Hopefully now that you have read my answers to these 10 questions you now understand the Christian world view. I also hope that now you realize that the complexity of the answers also meet the complexity of the questions. To answer them flippantly with a one liner, like “God is imaginary” is academically and intellectually deceitful. With the same logic used by this video, I can answer the questions just as well by saying “Keith Richards is imaginary”. Look at the formula in comparison:
q = starving children
r = God or Keith Richards
p = real
If q, then (r = ~p)
If there are starving children in the world (q), then God (r) is imaginary (~p).
If there are starving children in the world (q), then Keith Richards (r) is imaginary (~p).
The validity of the answer is just as questionable, logically. Whether you believe the answer or not is contingent upon what presuppositions you bring to the table. I would have thought that such advanced critical thinkers like the producers of this video would have realized the flaw in their thinking. These questions are important and are good questions to be asked. However, the producers use these important questions to personally attack a people group. That is bigotry. Furthermore, they have not done any research or investigation to see what the counter arguments to their questions would be. Rather, they built straw-men by describing any Christian answers that could be given as “weir rationalizations.” They chose to hear only what they wanted to hear, ignoring all other sides of the argument. That is ignorance. And lastly, I can only imagine what painful and damaging experience these people had that they should hate God so much. And I can only imagine what I as a Christian did to them that they should hate me so much. The people who produced this video and who built the website did so out of hate and intolerance. They hate the influence Christianity has had on history and the American worldview and they are intolerant of its teachings and precepts.
Nevertheless, I hope that they had a chance to read this blog and see how an intelligent Christian answers their questions. Additionally, I hope that as others read, they would maybe see that, contrary to popular belief, you do not have to check your brain at the proverbial door in order to believe the Bible or call yourself a Christian. Is it true that some Christians need to educate themselves about what they believe? Absolutely. The Bible does say that we need to be prepared to give reason for our faith (1 Pt 3.15). But the same can be said of the atheists, as well. I have talked with people who don’t believe in the Bible because, “it was written by Shakespeare 200 years ago.” My point is simply that if a person is sincerely searching for truth, then it is important to inform yourself. It is foolish to reject an argument that you do not understand or has been presented poorly. My hope in this blog was not to convince anyone of the superiority of my argument. Rather, it was to show that the Christian argument is not without basis. I have attempted to show you through philosophy, history, science, and most importantly, the Bible itself, that the Christian worldview is not without reason or consistency. By this, I hope to undo the stereotypes this video tries to reinforce. So please, don’t drink the kool-aide. Don’t let this video tell you what to believe. Think for yourself and make your own decisions as to which set of answers to the ten questions are more valid.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Unknown God
Today, when you ask people who God is, you can get every answer from orthodox to weird. Most people in our culture seem to believe in a god of some sort. Most people, however, seem to make their own definition. There are some definite traits that the majority of people seem to agree upon. God is “good”—but what is good seems to change from person to person. God is love—but love is also open to interpretation. God is fair—but we don’t understand why the innocent perish or the wicked prosper. God is great and completely other—but we seem to grasp who he is and are pretty comfortable with putting him in our box. These are just the answers off the street—great men from history and philosophy have pondered this question too. According to Plato, God is the eternal mind, the cause of good in nature. Aristotle considered him to be “the first ground of all being.” Leibniz says that the final reason of things is called God. Kant defined God as a being who, by his understanding and will, is the cause of all nature; a being who has all rights and no duties; the moral author of the world. Hegel considered God the absolute spirit (giest), yet without consciousness until it becomes conscious in the reason of man. These answers, whether we agree with them or not, show that there is something unanswered about the nature of God. And it also shows that we want the answer.
Nevertheless, the only tool we have in-and-of ourselves to define God is our insight (a philosophical word meaning “best guess”). What we find is that because God is transcendent (bigger than we can understand), and because we are a fallen and frustrated people, our best guesses are just as fallen and frustrating as we are. Yet, we keep searching for a greater understanding of God and who he is. The Teacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, tells us that God has set eternity in our hearts, yet we still cannot fathom him (3.11). What he means is this—we know that God exists, and we know that we are meant to know that he exists, but we are so small that anything we come up with sounds like a three-year-old explaining how a carburetor works. But God is good enough to reveal himself to us in such a way that we can apprehend this revelation and understand it. This is done through General Revelation (nature, conscience, providence) and Special Revelation (miracles, the Incarnation, Scripture). With these, God trumps our insight and tells us who he is; he tells us about his beauty, his love, his glory, and sometimes we recognize these things and respond as we ought to—worship and awe. But sometimes we confuse the issue like the Athenians in Acts 17.16-34. Here, Paul sees how the Athenians recognized God’s providence during a plague several years back by building alters. However, they didn’t know who they were worshiping, so they wrote, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD”, on the formless statues. It was here that Paul uses their insight to point out the revelation of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He uses a tool that most of us Christians have forgotten all about. He uses the tool of context. The Athenians had a concept of God and Paul used this concept within the context of Greek culture to show them how God was revealing himself and how this revelation should be understood. He didn’t use a tract or a pizza feed. He didn’t use an outreach strategy or attractive church bulletins. He used the context of the people and spoke to them using ideas from their own culture and world-view. God has done the same for us. Jesus came down and became a man so that we could understand who God is. Paul writes about Jesus in his letter to the Colossians 1.15 that he is the image of the invisible God. A theologian by the name of John Calvin, writing about the incarnation (God becoming a man) called it “the Great Condescension”. It was where God revealed his love by lowering himself to our level and showing us who he is so that we might once again know the unknown God.
Nevertheless, the only tool we have in-and-of ourselves to define God is our insight (a philosophical word meaning “best guess”). What we find is that because God is transcendent (bigger than we can understand), and because we are a fallen and frustrated people, our best guesses are just as fallen and frustrating as we are. Yet, we keep searching for a greater understanding of God and who he is. The Teacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, tells us that God has set eternity in our hearts, yet we still cannot fathom him (3.11). What he means is this—we know that God exists, and we know that we are meant to know that he exists, but we are so small that anything we come up with sounds like a three-year-old explaining how a carburetor works. But God is good enough to reveal himself to us in such a way that we can apprehend this revelation and understand it. This is done through General Revelation (nature, conscience, providence) and Special Revelation (miracles, the Incarnation, Scripture). With these, God trumps our insight and tells us who he is; he tells us about his beauty, his love, his glory, and sometimes we recognize these things and respond as we ought to—worship and awe. But sometimes we confuse the issue like the Athenians in Acts 17.16-34. Here, Paul sees how the Athenians recognized God’s providence during a plague several years back by building alters. However, they didn’t know who they were worshiping, so they wrote, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD”, on the formless statues. It was here that Paul uses their insight to point out the revelation of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He uses a tool that most of us Christians have forgotten all about. He uses the tool of context. The Athenians had a concept of God and Paul used this concept within the context of Greek culture to show them how God was revealing himself and how this revelation should be understood. He didn’t use a tract or a pizza feed. He didn’t use an outreach strategy or attractive church bulletins. He used the context of the people and spoke to them using ideas from their own culture and world-view. God has done the same for us. Jesus came down and became a man so that we could understand who God is. Paul writes about Jesus in his letter to the Colossians 1.15 that he is the image of the invisible God. A theologian by the name of John Calvin, writing about the incarnation (God becoming a man) called it “the Great Condescension”. It was where God revealed his love by lowering himself to our level and showing us who he is so that we might once again know the unknown God.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Truth
One of the more important things under attack in our culture today is the concept of Truth. Most of us live as functioning relativists. We exist in a bubble of reality in which we can hold to anything that permits our behavior and world-view. What we believe is “true for us,” because it confirms our perceptions and our interpretation of reality. When we are confronted by a contradictory truth it is validated as true for that other individual, but is still not incorporated into our own reality. The problem with this is that, by default, having individually validated truth invalidates all truth. By saying that everybody is right, you essentially prove everyone wrong. This is called the law of the excluded middle (something is either true or it is false—there is no middle ground). It is one or the other. The fact of the matter is that not all “truths” are true and not all opinions are equal and to assert otherwise is itself a contradiction.
