utmost importance in life, but I am not talking about them because their very familiarity rules them out from being in this special class of people. Friends and family members probably would have been or once were these people for you, but they cannot be any longer because simply becoming accustomed to them is enough to dull you to the full effect of their presence. Trust me, the fault is not theirs but your own. We take things for granted, and we pay the price for it.
No, the people I am talking about are most likely people whom you know and see every six months or once a year. Perhaps you have only spent time with them once. But if you have any of these people, you know it.
These are the people that make you feel comfortable in your own skin. When you leave them, you thank God for convening your paths. You walk away with a bit more hope for the world, a bit more faith in the fact that the Holy Spirit really is at work. You are glad that they are going to be raising children. You hope that you can be this sort of person too, so that others can benefit from your simple presence.
I have quite a few of these people, and undoubtedly more waiting in the future. I have worked with them at camp, I have sat in their classes, I have visited them in their homes, I have met them in my church. Sometimes I will even recognize those who are most familiar to me as carrying this spark. Once or twice my eyes have been opened to see it in a stranger.
I love these people. I want to be one of these people.

"Sharks Moving to New Jersey" or Newsletters Sent Before Consideration

2007-09-10T17:03:00.000-07:00

Please forgive me, but this blog will have nothing to do with theology or the faith. I just received this e-mail (on the right) from the San Jose Sharks fan newsletter. Read what you can of it first, then continue reading my writing.

Really, read the e-mail first.

Really.

Ok, I assume that you have read it, otherwise you are really spoiling this for yourself. You will no doubt have noticed that the SHARKS are MOVING TO NEW JERSEY! When I read that, my heart skipped a beat, my stomach turned over, my palms grew sweaty. MY Sharks are leaving San Jose for New Jersey? This cannot be! I quickly read the rest of the message and came to discover that the Sharks are not in fact leaving the West for the East Coast, but are simply going to begin wearing their new jersey with the updated logo. Exciting, but not frightening. I cannot help but think that the poor phrasing of this e-mail scared many a fan.

Good Books = Good Times

2007-09-04T20:40:00.000-07:00

Classes begin tomorrow and I picked up my books for the semester. I am really excited about them, so I thought I would share what I will be reading for the next four months. Feel free to read along!

"Philosophical Fragments and Johannes Climacus" by Soren Kierkegaard
"On Job: God-talk and the Suffering of the Innocent" by Gustavo Gutierrez
"The Humanity of God" by Karl Barth
"The Churching of America" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark
"After Christendom" by Stanley Hauerwas
"The Gray Wolf" by George MacDonald
"Jesus Christ for Today's World" by Jurgen Moltmann
"The Civil War as a Theological Crisis" by Mark Noll
"A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada" by Mark Noll
"Studies in the Sermon on the Mount" by Oswald Chambers
and
"Windows into Old Testament History" edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wentham.

Moved In and Coming Home

2007-09-01T13:13:00.000-07:00

Well, I am all moved in back at school. The moving-in process is responsible in the delay since my last post, but really, the last post was long enough to make up for a couple of weeks.
A mildly interesting thought on moving in:
When I return to my hometown and house over Christmas and for the summer, I have a definite sense of coming home. As I come down the Grapevine heading north and see the large expanses of land without buildings cluttering the horizon, I know that I am headed home. As I continue north and pass through miles and miles of agriculture, recognizing the crops from the smell and the sight, seeing tractors dotting the fields, I feel as if I am almost there. When I finally pull into my driveway, open the front door, smell the smell of my own house (which I can only smell after being gone for a good period), hear my dog's jingling collar as he jumps up to my chest, and hug my parents, I know that I am home and it is good.
Oddly enough, in a different way I now feel as if I am coming home when I return to Azusa. How is it possible for two places to both feel like home? How is it possible to feel the pain of leaving one home only to experience the joy of returning to my other home a few hours later?
I have these experiences about four times a year: moving into my Azusa quarters in the Fall, coming home to Oakdale for Christmas, returning to Azusa after the Christmas break, and returning to Oakdale for the summer. Four times a year my thoughts are especially given to Heaven. As I make these homecomings, I reflect on the fact that when the time comes for this life to end, that it will be no mere euphemism to say that I "have been called home." Although the New Heavens and the New Earth in the total presence of God, His angels, and His people will in some ways be an alien thing, I believe that it will also be the fullest experience of coming home. I will feel as if I have finally made it back to a place that I have never been before. I will reach the very place that I was created for.
The writer of Hebrews lays out this principle in regards to God's faithful disciples,

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on the earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."
-Hebrews 11:13-16.

How great is that promise made by the Lord Himself,

"In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."

Ye Olde Sin Nature

2007-08-23T10:11:00.000-07:00

St. Paul's epistle to the Romans has always been one of my favorite books of the Bible, for both its incredible insight and its ability to deal with the tension between the new spiritual nature and the old sin nature within every Christian this side of Heaven. Paul pulls no punches but deals with the matter head-on, confessing that this struggle also takes place in his own life. His words are sometimes almost paradoxical.

