When you say, "Do not fear"

Copyright: eakachaileesin / 123RF Stock Photo

During times of turmoil, uncertainty, and real and perceived threats, people feel afraid and express their fears. Christians often respond by reminding those in fear that Jesus said, "Do not fear" (or some similar line). While technically biblical and theologically correct, this well-meaning saying misses the praxis of Christianity and has a number of problems.

First, it can be condescending and dismissive. It can show a lack of empathy and and compassion. Too often the statement is made strictly because of biblical and theological concerns. There is no attempt made to understand, listen, and enter into the fears and concerns being expressed. The statement is made from a position of safety and power. Too often the ones making the statement really don't have anything to fear (or have much less to fear) because they aren't directly affected; they have the means to weather the storm.

Second, it can be shaming. Sometimes the statement is made with the implicit accusation that "fear is a sin" (because it goes against Jesus' command). It may be accompanied by statements such as "if you trust God, you don't have to fear" with the implicit corollary, if you do fear, then you aren't trusting God. So not only can "do not fear" be a source of shame, it can lead to even greater fear by introducing doubts about their fidelity to God.

Third, it ignores reality. As already mentioned, it is easy to say "do not fear" by someone who has relatively little to fear. It ignores the reality of those who are afraid. It ignores the reality and truth of experience of a group of people in order to maintain some kind of abstract theological orthodoxy. It ignores the very real pain and emotions of people by telling them that those are not valid. It is offering alternative-facts and trying to get them to accept it.

If you're going to say, "Do not fear," then it needs to be preceded by and accompanied by action. It needs to come from a position of empathy and compassion. It needs to come after entering into the hurts, pains, and fears of those experiencing them. Jesus was able to say, "Do not fear," because he became human and was part of the community that was experiencing the very things that led to fear.

But Jesus also did not leave things with just words. He took action. When assailed by a storm, Jesus took action to calm it (Matthew 8, 14). When a father was afraid for his girl's life, Jesus restored it (Mark 5). Christian communities are good at offering words, but too often actions are lacking. The Epistle of James has a few things to say about the failure to follow through. Once Christian communities take the time to listen and understand, they must take concrete steps to address and confront the sources of fear. It may mean risking comfort and security. It may mean going against popular opinion and against established traditions. Are there individual Christians and communities that are willing to come alongside the fearful and walk with them in their fight? If not, you might as well drop "Christian" from your name.

When you say, "Do not fear," it had better be more than just a theological exercise in orthodoxy.

Jesus would have been a poor church growth consultant

Some recent events got me thinking about why church organizations seem to be obsessed with high-profile PR and organizational growth. When I compare that with how Jesus went around his business, the two seem quite different.

Particularly in the gospel account of Mark, Jesus repeatedly tells people who have experienced and witnessed miracles to not tell anyone. When Jesus drives out a legion of demons from a man, the man wants to follow Jesus. But Jesus, instead of taking along this “trophy”, tells the man to go back home.

During the first phase of his ministry, Jesus’ popularity increases and at one point five-thousand men gather around him. With a miraculous feeding this would be the perfect time to pitch some good PR to increase his numbers. But instead Jesus talks about “eating flesh” and turns most people away from him.

On Palm Sunday throngs of people gather around Jesus as he enters into Jerusalem. He is in perfect position to gather more of the masses around him and take over the city. But instead he retires to Bethany and then gets himself crucified. By the end of the week only a handful of women and John are left to see Jesus die on the cross.

If Jesus was a church growth consultant today, he wouldn’t get hired.

What was Jesus possibly thinking? Didn’t he want the good news go to all the world? Why reject PR opportunities handed to him? Why intentionally trim the number of people following him?

The reason I can think of is that Jesus valued fidelity to his values over any kind of growth. Jesus didn’t want people who were only around him for adventure, thrills, and the potential for promotion, power, and profit. Jesus only wanted people who were willing to put in the hard effort to learn his ways. Jesus knew that only fidelity to his way would keep his people together over the long haul. Growth in numbers without fidelity to Jesus’ character would be worse than The Way going the way of extinction.

Self-promotion was antithetical to Jesus’ way. Jesus knew his Body would naturally grow as healthy members multiplied organically, not through high-profile PR or focus on “growth methods”.

Maybe Jesus was an expert church growth consultant. Just not the kind churches today want to hear.

My worldview might be Orthodox

I just read a post by Frank Schaeffer over at Patheos, titled, Why Evangelical Bible Idolatry Sucks and Why I Go to a Greek Orthodox Church Even Though It’s A Mess Too. The way he describes his theology and worldview, as formed by the Greek Orthodox church, many aspects are very close to how I’ve come to see things. Does that make me more Orthodox in comparison to other branches of Christianity?

What are some of the examples of Orthodoxy that resonate with me? Here are a few examples, in order.

“Love Trumping Theology”

I find the above phrasing a tad confounding. It means, “The practice of love takes priority over theological correctness.” Schaeffer writes,

This loving “swooping up” also changes brains by producing a sense of benign tribal belonging, in this case to a mostly benevolent tribe. It isn’t about correct belief, let alone if the Bible is “true” (whatever that means) but about the brain-changing effect of community and the humbling mystery of unconditional love experienced in the “ordinary” in a sacramental context.

Absolute Certainty is Unattainable

Religious belief is a personal conviction based on available knowledge, personal experience, and ultimately, personal choice as to what to believe.

To believe something – rather than just stumbling into a malleable opinion — you’d have to have considered all the options. And that’s impossible.

Perfection is Found Only In Jesus

The Bible is not perfect. Is it not inerrant or infallible. It is a record of human thought describing God.

If Jesus is God then Jesus has the right to contradict the very imperfect book in which he has the misfortune to have his biography trapped. Jesus transcends the book he’s trapped in. He does this because he is the perfect fulfillment of an imperfect human tradition.

Jesus is more important than the Bible.

Jesus does not “fit” any “biblical interpretation,” which makes the text less important than him.

Christus Victor

Legal, forensic, penal-substitution models of the atonement are rejected as false and harmful ways of representing Christ’s work on the cross.

Jesus introduces the transforming possibility of nonviolence and forgiveness to our retributive primate way of being human that ensnares the rest of the Bible.

Until Jesus, the Bible is the story of retributive sacrifice to an angry “god” modeled on a pagan paradigm. Jesus ends sacrifice. Jesus is the opposite of a “substitutionary atonement.” He is the contradiction of human conceptions of justice projected on a “god” created by pagans and Jews in our own retributive image. This is where Jesus smashes “atonement theory.” Jesus’ death is an act of grace not the violent continuation sacrifice. Jesus’ death stops the sacrificial principle — the dark side of religion – forever.

Value of Uncertainty and Relationships

Modernism and the Western European influence place great value on certainty. Salvation does not require certainty. Rather, it requires community.