This foolishness, however, stems from a very true assessment of the human condition, but it comes to a very false conclusion. It is true that man’s ability to fully comprehend reality and to universally recognize truth is flawed. We have different perspectives and we have different opinions because sin has permeated and fractured man’s connection to the world around him and has severed his connection to God who, by definition, is Truth. However, to fix this uncertainty we came up with the idea that we can define our own truth and everything will turn out fine. Essentially, we admitted to ourselves that we are blind and convinced ourselves the cure to our blindness is to close our eyes, jump in the driver’s seat and go on a joy ride. This kind of public-school logic is the best we could come up with. However, despite our backwards attempts to find Truth, God, who us above creation, saw fit to step in and show us truth, instead of letting us fumble around like a drunken prom date. This was done through relationship and revelation and providence. It was done by what is called inspiration. As God revealed truth, we began to recognize it a like lost sheep hearing the voice of its shepherd, and we wrote it down and kept it. As these things were passed from one person to another, they became volumes of historical accounts and letters and prophetic declarations, until finally they became one volume of complementary texts. These texts were transcribed and translated, and guys with too much time on their hands came up with lists adding in and subtracting books in the Bible. They did this to propagate their theological and political agendas thinking that they were more important than they were. Things became messed up, the original manuscripts were lost, and new ones were made. There were errors here and there—words misspelled, phrases adjusted, punctuation changed—but God preserved the truth of his word.
The original texts were written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit making use of their personalities to superintend every word that was written. But over time as the originals were lost, errors occurred in transcription but not in such a way as to influence any significant doctrine. That is to say, as the different existing manuscripts are compared, although they vary in details, the overarching teachings and doctrines are not changed. The Holy Spirit preserved the truth as God laid it out for man to know and as hard as we tried, we did not destroy its message. This is a miraculous testament to the eternal nature of God’s truth and gives some credence and reason for the belief in the Word of God—it gives credence and validity to what we call the Bible. The words and teachings that come from its pages do not come from man who is crooked and deceived; they came from God who is the ultimate authority. It isn’t a book of good ideas or morals, but it is the standard by which we are to look at the world and verify whether we see the world for what it truly is or we are looking at it upside down because we are an upside down and perverted people.
This foolishness, however, stems from a very true assessment of the human condition, but it comes to a very false conclusion. It is true that man’s ability to fully comprehend reality and to universally recognize truth is flawed. We have different perspectives and we have different opinions because sin has permeated and fractured man’s connection to the world around him and has severed his connection to God who, by definition, is Truth. However, to fix this uncertainty we came up with the idea that we can define our own truth and everything will turn out fine. Essentially, we admitted to ourselves that we are blind and convinced ourselves the cure to our blindness is to close our eyes, jump in the driver’s seat and go on a joy ride. This kind of public-school logic is the best we could come up with. However, despite our backwards attempts to find Truth, God, who us above creation, saw fit to step in and show us truth, instead of letting us fumble around like a drunken prom date. This was done through relationship and revelation and providence. It was done by what is called inspiration. As God revealed truth, we began to recognize it a like lost sheep hearing the voice of its shepherd, and we wrote it down and kept it. As these things were passed from one person to another, they became volumes of historical accounts and letters and prophetic declarations, until finally they became one volume of complementary texts. These texts were transcribed and translated, and guys with too much time on their hands came up with lists adding in and subtracting books in the Bible. They did this to propagate their theological and political agendas thinking that they were more important than they were. Things became messed up, the original manuscripts were lost, and new ones were made. There were errors here and there—words misspelled, phrases adjusted, punctuation changed—but God preserved the truth of his word.
The original texts were written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit making use of their personalities to superintend every word that was written. But over time as the originals were lost, errors occurred in transcription but not in such a way as to influence any significant doctrine. That is to say, as the different existing manuscripts are compared, although they vary in details, the overarching teachings and doctrines are not changed. The Holy Spirit preserved the truth as God laid it out for man to know and as hard as we tried, we did not destroy its message. This is a miraculous testament to the eternal nature of God’s truth and gives some credence and reason for the belief in the Word of God—it gives credence and validity to what we call the Bible. The words and teachings that come from its pages do not come from man who is crooked and deceived; they came from God who is the ultimate authority. It isn’t a book of good ideas or morals, but it is the standard by which we are to look at the world and verify whether we see the world for what it truly is or we are looking at it upside down because we are an upside down and perverted people.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Gospel
Literally Gospel means "good news", but within the context of Scripture, the depth of the good news is life changing. But what is it really? The technical definition is the message of God's redemption in Jesus Christ. In the New Testament it is, first, the proclamation by Jesus that the
This doesn't mean that the Gospel isn't simple, just that it gets bigger and deeper everyday we are changed by its message of grace. If we were to stop and meditate upon the implications and consequences of the Gospel in history, in theology, in our very own personal lives, I think we would be awestruck by its impact on every aspect of creation. Simply the fact that the Gospel has been at the forefront of God's mind since before creation and has been woven into the threads of history and creation—even unto the end of this age when God will create a new heaven and a new earth. It is staggering, and yet, despite its philosophical and theological girth, it is presented to us as a free gift, given by a loving Father.
