Evening 7/21

Spurgeon:

Psalm 42:9

Canst thou answer this, believer? Canst thou find any reason why thou art so often mourning instead of rejoicing? Why yield to gloomy anticipations? Who told thee that the night would never end in day? Who told thee that the sea of circumstances would ebb out till there should be nothing left but long leagues of the mud of horrible poverty? Who told thee that the winter of thy discontent would proceed from frost to frost, from snow, and ice, and hail, to deeper snow, and yet more heavy tempest of despair? Knowest thou not that day follows night, that flood comes after ebb, that spring and summer succeed winter? Hope thou then! Hope thou ever! For God fails thee not. Dost thou not know that thy God loves thee in the midst of all this? Mountains, when in darkness hidden, are as real as in day, and God's love is as true to thee now as it was in thy brightest moments. No father chastens always: thy Lord hates the rod as much as thou dost; he only cares to use it for that reason which should make thee willing to receive it, namely, that it works thy lasting good. Thou shalt yet climb Jacob's ladder with the angels, and behold him who sits at the top of it--thy covenant God. Thou shalt yet, amidst the splendours of eternity, forget the trials of time, or only remember them to bless the God who led thee through them, and wrought thy lasting good by them. Come, sing in the midst of tribulation. Rejoice even while passing through the furnace. Make the wilderness to blossom like the rose! Cause the desert to ring with thine exulting joys, for these light afflictions will soon be over, and then "forever with the Lord," thy bliss shall never wane.

"Faint not nor fear, his arms are near,

He changeth not, and thou art dear;

Only believe and thou shalt see,

That Christ is all in all to thee."

Devo thought

This comes from Spurgeon's Morning and Evening Devotional

Job 13:23

"Therefore, the believer, even when sin rolls like a black flood, and the remembrance of the past is bitter, can yet stand before the blazing throne of the great and holy God, and cry, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea rather, that hath risen again." While the recollection of his sin fills him with shame and sorrow, he at the same time makes it a foil to show the brightness of mercy--guilt is the dark night in which the fair star of divine love shines with serene splendour."


It reminds me of something Luther said, Do not like Adam and Eve let your guilt, shame, and sin cause you to hide and run from our God, instead, let it press you tighter to His great grace. 

Savior of the World

Angels announced it. Luke 2:11
Jesus corroborated it. John 3:17
Samaritans saw it. John 4:42
Paul explained it. Acts 13:23
Timothy taught it. 1 Timothy 4:10
And John joins in. 1 John 4:14

Jesus is Savior of the world.

This means a lot and has a lot of implications. But just one thing we know from this: our problems are bigger than we think.

We look out at the world and see problems. In our efforts we want to fix them. We attack them intellectually with education. We attack them spiritually with meditation. We attack the behavior with therapy. We attack social issues with social structures. And while these efforts are good we still see problems. It doesn't ultimately work because we do not just have a problem with our minds, or our actions, or our social structures. We have a deep corruption through and through. Our problem(s) is(are) big enough that only God himself must fix them. Our corruption is deep enough that his Son had to die to save and rescue us. He is the Savior of the world because the worlds problems were so big and so thorough that we needed him.

Only God can save us. And he has and he will. A changing of the human heart. A recreation of this world. A living Hope in a Living Father, who sent a (re)living Savior.

Thank you Father. Thank you Jesus. And thank you Spirit. You planned redemption when we accepted corruption. You recreated what we broke. Thank you.

Dawkins v. Lennox

So I watched another video Dan provided to me. It was a debate between Richard Dawkins, the famous Atheist, and John Lennox, a really intelligent Christian.

You can find the link here.

Now Dan I have to warn you, I watched this video a while ago (2 weeks or so), took notes and then let my notes stare at me for a bit. So although this isn't fresh in my mind, I am drawing from notes taken for a bit ago.

This response will be a bit less organized and extensive. But here goes:

There are a few common threads throughout the debate that I want to key on: 1) Faith is blind, 2) Atheism has sight, and 3) Worship is at the heart.


1) FAITH IS BLIND

According to Dawkins, faith is by definition blind and evidence-less. Faith is removing yourself from any source of observation and accepting certain truths blindly and militantly. Therefore it naturally leads people to misunderstandings, half truths, and misconceptions. It is literally a blind guide happily leading humanity to a cliff of stupidity and utter ignorance. According to Dawkins, this is the essence of faith.

Furthermore, because faith is blind, it causes all who have faith to be blind with it. This blindness leads to violence. Religion and faith logically lead to violence and oppression.

Notice how I didn't give a lot of arguments for these statements, because Dawkins gives very little argument to his claims (though he does actually give reason for his scientific claims). So the man that argues faith is by nature without evidence does not give much evidence for that statement (ironic no?). Besides everyone has faith in something. Dawkins admits his faith in eternal material.

