Contentless Emotion Words

Back in the late 60s, Francis Schaeffer wrote the first book in his “trilogy” called “The God Who Is There” and in it he warned that in the culture at large, and even in the church, people were beginning to use what he called “contentless religious words”.

“[People] in our culture in general are already in process of being accustomed to accept nondefined, contentless religious words and symbols, without any rational or historical control. Such words and symbols can be filled with the content of the moment. The words Jesus or Christ are the most ready for the manipulator. The phrase Jesus Christ has become a contentless banner which can be carried in any direction for sociological purposes. In other words, because the phrase Jesus Christ has been separated from true history and the content of Scripture, it can be used to trigger religiously motivated sociological actions directly contrary to the teaching of Christ. This is already in evidence, as for example in the ‘new’ morality being advocated by many within the Church today.”

I think this is so widespread today that people don’t even question it, but I don’t think religious words are the only words that are subject to this treatment. Today, I think what is perhaps even more common is the use of contentless emotion words or phrases.

What I mean by that is people use words that have long since lost a meaning which is common to people, yet they still entail a certain emotional reaction from people. In a way, this is using an appeal to emotion fallacy without actually making an argument. For example, if I say the word “discrimination” you instantly associate negative emotions to that word, and more than likely bring to mind slavery in early America. Conversely, if I use the word “right” you instantly associate good emotions to the word.

Now, why do I say that people use these words in such a way as to make them void of content? Because people throw them around without either defining them (or being able to) or without actually making arguments to support them. We can take any example from the news currently, but I’ll start out with a less controversial one like gun control. Before you throw out your favorite meme about how criminals don’t follow laws, just hear me out. When I say that we have a right to own guns, we get some vague thinking about how there must be something about that in the constitution or bill of rights or something, and that we definitely have a right to do so. It’s in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but I don’t have to tell you what that means or what it says in order to get you on my side. All I have to say is something like “we have a right to own guns and the government is taking away that right!” and odds are you’ll agree with me. At least if you live in the mid-west, like I do.

Interestingly, in these sorts of discussions, nobody really asks questions. For instance, it seems to me like nobody knows what rights are or where they come from. Don’t believe me? How would you define it? Or, better yet, the next time someone talks to you about some hot button issue and they say they have a right to something, ask them what they mean by a “right” and where they get the idea that rights are good and should be protected? How do you determine what is and isn’t a right? Where do these amorphous things come from? I’m betting you won’t get an interesting answer, if you get one at all.

People have generally established notions of good/bad, right/wrong, but as a whole have largely lost the ability to even understand what that means. But as long as you can tap into those emotions using certain void, yet charged, words, then you can win people to your cause. And if we can’t even define those basic terms, then how can we even begin to define terms like “rights” , “equality” , “discrimination” , or anything ending in –phobia?

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I think people in general need to start asking these sorts of questions when talking about anything. Christians in particular need to be asking these questions because I believe we’re the only ones with the worldview foundation to adequately answer them. You can argue one until you’re blue in the face about whether America is/was a Christian nation (I don’t think so) but the fact is that the Judeo-Christian worldview had a massive impact on its founders and the general ethos of the early nation.

I think this is why people still have these instinctual wisps of morality that the manipulators have been able to tap into. I find that ultimately, what is right comes from what conforms to the nature of God and what is wrong comes from what goes against that. Not because God is arbitrary in choosing things which are good/bad or because God realizes the goodness of something outside Himself, but because God is goodness, by His very nature. So any discussion or formulation of rights need to be grounded in that, and not in a sort of might makes right decision or a bundle of laws granted by the state (even when those laws happen to agree with me). This is the grounding that we as Christians have to start. From there we can determine what rights are and which ones should be granted to whom/what. We can determine what should/ought to be and what should/ought not be.

I find it interesting that in the story of the rich young man in Mark 10, Jesus completely bypasses his question at first. The man comes up and says “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” and instead of launching into an argument, Jesus first asks “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Now, in the context, Jesus was making a point and a claim to His divinity, but think about what He did for a moment. If the guy had no idea what good even meant, then why should he believe Jesus? This is the sort of thing we need to start doing in conversation. We need to start asking questions of people. It actually shows we care about them, because instead of just having two people angry with one another and regurgitating the media talking points, it actually gets to the heart of what people care about and why.

It takes work. First you have to figure out how you define certain words, and what you believe before you can start asking it of others. Then you have to figure out ways to ask questions so that the conversation doesn’t get derailed and emotions to get out of control and dominate the discussion. That takes time and practice, but I guarantee it’s worth it. Whatever it is you believe, please put in the effort to develop this skill. For if we don’t, we are quickly going to develop a culture that is entirely dependent on and dominated by the manipulators.