Some of the earliest Church Fathers — who themselves were partially responsible for the formation of the canon of the New Testament portion of what would (400 years later) become “The Bible” — believed that portions of “Old Testament” scriptures pointed to this apophatic anti-certainty anti-theology approach…

The more mystery-orientated Orthodox Church is less split than the more theologically inclined Western Church with its Reformation and all that followed…

The more you read about the Word the less you know the Word because the Word does not live in a book but is an actuality to be experienced. Truth is not to be found in writings about The Truth but only in The Truth within a living, not academic relationship…

In Jesus’ day, holiness codes of “correct belief” kept Jews from experiencing the full rich human community. They lived in separation from the “other” and the “unclean.” Likewise virtually every church today — including the more juridical and right wing and evangelical-influenced parts of the Orthodox Church — has some form of holiness code… And Jesus courted disaster because of the way he showed extraordinary mercy to those who had been deemed “outside” the grace of God…

According to the humble apophatic tradition the goal of discipleship is not about making sure we behave so that God will accept us. It is rather about maintaining strong relationships with other people and through that action, through this “spiritual kiss,” as St. Maximos says, the soul comes to the Word of God, because it gathers to itself the words of salvation—in other words mercy and love.

Following by Not Following

As Christians we tend to have a stereotype definition of disciple. To us a disciple is usually patterned after The Twelve that Jesus selected, and who followed him during his ministry. This, however, is a very narrow definition of a disciple of Jesus.

We often forget that in addition to The Twelve, there were at least seventy (or seventy-two) others¹ who were with Jesus during much of his ministry. Furthermore, Luke notes there were women who followed Jesus².

We also have the idea that these disciples followed Jesus without interruption throughout his approximately three-and-a-half year ministry. But reading the different accounts of the calling of his disciples³, we can see that Jesus’ ministry was divided into phases: the early part appears to be more laid-back while the intensity increases during the latter phase.

We also make the wrong assumption that The Twelve (and the Seventy) represent the entire class of people who believed in Jesus. We need to recognize there were many more that believed in Jesus and were his disciples that didn’t follow him in the way the Twelve did⁴. We need to recognize the unique case of the Twelve (and possibly the Seventy). Jesus knew his time with them was very short, that he had to teach them a revolutionary way of thinking about the Kingdom that was contrary to everything that they had known, and that these were going to be the leaders of the new Kingdom after he was gone. These factors do not directly apply to followers of Jesus today.

Are there any examples of disciples who didn’t follow Jesus day-to-day? Yes. We find a brother and two sisters: Lazarus, Martha, and Mary of Bethany. Bethany and the siblings are first mentioned in connection with Jesus in Luke 10:38-42 when Jesus stops at their home and Martha chides Mary for not helping with hospitality duties. They are next mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ resurrection in John 11. Bethany makes its third appearance during Holy Week as Jesus’ place of respite prior to his arrest (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11,12; Luke 19:29). A fourth appearance is found in Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3, and John 12:1-8 where Mary is found anointing Jesus with expensive perfume.

What can we observe from these friends of Jesus in Bethany? Unlike the Twelve and the Seventy, these friends with whom Jesus appears to have had a very close relationship, did not leave their homes to follow him. They stayed where they were, and their home became a place of refuge for Jesus. It was a place where they could minister to Jesus in their own way. They did not have the benefit of seeing and hearing Jesus on a daily basis, but they had a unique and special relationship with Jesus that could not be had while on the road and sleeping in the fields.

What should we conclude from this brief examination of three different types of disciples?

First, we need to broaden our definition of a disciple. Not all disciples of Jesus are called to leave everything behind to follow him. For some it may mean occasional periods of concentrated dedication during their otherwise, normal lives. For some others it may mean staying where they are, living life within its typical confines and serving Jesus in their own way.

Second, we must not take the unique situations of The Twelve and directly apply Jesus’ interactions with them to 21st century discipleship. We can seek to learn general principles and adapt them in appropriate ways. Perhaps some of Jesus’ extreme methods might be useful to some people, some of the time.

Third, we must recognize that every person is created uniquely, with unique combinations of gifts, abilities, interests, relationships, history, experiences, families, etc. We must not attempt to define discipleship in a uniform manner and fit people to that singular mold. Rather, we need to be sensitive to each person’s unique calling and not diminish how they have been fashioned to serve. There may be some that are made to give up all the comforts and security of modern culture and serve in areas totally foreign. Many others are not designed for that sort of service. All service is equally valuable and we must learn to recognize and appreciate equally the service that each person provides.

We can follow Jesus by not following – by rejecting the narrow definition of what following Jesus means.

---

¹ Luke 10:1

² Luke 8:2

³ John 1:35ff describes a call of the disciples immediately following Jesus’ baptism at the beginning of his ministry at and near the Jordan River. Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20 show some of the same disciples being called by the Sea of Galilee during a later period in Jesus’ ministry.

⁴ 1 Corinthians 15:6. Paul writes that Jesus appeared to 500 of his disciples after his resurrection.

Exchanging One Legalism for Another

“Christianity is not about rules. It’s about a relationship.”

That or something similar to it is an oft-repeated phrase that Christians use to warn themselves against legalism. Legalism is commonly defined as following the law, the rules in order to merit God’s grace and consequently, salvation. Legalism is relying on one’s own efforts to be right with God.

I’ve been reading a number of books recently that deal with the topic of grace and relationships in the Christian life. All reject the kind of legalism that focuses on law-keeping and right actions. They all agree that the goal of the Christian life is to be in a right relationship with God.

Here is where I see problems with what I’ve been reading. Right relationship is often described in terms of right relational attitudes. The authors come up with a list of desirable, relational attitudes. What I see is a replacement of one set of rules for another. The reader is told to give up behavioral rule-keeping, but is then given a checklist of correct attitudes. Behavioral legalism is abandoned, but there is a danger of adopting relational legalism. Both are equally ineffective when it comes to getting into a right relationship with God.

Neither is the old legalism completely abandoned. Somewhere, almost invariably, is presented that as part of one’s own evaluation of their relationship to God, they will have taken off the old. And how does one evaluate whether or not the old has been removed? By appealing to the old rules, of course –  usually in the form of “not doing” immoral actions. There remains, then, a great temptation to revert to the rule-based method of defining what a right relationship looks like.

At this point an objection may be raised. Don’t many of the epistles contain exhortation to develop good fruit, i.e., proper attitudes, when in a right relationship with God? My question in response to to this objection is this: are these “exhortations” a prescription toward more sanctified living, or are they a description of what automatically happens in a right relationship? These lists (such as the list of spiritual gifts and immorality to avoid found in Galatians 5:16-23) can be seen as a way of measuring and growing a relationship with God (the prescription method). Or they can be seen as descriptive of what naturally happens with a Christian when they walk with God.

Specifically with the passage in Galatians, in our English translation we interpret the “but if you are led by the Spirit” to be a conditional. But it can also be understood to read “but because you are led by the Spirit.” The latter is more in line with how the section begins in v.16 where it reads, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” This passage is not prescriptive. It is not telling the Christian to focus on either avoidance of the bad, or to focus on developing the right attitudes. It is simply descriptive of what happens when a person is in a right relationship with God.¹

The problem with both kinds of legalism – rule-based or relationship-based – is the preoccupation with self. With the former it is navel-gazing asking myself, “Am I doing the right things and avoiding bad things?” With the latter it is still navel-gazing, asking myself, “Am I developing the right attitudes? Am I avoiding deeds of the old nature?” The focus is still “me.”