However, it is not a gift meant to keep for ourselves, nor is it a chunk of information we know in our minds. It is the life we live and the hope we share. It is praying for a stranger and being a good friend. It is caring for the fatherless and single mothers. It is living with the understanding that no person deserves the grace of God and then giving it indiscriminately and without consideration of personal cost. And most importantly it is living with the understanding that you don't deserve the grace of God, but receiving it with humility and faith in Jesus Christ. It is the life lived apart from Sunday mornings worship with all of its ritual and high-minded charades, where blood and tears are shed everyday because it is a real world bound by addiction and abuse, hate and fear, pain and suffering; where real people fail at life. The Gospel is that Eternal Life that we live out today in the midst of everything else because there is more than this. The good news is the hope greater than all of us and greater than our despair and struggles. That hope is simply Jesus and his Kingdom. The Gospel is the promise to us that we can live in spiritual abundance in a world of poverty.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Now What?
There is an interesting myth that has penetrated the worldview of Christians. This myth is like most lies in that it is a half truth. For some reason we have gotten it into our minds that salvation is defined by "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But this is only half of what it means to be a Christian. It is true that regeneration, or being "born again" as the Bible calls it, is a deeply personal and unique experience, and, as a result, intimacy with the Creator comes naturally. However, according to Scripture, this is not the goal.
Time and time again, the Bible reminds us that our belief in Jesus was not for our self-absorbed, naval gazing selves. There are two sides to this coin we call salvation. John teaches us this reality in a subtle way with the last chapter of the gospel he wrote. He ends the previous chapter by writing, "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that by believing you may have life in his name." But the story doesn't end there. The next chapter has a vivid and memorable discussion between Peter and Jesus.
The story is set up in this way: Peter, the leader among the disciples (and consequently the one who denied ever knowing Jesus when confronted by a little girl barely old enough to see the "High School Musical" trilogy) wanted to go fishing. He takes six of his buddies and fishes all night and catches nothing. That morning, Jesus appears to his disciples for a third time in John's gospel and makes them breakfast after he bails them out of a fishless fishing trip. He then turns to Peter and deals with him in front of everyone. Jesus asks him three times if he loves him. Each time Jesus does this, Peter tells him that he does, and Jesus tells him each time how to love him: "Feed my lambs", "Take care of my sheep", and "Feed my sheep".
On a side note, it is widely taught that Jesus uses a special word for "love", agape, and Peter uses a lesser synonym phileo. Then on the third time Jesus uses phileo, illustrating Peter's lack of commitment or faith. Among several problems I have with the exegetical steps taken to come to this interpretation (including a poor understanding of the Greek language, the disregard for John's writing style, and sloppy word studies done only using a concordance), does Jesus really seem like the kind of guy who lowers his standards to accommodate some body's lack of faith?
What if Jesus is making the point that if Peter loves him, he needs to do something about it. And that something is to think about and live for others. Jesus wants Peter to love him by serving the needs of others. John is showing us that our "personal relationship with Jesus" is actually inter-personal. If we think about it, the person in the Bible who had the deepest relationship with God was Jesus and he did nothing but serve and think of others. When we look at his life, we should feel ashamed about how we have misrepresented the nature of this sacred relationship. His life contradicts just about all of our popular beliefs. He was not healthy and wealthy, Jesus was hated and homeless. He didn't spend hours in the Christian book store trying to find that book that would help him overcome his "bitterness" or actualize his self-worth. He was betrayed by his friends and the Bible calls him a "man of sorrows". Furthermore, what he tells Peter next is that he too will be murdered by crucifixion. This is not the self-affirming, hugabbly soft life Peter was hoping for. This is not the "victorious Christian living" we've read so much about. Instead, this is hard and selfless. It is putting God and others above your own well being.
This notion is entirely antithetical to everything we would expect out of salvation. But it does answer the question of "Now what?" It's that question you confront yourself with sobering realization and say, "My Christianity is all about myself." Do you love him? Then do something about it! And if you don't know where to begin or what to do, start where Jesus left off, breakfast. Invite someone over and be hospitable. Give someone something you know they need. Think less about your budget or your schedule and do something for someone else. Start little and go big.
Time and time again, the Bible reminds us that our belief in Jesus was not for our self-absorbed, naval gazing selves. There are two sides to this coin we call salvation. John teaches us this reality in a subtle way with the last chapter of the gospel he wrote. He ends the previous chapter by writing, "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that by believing you may have life in his name." But the story doesn't end there. The next chapter has a vivid and memorable discussion between Peter and Jesus.
The story is set up in this way: Peter, the leader among the disciples (and consequently the one who denied ever knowing Jesus when confronted by a little girl barely old enough to see the "High School Musical" trilogy) wanted to go fishing. He takes six of his buddies and fishes all night and catches nothing. That morning, Jesus appears to his disciples for a third time in John's gospel and makes them breakfast after he bails them out of a fishless fishing trip. He then turns to Peter and deals with him in front of everyone. Jesus asks him three times if he loves him. Each time Jesus does this, Peter tells him that he does, and Jesus tells him each time how to love him: "Feed my lambs", "Take care of my sheep", and "Feed my sheep".
On a side note, it is widely taught that Jesus uses a special word for "love", agape, and Peter uses a lesser synonym phileo. Then on the third time Jesus uses phileo, illustrating Peter's lack of commitment or faith. Among several problems I have with the exegetical steps taken to come to this interpretation (including a poor understanding of the Greek language, the disregard for John's writing style, and sloppy word studies done only using a concordance), does Jesus really seem like the kind of guy who lowers his standards to accommodate some body's lack of faith?
What if Jesus is making the point that if Peter loves him, he needs to do something about it. And that something is to think about and live for others. Jesus wants Peter to love him by serving the needs of others. John is showing us that our "personal relationship with Jesus" is actually inter-personal. If we think about it, the person in the Bible who had the deepest relationship with God was Jesus and he did nothing but serve and think of others. When we look at his life, we should feel ashamed about how we have misrepresented the nature of this sacred relationship. His life contradicts just about all of our popular beliefs. He was not healthy and wealthy, Jesus was hated and homeless. He didn't spend hours in the Christian book store trying to find that book that would help him overcome his "bitterness" or actualize his self-worth. He was betrayed by his friends and the Bible calls him a "man of sorrows". Furthermore, what he tells Peter next is that he too will be murdered by crucifixion. This is not the self-affirming, hugabbly soft life Peter was hoping for. This is not the "victorious Christian living" we've read so much about. Instead, this is hard and selfless. It is putting God and others above your own well being.
This notion is entirely antithetical to everything we would expect out of salvation. But it does answer the question of "Now what?" It's that question you confront yourself with sobering realization and say, "My Christianity is all about myself." Do you love him? Then do something about it! And if you don't know where to begin or what to do, start where Jesus left off, breakfast. Invite someone over and be hospitable. Give someone something you know they need. Think less about your budget or your schedule and do something for someone else. Start little and go big.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
All That Remains
In chapters 13-16 of John's Gospel, Jesus, just hours before his betrayal and murder, turns to his disciples and breaks the horrible news that he will not be with them for much longer. It is a heartbreaking and confusing revelation for these eleven men who have spent the last three years of their lives under the impression that, with their teacher leading the way, they would turn their world upside down and inside out. We can imagine the confusion and even disappointment these men might feel at that very moment. But he does not leave them room for despair. In addition to this bombshell, Jesus gives his disciples a message and a mission of hope.
