Independence Day Musing – 7/4/09

America is Empire.  And Empire is evil.

Empire exists exactly because man has forgotten God and has relied on his own strength instead of God’s strength. Man has forgot that he has been rescued (saved) from his former self and former life. Empire is the effect of the cause of hopelessness, which itself is an effect of the cause of forsaking God.  In essence, Empire destroys both the one who wields it and the one who it is wielded against.

Evil arises from sin and sin is the condition of the human heart. Jesus was the one who absorbed evil on the cross, breaking it’s hold and power on the human race. Christ has made us – those who follow Him – a peculiar, called-out people to be His Body in the the world – to walk the same Way that Jesus walked.

May our Independence Day be a cause to declare independance from that which keeps us in bondage.  May we repent of the carnal sins of humanity – greed, power, and self.

Quotes – 06/16/09

O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both
satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am
painfully conscious of my need of further grace.
I am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune
God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with
longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still.
Show me Thy glory, I pray Thee, that so I may
know Thee indeed. Begin in mercy a new work
of love within me. Say to my soul, “Rise up, my
love, my fair one, and come away.” Then give me
grace to rise and follow Thee up from this misty
lowland where I have wandered so long.
In Jesus’ name.
Amen.

- A.W. Tozer

Randomness – 06/15/09

Lots of things have happened over the past month or two.

• Bought a Metallic Gray 2009 Honda Civic (pretty much the one in that intro video on this page).  Car = Awesome.  Debt = Not So Awesome.
• Moved to San Antonio, TX approximately three weeks ago.
• Started work for USAA.  I’m still currently in training.
• Made some new friends at a church in the area.
• Doing the daily grind.  Catching up on sleep on the weekends.  Burning half of all the food I try to cook.

Sorry for the brevity.  The very idea of extensively commenting on so many (big) things in my life is a little unsettling.

Matthew 16:28 – Lord, Kingdom, Sacrifice

This verse perplexed me as I was reading Matthew chapter 16 the other day.  Honestly, it’s a verse that perplexes people all the time, but I think God has shown me something in this verse.  He has taught me much more as I have been in the process of writing and editing this blog post.  I strongly recommend you read the entire chapter before continuing.

Matthew 16:28 reads in the NASB, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”

Now, people have interpreted this as referring to the Transfiguration, which is the very next chapter, by the way.  Others, to the Ascension of Christ.  Some, to the resurrection.

I’m not sure how the Ascension even comes to bear on the situation.  “Come” does not mean “leave,” as is what happened in the Ascension.  The Transfiguration has its own problems as well.  The Transfiguration, at best, was a small preview of what God’s glory will appear like when the Kingdom does in fact come, one day, finally and fully and totally.  So, that leaves us with this verse referring to the Resurrection.  In context of chapter 16, the Resurrection is the best position to take, and as I explain what I’ve learned in from this passage, you’ll soon see why.

The first 12 verses deal with parables and their explanations – to beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Their teaching was representative of many of the evils in Judaism at the time, as well as society all over the earth.  Like everyone else, they had been corrupted by evil and had succumbed to the temptations of life:  greed, power, wealth, and fame.  Jesus opens in verse 13 asking His disciples “who” He is – their opinion and the common opinion.  Jesus wants them to think of His character, His teaching, and His mission because He is about to challenge them and their worldview against the teaching (leaven) of the Pharisees and Sadducees (and by extension, the world system itself, in all of its socio-political contexts).  In the verses that follow, Peter displays one of the fruits of the world:  selfishness.  Jesus then rebukes his narrow worldview.  Finally at verse 24, Jesus tells them that they must deny themselves to follow Him, that they must die to self to fully live unto God.  Verse 27 seems troubling at first, but when compared with verse 26, it simply elaborates on the results of such a wasted life.  God is not going to repay a selfish life lived for selfish gain with a life that is selflessly lived in abundance and freedom in Christ.