Christians, out-think the world for Christ. Out-love the world for Christ. This is a way that we can do both of those things and show that we care of them and follow God at the same time. “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” – Colossians 3:17

SDG

Controversial Topics Pt.2 Yoga

Interestingly, this might be more controversial for conservative Christians than many of the other things I plan on writing about in this series. I intend to show that my criticism of the mainstream Christian culture’s acceptance of yoga is both naïve/dangerous as well as insensitive toward the religion(s)/people groups the practice stems from.

As of 2013, the cultural practice of yoga, or a distilled version of yoga, as a form of exercise or relaxation is extremely popular. The general assumption is that, while it has its roots in some eastern religions, so long as you remove the weird spiritual mumbo jumbo from it, you can do just the physical portions and be ok.

At its origin, the practice of yoga is tied to Hinduism(and Buddhism/Jainism), and is used as a means to ultimately escape the wheel of samsara (reincarnation/karma) and attain moksha(rough equivalent to a form of heaven). Another use of yoga is to get into contact with the divine by means of emptying oneself of everything, and therefore being able to freely contact the divine (Atman is Brahman). Variations on how this is done, whether through certain positions and breathing or through certain chants or states of mind or the use of sexual energy differ throughout the religion.

When Yoga came over to America in the 19th century, most of the spiritual aspects of the discipline were downplayed so that there would be a greater chance of acceptance. Hatha yoga has become probably the most popular branch of yoga, and as such it describes itself as a purely physical discipline. Up to this point, it has gone mainstream and so there are various “Christian yoga” places that you can attend. Is this a good idea? Is doing yoga compatible with Biblical Christianity?

Mark Driscoll gives a helpful grid through which to filter things: receive, redeem, reject. He also provides a lengthy article discussing yoga and why he rejects its practice for Christians.

It seems to me that you can’t separate the spiritual from the physical in yoga and still call it yoga. If you have to meditate in order to achieve certain postures, you’re no longer doing something purely physical. Al Mohler puts it this way “When Christians practice yoga, they must either deny the reality of what yoga represents or fail to see the contradictions between their Christian commitments and their embrace of yoga. The contradictions are not few, nor are they peripheral.”

People more prominent than I receive comments and challenges /accusations regarding yoga that are far more bold than any I would receive. Things like yoga brings them closer to God and enriches their spirituality. I think if these are things you are thinking, then obviously you have jumped the ship, as the goal of Christianity is not the vague “spirituality” that is so popular today, and you cannot prove Biblically that the practice of yoga is anywhere mentioned or even alluded to as being a way to get closer to God.

The far more common thing that I hear is that they’re doing yoga purely for physical exercises and that anything spiritual or related to Hinduism has been removed. For example, there is a “Yoga X” section in the popular home workout program “P90X.” Interestingly, Tony Horton, the founder of P90X claims here that yoga does more than just benefit physically. Granted, the main thrust of his argument involves physical stuff, but he mentions more. It seems to me like claiming to do yoga for the purely physical benefits is like saying you do the Jewish ceremonial temple washings purely to get clean.

Are certain stretches/postures etc. wrong in and of themselves? No. But there are some important questions that practitioners of yoga who claim to follow Christ must answer. If you are doing yoga purely for the physical benefits, and are consciously detaching it form anything spiritual, why are you calling it yoga? Why are you doing yoga instead of, say, pilates? I had a friend who had done the Yoga X portion of the P90X program and then did the Pilates routine that I had substituted and she told me that they worked the same muscle groups as well as worked flexibility. So if there are alternatives that don’t have the spiritual baggage attached, why are you doing it? Would you be able to say that God would approve of what you are doing? Is it edifying to you? If you are attempting to take the spiritual elements of yoga and turn them into Christian elements, remember this, light and darkness cannot coexist. Al Mohler puts it this way “Christians who practice yoga are embracing, or at minimum flirting with, a spiritual practice that threatens to transform their own spiritual lives into a “post-Christian, spiritually polyglot” reality. Should any Christian willingly risk that?” There is something to be said about the fact that if you have to spend a lot of time explaining what you’re not doing, and don’t have any Biblical foundation to back what you are doing, then maybe you shouldn’t be doing it

It seems to me that the only reason Christians are so eager to practice yoga is because yoga is popular. I honestly don’t see any other reason. I don’t know of any physical benefits you can achieve in yoga that you can’t achieve somewhere else. What other reason could there be? I sincerely hope there are better reasons, but I haven’t encountered them. This is not an example of what Paul was doing when he said that he became all things to all men so that by all means he might win some (1 Cor. 9:22). Paul would never abandon the truth and do things contrary to it so that he might somehow bring people to Christ. However, if you’re looking for something he might say that relates to this, I would say that you should turn to what he says in 1 Timothy 4:7-8.

“Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;  for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”

Lastly, I want to say a little about the ultimately less important (though perhaps more weighty, given culture) side of this argument. Our culture prizes tolerance (skewed though we have made that word) and we aim to respect people for what they believe, even if we don’t believe the same way. The example I used above of the Jewish ceremonial washings has force for a few reasons, and one of them is because we realize that if we were to do that, it would be disrespectful/hurtful to the Jews who practice that. Yet due to popularity, we have no problem with disrespecting a huge number of people in various eastern religions who have yoga as an integral and important part of their religion. If you aim to evangelize people by doing yoga as a way to get common ground, what you are really doing is insulting them and then trying to gloss that over by presenting the gospel. Not a good idea.

By all means, take care of your body, for it is the temple of the Lord. But do so in a way that is not entangled in religious systems that are antithetical to the gospel of Christ. Give people no reason to suspect compromise with the world, for we are to be in it but not of it.

SDG

————————————————————————————————————————–

Further reading:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-meaning-of-yoga-a-conversation-with-stephanie-syman-and-dough-groothius/

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly/

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/

http://pastormark.tv/2011/11/02/christian-yoga-its-a-stretch

Controversial Topics Pt. 1 Abortion

With the 40th anniversary of the infamous Roe Vs. Wade decision not too long ago, the question of Abortion has popped back into the public consciousness (as if it ever left).

I have found that there are a lot of people who are for or against the supposed right to abort, but really don’t have much of an argument one way or another, minus regurgitating the media talking points. I’m going to attempt to present a cogent argument for the pro-life position, using Wayne Grudem’s book “Politics” fairly heavily.

I remember R.C. Sproul saying that he figured once they defined what a life was, that the abortion argument would be over, but they did define it and it isn’t. I remember thinking that was a strange thing to say because even if people in the pro-life camp decided what life was, that definition probably wouldn’t mean much if the pro-choice camp wouldn’t also accept it. However, recent developments have proven there’s a lot of truth to that statement, but perhaps not in the way he originally meant it.

In a brutal display of honesty, a member of the pro-choice camp, writing at salon.com, said that it has been detrimental to their side to keep switching the definition on what is and isn’t life around and she suggests that they actually agree that life begins at conception and that it actually is a human being. Then we have the kicker, that even though the unborn baby is a human, it is a “life worth sacrificing.” What is her reasoning behind this?

“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Let that sink in for a moment. Because the woman is the “boss” , she therefore has the right to kill the unborn within her, not only because of her health, but because of “her circumstances . . . always”. This has always been the unspoken truth, but to hear it put in such stark terms aught to shock you. Naturally, she doesn’t go on to put forth a long argument defending that position, internet articles really don’t lend themselves to that, but the title of the article says it all: “So What if Abortion Ends Life”. The goal has always been abortion on demand, for any reason. You can read Al Mohler’s analysis of that article, and a link to it, here.

On the flipside, we had fairly recently, a proposed amendment known as the personhood amendment brought up in what was believed to be the most pro-life state in the nation, Mississippi. This amendment would’ve stated clearly that unborn people do in fact have full personhood from the moment of conception, and therefore granted the rights that pertain to it. It was decisively voted down. It would appear that the pro-life movement in general doesn’t like the arbitrary nature of the “abortion is ok until the 3rd trimester” argument of the Roe decision, but is unwilling to say that personhood should be granted from conception on. So there is disagreement about when the arbitrary starting point should be, but it is equally arbitrary. As Mohler says here “we’re all Harry Blackmun Now”.  Some further relevant articles from Mohler on abortion can be found here, here, and here.

What are we to think about this? It should cause great worry among those of us who value the sanctity of every human life from conception until natural death. There are grave consequences for the view of abortion on demand, and without limitations. A while ago there was an article from a pair of ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics argue for what they term “after birth abortion.” You read that correctly, after birth abortion. This article from Slate lays out the issue. Remember the ultimate goal, abortion at any time and for any reason. It is not hard to say, though hard to read/hear, the steps of the reasoning. If you can argue it’s ok to abort up to point A, then why not at point B? Assuming A-C are pre-birth, then is D acceptable? At what point is it not acceptable? What if the baby is going to be born with some sort of genetic abnormality? Would it then be ok to kill the child at any stage of life? Or what about at stages X-Z in the human life? Certainly the elderly are vulnerable to this sort of argumentation as well. I hear the objection of that being a slippery slope argument, and it is, but the issue is that so far it’s been proved right.

Let us be clear, the only coherent place for a pro-choice person to argue is that a human is a human from the moment of conception and therefore they have a right to live. The reason we should do this is because God values human life. We are the unique bearers of His image, regardless of how society views us. The child of Elizabeth is referred to as a baby in Luke 1:41-44. David identifies himself as a me in Psalm 51:5, and again in Psalm 139:13 as well as acknowledging the role of God in the creation of everything and every person. There are several places where this is common, and for unborn children to be referred to as the beginning of nations, like in Genesis 25:22-23. The Old Testament also highly values unborn life, as evidenced in Exodus 21:22-25.