Drawing upon a metaphor that is well known to the Jewish people, he calls himself the "True Vine" and his Father "the Gardener" in chapter 15. It is a metaphor that has deep rooted significance to the Israelite identity. Isaiah calls the house of Israel the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts (5:7). Jeremiah teaches that God planted Israel as a "choice vine" (2:21). Similarly, Hosea titles Israel as a "luxuriant vine" (10:1). Over history, the vine became a symbol for the nation as a whole. It was the emblem on the coins of the Maccabees. One of the glories of the Temple was a great golden vine that decorated the entrance to the Holy Place. When the Temple was built by Herod the Great, people would line up for the honor of giving up their gold to be forged into this great national symbol. And with this sentimentality in mind, Jesus tells his disciples that it is he who is the "True Vine" and God the Father is the "Gardener". He then explains our role as the branches is to bear fruit, and if we do not, the Gardener will cut us off from the Vine (v. 2). And for those who do bear fruit, they will be pruned so that we can bear more fruit. But it is the first part that, upon first glance, causes me confusion.
It was just five chapters ago in John 10, that Jesus gives us that picture of us resting secure in the hand of God unable to be snatched away from his grasp. Is Jesus now contradicting himself? If so, then our understanding of this passage runs antithetical to Scripture as a whole. We learn in Romans 8 that nothing can separate us from the love of God. In Philippians 1 we are promised that God is faithful to complete the good work of salvation he began in us. It would seem that apart from our understanding of John 15, the Bible teaches that Jesus cannot and will not lose one of his Christians. But still we read this passage and interpret it in such a way that God has demanded some unknown quota of work from us and if we do not fulfill it, we are cut off from Jesus and burned as firewood in hell according to 15:6. With this mindset, it's easy to nurture our legalism and boast about our works. We teach new Christians that they must read their Bibles and pray so many hours during the day and that we can measure our fruitfulness by how many people we "lead to the Lord". We show our faithfulness by how many times we attend church during the week or how many ministries we serve in. We define our Christianity by how many hours we subject ourselves to horrible Christian pop music written by musicians that only produce three cord, happy-clappy songs that have poor theology and even worse sentimentalism.
So what do we say? Should we ignore this passage? Should we interpret it in such a way that promotes a Gospel of Works instead of the Gospel of grace taught by the rest of Scripture? Or could it be that it is actually saying something else? What happens if we read the rest of the passage? Well, Jesus teaches that we have already been pruned by Jesus' teaching and his word. And that if we remain in him we will bear "much fruit". He makes it clear that he is the one who gives us the ability to bear fruit and apart from him it is impossible to be fruitful. He also states that he has chosen us and appointed us to bear fruit that will last.
The raw truth of this passage is that Jesus is asking the impossible of us. We cannot bear good fruit. History teaches us that when faced with the choice between good and evil, we will always choose evil. We bear poor fruit, that is, unless we are empowered to do good by something outside of our own compulsions. That something is Jesus. With this in mind the passage falls in place with the entirety of Scripture. The fruit we are expected to bear is provided by the True Vine, who is Jesus. Now our ability and skill at being a Christian is inconsequential. This is not because we don't have to produce good fruit, but because the source of our good works (our desire to pray and read our Bibles, our love for one another and our neighbor) is Jesus. If it is not, then our work is pointless at best and selfish at worst. That is why Jesus stresses so adamantly that we must remain in him. Without him there is no grace to do the good works he has prepared for us to do. The fruit that we bear gives glory to him because he is the author and perfecter of our faith and our actions. When we remain in him and bear the fruit that he has empowered us to bear, then the glory of our actions belongs to him, not us. John the Baptist had an amazing goal in life: it wasn't to build the most successful ministry or have the most followers. It was not even to send out the most missionaries/church planters. His goal was to decrease so that Jesus would increase. That should be the goal of every Christian. For as we decrease and remain in Jesus, in the end, Jesus will be all that remains.
The raw truth of this passage is that Jesus is asking the impossible of us. We cannot bear good fruit. History teaches us that when faced with the choice between good and evil, we will always choose evil. We bear poor fruit, that is, unless we are empowered to do good by something outside of our own compulsions. That something is Jesus. With this in mind the passage falls in place with the entirety of Scripture. The fruit we are expected to bear is provided by the True Vine, who is Jesus. Now our ability and skill at being a Christian is inconsequential. This is not because we don't have to produce good fruit, but because the source of our good works (our desire to pray and read our Bibles, our love for one another and our neighbor) is Jesus. If it is not, then our work is pointless at best and selfish at worst. That is why Jesus stresses so adamantly that we must remain in him. Without him there is no grace to do the good works he has prepared for us to do. The fruit that we bear gives glory to him because he is the author and perfecter of our faith and our actions. When we remain in him and bear the fruit that he has empowered us to bear, then the glory of our actions belongs to him, not us. John the Baptist had an amazing goal in life: it wasn't to build the most successful ministry or have the most followers. It was not even to send out the most missionaries/church planters. His goal was to decrease so that Jesus would increase. That should be the goal of every Christian. For as we decrease and remain in Jesus, in the end, Jesus will be all that remains.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
His Name Is The Word of God: The Importance of Seeing Jesus From Scripture (Part 4)
Jesus speaks for himself. The book of Revelation is often pigeonholed as being a book of prophecy about the end of time, however, it clearly states in the first verse that it is regarding “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. As such, it gives us a clear picture of the worship of Jesus in heaven as he sits on his throne today and the way in which he will return to judge the earth and bring justice. Chapter 19 verse 13 describes his return like this; “He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.” This is reminiscent of how John describes his first arrival as a humble Galilean peasant, where he says at the beginning of the gospel account, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” The Greek word here is “logos” which is where we derive our English term “logic” from, just as 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 24 calls Christ the power and wisdom of God, Jesus Christ is the physical expression of God’s heart and mind. That expression is so powerful that it transcends the pages of the Bible and speaks on its own. You don’t have to be literate to understand who Jesus is because his Spirit teaches and reminds us who he is, just as he promised in John 14 verse 26.
The difference between the words of the Bible and the ideas that others have formulated is that the Bible makes the claim to be revelation while everything else is mere speculation. It is my belief that nothing can really be known apart from revelation; this was the key to the struggle of men like Kant and Kierkegaard who saw human reasoning as incapable of grasping external realities, this is in agreement with the Bible which says that God is the source of knowledge and wisdom (e.g. Proverbs 9:10, Ecclesiastes 2:26, James 1:5). Likewise, when the Bible says that Jesus taught with authority (Luke 4:32) it means that he said what a thing meant instead of what he thought it meant. This is the nature of Scripture too.