Now Dan, I believe that the faith that Jesus teaches and the Bible claims is not a blind, violent guide. One story that best retorts the claims of Dawkins is Thomas the Doubter in John 20.

Thomas doubted not out of blindness, but out of disillusionment and sadness. Remember after Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to many people, but Thomas missed these events. And when they tell him about it, he says, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

This is not the cry of a man who never believed, but of a man who was saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

He had felt duped, he had been hurt. And when Jesus comes to him, look what he does, look how he responds. He doesn't appear in blazing glory, smiting Thomas. No he appears, and says believe, there is reason to believe. Hope, because there is reason to hope. He says, "Peace be with you." Jesus takes the man who had been burned and gives him a reason and hope for a renewed faith.

This is a very different picture than what Dawkins provides, but it is the picture of Jesus.

The Bible does show one interesting picture. In Matthew 11:25-26 (and in other parts of the Bible as well), God hides himself from unrepentant, self-righteous persons. One of the pictures of God is that he is close to the humble and invisible to the proud. A heart that is proud cannot see God because he shows himself to those who know they need him. Faith might be blind to some because of a proud heart (you see how there are deeper issues than just intellectual arguments because life covers all areas, not just the mind).


2) ATHEISM HAS SIGHT

Another major theme with Dawkins is that the empirical method (and therefore atheism) gives us sight.

First to appreciate the empirical method, one must understand its limits. The empirical method relies on cause and effect. If at one point A leads to B, which then becomes C, I am willing to bet $10 that 10 minutes from now A will lead to B, then C. That is a grossly simplified form of the empirical method.

However, this method does not give us all knowledge. It cannot tell us about history. It cannot tell us about morals. It cannot penetrate our souls because we are not machines. Science does great things and it is a powerful tool, but science (Empirical Method) can prove (or disprove) Jesus' miracles, just as much as it can prove or disprove Napoleon's existence. Those kinds of truths cannot be tested by science.

Second, atheism (or evolutionary materialist philosophy) does not give grounds for science. Lennox keys in on this during the debate. Evolution (which as Dawkins says lead him to Atheism) teaches that circumstances, chance, and chaos lead to life. Evolution teaches that a certain randomness leads to order. But that is much like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. Science demands a logical, cause and effect universe. Science teaches that if I give you and Advil your headache will go away. Randomness teaches that if I gave you an Advil one day your headache will go away, the next day I give you another and butterflies come out of your ears.

You cannot have it both ways. Either there is order from before and in the foundation or there is not.


3) Finally, WORSHIP IS AT THE HEART

Dawkins makes an incredible statement in the debate. He says that all humans throughout all of history have a "natural inclination to worship something."

Dawkins then claims to worship nature, to fill that void in his heart with natural knowledge. Now I don't know his heart, but I would wonder if he is worshiping something else.

Dawkins rather appears to worship not nature (he is not in Wicca), but the god of the human mind in the temple of the enlightenment. He rightly doesn't claim to worship nothing, for it is in all of man's heart to worship. But he seems to worship the mind of man. And if and when you worship your mind or man's intellect, you find and form your identity in what you know, how much you know, and how much more you know than others.

He is worshiping at the wrong temple.

Instead what the Bible teaches us is that Jesus came to earth. When he was here, even though he was smarter than everyone else, and even though he had all the knowledge in the world (because he created it), he took on the flesh of a poor uneducated carpenter. And not only that, but when they brought him and accused him before a council, he remained silent (or dumb if you will). He refused to show his intelligence. He didn't do this because he was stupid or powerless, but because of his love for us. He became silent so that we might know the wisdom of God. He became uneducated that our minds might be renewed with truth and grace.

The first step towards the gospel is to admit that you don't have the power within you and that you don't have all the answers to save yourself. The first step is admitting your foolishness and kneeling before the one who became foolish for your sake and the sake of the world (including Dawkins). The world teaches us that if we admit our simplicity we become more stupid. But the Gospel teaches that when we admit our foolishness, we don't become weak, but are empowered, we don't become ignorant, but wise, we don't become trapped by stupidity, but freed by the truth. And by doing so, we can admit our foolishness, but at the same time, point to our wisdom (Jesus). Do you see how freeing that is? It is not an easy answer or cop-out. It is truth and wisdom.