Jesus’ parable of the final judgment, the sheep and the goats, found in Matthew 25:31-46, illustrates the above. The sheep, on the right, have no idea that they are sheep and are in a right relationship with God. Their focus has never been on themselves and whether or not they are doing the right things, avoiding the bad, or having a right attitude toward God. Their preoccupation is service for others, without making a conscious effort to do so. The goats, on the left, are shown to have no genuine concern for others. Implicitly this indicates a preoccupation with self. The goats are “clean” as are the sheep. The goats are not overtly evil people. They, therefore, can be seen to represent those who claim to follow Christ, those who claim to belong to God. They are not in a right relationship with God because their preoccupation is with self (c.f., Matthew 7:21-23).

I think that one reason why relational legalism is such a temptation and trap is that Christianity has not adequately defined what a right relationship is. There is nowhere in the New Testament where we can find it explicitly defined. Thus we must resort to building a definition via inference. It is easy to take the lists of good, moral attitudes in many of the epistles and use them to build a definition. But as I wrote earlier, these lists are not prescriptive. We cannot grow our relationship with God by focusing on how short we fall of meeting these descriptions.

So how do we grow our relationship with God? How should we define a right relationship with him?

It is instructive to refer to John 13-17. In his final discourse Jesus could have said many things. But in John’s longest recorded single discourse, Jesus’ instruction is singular, in two parts: 1) Abide in me; 2) Love one another. Jesus could have listed all sorts of attributes and attitudes that he wanted his disciples to develop and by which they could measure growth. Jesus does nothing of the sort. His instruction to his disciples is to become preoccupied with him and with others; i.e., focus away from self. I believe that is the most concise and only definition of “right relationship with God” that we need. I believe this definition most accurately characterizes the “sheep” of the Matthew 7 parable mentioned earlier.

I agree that Christianity is right to warn against rule-based, behavior-based legalism. Christianity is right in emphasizing that what God wants is a right relationship with him. There is much in current Christian literature that is good, but I believe that many of them define “right relationship” in a manner that can lead to relational legalism. We must avoid that at all costs. Both types of legalism is essentially a focus on self. Jesus tells us that in order to avoid legalism and develop a right relationship, we must stop focusing on self.

We need to stop our navel-gazing. It is not about whether or not we see ourselves doing good or bad, or we think we have right or wrong attitudes. It is all about looking away from ourselves – and instead to God and toward people around us. If we focus on the goodness of Jesus, we will bear fruit without having to be conscious about it.

---

¹ These morality lists are also cultural and literary conventions of the Greek and Roman world. The New Testament writers are simply following what is the norm for them and what their audience expects to see. That does not make such lists inappropriate, but neither are they strictly right or necessary.

How Not to Give Speeches

One political national convention is now finished with another to come next week. Watching and listening to the primetime coverage, the closest thing I find to compare it to is a stereotypical, religious, revival meeting. There was a token amount of attempts at appealing to those outside the party, but it was mostly about energizing the insiders and providing the necessary impetus to carry forward their mission over the short term – to get their nominee elected.

The speeches were full of flowery and fiery rhetoric, frequently without much or any support for the conclusions listeners were given. There was plenty of appeal to emotion, appeal to personality, appeal to party loyalty. There was little to no appeal to good, sound logic and critical thinking – except perhaps critical thinking to sort out integrity vs. misrepresentation and spin.

Earlier I likened the convention to a religious meeting. Suppose it was a religious meeting and the speakers were pastors and religious leaders. Would we allow the sort of speeches (referring to use of rhetoric rather than subject matter) that were given during the convention? For the sake of argument let’s suppose that all speakers were speaking truthfully. Would we want pastors to be saying things that could raise questions about their truthfulness, even if they were ultimately determined to be true? Shouldn’t pastors stay well clear of the edge and stick to things that are plain and clear? Some religious speakers do appeal to emotion and personality, but that doesn’t make it right and for Christians who follow the bible, at least how I understand it, those are techniques to be avoided.

Do we have a double standard when it comes to political speech vs. religious speech? Is that appropriate? acceptable? Or should we apply the same standards to both types of speech? Both types of speech attempt to persuade, to cause people to make judgments, to inspire people to action. I believe the same standards should be applied to both.

Both political and religious speech should steer away from questionable practices that involve attempts to manipulate information and people. Both should stick to use of sound reasoning principles. Excitement should come from truthfulness rather than artificial attempts to whip up the emotion.

If there is one thing I learned from the convention speeches it was this: examples of what not to do in sermons and speeches I give.

Boxes and Labels

When many of us decide to clean, sort, and organize the chaos that is around us we might set up a bunch of boxes and label each one. We may not actually write labels and stick them on the boxes, but in our minds we know what the contents of each box are. As we go through the process of sorting we place items that we come across into one of the boxes based on the labels given to them.

We don’t put labels onto boxes just in the arena of our stuff. All of us create boxes and labels for everything that exists in the world around us, including people, including ourselves. We identify others and ourselves according to gender, ethnicity, social status, gender, political affiliation, religious affiliation, employer, occupation, and the list goes on ad infinitum.

Every single box we set up means there are those who are inside and those who are outside. Every single box both unites and divides. As long as there are boxes, there can be no peace.

As I write this the 2012 London Olympics have been going on for about a week. The Olympic rings symbolize the uniting of diverse peoples. Yet the very nature of competition divides. Athletes are divided by nations. Even within a national team individuals can be pitted against one another because only one can win the gold (albeit rare occurrence of a tie).

Last night I saw Gabby Douglas win the all-around gymnastics gold, the fourth American to do so, and the first African-American. She did a great job and I congratulate her for her hard work, dedication, and the results that came from them. She should be proud of her accomplishments.

The thing that caught my attention watching the NBC coverage was how quickly they had to make the observation that this was the “first African-American gymnast” to win all-around gold. I do understand how important this historical accomplishment is, yet I am saddened that after all these years we still must place people into boxes and qualify accomplishments based on labels.

I don’t believe America can be a “nation… indivisible” until it is able to let go of these distinctions. Likewise there can be no global peace until national and ethnic interests are placed behind the common worth and value of all humanity. (Now I don’t believe the ideal will ever occur in the present age, so I do accept the inevitability of having to work through “boxes” such as nations.)

I don’t like to self-identify as a Christian because in addition to all the connotations that come along with the word, both good and bad, it sets up a wall – I’m inside the “Christian” box and you might or might not be, depending on your confession of faith. Implied there is that if you are in the box, you’re automatically my friend and if not, you’re not. (Reality is, obviously, more complicated.)

I admit that I place people into boxes with labels. It’s easy to do. It’s easier to make sense out of the world when I can pigeonhole each person into their boxes. But I don’t want to do that. I want to learn to be able to see every person as a human being and nothing else.

When I read the story of Jesus and reflect upon his life, I get the sense that he viewed every person as a friend¹, even if the feeling was not reciprocated (eg., Judas at the betrayal – Mt. 26:50). That is where I want to be: to be able to see as friends even those who are hurting me. I want to get to the place where I no longer have any boxes and the only label I possess to place onto people is “friend.”

Paul writes (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11) that in God’s family there are no distinctions. Does becoming part of the Church somehow supernaturally erase distinctions? No, the distinctions and labeling are part of the sin problem. I don’t think Paul is writing that labeling people outside the Church is okay. I think he is writing that the Church needs to work on throwing boxes and labels into the rubbish heap. As the Church does that, she will no longer see the world through those lenses either, and instead will be able to see the world as Jesus sees it: friends. Not every person will accept the Church as a friend, but that must not prevent the Church from seeing every individual as a friend. Our identities as individuals and communities should not be on those things that can cause divisions, but only on things that can unite. Easier said than done, however.