Jesus has revealed himself in myriad ways; his life, death, and resurrection are extraordinarily multifaceted in their depth and meaning, which is part of what makes him such an intriguing figure for people from all walks of life. There are three distinct Biblical roles which Jesus is revealed as having fulfilled, those are the offices of prophet, priest, and king. What is interesting is that many people who make claims about Jesus distinguishable from what the Bible says about him still grasp some of Jesus' character while ignoring other aspects. For example, Protestant liberals who neglect Biblical teaching in order to avoid offending others see Jesus' role as a priest and a king who distributes mercy to people and kindly rules over them without judging them or speaking ill of them, they forget that Jesus is also a prophet who speaks truth into our lives and reminds us that we are guilty sinners who deserve death. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalists understand Jesus as a king and prophet who rules over people and judges them, but they forget that he is also a priest who mediates for his people and forgives their sin. Many Christian evangelicals today also remember that Jesus is both priest and prophet who speaks the truth and gives grace, but they forget that he is a king who rules over their time, money, sex, food, and relationships so they do not subject themselves to his rule and obey him, but instead live hypocritical lives. For this reason a deeper trust in the Scriptures is needed; a holistic understanding of the Bible and a firm belief in its sufficiency is absolutely essential to Christianity.
The book off Hebrews chapter 4 verses 12 and 13 declares, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.” The Bible makes the claim that God’s word (that is, Jesus as he is revealed through Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit) is actively involved in judging our hearts, similarly, in James chapter 1 verses 22 through 25, the Bible is likened to a mirror in which we can see ourselves for who and what we really are; we may see our sinfulness apart from Christ and we may also see that in Christ there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), because the believer’s sin has been forgiven and cleansed, having been replaced with Jesus’ own righteous status before God.
Without the Scripture, no one could feel the weight of their own sin and be compelled to repent and look to God for forgiveness; without the Scripture, no one would see Jesus fulfilling the roles of prophet, priest, and king or be able to ponder the many mysterious facets of his identity. Without Scripture, there would be nothing for people to speculate about; because Scripture is the only credible and tangible revelation we have of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We must look to the Bible alone if we want to see Jesus.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
The difference between the words of the Bible and the ideas that others have formulated is that the Bible makes the claim to be revelation while everything else is mere speculation. It is my belief that nothing can really be known apart from revelation; this was the key to the struggle of men like Kant and Kierkegaard who saw human reasoning as incapable of grasping external realities, this is in agreement with the Bible which says that God is the source of knowledge and wisdom (e.g. Proverbs 9:10, Ecclesiastes 2:26, James 1:5). Likewise, when the Bible says that Jesus taught with authority (Luke 4:32) it means that he said what a thing meant instead of what he thought it meant. This is the nature of Scripture too.
Jesus has revealed himself in myriad ways; his life, death, and resurrection are extraordinarily multifaceted in their depth and meaning, which is part of what makes him such an intriguing figure for people from all walks of life. There are three distinct Biblical roles which Jesus is revealed as having fulfilled, those are the offices of prophet, priest, and king. What is interesting is that many people who make claims about Jesus distinguishable from what the Bible says about him still grasp some of Jesus' character while ignoring other aspects. For example, Protestant liberals who neglect Biblical teaching in order to avoid offending others see Jesus' role as a priest and a king who distributes mercy to people and kindly rules over them without judging them or speaking ill of them, they forget that Jesus is also a prophet who speaks truth into our lives and reminds us that we are guilty sinners who deserve death. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalists understand Jesus as a king and prophet who rules over people and judges them, but they forget that he is also a priest who mediates for his people and forgives their sin. Many Christian evangelicals today also remember that Jesus is both priest and prophet who speaks the truth and gives grace, but they forget that he is a king who rules over their time, money, sex, food, and relationships so they do not subject themselves to his rule and obey him, but instead live hypocritical lives. For this reason a deeper trust in the Scriptures is needed; a holistic understanding of the Bible and a firm belief in its sufficiency is absolutely essential to Christianity.
The book off Hebrews chapter 4 verses 12 and 13 declares, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.” The Bible makes the claim that God’s word (that is, Jesus as he is revealed through Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit) is actively involved in judging our hearts, similarly, in James chapter 1 verses 22 through 25, the Bible is likened to a mirror in which we can see ourselves for who and what we really are; we may see our sinfulness apart from Christ and we may also see that in Christ there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), because the believer’s sin has been forgiven and cleansed, having been replaced with Jesus’ own righteous status before God.
Without the Scripture, no one could feel the weight of their own sin and be compelled to repent and look to God for forgiveness; without the Scripture, no one would see Jesus fulfilling the roles of prophet, priest, and king or be able to ponder the many mysterious facets of his identity. Without Scripture, there would be nothing for people to speculate about; because Scripture is the only credible and tangible revelation we have of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We must look to the Bible alone if we want to see Jesus.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
His Name Is The Word of God: The Importance of Seeing Jesus From Scripture (Part 3)
Many people point to Jesus life and teaching as especially profound because he emphasizes a unique love for the marginalized and he took a stand against the political and religious establishment of his day. They see this as an example worth following and picture Jesus as a supporter of their particular cause. But we must consider the reasons Jesus lived and spoke the way he did. To extract his words and actions from the historical context they are set in is to obscure them rather than reveal their true intent.
Jesus was born into a religious community during a time in which expectancy of the Messiah, the promised Savior of the Jews prophesied about in the books written by Moses (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:14-22) and the prophetic books, had reached a fever pitch. It was an environment more emotionally and religiously charged than the presidential election in our own day. Everyone wants to know who it’s going to be, everyone is waiting and watching for their redeemer. Primarily, this is because they had endured a long history of exile and occupation by the Assyrians, by the Babylonians, by Persia, by the Greeks, and now the seemingly unbreakable Romans had taken over. They knew from prophesies such as the one found in the book of Daniel (chapter 2 verses 24-35) that the Messiah would have to come soon. They were expecting a political ruler who would overthrow the government and take back Israel, liberating the nation from its captors. This was the world that Jesus came to.
Jesus began his ministry by opening up the scroll of the prophet Isaiah (61:1,2) and reading in the Jewish synagogue: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom to prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…” and then he said “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” The Jews would have understood this as a claim that the Messiah had in fact come and they would soon be free from the political oppression of Rome. We then read that he went on to preach “the good news of the kingdom of God, for which he was sent”. So, this was the basis for his teaching, not for any other reason but the firm conviction that the Christ (another word describing the Messiah which means the “anointed one” in Greek) had, in fact, arrived.