"If we have been united with [Christ] like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--because anyone who has died has been freed from sin."
-Romans 6:5-7
and
"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness."
-Romans 6:11-13

Paul writes again and again of the Christian's victory over sin, that we have been set free from sin, that the sinful nature has been killed. He also commands us not to submit ourselves to sin as our master, to daily kill our sin nature, and to offer ourselves to God and not to sin.
I have often struggled with the idea of Christians still having a sin nature. When we commit our lives to Jesus the Holy Spirit takes up residence within us and births a new holy nature. We are born again into God's family. We become adopted children of God. We become ambassadors for Christ. We are finally enabled to refuse our sinful nature and to live holy lives. Why, then, must we still have a sinful nature at all, the old flesh*?
It occurred to me a few days ago that there may be a very good reason for still having the sinful nature. While Scripture is clear that I am made new through the work of the Holy Spirit, I often miss that I am made new. God is birthing a new creation within me. My new nature is of course a new creation, but it is also a continuation of me. Paul's discourse on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians provides insight here:

"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
-1 Corinthians 15:42-44
and
'I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." '
-1 Corinthians 15:50-54

Just as our resurrection bodies are described as being the same as our mortal bodies, but different, we too are the same people, but different. Although I am a sinful man, I am still God's good creation. God did right in creating me, but I have been severely marred by sin. It is clear in Scripture that God could have simply destroyed His fallen creation and made a new one, but instead He is graciously redeeming and recreating that which has fallen so that it will be better than it was to begin with. Thus, God does not desire to simply destroy us but to birth His life within us. Our old selves must die, but only so we can truly live.
All of this has been the build up to why we might still have our old natures. God is in the process of conforming us to the image of His Son, sanctifying us and bringing us into submission to His will. He wants each of us, individually, to be all His. He does not simply want to destroy His older, good but marred creation, but to make that creation new. We still have our old nature because that too needs to be transformed into the new nature if we are to be completely transformed. It is as if God painted a perfect picture, which has now been marred almost to the point of being beyond recognition. God could have simply thrown it away and painted a new one, but instead He is restoring it better than ever on the same canvas.
Our old self must be put to death, but like a seed being planted, it does not die for the sake of dying, but so that it might be born anew.
Why do I still have a sin nature? Perhaps because it has not yet been returned to God, but must be returned to God.

*Remembering that we as Christians do not think of spirit as good and material things as evil, the "flesh" refers not to our bodies but to our sinful nature. Spirit can be bad (i.e. demons) and physical things can be very good (i.e. Genesis 1:31).

Pre-emptive Blog

2007-08-23T00:30:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it is proper to write a blog preview about possible upcoming blogs, but in this blog we push the envelope and take things to the limit by doing so. Watch out: I'm a loose-cannon blogger who doesn't play by the rules.
I need to go to bed, but I also want to post a blog, but I also do not currently have the mental capacity to compose a blog worth reading, so here is a taste of what may be coming soon.
!!! Thoughts on why Christians still have a sin nature !!!
God potentially telling me something about Ghana?!?!
~Whether or not there is such a thing as "The American Church."~
---What theological justification I have for disbelieving in rational alien life forms---
And more...

(The term "blog" is used nine times in this blog, if you count the three instances of "blog" in this final sentence).

On a Church Sign

2007-08-18T13:28:00.000-07:00

I just found a site (with the help of AOL) that allows you to generate your own church sign. They have five different sign designs to choose from and the lettering is up to you. Please, though, only use this power for good.

Prisoner of the Law

2007-08-15T10:34:00.000-07:00

Galatians 3:21-25 reads (with the emphasis belonging to myself for this post):

"Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

There seems to always be a struggle in reconciling the relationship between the law and grace through faith. The questions arises again and again, "If the law could not save anyone, what good was it?" Of course, at some points Paul points out that the law helps us to understand just how sinful we are, and leads us to the need of a Savior, but at the same time makes our sins more sinful by removing our potential plea of ignorance.
The above passage, though, seems to give one more little glimpse into the role of the law. It jumped out at me a couple of days ago when I realized that it actually says we were held prisoners by the law, locked up by the law until faith was revealed. Of course the Bible says again and again that we were prisoners of sin, which is clearly a bad thing, but I had never noticed that we were once prisoners of the law. The law is always considered to be a good thing in Scripture. What does this mean to say that we were prisoners of the law?
It occurred to me (which I believe was inspiration from the Holy Spirit) that being in prison is not necessarily a horrible thing. It is clearly not the best thing, but it is also not the worst. Consider the modern penal system:
We place criminals in prison partly to punish them, but also to keep them from committing any more crimes. If we could somehow instantly reform them we would not have the need to keep them imprisoned for so long, although we still might for a while for purely punitive measures. If we have no way to reform them, though, the best option we have is to restrain them so that they might not do their worst again.
We, as humans, were in a similar situation. We were depraved sinners, constantly acting out the wickedness stored up in our hearts. For so long, there was really no means of reform. There was nothing that could change us internally from our criminal and sinful state and so we were given the Law as a means to restrain us from our wickedness. The Law was powerless to reform us, it was helpless in regards to making us into good and righteous people, but it was an effective external restraint that held us back from doing our very worst, or at least made it clear when we crossed the boundary lines.
When Christ came, we were able for the first time to be released from the prison of the Law, because there was now One who could reform us. We no longer were in need of the external restraints because One who could heal us internally had come.