---

¹I am not writing about salvation here and belonging to God’s family. Jesus doesn’t force anyone to be his friend, and he clearly taught that salvation implies mutual friendship. What I am writing is that Jesus did not consider anyone his enemy – that category does not exist for him – but that does not prevent a person from considering Jesus their enemy.

On-Air Radio Talk–Sports and Gospel

Why do sporting events draw so many viewers as opposed to the communication of the gospel?

I had the opportunity to spend about 25 minutes on the local Christian radio, KRSA, to talk about whatever was on my mind.

With the Tour de France just having ended and the London Olympics starting and going for the next couple of weeks, I talked about sporting events drawing the attention of millions of people and why people are so drawn to them. I then discussed our communication of the gospel and why it doesn’t seem to have the draw that sporting events do.

People watch sporting events not primarily for the stats, the scores, and certainly not for the rules and regulations. People watch because in each competition, in each event, there is a story that unfolds that grabs our heart and our emotions.

Similarly in our communication of the gospel, we can opt to talk about theology and doctrines, or we can choose to talk about the story. Which grabs the attention of someone unfamiliar with Jesus? Which do most people enjoy? It’s not that theology and doctrines aren’t important or have no value. There is much that is important to rules and regulations in sports, but the focus is not on them but on what happens – the story that unfolds. It should be the same with how the gospel is communicated: for the presenter, theology and doctrine forms a framework but that is not what we are to communicate. Rather we should be focusing on the story: its appeal and enjoyment. Jesus should be seen as the hero in whom our fears die and our hopes born.

Full discussion audio

Falling into the trap of doing Bible study

Pretty much all Christians agree that regular time spent with our Father is an important aspect of the Christian life. There are certainly plenty of tools to help us along: Bible reading plans, daily devotional books, e-mail devotionals, etc..

While we pursue this “spending time with God” objective, there is a trap – a trap of falling into Bible study. I find that simply reading a section of the Bible or reading a devotional thought, often seems as if I haven’t really accomplished anything. Some devotionals aren’t helpful in this regard either, because they close with questions such as, “What is God telling you in this passage?” or “How can you apply this passage to your life?”

These devotionals turn “Spending Time with God” into a scheduled business meeting: I read a passage from the Bible, perhaps and associated devotional thought, and then before I leave the “meeting” I somehow must convey back to God what it is all supposed to mean. The temptation is to do Bible study, then and there: pull out the commentaries, Greek resources, dictionaries, etc. Until I can check off a few accomplishments, my “Time with God” isn’t done.

Is that right? All of us at one point have been children with parents or guardians, people that we associated with as family. Some of us are now parents or grandparents with children of our own. When we spend time with our families, do we treat our time as business meetings where each person must complete some sort of checklist activity until we are free to go? I think not!

However well-intentioned questions at the end of devotionals may be, however well-intentioned teachers may have been in instructing us in the how-to’s of spending time with God, I suspect many of us, myself included, have missed the point. It is not a business meeting where we must somehow develop responses to a set of questions, or find solutions and applications to what we just read. Often I think we do this to assuage some sort of guilt feelings about not doing enough. We feel that if we put more effort into Bible study somehow it is more “quality time” than simply reading and praying.

Most of our family conversations isn’t about teaching or searching for applications. It’s simply about sharing what is going on, finding out about one another’s lives, and communicating our hopes and fears. Only occasionally do conversations become problem-solving sessions. Even then many times we don’t just sit there and hammer away until the problem is solved. Rather, we will likely go our separate ways and perhaps sometime during the day when we are involved in something completely different, an insight may form in our minds.

Our time with God, I suspect, is supposed to more resemble our family conversations. We share our hopes and fears, our problems with God. He in turn speaks to us through the Bible, through other works of inspiration, through reminders of what we may have seen and heard in the past. Sometimes it may be good to spend some time then to figure out some things, but mostly it shouldn’t be about trying to figure out what God is trying to say to us and how what we read might be applicable in our immediate lives.

I’ve experienced some of the most insightful thoughts form long after I’ve read or heard a passage or devotional. They’ve had a chance to simmer and meld with other words, passages, and life experiences. Perhaps it can be likened to a raw carrot: it is perfectly edible and good on its own, but when it is placed into a pot, with some liquid and other ingredients (herbs, spices, other vegetables, meats), and allowed to simmer and stew for some time, the result is good in a way that is different from simply its raw form.

Bible study is good and has its place. But don’t let your “Time with God” constantly turn into Bible study.

The Gospel - what, who, why, when, how?

An oft-asked question is this: What is the gospel? There is even a book (What Is the Gospel? (9Marks)) by that very title.

Lately I’ve been reading a book, Winning a Generation Without the Law: Essentials of the Gospel for a Postmodern Culture, where the author writes that for far too long, Christians have confused and/or combined the “what” of the gospel with the process, or the “how”, of it. The author repeatedly emphasizes that even though the “how” is not unimportant, it is not the core of the gospel that Christians are called to communicate. The author points out that Christians should extract the “what” of the gospel and make that the center of their evangelism.

I can see his point, and it makes sense. For someone who is suffering from a physical disease, it doesn’t matter how medicine, surgery, etc. works; it just matters that something is available to reverse the ailment and return that person to health. It doesn’t even matter why the doctors and nurses want to help him: it could be that they care (hopefully), but it could be for purely their job ad nothing else. The who and when of the discovery or development of the cure isn’t terribly important to the patient, either. All that matters is that right now, someone is available to administer the medication, provide the procedure, etc. to reverse the course of disease.

In a similar vein, to someone who is dying spiritually, it really doesn’t matter who, when, why, or how the gospel, the cure to spiritual death, came about. All that matters is that something is available now to cure the disease and bring life. The rest can be helpful and informative once the cure is in place.

The disease is death. The cure is the gospel. It is found most succinctly, I think, in Hebrews 2:14-15 where it reads:

¹⁴ Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (ESV)

Death is perhaps the one universal fear. People throughout the ages and across cultures have tried to escape it and stall it, through religion, through knowledge, through producing descendants, through feats of renown, etc. Through this fear people end up in slavery to all sorts of things, some more destructive than others, but all ultimately cannot conquer death.

The gospel is that death is defeated; that death need not be feared. When the ultimate fear is vanquished, people are free to be themselves, as God intended.

John 3:16 implies what the gospel is, but it is more about its “why”:

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

The accounts of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection? They answer the “who”, “when”, and “how”.

Talking to someone about Jesus, his death, and his resurrection isn’t terribly helpful without first communicating that the one foe, death, that has the potential to ultimately destroy every person, has been defeated, defanged, destroyed itself. Once the “what” of the good news, the gospel, is known, we can then go on to the why and how it was accomplished.

Plans to prosper[?] you… Jeremiah 29:11

“’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV)

The above text is frequently quoted as a promise that God has plans for each of his people, and that the plan includes some kind of “prosperity,” usually with a caveat that this prosperity doesn’t necessarily mean material riches (thought it could), but rather, a more general kind of success.

Well, this morning I listened to the text (and I must add that the speaker said nothing about “prosperity” but rather the general promise of God’s good plans) and when I looked it up in my preferred version, the English Standard Version, I saw “welfare” instead of “prosperity.”