A man known as CH

My friend Danial (a.k.a. The Mr. G-nome Project, Hotlanta Marathoner, and one day Dr. Christian (seriously he will be a Doctor and his last name is Christian)), sent me this link for Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He asked what I thought of him and what he taught. I wanted to provide some answer, but I also wanted to post it because we as Christians do need to give some thought to what critiques and arguments are brought against us and what we believe. I broke it down into 5 sections

1. His Basis
2. His Argument
3. Some holes
4. A Christian Response
5. Your Response

So here goes, Let's see what we can make of it all:

The Basis for his argument

Mr. Hitchens is from England. To study European history can at times be like studying what went wrong with the church and why. From European Christianity we find the Crusades, corrupt churches, wars between Christians, and other unlovely mistakes we (or at least those who also claimed Christ in some capacity) have made. We cannot run from this or ignore it. We as the church must face it.

Therefore, when Mr. Hitchens sees religious as a corrupting and essentially violent entity in cultures, we cannot skirt the issue. His land land tells the stories. So it is understandable why he or Richard Dawkins or whoever assumes that religion equals violence. So that is where he comes from and why he comes at it the way he does. Europe is an interesting creature in this sense.

His Argument

The way he argues against religions in general is through morality. The argument throughout is essentially we would be better people, a better society, and a better world without religion. You might liken it to a poison or delusion.

In this argument, he has a big picture and a small picture.

The big picture is this:
Human history has existed for 100,000 to 250,000 years (he presupposes an evolutionary timetable, which makes sense because he believes in evolution). However God only started interacting with humans 3,000 years ago. Therefore for the first 97,000 years heaven watched with indifference while death, rape, and wars spread throughout the land. Then when God did get involved, he chose a backwards people; moved them to a land where they would propagate racism and genocide at his command. (This is part of common history of all three major monotheistic religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). And this is from where we were supposed to have learned about morality and moral sense. If this is his plan, this God is cruel, wasteful, and indifferent. How is morality supposed to come from that.

His micro argument is thus:
Morality does not necessarily need God at the foundation. It is innate. The basis for all morality should be based on 2 things. First, morality must be individualistic or concerned for the individual. Second, morality should be based on our instinct in caring for children (e.g. if you saw a child running into traffic you should know what to do).

He then talks about religion cannot be a moral compass because so many awful things are done to INDIVIDUALS in the name of RELIGIOUS MORALITY. For instance, in Yemen a girl recently died giving birth to a child that was stillborn. The girl was married off at 9 years old. Mohammed also married a 9 year old. Abraham tried to kill Isaac. He also mutilated his genitals, along with his all the males in his household. See how cruel men act toward INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN in the name of religion. That is not a compass for morality.

So those are his 2 arguments. He then goes into a question time, which I think is much more telling then his actual presentation.

The main question he is asked to answer is, Is there capacity for good in religion? (I am going to skip to the part when he talks about Martin Luther King Jr. because it is then that things get interesting.)

The moderator: the closest Mr. Hitchens gets to praising a religious persons' morality is Martin Luther King Jr. MLK led a nonviolent resistance based on biblical teaching. He helped a peopled enslaved to become free by following moral teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

CH: If he had truly based his movement on Biblical teaching, he would have called his followers to kill or enslave anyone who got in there way. He based his ideas on Moses. Moses led a people into a land that they might steal it and destroy the people there. Therefore, MLK (if he had really been true to his Biblical imagery) would have also acted in this way.

Mod: But he was basing the morals on Matthew 5-7, not on Moses.

(I skip a bit to keep the flow of the argument)

CH: if he had truly based his movement on the Sermon on the Mount, he would have called his followers to not worry about tomorrow. If tomorrow doesn't matter then investments, your family, and education do not matter. Tomorrow doesn't matter because the end of the world is imminent. Therefore live by the Golden Rule because the world is about to end. Besides the Golden rule and the morality of the Sermon on the Mount don't work.

Mod: But they worked for MLK. Nonviolent resistance did work.

CH: MLK was just lucky. It wasn't the method. Besides if you polled people in that time you would have found that close to 100% of secularists were in favor of voting rights for African Americans, while close to 100% of Christians were against it (Oh Boy).



Then finally the last section of the interview, the Mod asks, Why then do people seek refuge in religion (if it is a poison to society and individuals)?

CH: People need a spiritual experience. people need to find some higher fulfillment. Instead of turning to religion, intellectuals and artists should fulfill people's spiritual needs by creating art, music, or books, apart or free from religion. For example this building (the building he was in, I assume it wasn't a beat up old factory, but a decent piece of architecture). This building shows the ingenuity of the human mind and might. Therefore, we should fulfill our spiritual needs with it.

Also we can look to the natural world, that can also be "worshiped." Looks at the cosmos in wonder and awe.

Then we can rebuild society in a form apart from religion based on the moral and political writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire (didn't they already try that), and so on.