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

The Patriarchs weren't Pansies

2007-08-10T18:31:00.000-07:00

I spent the past two days helping my brother and his family move. I could really end this post right there and you would understand, but I won't.
Moving stinks. Even when it's not really that much stuff. Even when the move is only three miles. Even when you are the one moving and you get to go sleep in a fully-assembled bed at night. Even when the people you are helping are nice the whole time and don't yell at you for doing things the wrong way. Moving stinks.
The whole moving thing got me thinking, though. I was only helping other people move a relatively small amount of stuff three miles for two days with the assistance of trucks, dollies and hand-trucks, and it was not terribly fun.
The fathers of the faith had it much harder. Take Abraham for instance. As a 75 year-old man, he recognized the call of God on his life, packed up his wife and servants and set out to travel hundreds of mile by foot. Being a wealthy man, he also had herds of livestock to keep moving along with his possessions. God promised him a land, but he passed away without really having a home. Abraham moved perpetually in order to gain a homeland for his descendants, and basically died while on the move. All that in order to follow God.
Moses, Joshua and the rest of the Israelites were kept in a perpetual state of moving as well, for 40 years. Of course, it was a punishment for idolatry, but what a punishment! They bore the punishment though, for the sake of their children inheriting the Promised Land.
The Apostle Paul, once he took up his missionary call, was constantly moving from place to place. I doubt that he had many possessions, and he did manage to stay in Ephesus for three years, but beyond that he had no home and was constantly moving so that others might inherit the Kingdom of God.
When we read the stories of these patriarchs, we do so in the matter of a few minutes and we completely miss the struggle and toil they put forth year after year. They struggled and waited and suffered for the sake of following God. I'd like to say I could do that, but compared to those guys I am a pansy.