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (ESV)

Welfare has a rather negative connotation in the United States at the present time. Certain segments of the populace equate it with government socialism. (I suppose taken literally, using today’s context, this text could be used as “proof” that God encourages “welfare”…)

That got me wondering what the Hebrew word was. When I looked up the text, the word translated as “prosper” and “welfare” was shalom. Here is a list of various English translations of Jeremiah 29:11 at Biblegateway.com. The most common word is “peace” followed by “welfare” though I see other words including well-being, success, and good.

When we see that the Hebrew is shalom, we know that “welfare” in the above text can’t mean government handouts and “prosperity” cannot mean an increase in wealth. Although shalom is most frequently translated as “peace”, even that fails to fully encompass what Jeremiah is attempting to capture.

The Holman Bible Dictionary describes shalom as a “sense of well-being and fulfillment that comes from God and is dependent on His presence… Its basic meaning is ‘wholeness’ or ‘well-being.’” Among some other explanations of shalom I have seen include: a restoration of all creation to its original, intended order; a restoration of the relationship between created and Creator; a perfect harmony.

The 21st Century King James Version seems to preserve the most literal sense of this text:

“For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an expected end.” (KJ21)

What this translation brings out is that the “plans” implied in other translations are not as definite as it often is made to sound. Rather they are more like “hopes” that parents have for their children’s future. Parents want good things for their children, but they cannot (or should not) force their hopes as definite plans onto their children. If the child freely chooses to accept, the parents provide whatever is necessary and within their means to help their children fulfill those hopes, and at that point hopes become plans. Should a child choose some other way, it (generally) doesn’t mean the parents cut off support.

The difference between parents and God is that parents are flawed themselves, whereas God is not. So parents’ hopes may be flawed and it may turn out that a child’s own decisions could turn out better than what the parents had hoped. God is perfect, so whatever he hopes for his children is the best possible outcome. Even so, God allows his children to choose the path they take and will continue to support them.

The next three verses in Jeremiah (29:12-14) contain the conditions under which God’s hopes for his children become plans. The condition is to seek God and to pray for his will. When his people do that, God promises he will be found, his hopes will be made known to them, and he will provide the means through which his hopes become their plans.

What is God’s hope for his people – for us? To brings us back into shalom with him.

Working out your own salvation

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)

How many interpretations and applications of this particular two verses have you heard and read in your lifetime? Has it ever troubled you on reading it? It certainly has been a source of confusion and contradictions in my mind.

I heard it read over this past weekend and that prompted me to look at the passage again. By following a few basic rules of interpretation, I hope to bring a little more clarity to this passage.

Perhaps the most egregious error is simply lifting the two verses out of context and trying to make them say something they were never meant to say.

A second problem is trying to interpret the verses in the Western, Modernist, Individualistic context rather than the Middle Eastern, Ancient, Collectivistic context. Here I am indebted to Reading the New Testament series of commentaries on pointing out that “salvation” does not necessarily refer to individual salvation when found in the New Testament. (It should be noted that particularly in Paul’s writings, “salvation” is often NOT in the personal salvation sense that we Western Christians have been conditioned into thinking.) Rather it can have something to do with the community and how it experiences salvation.

When the verses are lifted out of their contexts and words are assumed to mean something they don’t, we end up with misinterpretation and confusion.

Two typical, traditional, and polar interpretations of the passage above are as follows:

1. You, as a singular Christian individual, must do your part in the process of salvation. God provides the power, but you have to provide the effort. You will do this with fear and trembling because you never can be certain if you are doing all that you are capable and required to do.

2. You, as a singular Christian individual, can never do anything to work out salvation on your own. To do so is futile; hence the fear and trembling. You must rely completely upon God to work in you to accomplish your salvation.

I suggest that neither of the above is a true and accurate interpretation of the text.

Let’s first deal with the issue of context. Verse 12 begins, “Therefore.” This is always an indication that what follows derives from what came just before. In this case what came just before was Jesus’ attitude of humility in comparison with how the people of the world relate to one another – with selfish ambition and conceit. This section on humility is an exhortation to the Christian community to follow the example given by Jesus in how they relate to one another, and through humility achieve unity of love and purpose. Notice that there is nothing here about individual salvation – that of “getting saved” that a modern Christian might typically associate with the word “salvation.”

But even that preceding passage, beginning in the first verse of chapter 2, begins with a connecting word, “So.” That means the context for 2:12-13 begins some place in chapter 1. A good place to set the flag for the start of the context is 1:27.

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.”  (Philippians 1:27-28 ESV)

Notice that Paul is speaking to the entire church at Philippi. His concern is that they stand united and to work together for the gospel, and that they not be frightened by hostility and threats of those that oppose them. Notice that he is also concerned about his absence from the church at Philippi, but that he is confident of their Christian walk regardless. Notice, too, that the word “salvation” is used in verse 28. Given that 1:28 and 2:12 occur in proximity and within the same contextual setting, we ought to interpret the two occurrences of “salvation” to mean the same thing.

In 1:28 “salvation” is not being used in the sense of “getting saved” or “getting to heaven” but rather in the sense of “external displays of the reality of belonging to God.” These external displays include: standing firm, unity in spirit, striving together for the gospel, courage in the face of threats.

The Philippian church is experiencing conflicts against them (1:29-30). Paul writes that this is to be expected. Paul’s exhortation (which follows in chapter 2) is to continue in the manner they have already shown to be living their salvation life. As a reminder Paul then describes how Jesus lived his life and faced the ultimate conflict of his life.

It is in this context of living life in the present, within a community, one that belongs to God, that Paul writes “therefore… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” He is writing not about individual salvation but about living out a saved life, as a church, as a community. He is writing that a saved community, living its daily life with courage and unity in the face of conflicts and threats, demonstrates the love and power of God for the world to see.

It is in this context that “fear and trembling” must be understood. It is not indicative of uncertainty or cowardice, but rather a sense of profound humility and respect in that the church has been given such an awesome responsibility for portraying God to the world.

Paul writes that such a life is not necessarily easy. He writes that he wishes he could be with them, but because he cannot he expresses confidence that they can “work out your own salvation” without his immediate presence. But Paul adds that his presence isn’t really necessary, because God will provide all that is necessary to make sure the church will not fail in its mission.

Hold on to convictions tentatively

The title of this post might appear to be one of contradictions. After all isn’t a conviction something that a person knows for certain? If something is certain, how can that person be tentative about it?

In light of a number of psychological, neurological, sociological, and anthropological studies¹ that I have seen recently, the conclusion I have come to (which too, must be held just tentatively) is that our worldview, perspectives, system of beliefs, and even what we “know” as truth is subjective to the “box” that each person has slowly built up over the course of their lives up to this precise moment in time.

Each box is different from every other box. Which means that every worldview, perspective, beliefs, and yes, even “truth” differs from one person to another. In other words, what I know for certain to be truth, the next person may or may not accept as such. Not only may that person not accept it as such at this time, he may not have the capability to ever accept it as such. And likewise, I may have certain beliefs that in reality, may not be true, that because of my life experiences, I may never be able to reject; conversely, there may be things that I believe as false that in reality are true, but I will never be able to accept.

Thus, I must remind myself: hold on to convictions tentatively.