Some Holes and Questionable quotes

1. He hides behind petty insults. I think he and others like him (Richard Dawkins) are overly insulting towards religion to sell books. He shocks everyone by saying that religion poisons everything. But then he later backs off it for a more tolerant, as long as religion doesn't bother me, then it is ok (stupid, but ok). It is a plain shock tactic, just like Rush Limbough, Glen Beck, Howard Stern, and Kieth Olbermann use. It is an effective way to get attention and sell books.
   
2. Revealed truth is from epileptics and schizophrenics living in the desert.
3. If you believe in God, you are as stupid or delusional as a Fascist and Nazi (both are totalitarian authority).
4. During his whole question and answer time about MLK is terribly sloppy and contradictory. For instance he claimed that close to 100% of secularists were for emancipation and 100% of Christians were against it. Really. Does that make sense. Again shock tactics.
5. His method throughout is to equalize all religions as the same and then chooses the worst stories to prove how immoral religion is. But if I equalized all philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre, Plato, Confucius, and so on, then chose their worst teachings, people would rightly cry foul. There are differences and intricacies between religions. You can't just group them all as one. It is unfair to them and to yourself. It is a big intellectual mistake.
6. A morality based on "instincts" will not carry you too far, because there is little instinctual consensus of morality. (For instance, when my wife worked with inner city kids, she found that mothers taught their young daughters how to give oral sex in order to put off them getting pregnant. These were caring mothers. These were their instincts.) It will either lead you to social and cultural elitism or ignoring ills of different cultures. If you base morals only on instincts, when you look to different cultures that you disagree with, you may end up looking at them as unenlightened fools. Or you may do the live and let live, ignoring terrible social practices in different societies. Judgmental intolerance, based on your consensus on instinctual morality, or no justice. This is where it can and will lead.
7. He refuses to admit that religion or religious people do anything good or unselfish in the name of religion. This simply is not true. "Religion" has brought good and bad into the land. We can't just negate it all.
8. He wants to pretend to have all the answers. But in reality no one does, even if you confidently tell people that you do have it all figured out.
9. Here I think is one of the most important points for our culture. In our Western Individualistic culture we believe morality is only what we do that affects others. And it is true that is part of morality, but that is not all of it. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity explains morality in these terms. Think of a group of ships sailing across the ocean to deliver some supplies. There are 3 things they must do to have a successful mission. 1. They must not run into each other and sink each other. 2. They must work internally so they do no sink themselves. 3. They must follow the directions given to them, so that if they are to sail from Portugal to New York and they set sail from Portugal and end up in Rio, they have not successfully completed their mission. In the same way, we cannot run into other and sink them (murder). Also a part of morality is not sinking ourselves. Doing drugs is immoral because it ruins you. Or doing something that leads you to the despair of suicide is very sad and also immoral. Furthermore (something atheists would disagree with) not following God's leading and directions for life is also immoral. If we are told that we must worship him first and foremost and we do not, then this is immoral. Best illustration I have ever read about morality.

There are a few quick holes I noticed as I listened to them program.

A Christian Response

What is a Christian response to some of these arguments.

Christianity is not based morality. In fact, Jesus teaches us that if we are to come to him, we must see ourselves as poor and needing help. That means we have to leave our morality at the door. We cannot say, Lord I know I need your help, but look how good I really am, or look how smart I am. When we come to him, we come poor, needy, and foolish. We do not bring any of our own righteousness to the table.

Let's think back to Genesis. When Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to cover themselves with fig leaves. Their guilt and shame, nakedness and exposure blocked by man's attempts. These fig leaves did nothing for them. They represent our attempts to cover our shame, guilt, loneliness, and needs. They do nothing for us. In order to be truly covered, God in his graciousness killed an animal and clothed them in the skin. We are also covered, clothed in righteous, bright robes. But these robes called for sacrifice as well. Jesus is the one who clothes us with his righteousness. We cannot do it ourselves.

If you listen closely to Mr. Hitchens, his solution to the problems of the world are through our attempts, technology, and wits. But these are all fig leaves. They cannot cover the our shame. They cannot meet or cover our basic spiritual needs. We need God to help us. Even though we messed things up, he looks to help us. That is his grace. That is the good news.

Your Response to CH or the one who throws these arguments at you

Remember the gospel is not just an intellectual exercise. If it was all in our minds then all we as Christians would have to do is argument with people until they become Christians. But this is not the case. Man is more than his mind. There are more potholes on the road to God than just the mind. Give answers as best you can. Tell them about Jesus and what he has done for you and the whole world. ALSO...

Pray for them. Prayer is such a strong tool we as Christians have because God is stronger than we humans. He moves and acts. Trust in him for how he works and how he moves. Trust in his Sovereignty and his Graciousness. Trust in him and pray. Don't give up on this person or Mr. Hitchens. Keep praying for them that they might find the good news to be good news. Think long term and keep praying.