But who was he proclaiming as the Christ? In Luke chapter 22, Jesus stands before the elders and chief priests of the Jews and is asked point blank to answer this question:
He is then brought before the Roman governor Pilate and asked again if he is the Christ, the King of the Jews:
Prior to that moment, Jesus had repeatedly made similar claims; here are just a few examples:
From this it is abundantly clear that Jesus endured false trials, severe flogging, and death by crucifixion for no other reason than his claim to be God incarnate, the promised Messiah who would, rather than establishing a physical political kingdom as the Jews had expected, establish a lasting spiritual kingdom; redeeming his people by becoming the ultimate and final sacrifice to atone for their sin, bearing upon himself God’s wrath and punishment for sin, according to the sacrificial system that had long been established and practiced in the Jewish temple.
This being a matter of fact, if Jesus were not telling the truth about himself, we can no longer call him a good teacher who gave hope to the oppressed. Rather, he would be liar and a false prophet who deceived people and incited God fearing Jews to commit idolatry and worship him. He instructed people to willingly give their lives to him and his cause leading millions of followers to die in vain at the hands of their persecutors. Neither can we celebrate his rebellion against the religious establishment, since he would only have been replacing it with a more corrupt and deceptive religion than any that ever existed. In short, if the Bible’s claims about Jesus aren’t true, Jesus is the worst man who ever lived, not the greatest.
Still, there are some who deny that Jesus ever made these claims, choosing to believe instead that what the historical Jesus said and did is only embedded in the theological agenda of the gospel narratives and needs to be salvaged. This attitude is best represented by the efforts of the Jesus Seminar; a cadre of liberal scholars and theologians who voted on what Jesus did and didn’t say. Needless to say, only a small remnant of Jesus words remained (82% were deemed inauthentic). But why are the opinions of modern scholars to be trusted any more than the authors of the gospel narratives who claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus? And if the Bible isn’t trustworthy, is there another more credible account of Jesus to be found? The fact is, there is not. The Bible is the most detailed and explanatory volume we have regarding the person and work of Jesus. Yes, it is filled with dogmatic assertions about his divinity, but those assertions are no more dogmatic than the censures of the relativistic Jesus Seminar.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Jesus was born into a religious community during a time in which expectancy of the Messiah, the promised Savior of the Jews prophesied about in the books written by Moses (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:14-22) and the prophetic books, had reached a fever pitch. It was an environment more emotionally and religiously charged than the presidential election in our own day. Everyone wants to know who it’s going to be, everyone is waiting and watching for their redeemer. Primarily, this is because they had endured a long history of exile and occupation by the Assyrians, by the Babylonians, by Persia, by the Greeks, and now the seemingly unbreakable Romans had taken over. They knew from prophesies such as the one found in the book of Daniel (chapter 2 verses 24-35) that the Messiah would have to come soon. They were expecting a political ruler who would overthrow the government and take back Israel, liberating the nation from its captors. This was the world that Jesus came to.
Jesus began his ministry by opening up the scroll of the prophet Isaiah (61:1,2) and reading in the Jewish synagogue: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom to prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…” and then he said “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” The Jews would have understood this as a claim that the Messiah had in fact come and they would soon be free from the political oppression of Rome. We then read that he went on to preach “the good news of the kingdom of God, for which he was sent”. So, this was the basis for his teaching, not for any other reason but the firm conviction that the Christ (another word describing the Messiah which means the “anointed one” in Greek) had, in fact, arrived.
But who was he proclaiming as the Christ? In Luke chapter 22, Jesus stands before the elders and chief priests of the Jews and is asked point blank to answer this question:
“If you are the Christ,” they said “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
He is then brought before the Roman governor Pilate and asked again if he is the Christ, the King of the Jews:
“So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” “Yes it is as you say,” Jesus replied.”
Prior to that moment, Jesus had repeatedly made similar claims; here are just a few examples:
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27
“Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 2:6,7
“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” John 10:23,24
"We are not stoning you for any of these [miracles]," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." John 10:33
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:6,7
From this it is abundantly clear that Jesus endured false trials, severe flogging, and death by crucifixion for no other reason than his claim to be God incarnate, the promised Messiah who would, rather than establishing a physical political kingdom as the Jews had expected, establish a lasting spiritual kingdom; redeeming his people by becoming the ultimate and final sacrifice to atone for their sin, bearing upon himself God’s wrath and punishment for sin, according to the sacrificial system that had long been established and practiced in the Jewish temple.
This being a matter of fact, if Jesus were not telling the truth about himself, we can no longer call him a good teacher who gave hope to the oppressed. Rather, he would be liar and a false prophet who deceived people and incited God fearing Jews to commit idolatry and worship him. He instructed people to willingly give their lives to him and his cause leading millions of followers to die in vain at the hands of their persecutors. Neither can we celebrate his rebellion against the religious establishment, since he would only have been replacing it with a more corrupt and deceptive religion than any that ever existed. In short, if the Bible’s claims about Jesus aren’t true, Jesus is the worst man who ever lived, not the greatest.
Still, there are some who deny that Jesus ever made these claims, choosing to believe instead that what the historical Jesus said and did is only embedded in the theological agenda of the gospel narratives and needs to be salvaged. This attitude is best represented by the efforts of the Jesus Seminar; a cadre of liberal scholars and theologians who voted on what Jesus did and didn’t say. Needless to say, only a small remnant of Jesus words remained (82% were deemed inauthentic). But why are the opinions of modern scholars to be trusted any more than the authors of the gospel narratives who claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus? And if the Bible isn’t trustworthy, is there another more credible account of Jesus to be found? The fact is, there is not. The Bible is the most detailed and explanatory volume we have regarding the person and work of Jesus. Yes, it is filled with dogmatic assertions about his divinity, but those assertions are no more dogmatic than the censures of the relativistic Jesus Seminar.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
His Name Is The Word of God: The Importance of Seeing Jesus From Scripture (Part 2)
With the dawn of the age of enlightenment in the 18th century, a shift in thinking occurred in which people began to trust the popular scientific theories of the day which denied the existence of miracles and anything that did not conform to the concept of natural laws, in this way they began to distrust the Scriptures which lay claim to many supernatural events and miracles.
In addition to that, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard began to question how we perceive truth itself, rather than pursuing truth objectively, reasonably, and rationally they argued that because of the limits of reason one must take a non-rational leap into the unknown and pursue truth subjectively, since no one can really know anything with absolute certainty. Therefore, all truth is relative to the individual mind, and nothing can really be known for certain (of course, according to this philosophy, none of these ideas can be known for certain either). This thinking has both enabled some to believe what the Bible says about Jesus without obligation to provide evidence for its claims while leading others to dismiss the Bible on purely personal or emotional grounds without the need to justify their dismissal with evidence or reason.
This is only a small glimpse of the kind of social and philosophical climate out of which the United States was birthed, amidst the struggle for independence from Britain during the revolutionary war and the Christian revival known as the first Great Awakening led by men like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards who spoke of the personal power of the Christian experience, a nation was founded that highly valued freedom and individualism. This kind of idealism forged a Christianity tailored to the individual as churchgoers and clergy alike began to consider less what God has done for all people but instead, what God has done for the individual sinner.