I think and act out of my convictions, my belief system, what I hold to be true. But I must be aware that all the I know, believe, see and hear are limited… that they are only partial views into reality. I have no way to apprehend reality in its entirety, in its fullness, and unobscured by personal and societal preconceptions and influences.

---

¹I don’t have links to sources, but to paraphrase some of them: 1) Our biological senses such as sight and hearing, when they go through the process of interpretation in our brains, are selective. We see and hear what we want to see and hear, and have the uncanny ability to filter away stuff that are “irrelevant” to us. 2) We are tribal in nature. Even in an highly individualistic society such as the United States, we form tribes: political, religious, philosophical. We believe and act in ways to further “our” tribe and defeat competing tribes. We have the ability to unconsciously ignore and even contradict fact and truth in order to promote our own “tribal” views.

Thoughts on James 1:2-19a

Is the book of James simply a collection of disparate wisdom topics, exhortations, warnings, and instruction? Can we find a unifying theme in the opening verses of the book?

The past several Wednesday evenings I’ve been going to a study in the book of James, held at the Baptist Church. It has given me an opportunity to study a book that I probably wouldn’t have seriously considered otherwise. The point here is not to agree or disagree with what I hear there, but rather provide my own interpretations and conclusions as I follow the verses and think about it for myself.

It appears that one common view of James is that it is a collection of wisdom sayings, much like Proverbs. Verses may cluster around a related topic but, according to the common view, there is not necessarily a unifying theme from the beginning to the end of the book. Even in a passage as short as the first eighteen verses, a reader could find half-a-dozen different topics that may or may not be related to one another.

People who know me well know that I like to look for the big picture and how the various elements fit together to establish and sustain the whole. I don’t like it when pieces seem to be thrown haphazardly together. After taking several weeks to go through these verses, I thought I saw some patterns in words, phrases, and concepts repeatedly coming up in verses 2 through 18.

My first step in seeing if I could find some kind of unifying thought in these seventeen verses was to go through and color code key words and phrases. I assigned identical colors to identical concepts; similar colors to related concepts. (See graphic)

I could now see more clearly that my hunch was correct about related and opposing concepts appearing throughout these seventeen verses. The next step was to organize the above through a table containing key ideas, related terms, and opposing concepts.

Concept	Related Terms	Opposing Concepts
Steadfastness	Faith, stood, no variation, no change	Unstable, doubting
Unstable	Doubts, doubting, tossed, pass away, withers, perishes, fade away, lured, enticed, deceived, double-minded	Steadfastness, faith
Lacking	Lacks	Complete
Complete	Perfect	Lacking
Trials	Testing, test	Temptations
Temptations	Tempted, deceived, lured, enticed	Trials, gift
Desire (human)	Temptations	Own will (God's)
Own will (God's)		Desire (human)
Gift	Wisdom, crown of life, birth (from God), receive... from the Lord, gives generously, perfect, complete	Temptations, desire (human), lacking
Birth	Conceived, grown, brings forth, brought us forth, firstfruits	Death
Death	Sin	Birth

It began to become quite clear that in these verses James was contrasting two opposing concepts: God vs. human, faith vs. doubt, steadfast vs. unstable, life vs. death. My next step was to figure out how James developed this comparison through this passage.

Motifs	Corresponding Scripture
Faith ↔ Testing → Steadfastness → Perfect and complete   “Lacking” → (transition to next set)	[2] Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, [3] for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. [4] And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to fill any lack that the faithful may perceive Faith → God Doubt → Human   “Unstable” → (transition to next set)	[5] If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. [6] But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. [7] For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; [8] he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways
(The faithful person) Human effort is “unstable” and temporary   “Scorching heat [trial]” → (transition to next set)	[9] Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, [10] and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. [11] For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to the faithful → (life) God does not cause evil Human desire → death Humans are unstable   [Human birthed life cycle] Human desire ↔ temptation → sin (doubt) → death	[12] Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. [13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. [14] But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
(The faithful person) God gives gifts to the faithful God is steadfast [God birthed life (is not a cycle)] God's will → births faith → growth process of v.2-4 → perfect and complete fruits of God	[16] Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. [17] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. [18] Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

What strikes me most is that this passage begins with a description of a growth process and ends with one-and-a-half. The beginning describes the growth process of a Christian. The end of this passage starts off with a description of the birth-to-growth-to-death process of someone relying strictly on human effort. The passage ends with the “half” life process of a Christian. I believe James intends his audience to take what he wrote at the very beginning and insert it into the ending to complete the birth and growth process of a Christian.

After this passage, verse 19 begins, “Know this, my beloved brothers...”

In all translations I've seen, this begins what seems to be a brand new section. An alternative translation is to make the first phrase in verse 19 a transition: “Knowing this, my beloved brothers...,” or “In light of what you have just heard...” In other words, through verse 18 James had been discussing in broad terms the right and wrong ways for Christians to live and grow in Christ. Now beginning with verse 19 he moves on to specific examples of right and wrong.

Ask, Seek, Knock…

Does God grant any prayer request?

Matthew 7:7-11 reads:

⁷ “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ⁸ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ⁹ Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰ Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

This is the version familiar to most people.

There is a parallel version found in Luke 11:9-13:

^{9 “}And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ¹⁰ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ¹¹ What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; ¹² or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? ¹³ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Although the Matthew version is generally more familiar and more often seen, the Lucan version is considered to be closer to the original saying (Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Combined edition), 136; Kenneth E. Bailey).

Where this observation becomes key is in the concluding phrase of these passages. The Matthew version reads, “How much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” In this version there appears to be no qualification for the asking, seeking, knocking. The audience could go away believing God will give anything to the one who asks, if he/she asks with enough passion, faith, diligence.

The Lucan version concludes, “How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” This version is quite specific about what request God will grant without limits. In this version the audience cannot mistakenly go away believing God will grant any request or wish. In this version it is specifically the Holy Spirit that God will grant without measure.

This example I provide here shows one of the the dangers of a simplistic reading of Bible texts without, among other things, exploring variations and literary connections.

There are some that only conservative Christianity will reach…

… and there are some that only liberal Christianity will reach.

The raison d’etre for all Christians, regardless of one’s conservative/liberal bias, is to bring to everyone the good news of Jesus Christ offering to set us free from the power of sin. The Christian’s job is not to convert another person from conservative to liberal, or vice versa.

Every person views the world differently from another. Not every school of Christian theology will get a hearing by any given individual. As long as the goal for a particular school of Christian theology is not denominationalism or the theology itself, but rather the message that one can be freed by Christ from sin’s power, does it matter which school brings a person to Christ?

Rather than attacking one another, conservative and liberal Christians ought to learn to agree to disagree, to respect one another’s differences as God’s accommodation of reality in reaching people with different perspectives, and work together to stop slinging mud on Christ’s name for supposed doctrinal and behavior purity.

We need each other, even those with whom we disagree.

God suffers too (reflections on our cat, Stripey)

Our mixed breed cat, Stripey, not quite nine years old, has had health problems for that past three years.

Three years ago, due to his obesity, he came down with hepatitis (fatty liver syndrome) which required him to be flown to Juneau for emergency treatment and surgery to put a feeding tube into him.

A short while after his return he experienced his first episode of feline thromboembolism (blood clot blocks the arteries where it divides and goes down into his limbs, usually the hind ones) due to his heart murmur. It resulted in paralysis of his hind legs for a short period of time. With some injections of Heparin he recovered from this episode.