The Spirit

So I was reading a few passages about the Holy Spirit:
Luke 1:15-16
Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24

As I was looking at them, one question jumped out, what is the job of the Spirit? What does he do?

Well a lot. But one that stood out in particular to me was that he brings people to the Lord, he points them to him.

Check it. Just a quick thought.

Rehashed Sermon, good thoughts and I wanted to pass them along

Jeremiah 31:15

Matthew 2:18

Genesis 29:30, 35:16

Rachel cries because love does not last.

All the good things in life fade: family, friends, places we love. They all fade and cease and there is nothing good or glamorous about it. We hate and we should hate it. Death is not natural, because the end of life and love is not natural. It is common, but we can’t accept it as natural, because something deep within us hates it and we know we should. This is why Rachel cries. The end of a life, the end of a nation, the untimely deaths we see all around us.

We see Rachel cry three times throughout the Bible.

First in Genesis 35, she cries at her death. Remember she was Jacob’s favorite wife and pregnant with her second child. The family had just recently relocated to his homeland for a better life. And in such an abrupt and untimely manner, it reads, she had great difficulty with her pregnancy and died. A son born and a love lost.

How do you make sense of something like that, other than by crying?

She cries again in Jeremiah 35:15. This time it is the loss of a nation. The capital was destroyed; homes and buildings were crushed all in the name of empire. Everyone lost a loved one or lived to see them stripped and humiliated. How do you make sense of this, other than by crying?

The third time we see her cry is in Matthew 2:18. At this point, a king decides to kill babies to hang on to his power. He sees that the next king has been born and he kills all of them within an age bracket and within a town. What sense does that make? What, a life born only to die? She cries and she refuses to be comforted.

Rachel is full of sorrow and we see that Rachel’s tears are our tears as well. Life ends and love dies. The places we remember crumble. Something inside of us fights this, but why if death is only a part of life?

One of the very few comforts I know is that someone hates death more than me and you. God himself hates it. In John 11, Lazarus dies. Jesus wept bitterly for his friend. He hates death. He hates the loss of love, because love should continue forever. There is nothing sweet in this. We find that Rachel’s tears are not only our tears, but God’s as well.

Because God cries for this, he also has something to say about it. He doesn’t stand back with his arms crossed, nonchalantly looking away from the pain of it all. He is not passive like that.

Here is what God says while Rachel cries in Jeremiah 35, [Dry your eyes and cry no more], they will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future, declares the LORD.

Death is an enemy to all of us because he takes and refuses to be satisfied. He is an unnatural enemy one that we cannot defeat. But Jesus in his work died for us. He was sent away to the enemy’s land and defeated him by dying on our behalf. What love for us. And his death gives us life. His death takes away love lost because there is a hope that it can continue. There is hope that life continues in a land that will never fade or die. The hope of our hearts is true, it is not just a sentimental wish, but love can continue forever. And Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection not only makes this possible, but also give us evidence of the truth.

Jesus doesn’t just say I found the way to this everlasting life, but instead he says, I am the resurrection (John 11:25). 1 Peter 1 reads, “In his great mercy…[God provided] a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance [beautiful land] that can never perish, spoil, or fade – kept in heaven for you.”

Why do things happen as they do, I cannot say? Sometimes all we can do is cry. We can’t make light of or just try to forget the pain. Instead we cry. Rachel cries for hope, Jesus weeps over death, and we join them in the sadness, waiting for the day that all will be revealed and the beautiful land in which we hope will all be brought about by our Lord and Savior Jesus.

Biblicism

I read this blog about Counterfeit Gospels and it spurred on these thoughts. It is a short read and will help with the following.

I think I am able to comment on this because I am personally well acquainted with intellectual pride and such. So this comes about myself as much as anyone else.


Intellectualism/Biblicism

In the other blog, they define Biblicism as “I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.” This is a bad thing and might lead to a bad end of your faith or of a church that centers on it.

And we see that this is a pride that not only happens with studying the Bible, but with any intellectual pursuit. It is a temptation for all of us, but I think especially those in seminary. So what does Biblicism look like and how can you move away from it.


There are several results of Biblicism in the life of a Christian, these might sound familiar to you as they did to me:

1. Us vs. Them - the us is everyone who agrees with you, the them is usually everyone else (even other Christians). You look down on other Christians because they do not REALLY study the Bible like you do.
   
   
2. Negative spirit - no one has it all down like you do
   
   
3. Dead End - Studying the Bible is your end not your means. The problem is that the Bible is meant to be a path to God (prayer and meditation are other spiritual disciplines for knowing God). The Bible is not the Ultimate, Jesus is the Ultimate. One must keep him in mind when you study or you are wasting your time.
   