Verse 28 says two things, both of which go hand-in-hand together.  First, the literal interpretation, if you follow me you will be killed for my sake; however you will see the Son of Man in the glory of the Kingdom before hand.  Second, the allegorical interpretation, some of you will not die unto yourself until you see the Son of Man in the glory of the Kingdom.  But what is this phrase, “see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” talking about?

It refers to the Resurrection.  The Resurrection was the turning point of history.  Evil had not only been defeated, but made an open show and spectacle of.  The Kingdom could finally come and was, in fact, here.  No more was it “near” or “at hand” like the Gospels say so many times.  A new day had arrived.  The Son of Man was clothed (transformed) in glory and the Kingdom was now established and ready to expand.  It had finally come to this earth (not just heaven) and was finally a present reality (not just a future reality).  The risen Lord and King demonstrated openly that everything He ever taught and said was valid, and that it was now time for “every knee to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

So, first, the disciples would see their soon-to-be crucified Lord raised from the dead and clothed in all power, glory, and authority.  They would see Him before they met their fate.  Their fate was to die like Him on account of the Good News, for a “servant is not greater than his master.”  However, what would motivate them to pursue and eventually endure their fate?  Well, second, as I mentioned two paragraphs above, the dying to self.  As we know from the latter narrative of each Gospel, all but one of Jesus’ disciples fled at the crucifixion.  Obviously, they didn’t really follow Him.  The prime example is Thomas.   When Thomas seen the risen Jesus, he felt Him and came to a belief that was certain:  “My Lord and My God!”  What happened to Thomas?  He died to his desires, and later, on account of the Gospel…

Verse 28, then, seems to refer to the Resurrection.  And, what a powerful message it speaks to us (my description fails to even come close to doing it justice).  The disciples didn’t truly follow Jesus until He died (seemingly just another one of many failed Messiahs, if you understand the background of that day) and rose again (clearly fulfilling the words that the prophets of old had predicted).  When their Master rose, a new day dawned on the earth, and a new Kingdom replaced the Kingdoms of the world (at least in their minds – some that drove them, particularly John, who wrote the phrase as motivation for the Church facing persecution at that time from the Emperor, as witnessed in the book of Revelation).  They died that day.  They forsook themselves and clung to Christ.  Fifty days later they made 3,000 disciples who would follow this risen Lord.  Not long after that, as the world was slowly beginning to trade the earthly Kingdoms for a heavenly Kingdom, they were martyred one by one.  Still, this Kingdom that became a present reality on Resurrection day, kept growing and expanding, almost as if Matthew 16:28 prophesied that this new Kingdom would keep expanding and expanding, that it would truly “come” one day (hmmm).

Over 1,700 years later, it seems the Kingdom has taken a couple of leaps backwards.  I guess somewhere along the way, we missed the risen Savior, “the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”  Because if we had seen the risen Savior, we would have lost our lives to gain it in following the Messiah, and the Kingdom of God would be unraveling the Kingdoms of this world.

“Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15).  Obviously… not Lord.

Missing Link?

How does this new article affect your beliefs and faith?

It neither changes my beliefs nor dimishes my faith.  Whether we evolved is really inconsequential to me.  I don’t believe that we necessarily evolved, but even if we did, the fact is more of a “means” than an “end.”  In other words, how we got here is not nearly as important as why we are here.  Nevertheless, the details of this article, if indeed true in fact (scientific analysis of the fossil) and conclusion (the fossil necessarily proves evolution to be valid), will be hard for some creationists to accept, particularly the young earth crowd, not so much for the old earth crowd.

Reflections (Theology) – 04/13/09

What follows are some thoughts that I’ve been mulling over for some time. Some of these thoughts were clarified or somewhat resolved after a visit with a friend a few weeks ago.  Some have taken longer.  Some have yet to be clarified.  Here they are:

• A lot of the things we banter about, even things we perceive to be significant, are a pointless waste of time.  It might be okay to discuss them, but we fail whenever the discussion loses humility and insists on dogmatic conformity.
• Organic churches are not a myth.  It happens.  I have now moved from hearing about it through books to hearing about it from a first-hand witness.  Now, the next step is for me to experience it someday myself.
• I’m not going to “figure it out” or get a play-by-play for how to do life together with others as a spiritual family (i.e. organic church).  It’s something that I must figure out on my own, in my own context.  I must dig deep into the Word and prayer, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead as He sees fit.
• I’ve learned that we will fail when we lose patience with and dependence upon God.  This is specifically true of those who wish to start organic churches and create organic relationships with others.  When we try to “force” the issue, whether it is evangelism or a bible study or a “church” meeting, we will fail.  We must let things happen naturally.  We should not build structures and try to fit everything into them.  We must let God take care of it all in His own time and in His own way.  I, at one time, had the idea of starting a bible study in my home and inviting people to it, all for the purposes of starting an organic chruch.  After thinking about the idea, and listening to an experienced friend’s advice, I see how the idea ultimately fails.  It’s not natural and it forces things into a predefined structure.  And, likely, it will not be a church at all.
• When people talk about having genuine, authentic relationships, that’s exactly what they mean.  It means being real, unconditional friends with people with no overriding hidden motive or agenda attached.  These relationships are in no way simple marketing “bait and switch” tactics that we use as a medium to present an often deficient account of the Gospel.
• I posted some thoughts on ecclesiology recently.  In addition, I’ve come to the thought that the “church” (community of believers) is for the saved only.  The church dispersed is when the Good News is shared with others.  We are to interact with unbelievers in our individual daily lives, not among the church.  In the Bible, we see the early church going into the marketplaces and elsewhere proclaiming the Good News.  The Good News was not necessarily the focal point of the home gatherings of the churches.  The focal point was instead the edification of and fellowship with one another.  In fact, the church is for “one-anothering.”  One-anothering is only possible among a group of similar consistency, which, in this case, is all believers.  The church is for believers (and no, I’m not talking about the trite idea of membership).
• I am not alone.  There are those who think like me and are practically in the same position as me.  This is an important, and vastly encouraging, revelation.
• And as I close, I must conclude with an analysis of myself.  The analysis is that I, myself, am a screwed up person in desperate need of God’s mercy, grace, and help.  I’m:
  • not nearly as humble as I thought I was.  I was doing a lot better while investigating the emerging/emergent church movement.  However, since getting bored, I guess, with said movement, I started becoming more sure of myself, especially in relation to others and their ideas.  Besides ideas, I worry too much about hypotheticals and myself.  Thanks to Neil Cole’s recent book, citing Rick Warren, “humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”
  • ashamed of the Gospel.  Whereas some are too open, forcing their faith upon others, I have the opposite problem.  I don’t share it (or show it) as a natural part of my being.  The middle ground is living an open, honest faith that is neither ashamed (and therefore hides it) nor dogmatic (and therefore forces it).  If I feel an urge to pray among non-believing friends before a meal, I should act on that urge.  If I don’t have the urge, I should not force it.  I understand one of the major reasons I am the way I am.  I am well aware of the perceptions (almost always true) that non-Christians have of Christians, and I wish to distance and distinguish myself from those.  However, I must live out my faith, and give an answer/explanation of it to those who ask.
  • too concerned with expectations, both those on myself and on others.  Expectations are destined to fail, and relationships should NEVER be built on such weak foundations.  We must love and accept people unconditionally, treat them as we would like to be treated, and love our friends (and enemies) regardless of how they treat us.
  • impatient.  I need to continually learn to be patient and rely upon God.  I need to let Him be God and work out His plans – whether the issue is my purpose in life, career, relationships, love interests, or what-have-you.  It’s definitely not easy, and it often becomes a cause of anxiety and sometimes anger and bitterness.
  • often in a state of unbelief.  What I mean is, I need to have a very strong faith in what God can do.  We all need to believe that God can actually do things and make a difference in this world.  Moreover, we must understand that the medium of change is us.  No matter how selfish, proud, retarded (both in knowledge and wisdom), cynical, drama-loving, insecure (with regards to safety and socially), hopeless, milquetoast, foolish, lonely, impatient, anxious, and lazy you (I) are (am), God still uses us (me) to accomplish His purposes.  He always has, and He always will.