Abuse and the Sin Cycle

2007-08-04T12:31:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have met several men who have unintentionally set me on a course of learning what appears to be an invaluable, and yet remarkably painful, lesson. Getting to know these guys, I learned that several of them had common experiences growing up in abusive homes. Coming from a healthy and loving family background, it was surprising to have faces applied to the statistics of abuse that we have all heard about. I would never have guessed that something like child abuse could be so prevalent, or that these guys had that in their background, no matter how removed from those situations they now are. They all now carry within themselves a sort of hatred and bitterness toward their fathers and stepfathers, to the extent that they have not seen them in years and feel as if they would attack their former attackers if they ever did encounter them again. Whether or not they would act on this wrath I do not know, but the fact that they carry such anger around is meaningful in itself. Some of these guys have already emotionally hurt people around them, no doubt in some part related to their own experiences of being hurt. It seems fair to guess, both from anecdotal and statistical knowledge, that the men who originally abused these men were at one point abused themselves. The majority of people who were abused as children do not go on to abuse others themselves, but it is estimated that 80% of those who do abuse their children were themselves the victims of abuse. A person who suffered abuse is more likely to abuse others than a person who was not, and any person who abuses others was likely abused themselves.
This does not mean, of course, that we can simply write off a person's culpability for abusing others simply because they once suffered the same treatment. As humans, we are given free will and are responsible for our actions.
None of this is really the point that I am hoping to make, though, or the lesson that I am learning. What I am learning is that severe ramifications follow our actions. So many of us (myself included) are incredibly individualistic. No matter what we say, we see the world revolving around ourselves and are motivated by selfish ambition. We behave foolishly and sinfully and claim that at most it hurts no one but ourselves. We fool ourselves into thinking that we live in self-contained little bubbles, so that our actions never affect anyone but ourselves. Either that, or we simply do not care how our actions might affect others. The truth is that our every action, including private and secret actions, actions done within the privacy of our own homes and our own families, have consequences for the whole world that we cannot predict.
When my friend's mother first started experimenting with drugs in high school, she was only hurting herself, or so she thought. Now, years down the line, as a result of her addiction her son has to be raised by extended family members who cannot allow her to come by the house because when she does she steals from them in order to buy her next high. His father, too, made the selfish decision to fornicate at one point, which was just between him and my friend's mother. It was just between them except that she conceived and gave birth to my friend who now struggles to find any value in himself because he was raised without the father who abandoned the mother of his child.
In the end of Stephen Chbosky's The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Charlie struggles with the revelation that he had been abused by his Aunt Helen as a young child. His words speak well to these situations:
"It's like if I blamed my Aunt Helen, I would have to blame her dad for hitting her and the friend of the family that fooled around with her when she was little. And the person that fooled around with him... And I did do that for a while, but then I just couldn't anymore. Because it wasn't going anywhere. Because it wasn't the point." (p. 211).
It is a biblical truth that sons are not to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers and that fathers are not to be held responsible for the sins of their sons. At the same time, it is also clear that the sins of the fathers are likely to reappear as the sins of their sons. I do not know why sins tend to passed on. Whether something is transmitted from soul to soul, whether there is some genetic predisposition, whether the enemy tends to tempt father and son in the same way, whether the sins are a learned behavior, or whether parts of all of these are true, it does not matter. It is simply true that the same sins tend to be repeated generation after generation.
What does that mean for you and me? Among other things, it means that our every action has serious consequences. Our little indulgences, our secret sins, our vices that we think impact only ourselves and those closest to us have the potential to cause enormous harm. Little does a young man beginning to enjoy drunkenness realize that he may be on the path to one day having four generations of alcoholics following in his footsteps.
Galatians 6:7-8 says,
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."
Our thoughts, words and deeds are always sowing some sort of seed. We cannot remain neutral. We are either sowing sin or righteousness, one which will one day reap a harvest of destruction and one which will reap eternal life. Our current deeds will return later on in the midst of our careers, marriages, families and relationships.
Up until this point, this (very long) post has focused mainly on the negative, but there is hope. We might ask, "How can we escape this cycle of sin, abuse, pain and death?" Or, we might echo the question of St. Paul, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
Thankfully, he answers that question in the next line: "Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
When we come to Christ and put our lives in His hands; when we accept both His salvation and His lordship in our lives; when we recognize that we have no righteousness of our own and accept His as He offers it; when we hand Him the broken pieces of our lives and ask Him to make them into something beautiful; when we ask Him to take the seeds of destruction that we have sown and to somehow transform them into a harvest of life; when we ask that His righteousness be planted within us in such a way that we will become truly righteous, it is then that we can be set free from this cycle of sin.
Titus 2:11-14 says,
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."
The grace of God brings us salvation and teaches us to live godly lives!
Exodus 20:4-6 tells us that while the sins of the fathers may be passed on to the third and fourth generation, God shows His love to a thousand generations of descendants of those who love Him and keep His commandments. We have the severe potential to bring great harm to the world, but by placing our lives in the hands of the Son of God we have the glorious potential to do immense good for the whole world.
Joel 2:25-26 gives this promise to those who repent of their sins and turn to God:
"I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm—my great army that I sent among you. You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed."
Up until this point, we may have been sowing sin for a harvest of destruction. Up until now, the years of our lives, so full of potential, may have been devoured by the locusts of sin and folly. But God is far greater than our sins and has dealt with them on the cross. He can, and will, restore those years to us, producing a harvest of life far greater than what has been destroyed.
Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Running away from God

2007-07-12T13:45:00.000-07:00

As I was driving back from junior camp this past Saturday, I confided in my friend Dustin a (perhaps) startling truth that I have not experienced God's presence in musical worship more than once or twice in the past couple of years. Earlier in my life it was uncommon for me to sing along with my church without being ushered in to meet God, but things have reversed themselves. I still meet God in Bible study and prayer, but even there not quite as much as I once did. Dustin seemed fairly nonplussed about this admission, but actually saying it took me by surprise.
Two days later, I was reading through Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" which is simply rich in truth through and through. If you are familiar with the book, you know that one of Bonhoeffer's primary arguments is that the Church has in many ways watered down the Gospel to cheap grace. This argument is powerful, but one particular section of chapter two The Call to Discipleship was gripping me. It reads as follows:

"Are you worried because you find it so hard to believe? No one should be surprised at the difficulty of faith, if there is some part of his life where he is consciously resisting or disobeying the commandment of Jesus. Is there some part of your life which you are refusing to surrender at His behest, some sinful passion, maybe, or some animosity, some hope, perhaps your ambition or your reason? If so, you must not be surprised that you have not received the Holy Spirit, that prayer is difficult, or that your request for faith remains unanswered. Go rather and be reconciled with your brother, renounce the sin which holds you fast-- and then you will recover your faith! If you dismiss the word of God's command, you will not receive His word of grace. How can you hope to enter into communion with Him when at some point in your life you are running away from Him? The man who disobeys cannot believe, for only he who obeys can believe."