   
4. God is distant - you know about him, but you do not experience him. He is someone to learn about, like George Washington. And like George, you never get to know him personally.
   
   
5. No Grace - there is no grace in Biblicism. You are earning your salvation by being smart enough. That is your work and it is just as legalistic as those who tried to combine keeping the law with grace in Galatians.
   

What to do about it: Pray. Here is an example. Also start letting the cross and grace permeate your life. Do not base your life on how much Bible you know. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Rely on the cross and rely on grace.

Prayer:
Lord, you were and are the most knowledgeable and intelligent being ever. You are the one who gave us our minds and our comprehension. By you Wisdom you created the earth and everything in it. You created the designs of nature, the intricacies of cells. You knew about strands of DNA before we could ever fathom such a thing. You also placed the stars in the skies and the planets in their orbit. And you care for your creation. When the birds calls out for food, they call to you and you provide. You are truly the God over all.


There is such a temptation Father to become proud when one becomes learned. But I know I must continually look to Jesus. He knew everything there is to know in the universe. But when he came down, he lived as a poor, homeless carpenter. He was certainly humbled. He spoke and many times no one listened. His family even thought he was crazy. Knowing all this I cannot hang on to my pride. In fact it is your word that teaches me that you oppose the proud and those who think themselves to be wise, but shine upon the humble.

With all this in mind, I reflect on your call to know you more. I know one path to know you is through your Word. What a gift you gave us with it. But this is not the end, because your word points to something outside itself. Therefore, knowing your word is not the end but the path. And the path is to know you more. I do want to know your word more, but not for the sake of becoming smarter than someone else. Instead I want to reflect on it more to know your character, to understand how you worked in the past, and then hopefully have the wisdom to understand how you are working in the present and will work in the future.

But Father when I learn, I want to always keep in mind that your word does not point to itself, but to you. It is to connect to you.

Father, may you also give me grace when I interact with others who likewise look to you for grace through your Son. I know just because we disagree that does not mean we are enemies. There is some basic level of family in the Greater Church. I do not want to throw that away because I think I know more about the Bible. I know that would hurt the kingdom and hurt you Lord Jesus. One part of the body calling another part trash. That is no way to follow you. I know Lord that reflecting on your work on the cross will keep us humble. I know reflecting on the grace you offer will keep us from becoming proud.

Lord, may you keep us humble, may you keep us in grace. We are not saved by works (good or bad) but by grace through faith.

Thank you Father for your Son and what he has done for us. Amen.

Choice pt. 2

Then why do I feel this
if it is right
three miles a day
why do we fight

If it is natural
and it is what it is
then why do we hate it
and cry it amiss

One says he thus spoke
Zarathustra
to the man on the tightrope
Fulfillment in job
and you are alright

And Mr. Russell says
it will all pass away
your neighbors, your kids,
it will all decay
Accept it. That's life
That's death

But I hate it,
I don't want it.
Why must it be?

Many see the God
who drives us form the tree
with sword, with fire,
closing Paradise shut.

But see he drives us again
He moved through the one
and calls us to redemption

He says hate it,
and hate it well.
It is unnatural

Come home
Find fulfillment in me
I have prepared a place for you
under this shaded tree.

Choice

How do you look at death?  Here are a few options:

"I have long known that the devil would trip me. Now he will drag me to hell. Would you prevent him?"

'"By my honor, friend," answered Zarathustra, "all that of which you speak does not exist: there is no devil and no hell. Your soul will be dead even before your body: fear nothing further."

The man looked up suspiciously. "If you speak the truth," he said, "I lose nothing when I lose my life. I am not much more than a beast that has been taught to dance by blows and a few meager morsels."

"By no means," said Zarathustra. "You have made danger your vocation; there is nothing contemptible in that. Now you perish of your vocation: for that I will bury you with my own hands."

When Zarathustra had said this, the dying man answered no more; but he moved his hand as if he sought Zarathustra's hand in thanks. (Thus Spake 20)

Translation: There is no heaven or hell. In the end there is no judgment. There is honor in life when you live honorably. Don't shed tears over the end.



Here is another option:

"[With death] no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined for extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins." (Bertrand Russell)

Translation: Again shed no tear or drop of sweat over death. There is nothing to fear because there is nothing. Accept be a man about it, but keep living for now.



Here is another option:

Death frightens us all. It is an unknown abyss. There might be a judge at the ground floor, a doorman, or nothing at all. In any case it scares us. We can try to laugh it off, like Woody Allen (It's not that I am afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens), but the fear remains.

Something inside of us longs, even demands for life and love to last. If this is it, love is a tease. And the only way we can ever know one way or another is if someone stood outside the all of humanity's house of life and death and told us what it was like outside.