Out of this grew an intense focus on Jesus humanity and his communicable attributes; his mercy and grace, how he was a suffering servant who was tempted just as we are and a man who can relate to the individual sinner, in place of an emphasis on his divinity and incommunicable attributes; his justice and wrath, his holiness, his sovereign kingship and judgment of mankind. This change in thinking became most evident around the time of the Second Great Awakening which featured such voices as John Wesley and Charles Finney who placed a greater emphasis on human free will, the individual's own salvation and personal relationship with God, and were known for working people into the kind of emotional fervor we see today in Christian charismatic circles in order to incite a massive altar call. As Christianity in America by and large became more man-centered, it subsequently became less God-centered and lost its trust in the supernatural elements of the faith.
With the arrival of Charles Finney’s “new measures” churches began to take a more pragmatic approach to Sunday services, rather than looking to the power of the Holy Spirit to create new hearts and transform lives, they began to consider innovative strategies they might implement to fill their pews, many of which involved neglecting or dismissing altogether the doctrines that were most offensive to unbelievers such as hell and the atonement. Teaching centered itself around political and social activism and the Bible began to be considered more and more passé or even obsolete as modern evangelicalism and liberal Protestantism emerged.
The United States stands today as a nation that is celebrated for being multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-perspectival; the relativistic non-rational ideals of philosophers like Kant and Kiergegaard are the rule, rather than the exception and now even the most far-fetched religious or philosophical claim may be accepted as truthful under the banner of “tolerance”. These forces combined with American consumer capitalism have led to a pick and choose variety of religion where any person may choose from a buffet of religious beliefs and practices without regard to its veracity, since truth is no longer considered objective, but is instead defined for and by the individual.
What is ironic about all this is that while those who subscribe to moral and religious relativism condemn dogma, since, according to their view, the truth can not be known, their claim to have an understanding of ultimate reality as essentially unknowable is equally dogmatic and is, in fact, an incoherent hypothesis contrary to fact. The claim that truth is unknowable is a truth claim in itself which inherently contradicts itself. Relativists somehow manage to slip past the religious radar and lambaste Biblical Christianity for its claim to have an absolute understanding of God and truth, all the while staking their radically dogmatic claim that ultimate reality is unknowable.
With this view in mind, it is not difficult to understand how such an exhaustive variety of contradictory conclusions about Jesus could be formed, entertained, and sustained. What is amazing, however, is that while the teachings about Jesus found in Scripture have been ignored; the name of Jesus still holds authority in every cultural setting. In each case, a particular group of people are calling on the authority of Jesus name to support their cause and they wield his name to gain respect that they otherwise might not have had. This is because they acknowledge, perhaps subconsciously, that Jesus is the greatest, most important, and most influential man who ever lived. But this can only be true if what the Bible says about him is true. I'll explain why in the next installment of this four part series.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
In addition to that, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard began to question how we perceive truth itself, rather than pursuing truth objectively, reasonably, and rationally they argued that because of the limits of reason one must take a non-rational leap into the unknown and pursue truth subjectively, since no one can really know anything with absolute certainty. Therefore, all truth is relative to the individual mind, and nothing can really be known for certain (of course, according to this philosophy, none of these ideas can be known for certain either). This thinking has both enabled some to believe what the Bible says about Jesus without obligation to provide evidence for its claims while leading others to dismiss the Bible on purely personal or emotional grounds without the need to justify their dismissal with evidence or reason.
This is only a small glimpse of the kind of social and philosophical climate out of which the United States was birthed, amidst the struggle for independence from Britain during the revolutionary war and the Christian revival known as the first Great Awakening led by men like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards who spoke of the personal power of the Christian experience, a nation was founded that highly valued freedom and individualism. This kind of idealism forged a Christianity tailored to the individual as churchgoers and clergy alike began to consider less what God has done for all people but instead, what God has done for the individual sinner.
Out of this grew an intense focus on Jesus humanity and his communicable attributes; his mercy and grace, how he was a suffering servant who was tempted just as we are and a man who can relate to the individual sinner, in place of an emphasis on his divinity and incommunicable attributes; his justice and wrath, his holiness, his sovereign kingship and judgment of mankind. This change in thinking became most evident around the time of the Second Great Awakening which featured such voices as John Wesley and Charles Finney who placed a greater emphasis on human free will, the individual's own salvation and personal relationship with God, and were known for working people into the kind of emotional fervor we see today in Christian charismatic circles in order to incite a massive altar call. As Christianity in America by and large became more man-centered, it subsequently became less God-centered and lost its trust in the supernatural elements of the faith.
With the arrival of Charles Finney’s “new measures” churches began to take a more pragmatic approach to Sunday services, rather than looking to the power of the Holy Spirit to create new hearts and transform lives, they began to consider innovative strategies they might implement to fill their pews, many of which involved neglecting or dismissing altogether the doctrines that were most offensive to unbelievers such as hell and the atonement. Teaching centered itself around political and social activism and the Bible began to be considered more and more passé or even obsolete as modern evangelicalism and liberal Protestantism emerged.
The United States stands today as a nation that is celebrated for being multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-perspectival; the relativistic non-rational ideals of philosophers like Kant and Kiergegaard are the rule, rather than the exception and now even the most far-fetched religious or philosophical claim may be accepted as truthful under the banner of “tolerance”. These forces combined with American consumer capitalism have led to a pick and choose variety of religion where any person may choose from a buffet of religious beliefs and practices without regard to its veracity, since truth is no longer considered objective, but is instead defined for and by the individual.
What is ironic about all this is that while those who subscribe to moral and religious relativism condemn dogma, since, according to their view, the truth can not be known, their claim to have an understanding of ultimate reality as essentially unknowable is equally dogmatic and is, in fact, an incoherent hypothesis contrary to fact. The claim that truth is unknowable is a truth claim in itself which inherently contradicts itself. Relativists somehow manage to slip past the religious radar and lambaste Biblical Christianity for its claim to have an absolute understanding of God and truth, all the while staking their radically dogmatic claim that ultimate reality is unknowable.
With this view in mind, it is not difficult to understand how such an exhaustive variety of contradictory conclusions about Jesus could be formed, entertained, and sustained. What is amazing, however, is that while the teachings about Jesus found in Scripture have been ignored; the name of Jesus still holds authority in every cultural setting. In each case, a particular group of people are calling on the authority of Jesus name to support their cause and they wield his name to gain respect that they otherwise might not have had. This is because they acknowledge, perhaps subconsciously, that Jesus is the greatest, most important, and most influential man who ever lived. But this can only be true if what the Bible says about him is true. I'll explain why in the next installment of this four part series.