As I read that, it was as if Dietrich was speaking directly to me, or perhaps more accurately the Holy Spirit was speaking to me through the words of one of His servants. I knew that this passage was right about me, and I knew exactly at that moment what area of my life has been in rebellion against His good, pleasing and perfect will. I was cut to the core, and right then and there I offered it up to God. Through His grace I have been winning the battle since then in handing this area of my life over into His hands. It has only been a few days, but already I am beginning to feel as if I am enjoying communion with Him once again.
Due to His faithfulness, I had not lost my faith, or doubted Him or lost the actual presence of His Spirit. I had, however, lost my sense of an intimate relationship with Him which is even now being restored.
If you have been suffering in any of these ways; if you have missed God's presence; if you have lost your faith; if you are unable to pray or read His word; if you simply have a hard time believing, let me encourage you to listen to Bonhoeffer's words. If we are deliberately disobeying God, resisting His explicit will, kicking against His commandments, how can we expect to be able to hear His more specific will for our own lives? If we ignore the instructions which He has already written down for us, do you we really think we will have ears to hear His still, small voice? Turn yourself in to Him, relinquish the claims to your own life, forsake your desire to rule your own fate. Cast yourself upon His mercy, because He cares for you.

Milk-bones and Divine Providence

2007-06-26T22:46:00.001-07:00

A few minutes ago my dog, Bravo, brought my mom a 3x5 notecard he found somewhere in the house. She thought it was cute and gave him a Milk-bone in response. A minute or so later he brought me the same notecard. I gave him a Milk-bone too but told him, "I'm not giving you this bone because of the notecard, I'm giving it to you because I love you." It was a cute gesture, but I honestly had no use or desire for a slightly soggy index card. He didn't really seem to understand.
You might be laughing that I tried to explain this concept to my dog, and the truth is I knew he wouldn't get it. It just felt like it should be said because it was true. As I said it, though, I realized that it was symbolic of a much larger truth.
God is always giving us such good gifts: family, friends, the Church, pets, homes, clothing, food, education, sunrises and sunsets, cold mornings and sunny afternoons, good books, 24 hour taco shops, running water, baseball on broadcast television.
Some of these may seem trite or insignificant, but every good thing is a gift from God. And yet, so often we find ourselves trying to do little good things here or there, or trying to sacrifice something so that we might earn God's favor and blessings. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, no matter how hard we strive, there is nothing that we can offer to God that did not already belong to Him. There is no good thing that we can claim to have made with our own hands that He did not actually design. He provides for us, and protects us, and blesses us, and cares for us, and even walks with us through the hardest moments of life not because we brought Him something of great utility or of profound beauty but because He simply loves us. He just plain loves us. He just plain loves you. He loves you.
As for my dog; he won't stop bringing me papers.

The Trinity

2007-06-19T15:47:00.000-07:00

I am a little bit nervous. Over the summer I am teaching a mini-theology class on essential doctrines that every Christian should know to a group of high school students at my old youth group. We are going out of Wayne Grudem's Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, which is an aptly titled text for such a class. (As a side-note: should you be interested in studying Christianity's essential doctrines, I highly recommend this book as it is one of the only texts out there that covers these and only these topics). It is not the next that is making me nervous, though. It is the fact that we are talking about the Trinity tonight.
If there is going to be a week in which the students will have a lot of questions, it will be this week with this topic. The Trinity is not an easy subject. I've re-read my textbooks' chapters on the Trinity. I have looked through my Systematic Theology class notes. I read St. Augustine's thoughts on the Trinity in his Enchiridion again. I've even looked at the Bible and prayed about it. The fact of the matter is that I know what I will say in general to lay out the ground rules for the doctrine of the Trinity, but it seems like such an immense task.
I'm just a kid, really, and here I have put myself in a situation where I am responsible to talk to these students about one of the most mysterious aspects of our Eternal, All-powerful God. His Triune nature is really inexplicable, and yet I am going to try and explain it. It is beyond human reason, and I am going to try to help others grasp at it.
One of the most shocking things I discovered in my theology classes this past year was that no one really gets the Trinity and no one really ever has. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we do have the general guidelines for the way in which we discuss the holy Trinity, certain things we can and should say and other figures of speech that must not be allowed. We can mark the boundaries of the Truth on this matter and walk freely within them, but we do not know just where to set up camp. When it comes to the Trinity, as with the Incarnation especially, we must be comfortable with mystery.
Being comfortable with mystery. That leads to the next shocking discovery in my pursuit of theology. After struggling and talking with God about the mystery quite a bit, I came to realize that I could not only be comfortable with the mystery but take comfort from the mystery itself. It is terrifying, no doubt, but also comforting in some ways to be taken aback by God. To catch a glimpse of His true size, His sheer immensity, His infinitely complex and yet perfectly simple nature. It is good to remember that the God that I worship and offer my life to is huge.
The mystery even provides evidence to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. If Christianity had said that there was only one God plain and simple as Islam and Judaism do, that would have made sense. If it had said that there were three gods who had joined forces, that too would make sense. If it had taken the path of any one of the Trinitarian heresies (Arianism, Sabellianism, Modalism, Adoptionism) it would have made more sense. The fact of the matter was that the Church was and has continued to be committed to the authority of Scripture that presents us with the paradox of the One God eternally existing in Three Persons. It is a concept that can be seen out of the corner of your eye, but that disappears as soon as you try to to focus on it. It is like sand which can be held with light pressure but which slips through your fingers if you try to grasp it too firmly. God's Triune nature can be glimpsed with the human mind, but not comprehended. Why would the early Church have ever invented such a doctrine? It makes almost no sense to us, and there is little doubt that it made just as little sense to the saints of the early centuries. Why concoct a doctrine that is so hard to explain, so impossible to fathom?
The answer seems to me to be that the Church did not concoct or invent this doctrine at all, but simply discovered it through faithful devotion to God's own Word. If the Church had settled on any other explanation of the Trinity, it could be argued that it was man's invention, but not with the doctrine that we actually have. The very fact that the Trinity is beyond explanation, but not totally beyond imagination; beyond reason, but not irrational hints at its truth. A slight glimpse of the glory of our God will blind you, but how much better it is to have been blinded by Him then to see any other thing.