Jesus tasted life and death. He entered the house, experienced life and death, and now stands outside, the conquering one. He frees us from the fear of death by offering a life that continues. He can only do this because he died the death we should have died. But now there is no fear, life and love can continue like we long for them to.

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is the devil - and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." (Hebrews 2)

You can probably guess which one I choose.

Good article

Here is a good article about Brian McLaren's New Christianity.

This is a good review. It is necessary because Brian McLaren leads people away from Christ not towards him. Lots of people enjoy his books, but they are not Christian truth.

1 Peter 2:9

1 Peter 2:9

What a great picture of the Church. Obviously we have not always looked like this. We have acted carelessly, fought bloody wars, and scarred parts of history. But this is God's design and description of us.

We are this, that we might praise God, who by his grace moved us from darkness to light, from the power and delusions of Satan to the steady rock, the foundation, the corner Stone, our Lord Jesus.

We should not be that special. We should not be that different, just another club, organization, or group. But no. He has moved us from darkness to light and that makes all the difference in the world.

Systemic Issues

Systemic Issues:

I worked at an IT help desk.  During this time, I learned something about change, systems, and people. 

I worked for a company that supported another company that moved from a paper system to an internet based system.  The company supported veterinary clinics across the US.  Therefore, many, many middle aged women, who (as they remind me) have for so long used a paper system, now have to convert to an internet based system.  This causes all sorts of confusion, anger, and all sorts of distress.  My job is to help these women change from the old to the new.  As they would see it, they are changing from a system that works, to a system that is annoying, confusing, and purposeless.  Most of the calls are pleasant, because the women are pleasant, just confused.  I see myself as the man who does not bring them fish, but one who teaches them to fish for themselves.  I try to give more guidance than answers. 

However, as with the case with people, confused people can be pleasant, but they can also be angry.  Their anger then is directed toward the help desk agent (me).  Here is one of these cases:

A woman called who couldn't sign up for the new system (typical).  I gave her guidance.  I told her that in order to sign up everyone had to have an email address.  This did not sit well with her.  (Keep in mind I am not sarcastic to the women, this would just be counter productive.  Also keep in mind this is a rare case, not the typical response.)

"Well, three of my girls don't have email." 

"Well ma'am, what I would recommend is that you go to  Yahoo! or Hotmail and sign them up for a free account.  The way the system works is that you have to have an email address in order to sign up."

"That is crap.  These girls don't want email addresses.  I don't want to sign up for email addresses.  This system is crap."

Right after this conversation, I read 1 Peter 2:4-8.

Believing in Christ is on some level a system of thought and believe.  God created a good world.  Disobedience to him frayed, mutated, or messed up the good creation.  His plan of forgiveness and redemption runs through the work of his Son, Jesus, on the cross.  A recreation begins and ends with him.  Our hearts are changed, our minds renewed.  This is the plan and system of salvation that God established. 

However in 1 Peter 2:4-8, we find that some don't accept or want to accept this system.  Some want to be really, really bad and in that way rebel against the system.  Others want to try to be really, really good so that God owns them salvation.  This is also rebelling against the system; essentially saying, "This system is crap."  In both forms, people find themselves rejecting the work of Jesus to not only change themselves from the inside out, but also all of creation, starting with the heart of man.  In that way, the foundation stone (Jesus) is rejected and he then becomes not a foundation but a "stone that causes men to stumble," one that "makes them fall."  But how precious and how good for those whose foundation is Jesus.

Church Growth Ideas

So I just read this article.  Check it out first. 

Basically what the churches are focusing on in this article is how they are perceived by the outside world. Worship services are graded on how they are perceived by nonchristians. Is it friendly? How was the sermon? And so on. 

The Bible does teach us to be conscious of how we appear to those on the outside (Titus 1:6-7, here this speaks of individuals, but also can extent to groups).  However, the problem here is that these churches are over concerned with how they appear. We need balance in everything we do. If I walk leaning too far to the left, I will fall over. If we are too concerned (and maybe only concerned) with how we appear to outsiders, we will fall. 

Instead, let's look 1 Peter 2:5, I think this speaks to part of the Church's identity. 

In the verse, we are called a holy priesthood.  Generally this means we are to:

1. Reflect God's holiness (Lev. 19:1)
2. Offer spiritual sacrifices (Heb. 13:15)
3. Intercede for man before God (Moses does this here, Exodus 32:9-14, but actually read the whole chapter)
4. Represent God before man (Matthew 5:43-48)

I think the whole idea of wanting the make the worship service experience enjoyable to outsiders falls under #4. God is loving and welcoming to sinners. He sent grace to the world! We want to be loving and welcoming as well. But is this not an overemphasis? Is this not too far? Grading a church's effectiveness, usefulness, or Presence fill-ness, basing it on what outsiders think. 