Is Theology In Jeopardy?

Some would say that theology is in jeopardy.  The antagonist?  The hermeneutic of suspicion, i.e. postmodernism.  The protagonists?  Those of a Modern/Enlightenment persuasion.

To me, it is humorous to hear the protagonists wail, “Oh God, the doctrines are crumbling,” or something to that effect.  Modernists, who subscribe to universal categories in which they seek to create a unified understanding of some given subject – and in turn, value the power inherent in these categorical ideas to restrain all threatening (i.e. divergent) ideas – do not like postmodernism, not in the slightest.  Postmodernism challenges their cherished ideas.  And Modernist don’t like their ideas to be challenged because their ideas are correct, absolute, and universal, or so they say.

This is true to a high degree in the field of Christian theology.  Today’s culture is throwing weighty, profound questions toward all camps:  Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainline, and Catholic.  The problem?  None of these four camps have answers to these questions.  They’ve rested on their laurels for far too long, confident that they were right.  Modernists have failed to do the hard work of thinking through theology, relying instead on tradition and the past for security.  Further, their perspectives are blinded by denominational structures inherent with sacred history, job security, and self-preservation.  Their claims and apologies of the “truth” are much more about power-plays than preserving the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The modernists, again, have failed to do the hard work.  They deserve no hearing.

So, what sort of questions are being asked?  Well, the questions stem from cultural-esque issues to those that are more theological in nature.

Some cultural issues being addressed are the Christian status of both non-practicing and practicing homosexuals, the discussion between sexual orientation vs. sexual preference, the inherent ability of and theological backing for women in the ministry, and the contextual background and proceeding prohibition of extramarital sex.

Some of the positions of the current generation on this issue?  (I’m speaking mainly of current-generation Christians, who, of course, have a postmodern background; also, these descriptions are not meant to have exhaustive detail).  Most believe that sexual orientation is the key word:  genetic predispositions (whether “mutations” or not is mostly irrelevant) and environmental factors (such as abuse, absent father/mother) can determine whether someone is a heterosexual or homosexual.  Of course, they would agree choice does come into play as well.  Further, some would say practicing homosexuals can be good Christians; however, others would not agree.  Some would argue that the prohibition on extramarital sex is cultural in nature:  in a time when people were married around the time of puberty, having sex outside of marriage would be seen as wrong and superfluous – theologically and biologically.  Conversely, in today’s culture we prolong marriage ten or more years after puberty, which, it is argued, creates problems neither known nor foreknown in the biblical narrative.  Then comes the issue of women in the ministry.  Many now at least have women in all levels of leadership, except senior pastor.  Some of these, additionally, allow women to participate in any form of ministry in the church.  And to some, ministry is not an issue because the idea of offices and institutional structures are unbiblical.

Some of the theological issues are the validity of the tribulational views, the competing millennial views, creation/evolution, hell, soteriology, pluralism vs. exclusivism in salvation, and many more.

Some of the positions of the current generation on this issue?  (Again, I’m speaking of Christians in this issue).  Dispensational pretribulationalism is despised.  Amillennialism is growing in popularity, as is historic premillinialism.  However, many just avoid the issue of eschatology altogether, seeing it as not particularly useful.  Very few believe in a young earth creation (YEC).  Most opt for some form of old earth creation (OEC), which includes progressive creationism and theistic evolution, or evolution.  Inclusivism in soteriology is becoming more common, as is pluralism.  This is also interrelated with the Calvinist and Arminian debate.  Some are becoming 5-point TULIP Calvinists while others are becoming Reformed Arminians; some are becoming something else.  And this, in turn, is interrelated with the idea of hell, or punishment of the wicked.  Many views are represented here.

For a long while, Moderns thought that they had these things figured out.  But when those of a more postmodernist persuasion came forward with opposing arguments characterized by impressive degrees of thoroughness and thoughtfulness, the Modernists were flabbergasted.  Instead of dealing with the issues, they’ve decided to separate and to resort to preaching “holy proclamations of doom.”