MAN-ual Labor

2007-06-15T22:32:00.001-07:00

You wouldn't know it, but I enjoy manual labor. I enjoy it in moderation, that is. I am not sure I would want to make my living at it, but at the same time a part of me thinks that I could love it. Especially outdoor, botanical, horticultural labor. I say this all, because I have spent a couple of days this week working in the yard at my pastor's house. Something feels right about doing it.
Where is the theology behind this? This is just a thought, but my original grandparents, way down the line, were the first humans set on this planet and their job was to garden. The end of the chain of people in the Bible that I know are in my ancestral line (Noah) was the keeper of a vineyard. Apparently agriculture is in our blood. Perhaps it would have been the vocation of every person to garden if the Fall had never occurred. We cannot know. Still, I believe something of the gardener echoes in every human being. Perhaps this is overly esoteric, but give me some credit: I'm a little tired from working outside.

Confessions

2007-06-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

If you have looked over to the right at my "Currently Reading" list, you will have seen that I am currently reading (hence the catchy title) St. Augustine's "Confessions." As long as I am in a punny mood, let me begin by "confessing" that when I first started the book I was really doing so mainly for pride's sake. I was looking forward to being able to tell people that I had read this work and in doing so wow them with my prowess over the ancient classic literature of the Church. It turns out, this version is a modern English translation which makes it a great read and also saps all of the pride out of the reading. Thankfully, despite my impure motives, God had something great in store for me with this book.
Page after page, St. Augustine pours out his heart in a prayer to God confessing his sins, his thoughts, his actions and his motives. In the midst of this he calls out to God for help and thanks God for His miraculous and often hidden mercy (at times thanking God for graciously preventing Augustine from falling into sins that he would have otherwise given into). It is the story of his own journey to faith, through the murky trails of pride in his great intelligence, the allure of worldly ambitions and the lust of his own flesh. The book is one of the most rewarding I have ever read and every line deserves to be quoted, but one section especially hit me today. Augustine was recounting a story he had heard of two secret service agents of the Roman Empire who had stumbled upon the story of the life of St. Anthony and were moved on the spot to give their lives over to Christ. The account had a profound impact on Augustine and the words of one of the agents to the other also moved me. After reading of the saint's life, the agent turned to the other and said,

"Tell me, I beg you, what goal are we seeking in all these toils of ours? What is it that we desire? What is our motive in public service? Can our hopes in the court rise higher than to be 'friends of the emperor'? How frail, how filled with peril is that pride! Through what dangers must we climb to a greater danger? And when will we succeed? But if I chose to become a friend of God, I can become one now."

How convicting this message is! Reflecting on myself, I too find that I am filled with vain ambitions to be recognized, to be a friend of the powerful, to be well-respected. But what is the chief end of that? Those who achieve celebrity seem to hate it as their lives become constant sources of public scrutiny. Those with recognition make many enemies who hope to see them fall. If only I can make friendship with God my one ambition, everything else will be secured. If I can please Him, I will have pleased the only One Whom matters. Only then can my life take the course it was created to take. Only then will I be used in the best way possible.

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

A Sunday morning Baptism

2007-06-08T11:54:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, my sister-in-law Elizabeth (not to be confused with my sister Elizabeth) was baptized before her congregation and good portion of our family. You should check out my brother's insightful blog about it. I cannot do the same justice to the event as my brother but I have been wanting to write about it as well.
Having spent the my last two semesters in a systematic theology class and living with friends who enjoy good theological debate, the topic of baptism has come up several times. Does baptism wipe away original sin as Catholics generally believe, does it claim a person for the Church instead of leaving them in their default state of belonging to the world as Reformed churches tend to think, or is it a simple yet profound profession of one's faith to the Church, the world and to God? Should infant baptism be recommended or is believer's baptism the only way to go? If someone has been baptized as an infant (as I was) should they also later undergo a believer's baptism once they have given their life to Christ (as I also was)? These are, of course, important questions that deserve discussion and deliberation. At the same time, however, witnessing Elizabeth's baptism left me for a time not caring in the least for these questions but instead simply revelling in the joy of her public confession of and commitment to Christ.
I have had the honor of getting to know my sister-in-law better in a few years than many people are able to know their in-laws in a lifetime. I have seen her love for Christ grow by leaps and bounds and have been impressed by and proud of her time and time again. This Sunday was something at a completely different level. The church aired a video of her testimony that had to have moved everyone in the church. With that set up, she was then baptised before the church and I (as well as many others) had the mixture of emotion that left me wanting to cry and wanting to shout at the top of my lungs for celebration. It was truly as if God had opened up a window between Heaven and Earth for a few moments in that church building allowing us to hear the shouts of joy resounding from the angels.
The baptism reminded me of my own commitment to Christ and the truth of the matter that I have become a new creation through His death and resurrection. I can't help but think that it inspired everyone there to seek to live in accordance with their new life. Having witnessed this difficult step of obedience, I look forward to seeing what else Christ will do in my sister-in-law's life. I am also reminded of this reality for all believers, and cannot wait to see just what Christ is planning to do in the lives of all His saints. What a great salvation.