It was this first episode that I took as a sign that I needed to go visit my mother. I consider it a sort of miracle because it was only a few months later that she passed away due to ALS.

From then until last Thanksgiving Stripey was fairly healthy though he experienced a few minor thromboembolism episodes. Each time he recovered fully.

But since last Thanksgiving (2011) he has been experienced more frequent and severe episodes. Around Christmas time he experienced a series of episodes, some more severe than others.

Around the middle of January he experienced his worst case yet. He was in severe pain and appeared to be suffering greatly. (Why is it that this nearly always happens in the middle of the night, on weekends, and/or when the vet is out of town; i.e., higher vet bills?) It was to the point where I didn’t think he would recover and euthanasia was the only reasonable course of action. Elise and Shelley were in Hawaii at this time and Stripey being “Shelley’s cat” I debated whether or not to try to keep him alive until they got back (It was just a couple of days to wait).

Surprisingly his suffering decreased dramatically about 24 hours after the onset, so I chose to wait it out. Over the four weeks since then he has recovered and this past week he has been acting more like his old self.

However (the big word…), this evening (Feb. 14) approaching midnight as I was on the phone with Shelley, right after he was being himself, trying to jump on my lap he showed some suspicious signs that something was again the matter with him. I still had Heparin from the last episode so I injected that into him immediately. Unfortunately as the minutes and hours passed, his condition, rather than improving or even remaining the same, appeared to get worse. As I write this he appears to be in considerable discomfort and pain.

There is nothing I can do except to watch him, be with him (though I can only handle that for very sort periods at a time), try to comfort him, and pray that his suffering will somehow be reduced.

I suffer with him.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the parallels between Stripey and me, and with me and God.

I am sick and suffering. There is only so much God can do (I realize some readers will disagree, but this is what I believe) while preserving the freedom of all by allowing sin and all its consequences to run its course. Just as I stand by wanting to fix all that is wrong with Stripey, I believe that in most cases God must stand by, wanting to fix everything but unable to do so because to do so would violate freedom of conscience.

So God suffers with me (and with Stripey, I’m certain).

I cannot fix Stripey, but God, potentially, has the power to fix everything that is wrong in the world. I hear Stripey’s wails, and I hurt – deeply. God hears our cries, yet he is unable to fix things – at least not yet. How much greater is his suffering…

Stripey can’t understand why he is suffering. But he loves me (as much as a cat can) and he wants me to be with him.

I may not fully understand why I go through all the suffering, disappointments, hurts, and difficulties of this life. Hopefully I have a bit more grey matter in my brain that I can partly grasp some understanding, but in the end all I can do is love God and want to be with him, and he with me so that I can simply take comfort in his presence as he suffers with me.

The Bible doesn’t discuss whether or not our beloved pets will be reunited with us in the world recreated. I trust God will do what is best, yet I hope that I’ll be reunited with Stripey, with Tora (our first cat), and with Vivvy (if our time here lasts long enough for her to pass to death).

I can only tell Stripey (and I doubt he understands) that soon, his suffering will be over when he is euthanized.

We have a better hope. While we may suffer in this world, we can have hope and joy because we are promised that once sin is seen to be what it truly is, God will come to eradicate sin and all that is wrong with the world.

While I do the best to live each day in joy and peace today, I look forward to the tomorrow when the promise of recreation and restoration will be fulfilled in its entirety. I look forward to being reunited with my mom and my beloved pets.

What is Omnipotence?

Encarta Dictionary --

All-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority.

Wikipedia --

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

[Thomas] Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities… Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity.

---

Last night while in bed, I was awake for quite some time pondering the meaning of God’s omnipotence. I’ve heard from time to time challenges such as:

“Can God create something too big for him to life?”

“Can God sin?”

As shown by the Wikipedia excerpts given above, challenges such as these two examples are considered nonsensical and meaningless since it derives from a faulty and rigid interpretation of omnipotence.

A more realistic challenge to the meaning of God’s omnipotence is how God can be omnipotent and at the same time allow for human beings to have freedom of choice. On the surface it would appear that if humans had absolute freedom of choice, God’s power is severely limited, not just in the choices human beings make, but in the effects of those choices upon the world and the universe. (Once omniscience is thrown in, the size of the dilemma only seems to increase.)

This dilemma is resolved in a number of ways within the Christian tradition. Here I present three. First, and perhaps the most widely held explanation, is that human beings don’t have absolute free will; that is, human freedom is limited by what God allows. A second explanation is that God is in control of the flow of history, but not in control of individual human decisions. In this scenario God can intervene to maintain the proper course of history. A third explanation is that there exists a principle (or law) that supersedes God’s omnipotence (and consequently limits it), and it is this principle that allows for absolute free will in humans.

The objection I have to the first explanation is that in my mind, God is only playing with humanity. In this scenario free will is an illusion, no matter how it is cast. A limited free will is no free will at all.

The objection I have to the second explanation is again, God reserves for himself the right to reverse human choices that might throw off God’s vision of the flow of history. Logically, this line of thought leads to the conclusion that there is no free will; if God cannot allow anything that might ruin his plan for history, is there truly free will?

I also see in the first two explanations a paradox: By God limiting free will, he is in fact admitting that he is not all-powerful. By God admitting that he might at some points in time, have to resort to the use of force and coercion, he is also admitting that free will is more powerful than himself.

This is why I believe, for myself, that the third explanation fits most closely with what is meant by God’s omnipotence. I reject the definition of omnipotence found in Encarta (and other dictionaries). I also reject the traditional explanations of limited free will. I believe there is a principle under which both omnipotence and free will are subject. This principle I believe to be the dominion of God’s love. Love is the first principle under which all other attributes and actions of God must be subject, including omnipotence. I believe that God’s love demands that human beings have absolute free will to the extent that it can and will limit God’s power and actions in the world.

The principle can be illustrated (imperfectly, I hasten to add) by human kingdoms. How much power does a king have? He has absolute power over his domain. What is his domain? From a human monarchial standpoint, a king’s domain includes those that willingly submit to him, those whom through fear voluntarily submit to him, and those whom are involuntarily coerced into submitting to him. The king has no power over those outside of his domain. He can attempt to exert power over those outside his domain through persuasion or through force. In either case, the king’s power is exerted by bringing those outside of his domain inside.

What I am getting at is that God’s omnipotence extends as far as his domain and no farther. He has power over those who willingly submit to him. Unlike human kings, I do not believe God ever uses fear or force to manipulate humans into submitting to him. Therefore, God has no power over those who have not submitted, or are unwilling to submit, to him. Again, because God’s power is limited by love, he cannot employ force to attempt to bring those outside his domain inside. The only avenue left to him is persuasion.

The Bible never explicitly dismisses the concept of multiple gods. The entire Old Testament is framed within the context that multiple gods exist and that they each have their own domains. It is within this context that Yahweh declares himself to be the God of Israel and that they are his people. It is within this context that God demonstrates that the various aspects of nature attributed to various gods, are actually within God’s domain.