Such is cowardly and shameful.  That is why much of Christendom most likely will collapse, as a previous post mentioned briefly.  The question is, what will replace fallen Christianity?  Will an amorphous network of neo-paganistic New Age nihilism be Christianity’s fate?  Or, will there be those willing to rise from the ashes of Christendom and deal resolutely, fairly, and boldly with the legitimate issues and questions that this generation raises?

A Few Thoughts On Organic Leadership

Organic Leadership by Neil Cole is an excellent book on leadership in particular and Christian life in general.  I whole-heartedly recommend it.

I just wanted to share a few thoughts that were new to me that I gleaned from the book.

The Attitude of Christ Jesus

Examining Philippians 2:1-11, Cole talks about the Great Mystery.  Namely, he is speaking about verse 5, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (NASB).  This verse, of course, speaks of Jesus’ humility.  But where it starts to get mind-blowing is in realizing the fact of what sort of attitude Jesus had:  one where he thought of you and me as more important than Himself.  After all, humility is about thinking of others more than yourself (not thinking of yourself as weak and unworthy).  Speaking of the implications of this truth, Neil writes:

The Creator of the universe, who spoke it into existence and holds it all together with his spoken word, thought of me (the guy who can’t even balance his checkbook correctly) as more important than himself!  The holy One, who never allowed himself to entertain an impure thought for even a second, thought of me (who has a hard time not thinking impure thoughts for even a single day) as more important than himself!  Whoa.  See, I cannot fathom this mystery.  I know it’s true; the evidence is throughout Scripture.  I know what he did; I just can’t comprehend the “why” behind it.  That is what gets me.  I know he loves me.  I have experienced his love throughout my life, and it has never failed me.  I do no question his love for me; I question how he could love me like that (p.190).

And this is the same attitude that we are commanded by Paul to have  – the attitude of Christ Jesus.  To push this further, what does it look like to love your enemies – the people you tend to hate and wish malice towards?  If sinners are the enemy of God because of sin, and Jesus was God, then we have much to learn from the Gospel narrative describing Jesus’ interactions with sinners.  How would you treat someone that harmed your spouse, child(ren), friends, and family?  How would you treat someone that robbed you of everything you held dear?  Remember this question in the process:  how did Jesus treat those who had sinned against and blasphemed the Father?  And how did he treat those who thought they were righteous and “in good” with the Father?

The Polarization and Dichotomization of Church Adjectives

Terms such as “universal” and “local” are adjectives that have been affixed to the definition of the church’s nature.  However, neither term  is found in the Bible as either is often defined.

Speaking particularly of a “local” church, the idea itself leads to the condoning of sectarian division and disunity in the Body.  So, in one city, you can have dozens, if not hundreds and thousands, of churches.  Such an idea is foreign to the New Testament.  “… [W]hen the authors of many New Testament letters wrote to local churches, they were writing to all the Christians in a given geographical region” (p.108).  For instance, the church of Corinth – meaning just that, “the church of [in] Corinth”.  While the Church in Corinth may have had groups of 25-50 meet in various homes scattered throughout the city, the point is that they were still one church in the same geographical area united on the mission of bringing that city to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.  That mission united them amid various, often rampant, problems.  There is no biblical record, either descriptive or prescriptive, of the idea of a church “splitting” into two separate churches over a matter of disagreement.  Churches are commanded to be united together and to be obedient unto the Lord, or face swift discipline from God Himself.

Today we are separated by minor differences over doctrines that were not even a passing thought in New Testament times.  The Thessalonians had two competing views of eschatology.  They didn’t have some dispensational churches in Thessalonica and some who were not.  Rather than forming separate local churches they were still one family.  The Corinthian church was divided over spiritual gifts and especially speaking in tongues but were still one church.  They didn’t become two local churches, one that was charismatic and one that was not.  The church in Thyatira had some who followed one leader’s attempt to contextualize, which led to some serious compromise.  Others, who did not follow them into worldliness, were still part of the same church according to Jesus.  They didn’t have some who were the liberal church and others who were not.