GotQuestions, quietly delivering the Good News

2007-06-04T22:17:00.000-07:00

I have been a volunteer writer for GotQuestions.org for about three or four years, and while I have had nothing to do with their pages that share the good news of the Gospel I am still extremely proud of the ministry that this website is doing (especially of the editor and his wife who have amazing hearts for the Lord). In case you are not familiar with the site, allow me to share a few quick statistics from the month of May. GotQuestions had:

579,282 total visitors;
392,837 unique visitors;
2,257 questions answered,
30,998 visitors to the English salvation pages;
3,190 salvation decisions indicated.

Of the salvation decisions indicated, 534 were from English-speaking visitors which means 2,656 were from non-English speakers. As a small sampling, 76 were Turkish, 18 were Thai, 69 were Farsi, 6 were Urdu and 101 were Indonesian. The amazing thing is that May was not at all an abnormal month. This ministry is humbly and quietly introducing people to Jesus and helping people along in their path to discipleship. You should check them out.

A bad mood in Paradise

2007-06-04T21:14:00.000-07:00

I spent a good portion of the day in a bad mood, without any real reason. Of course, I haven't had much sleep in the past few days and I felt like I had a reason or two to be upset. Driving in my car I decided to complain to Jesus; of course He would understand. I have some of my best prayer times in my car where no one can hear me if I speak with normal volume, cry or yell. I began by complaining about the two or three things bothering me as well as the gloominess that I could not shake. In the middle of my rant I said, "Jesus, I don't des..." and stopped. I was going to complain that I did not deserve this but somehow I could not.
As I thought of Whom it was that I was addressing, the eternal, holy and perfect God who took on human flesh and suffered an excruciating death for my sins, I could not bring myself to claim to deserve anything. It does not need to be explained that it was upsetting to discover that I could not continue my rant.
As God pierced my hardened mind with a sliver of His Truth, the tone of my prayer changed in way that I could not have effected myself. It became something along the lines of, "God, I do not deserve any good thing. What I deserve is Hell. I live with a loving family, have great friends, attend an amazing university and live in a nation at a time that makes me one of the wealthiest one percent of people in the history of the planet. I sin constantly, love almost everything more than I love my own God and I am ungrateful for all the good gifts that God has given me. I deserve Hell, but You went through that for me. I deserve nothing but to suffer eternally and yet You have given me eternal life."
How often do I give in to the temptation to complain and simmer in bitterness without any justification whatsoever? What an amazing miracle that the Creator and Lord of the Universe can love a wretch like me.

Behold, the local church

2007-06-02T12:51:00.001-07:00

In my last post I discussed the need for a unifying love between all Christians around the world and from all denominations and traditions. It will not be easy to bring all Assemblies of God and Baptists, Catholics and Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians and Foursquare members into a unifying love that refuses to belittle and berate. This is indeed a large task before us. At the same time, however, I propose that such a love for the Church Universal is in reality a much simpler task than one that we may take for granted: genuine love for the local church.
Let me begin by putting this out there: I am on the path to vocational ministry, which I believe I will serve as a pastor. I can think of no other career in all the world that would make me as happy as fulfilling that calling. With that being said, however, I never want to go to church. As soon as I arrive at church on a Sunday morning I am happy to be there and enjoy being in the presence of God amongst His people. Until I arrive, though, I sincerely do not wish to go. I suspect that this unites me in a small way with many Christians around the world. Why is that I so dislike getting up on Sunday morning more than any other morning, and desire to skip out on something that I enjoy so much? I can think of no other reason than that my sinful nature hates to be reminded that I am not my own God and that the enemies of my soul would do whatever is necessary to keep from meeting with my fellow saints as God's word commands.
This brings me back to my original point, it is hard to love your local church; harder than it is to love Christians whom live a world away (in my case, this would mean African, Asian or South American Christians). To love our brothers and sisters around the world generally means to provide financial contributions and pray for them. To love the Christians who attend our church, live a few doors down or even in our own household is to learn to love on a much more intimate and challenging level. To interact with people who talk too much or talk too little; who seem to check out in church or those who seem too enthusiastic; who volunteer for every activity or for none; who take too much interest in your life or who don't seem to care enough requires real Christ-like sacrificial love. I live in North America and I am sure there are African Christians who are hard to love, but I do not know them so it is easy for me to love them in an abstract way. It is much more difficult to love those Christians who are closest to us in a concrete fashion when they are hard to love. Being committed to loving those around you by seeking the best for their lives is difficult.
Because this is hard and requires sacrifice, we must ask why we should even take the time to be involved in the local church at all. More on that next time...