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
His Name Is The Word of God: The Importance of Seeing Jesus From Scripture (Part 1)
Jesus once asked his disciples, “Who do people say [I] am?” and “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-15). Their response highlighted the ongoing debate between Christians who take Jesus at his word and the speculations of those who do not. The question is just as relevant and controversial in our modern era as it was then. “Who is Jesus”?
Today Jesus is more universally popular than ever. His name is mentioned more often and more frequently with greater interest than ever before by believers and atheists alike. He is a favorite subject in all forms of media; movies, music, magazines, radio, television, t-shirts, tattoos, sculptures, paintings, pictures, placards, gift cards, billboards, video games, and pro-sports are among the many forums in which Jesus has been discussed and dissected. More books have been written about him than any person in all of history and as opinions about him continue to proliferate that number is increasing exponentially. As a result, his personality has never been more obscured by varying cultural perspectives as it is today.
The questions being asked about him and the answers being given are as diverse as they are numerous. They represent every ethnicity, gender, religious system, political persuasion, and sexual orientation. Practically every aspect of Jesus’ character and identity has been puzzled over and reinterpreted to the degree that there is hardly any consensus between those various sub-cultures as to who he really is. Here are some of the major questions regarding Jesus that have been expressed and are still being debated both in America and abroad:
Is Jesus alive today or dead in his grave?
Is Jesus a willing participant in his death or a case of cosmic child abuse?
Is Jesus a man or an angel or a god or God or God-man?
Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer or is he Michael the Archangel?
Is Jesus a Jew, or a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist or a Mormon?
Is Jesus fair-skinned or dark-skinned?
Is Jesus African, European, or Asian?
Is Jesus rich or poor?
Is Jesus a democrat or a republican?
Is Jesus a communist or a capitalist?
Is Jesus a sexist or a feminist?
Is Jesus happy or sad?
Is Jesus masculine or effeminate?
Is Jesus married or single?
Is Jesus gay, straight, bi-sexual, asexual, or transsexual?
Is Jesus countercultural or conformist?
Is Jesus a moral teacher/philosopher, a social/political rebel, a religious reformer and revolutionary, or the promised Messiah to the Jews and Savior to the Gentiles?
These questions effectively cover the gamut of possible identities for Jesus and they have all been answered and are still being answered by differing people-groups around the world. But one question still begs to be answered: where are they getting their answers from?
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Today Jesus is more universally popular than ever. His name is mentioned more often and more frequently with greater interest than ever before by believers and atheists alike. He is a favorite subject in all forms of media; movies, music, magazines, radio, television, t-shirts, tattoos, sculptures, paintings, pictures, placards, gift cards, billboards, video games, and pro-sports are among the many forums in which Jesus has been discussed and dissected. More books have been written about him than any person in all of history and as opinions about him continue to proliferate that number is increasing exponentially. As a result, his personality has never been more obscured by varying cultural perspectives as it is today.
The questions being asked about him and the answers being given are as diverse as they are numerous. They represent every ethnicity, gender, religious system, political persuasion, and sexual orientation. Practically every aspect of Jesus’ character and identity has been puzzled over and reinterpreted to the degree that there is hardly any consensus between those various sub-cultures as to who he really is. Here are some of the major questions regarding Jesus that have been expressed and are still being debated both in America and abroad:
Is Jesus alive today or dead in his grave?
Is Jesus a willing participant in his death or a case of cosmic child abuse?
Is Jesus a man or an angel or a god or God or God-man?
Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer or is he Michael the Archangel?
Is Jesus a Jew, or a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist or a Mormon?
Is Jesus fair-skinned or dark-skinned?
Is Jesus African, European, or Asian?
Is Jesus rich or poor?
Is Jesus a democrat or a republican?
Is Jesus a communist or a capitalist?
Is Jesus a sexist or a feminist?
Is Jesus happy or sad?
Is Jesus masculine or effeminate?
Is Jesus married or single?
Is Jesus gay, straight, bi-sexual, asexual, or transsexual?
Is Jesus countercultural or conformist?
Is Jesus a moral teacher/philosopher, a social/political rebel, a religious reformer and revolutionary, or the promised Messiah to the Jews and Savior to the Gentiles?
These questions effectively cover the gamut of possible identities for Jesus and they have all been answered and are still being answered by differing people-groups around the world. But one question still begs to be answered: where are they getting their answers from?
Recommended Reading and Sources Used:
The Bible (choose a reliable and coherent English translation such as the New International Version or English Standard Version, NIV quotations were used for this blog, however, the ESV is known to be a more literal translation).
American Jesus by Stephen Prothero
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll
Monday, March 24, 2008
Welcome to the Next
Hey everybody! These are indeed exciting times. We have launched our new website, performed the first (to my knowledge) live Bible Study web cast, created Mp3 downloads of those Bible Studies and now we have created this blog. Right now we are set up to potentially be the first virtual church in all of church history. KURIOS has ventured outside of the walls of a church building and at this point in our history we are more virtual than actual. However, this has not distracted from the vision God gave me of a traditional style church with four walls and a pulpit. It has, though, taken the technology and tools of our computer savvy culture to best reach as many people possible with the provocative message of Jesus Christ.
There is some criticism that we are like a body-builder on steroids: overly defined with a small package. But I see the steps we've taken as the skeleton of the body God has created KURIOS to be, not the end result. The vision I have for this church plant is much bigger than me. And so, by using the tools we have at hand, KURIOS is striving to create a new church culture using anything we can to teach sound doctrine and proclaim the life and message of Jesus. There are greater things at stake here than edgy graphics and new evangelism gimmicks: our goal is to see people impacted with the reality of Jesus Christ and be saved from sin and death. As the culture and technologies change we are committed to adapting to better communicate the Gospel. One day the internet will be as obsolete as cassette tapes, but the Gospel will still be relevant. So we will find new mediums to share its message with other people. We will follow Paul's example and become "all things to all men so that by all possible means (we) might save some." (1 Cor 9.22).
The protestant reformers had a saying, semper reformanda (always to be reformed), which articulated the pursuit of truth over tradition. The evangelical and fundamental traditions have ignored the heart behind this conviction, which was not to be corrupted by traditions and religion, but constantly pursue truth even at the expense of institution. Many have turned away from the culture that consumes the people they are hoping to reach with the Gospel, and, as a result, they have become culturally illiterate and irrelevant.
Today, the rebirth of reformation is demonstrated by such movements as the Emergent and Emerging churches. And although these schools of thought are as equally diverse as they are similar, they try to address the same philosophical, spiritual, and cultural issues faced by the church in a post-Christian society. And although KURIOS leans toward the Emerging (theologically conservative) church side of the debate, the reality is that it would be a mistake to swear loyalty to any definition or theologian or successful pastor, no matter how cool the website is. These things are unimportant and can distract from the calling Christians have been given which is to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples out of people who do not know Jesus. This is the big E on the eye chart that most of us have missed. And we are just now repenting and getting back to the basics (hopefully with a little style).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