God’s domain includes what is created, but there is one thing it does not include automatically: beings given free will. In the story of the Fall, in Genesis 3, when the serpent claims to Adam and Eve that “they will be like God,” he is not lying. Surprisingly the serpent may even be showing some restraint, because by claiming independence from God, Adam and Eve actually become their own little gods, claiming for themselves a domain that is no longer under God’s power. In Ezekiel 28 the prince of Tyre is accused of claiming, “I am a god.” Although the response is, “You are but a man, and no god,” within the context of free will the prince of Tyre is speaking the truth.

God’s plan and purpose is to bring all under his dominion. The only means he can use is persuasion through love. That is why the Father sent his Son, to be incarnated as a human being in Jesus Christ. I believe this is what Paul had in mind when he penned (quoting an even earlier Christ-hymn):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

Philippians 2:10-11 reads (quoting and interpreting Isaiah 45:23; also quoted in Romans 14:11),

So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

To me this is a critical passage because this is what gives God the right, authority, and power to judge and execute judgment over all creation. (The context in all three locations where this idea is found is the context of a final judgment.) What the Bible says is that at the very end all will willingly (all will be convinced of God’s rightness and justice, though many will continue to hate him) submit to the domain of God. Until this happens, God cannot execute final judgment because there are beings outside of his domain and consequently outside of his power and authority.

From a perspective of theodicy this is also critical because how can God rightly execute judgment upon a being who does not acknowledge God’s authority? Question will forever remain on whether or not God was good and just in executing judgment upon a being who did not acknowledge God’s authority.

This is my explanation on what I believe God’s omnipotence means, and why I believe humans have absolute free will.

What is faith?

“You’ve just got to have faith.”

“Just believe.”

These and similar phrases are often thrown about within Christianity. These statements assume that in many ways faith is opposed to reason, logic, science. Rightly, critics criticize Christianity (or at the very least its more public and vocal front) for its anti-intellectualism.

I don’t buy into that.

I believe faith is a logical extension of what can be experienced and reasoned.

A few days ago I watched The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? on PBS. The gist of the program was about whether or not our universe is singular or not. Scientists line up on both sides of the issue because the existence or non-existence of the multiverse cannot be empirically tested. There are multiple pieces of evidence that point toward its existence, however, and its existence would in turn explain many of the observed mysteries about our universe.

Towards the end of the program it discussed the role of mathematics: mathematics has often served as a predictor of scientific realities when those realities at the time could not be tested empirically. Many times these mathematic predictions contradict accepted science of the day but are later found to be true.

Some may choose to disagree, but I believe religious faith is similar to mathematics described in the preceding paragraph. Faith is never a leap beyond reason and logic, it is never wishful thinking, but an extension of reality. It integrates what is known and what has been experienced to project a future reality that is based firmly on the past. Just as mathematics models what is already known, and through those models discovers new realities, faith models what is already known and through it projects what the greater, unseen reality ought to be.

That is what I believe Hebrews 11 to be saying to us as it opens, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (ESV)

Some Definitions from Romans

Our church group is working through the epistle to the Romans. We are making effort to set aside definitions and concepts that have been handed down to us and see what Paul really meant when he employs words that form part of the Christian vocabulary. As one commentary points out, we must not let nearly 2,000 years of Christian history and tradition obscure what Paul has written.

This is a post that will be updated during our time in Romans.

Here are the terms and some working definitions associated with them.

(All texts from the New English Translation unless otherwise indicated.)

Gospel

The dictionary definition of gospel as it is commonly used today is that it is mainly about the teachings, i.e., doctrine. However, Paul defines gospel as follows:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel  from faith to faith,  just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.” Romans 1:16-17

For Paul then, gospel is primarily about the power of God to save people because God is righteous. Gospel is not simply a body of knowledge and teachings, but rather gospel is the acts undertaken by God in relation to humans.

Righteousness (and Unrighteousness)

The dictionary definition of righteous (righteousness is the state of being righteous) gives the impression that righteousness has primarily to do with virtue and moral quality. Paul does not directly give a definition for righteousness in the first chapter, he does define its opposite, unrighteousness:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21

Unrighteousness is not acknowledging or not honoring God. Therefore righteousness must be acknowledging and honoring God, giving thanks to him. Righteousness is not virtue, but a positive relationship with God.

Wrath

The dictionary definition of wrath most commonly assumed is the vengeance and punishment aspect associated with intense anger. Paul defines wrath in chapter 1 as follows:

Therefore God gave them over… Romans 1:24

For this reason God gave them over… Romans 1:26

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over… Romans 1:28

For Paul in Romans, wrath is God giving people up to the natural and logical consequences of unrighteousness (as defined above). All of the immorality and depravity, the evil attitudes that are catalogued in the last part of chapter 1 is not unrighteousness itself but its results. Just as the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 is singular, for Paul the fruit of unrighteousness is singular (c.f., Romans 2:1 where Paul writes that anyone who judges is guilty of all the evils mentioned just prior).

Judgment

The dictionary definition of judgment is mostly accurate in terms of usage in Romans. What appears to have happened is that Christianity has overloaded and expanded the definition of judgment beyond its proper use. In Christianity judgment has the added connotations of condemnation and punishment, where properly used it simply means a decision. Paul defines judgment as follows:

… On the day when God will judge  the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. Romans 2:16

For Paul, judgment is simply God confirming the decision that each person has made because God knows a person through and through. God does not need to condemn or punish because each person’s sentence is a natural consequence of their decision in relation to God. Psalm 139 could be read as a judgment psalm in which the psalmist is requesting God to examine his (the psalmist’s) life and to point out anything that might be wrong in their relationship.

Sin

Sin is where the dictionary definition truly falls away from what Paul intends in Romans. Like righteousness, sin is defined in moral and behavioral terms. As was already discussed, morality or immorality is the result of how one relates to God.

Then what about the “definition” of sin often heard in Christian circles? What about the following text?

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4 (KJV)

It is an unfortunate translation choice. What it really says (and is found in all modern translations) is “sin is lawlessness,” i.e., sin is living without knowledge of the law and/or living as if there is no law. Paul writes in Romans 4:15,

For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.

However, Paul has already shown (in chapters 1-3) that sin and unrighteousness exist apart from the law (c.f., Romans 2:12); therefore, sin cannot be the transgression of the law. Again, transgression of the law is a fruit of unrighteousness.

The first use of sin in Romans is found in Romans 3:9.

What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin…

Paul’s definition of sin is not that of immorality, or deeds, or behaviors but in regards to power. Sin is the power that enslaves people so that they have no choice but to bear the fruit of unrighteousness. Sin is the power that is exerted over people who choose to not acknowledge God, not honor him, and not give thanks to him.

It was mentioned earlier in this post that the gospel is the power of God to save.

With that we able to determine the central thesis of Paul in Romans: There are two powers present in this world – the power of the gospel and the power of sin. Each person is under one or the other; no one can remain independent. Everyone enters the world under the power of sin. The power of sin is so pervasive that it confuses the thinking of everyone so that wrong seems right and vice versa. If human thinking is that confused, how can God break through with his power to overcome sin if people don’t even recognize it as good news? That is where grace and law come in. Grace is present so that everyone has some recognition of God in the power present in the universe, in the created order; the beauty that still remains in the world; in the love that is still found among people. Law provides another aid to help people see that their thinking is confused – law identifies fruit of unrighteousness and also identifies responsibilities of the righteous. But the law must not be confused with the gospel –

For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith. Then the definition of sin must be faithlessness:

But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23