So what the idea of the “local” church does to those steeped in a modernistic, gnostic, and institutionalized mindset is create a wall that divides family members.  We are no longer united, and much weaker apart than we would be together.  Imagine what a hypocritical message we send to our communities:  we are suppose to be witnesses of the unity found in Christ Jesus but instead we show disunity, and often biting aggression, towards our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  No wonder people see the Gospel as powerless; our actions bring an open shame and reproach upon our crucified Lord and Savior.

And then you have the idea of membership, which seems to be a foreign idea.  The truth is, if you were a Christian, and you lived in say Galatia, you were a part of the church in Galatia.  You could be a disobedient Christian, but the fact remains, you were a “member” of church of Galatia – of the church of the city in which you resided.

Embedded in the idea of membership is the idea of hoops that one must jump through to be accepted, when Jesus simply said that those “who believe in Me and follow Me will be accepted by my Father in heaven” (paraphrase).  Are we more holy and righteous than God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that we require more for believers to be “accepted” than they do?  Jesus had many terms for such people:  brood of vipers, white-washed tombs, hypocrites, liars, deceivers, den of thieves, etc.  We have tended to decide who is a member by who takes a certain class, signs a covenant or agreement, or is baptized by whom, when, how, and what method.  All of these requirements are absolutely foreign to a Christian being part of the Body of believers.  Those “requirements” might (read:  “might”) indicate someone’s dedication or faithfulness, but they cannot ban someone from being a part of the church, especially since he or she becomes a member of the church [specifically of the area they live in] at the moment of salvation.  Cole said of these distinctions and requirements:  “… [they are] not of the kingdom of God; it sounds a lot more like a country club, with certain rites and card-carrying members.  All this is built on a false view of the church” (p. 109).

Randomness – 03/19/09

• Seeing my boy Jeff Rhodes tomorrow.
• It’s starting to get busy at school in this soon-to-come final month:  projects are needing to be started, papers are needing to be developed, and graduation is needing to be planed.
• Getting plans prepared for moving to San Antonio, TX to start my job June 8th.  That includes securing an apartment, buying a new car, moving my stuff (mostly books and cloths – not a whole lot), and furnishing the new crib.
• Bought a Springfield Armory XDm .40 caliber a few weeks ago.  Need to buy more clips/ammo for it.  Also, I want to get a Mossberg 590 Persuader 12 Gage Shotgun… but I might hold off a few months on that.
• See this guitar… pretty sweet.  Might get this later this year.  Depends on how the new amp I’ll get this summer works.  My current guitar may just suck… or maybe the one that really sucks is me
• Got some new books I need to start reading:
  • Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World – Zondervan Counterpoint Series
    • Deals with varying degrees of inclusivism and exclusivism.
  • Four Views on Eternal Security – Zondervan Counterpoint Series
    • Deals with traditional Calvinism, modified Calvinism (with the T and P of the TULIP acrostic being Calvinist and the ULI being Armenian), Arminism, and Weslyian Arminism.
  • Evil and the Justice of God – N.T. Wright
    • N.T. Wright… need I say more.
  • Meltdown:  A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse – Thomas Woods
    • Economist from the Austrian (as opposed to Kenynesian) school of economics.  This school has predicted and given solutions to all the “booms and busts” our economy has had this century.  Unfortunately, they have been silenced for various reasons, although, they are gaining credibility every day.  You probably see an adherent on the news every day – Rep. Ron Paul.
• And finally, Rob Bell’s fourth book comes out later this year!!!

Redrawn Lines

I think I see a new trend developing in Christianity; the few that I’ve talked to about this agree.

Denominationalism, at least as we know it, will end.

The “lines of demarcation” will be redrawn, not around non-essentials much like they are now, but around soteriology – similar to what happened in the Protestant Reformation.  What I mean is this:  there will be two camps once again, the Calvinists and the Armenians.

Need proof?  Just look at Together for the Gospel.  People from every stripe are involved:  Baptists, Presbyterian, Charismatic, etc.  And what’s the glue that holds them all together?  Calvinism.