One holy catholic and apostolic Church

2007-05-30T16:39:00.000-07:00

I love the Church. It hasn't always been this way, but it is true. I do love the Church. I love the Church Universal, made up of all the saints who have already gone on to their reward (the Church triumphant) as well as the saints who are alive on earth today struggling to love their Master as best they can (the Church militant). I love the varied traditions of the Church: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant. I love the global Church, made up of saints from all seven continents (assuming that at least one of the scientists in the Antarctic is a believer). I love the various denominations within my own Protestant subset of Christianity: Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Baptist, Nazarene, Mennonite, Friends, Foursquare, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc. I love the saints in all of their "-isms": Calvinist and Arminian; Charismatic and Cessationalist; Dispensationalist and Covenant; Transubstantiationist, Consubstantiationist, Spirtual Presence-ist and Symbolist; Post-millenialist, Pre-millenialist and Amillenialist.
I admit, however, that I disagree with so many of the saints on so many things. In fact, I probably disagree with every saint on at least one thing. I describe myself as a Protestant Evangelical Charismatic Christian. You could tack on that I am an Arminian who holds to Covenant theology and that I have Amillenialist tendencies as well as a leaning toward Spiritual Presence in regard to the Lord's Supper. I am firmly attached to these beliefs and I honestly don't believe that those who disagree with me are correct when it comes to our points of contention. It remains to be said, however, that I love those saints, my brothers and sisters, with whom I disagree.
There is a famous quote that is often attributed to St. Augustine (though I do not know if it is truly his) which sums up our the prescription for the current state of our diverse and multifaceted church: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Well said Augustine (or pseudo-Augustine as it may be). It is my heart's cry that Christians around the world would be reconciled to one another in brotherly love. I do not desire (and I doubt that Christ desires) the different factions and traditions within the Church to put aside all disagreements and form one giant lukewarm, wishy-washy conformity. We should celebrate our differences (even celebrating with heated debates!) and thank God that so many people of so many backgrounds and traditions can bow down beside one another and worship one Lord. Let us not compete with one another, or spread gossip about one another, or deride one another, or assume the worst of one another. Let us note our differences, discuss them, debate them and argue over them, but then pray together, break bread together and worship together thanking our one Triune God for His other saints who are so darn odd.
In the Nicene Creed we confess to belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church." Of course the "c" in "catholic" is a small c, meaning universal. Let us not get hung up on that. Instead, note that Christians of all traditions (with the exception of those non-creedal traditions, who would still share this belief if not the creed) confess to believing in one universal Church. No matter how different we may be, we are far more similar to one another than to the rest of the world. We share the worship of the same Lord Jesus Christ, the same indwelling Holy Spirit, the same baptism by the names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the same meal in which we remember the suffering of our Lord on our behalf.
In Ephesians 4, St. Paul calls on us to maintain the unity of the Spirit found in the bond of peace. He reminds us that we belong to one Body of Christ and are children of one Father. Jesus prayed that all of His disciples would be one as He and His Father are One, and stated that the mark by which we would be known to the world as His disciples would be our unity. Have we failed? Perhaps, in some ways. I do not want to be overly negative about the condition of the Church; the Church belongs to Jesus so I trust that He has not allowed it fail in the least. Still, perhaps we should each consider our own hearts and pray that God will unite His Church and teach us to love one another.

First things first

2007-05-30T12:08:00.000-07:00

Inspired by my brother's blog, I have decided to create an online journal as well. Yeah, my brother's blog's main focus is different than my own but try telling inspiration that. I can't promise any certain focus for my own, or even very regular updates, but I assume they will generally have something to do with faith as that is my usual topic of choice. The name, "The Leaky Jar" comes from my love for 2 Corinthians 4:7 which says that we have the precious treasure of salvation in "jars of clay" or "earthen vessels" to show that the power with which we live is not from us but from God. Basically, God often chooses to make His glory known through unexpected people (the weak, the lonely, the poor, the unattractive, the stutterers, the sinners, the outcasts) because no one can mistake glory in those people as coming from their own personal power. God makes His power known through our weaknesses because our weaknesses cannot claim to be strenghts by themselves. The way I see it, I am a leaky jar, and as God continually pours Himself into me He also leaks out of me into those around me through the cracks, fissures and holes in my life. If God were to stop pouring Himself into me, the cracks would be to my detriment, but because He gives Himself continually my weaknesses become the very things that keep me filled with fresh water and away from stagnation.