We must not be so consumed with church number growth that we forget about the other functions of the Church. We must not be so consumed with one tree that we forget about the forest.

Abortion trial

The Nation (a liberal atheist magazine) reported on the abortion murder case in Kansas.  Christians read this.  See what their perspective is.  See how it does and does not align with Gospel and Biblical principles.

My thoughts:

2 Parts

1) They seek justice against the killer of the Tiller. Justice was served. He is guilty of killing another man.  He is found guilty of the crime he committed.

2) They ignore the atrocities of abortion. Tiller is portrayed as a hero, someone who really cared about women. It is disturbing to read that he felt like he had an inner calling to abort babies.

Break with a sermon

Here is an outline of my last sermon, I preached it on December 27th.

Isaiah 8:19-9:7

· Intro

The gospel comes in many different forms. It is impossible to put it in one way because the Bible presents it in so many different ways with so many different themes. For instance, some of you grew up hearing the Romans Road. Or if you grew up in the Christian Churches or Churches of Christ you heard the five finger exercise. The Bible itself talks about righteousness by faith (Rom. 1), becoming blameless before a judge (Colossians 1), Jesus humbling himself then taking his rightful place (Philippians 2), and being washed (Titus 3). You all get the idea.

Today I want us to look at a familiar Christmas passage in Isaiah 8-9 and see what good news the child’s birth has for us.

READ ISAIAH 8:19-9:7

Two kingdoms: Lord of the Rings, Buckeyes vs. Michigan

1. This world is in darkness

· We assume we are in light. US vs. Taliban, health care pro vs. against.

· God sees the world in darkness. John 8, I am the light of the world

· We agree. My Sister’s Keeper, “When I was little, the great mystery to me wasn’t how babies were made, but why…I’m telling you, if aliens landed on earth today and took a good hard look at why babies get born, they’d conclude that most people have children by accident, or because they drink too much on a certain night, or because birth control isn’t 100%, or for a thousand other reasons that really aren’t very flattering.”

o Isaiah 8:19-22

· How did the world become a dark place?

o Corporately, Adam in the Garden.

1. In kingdoms, there is only one king. When Adam disobeyed, he rebelled against the king and moved from light to darkness.

2. It affected him. It affected his descendants. It affected the entire creation around him from that time on. The world is no longer God’s good garden, but Satan’s playground.

o Individually, we are like Adam. It is easy for us to see the darkness in others. But we also attempt to find security, safety, and stability in things other than God. When we do, we attempt to take him off his throne. In doing so, we change have moved from light to darkness.

2. Light defeats darkness

· The cry of our hearts is for good to triumph over evil. It will.

· Isaiah 9:1-7, qualities of the light kingdom.

o There is a large joyful nation of light (9:3)
There is peace on earth (9:4-5)
There is a just, fair, and rightful ruler (9:6)
This kingdom will last forever; darkness won’t suddenly make a comeback (9:7)
And it is God’s will that this will happen. So if he is truly God and more powerful than anything else, then this is a sure promise (9:7)

3. What this means for us

· We can rejoice

· We need to fear

o Remember what we agreed upon earlier. We not only live in a dark world, but also partake of it. We attempt to take God off his throne.

· Our dilemma: We want light to defeat evil, but if it did, we would lose. Light is our hope and dread.

· A modern response to this sermon would sound like this, why cannot God merely forget about this light and darkness stuff, good and evil and just forgive everyone?

o Judges are only just if they pronounce guilt for the guilty and innocence for the innocent.

4. What this means for the child

· Here is the solution found in the Gospels. Colossians 1:21ff

o Christ = King. The child king, the rightful ruler, the son was given. He took the darkness on his shoulders and took the punishment for that kingdom. He suffered for it.

· Why?

o Justice? No.

o God understood our problem. On the one hand light is our salvation from this world, on the other hand it is our trouble. God saw this and out of love for you, he gave his son to suffer our punishment. If the punishment has been paid, then we are free to join a new kingdom. The cross is the way God ends darkness, without ending us (2x).

5. Conclusion

· When Jesus came into the world, he preached, Repent for the kingdom of heaven is approaching (Matt. 4:17).

o Not be better.

o But trust in the right things. The right own to find security and peace in is the only one who can truly offer it, he is the one who loved you and me enough to die the death we deserved that we might have the light that he offers. Put your faith in him. Trust in him for the grace he offers.

o And when you understand the peace that this kingdom offers and the meaning of this child, then you won’t search for other kings and kingdoms. You won’t turn your heart to kingdoms that will ultimately fail.