We are also to look out for the most vulnerable among us in several places. Surely the unborn are the most vulnerable, and we who can should be fighting to save them.

Some things to keep in mind when discussing this issue: Genetically speaking, the baby is different from both the mother and the father at the point of conception, so to assume that it’s just a part of the mother’s body is wrong. Always make sure to press people for reasons to support their assertions. This is one area where it’s so emotionally charged that people are likely to just say things without backing them up.

Possible objections/answers: (taken from Grudem with my own thoughts added)

The unborn are unable to interact and survive on their own. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t a person. This sort of utilitarian argumentation is both dangerous and unpersuasive. You can point to the examples above of other people who are unable to survive on their own (newborns, elderly, multiple limb amputees etc.) and apply that argument to them. Personhood should mean more than simply usefulness to society at large. Make them argue for this position.

Birth Defects. This is related to the above objection, but most would think it monstrous to put this child to death after they have been born, so why would it be acceptable before they are born? Again, an argument must be made as to why this would be acceptable. Not just some sort of vague notion that people with birth defects are somehow lesser than the rest of us (think about how society treats such statements in general).

Rape/Incest. Now we get to the big ones. These next two are generally given sway even among the pro-life camp (I think I actually argued that way years ago). The first thing we have to realize is that this is tragic. Appearing cold and heartless is not only unhelpful, but patently un-Christian. So while we must sympathize and grieve with those who grieve (Romans 12:15), it must also be pointed out that this is not a good reason for an abortion. We would never kill a child after they have been born, even if they had be conceived in rape or incest. We are not to punish the child for the sins of the father (Deuteronomy 24:16).

To Save the Life of the Mother. This is undoubtedly the hardest. According to the Centers for Disease Control, abortion carried out to save the life of the mother is extremely rare (less than 0.118% of all abortions). I think it is important to make some clear distinctions here. It is hard because you are choosing between one life and another. If the pro-choice party is unwilling to admit the life of the unborn child, they cannot use this argument to any effect. I think we need to make sure that we are not lumping together the concepts of “health” and “life” because there is a difference. The infamous Roe and Doe cases defined health as “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” and we must patently reject that as being a definition for life. This is referring to whether or not the mother of the child will die or not. I think it is permissible to take the life of the child for the life of the mother, if and only if the operation is done with the intention to save the mother and not done with the intention to terminate the life of the child.

This does not settle all issues, and does not make the conversation any easier. We must not shy away from difficult and controversial moral topics. The sanctity of human life is valued by God, and so it should be valued by we who claim to follow Him. Be courageous and fight on.

SDG

Some Thoughts on Evil.

The problem of evil is something that is frequently talked about and debated in the realm of apologetics. If you listen to guys like William Lane Craig, one of the things you’ll hear is that if it is possible that God can have a morally sufficient reason to allow the existence of evil, then the supposed contradiction that is often leveraged against His existence disappears.

On the logical front, this may be perfectly acceptable, but it has always felt unsatisfying to me. Not that I think I will ever have a full grasp of things in this life, but I think it’s helpful to think through what that reason might be. If you have a couple hours and want a better treatment of the subject that, then listen to Lindsay Brooks on “Theology Matters” here.

One of the things that is brought up in the program, and indeed in discussions on this topic in general, is the Free Will Defense given by Alvin Plantinga as his answer to the logical problem of evil. (Distinguished from the emotional problem of evil). As a reformed guy, I’m not hugely satisfied with his argument, since the whole idea of libertarian free will is not to be found in Scripture. So I started thinking about what might the possible reason, or at least part of the reason, why God might allow the existence of evil.

It occurred to me that we need to look at this from the perspective of God, before we look at this from our perspective. What I mean here is similar to when I have conversations with people about the doctrine of election. Generally speaking, when people find out you’re a Calvinist, they want to jump straight to election and start debating. In reality, it’s better to start with how God actually is, and once we have the idea of His sovereignty in place, then we can work from there. It’s more important to realize that God’s freedom is higher than ours. In order for God to be free, He cannot be forced into either saving everyone or damning everyone. Don’t get me wrong, none of us deserve salvation, but it gives God more freedom to say that He does not have to do 100% one way or the other.

So if we start with God, we get a number of useful things in place. First, He is the potter and we are the clay. This is a humbling distinction, but it’s helpful when we deal with evil because our first instinct is to start throwing out indictments against God. We see numerous examples in Scripture of God using a foreign nation to punish His people Israel, only to then turn around and use Israel to punish them. From a human perspective, that seems to make no sense at all. However, if we start from God, and the fact that He has righteous standards that must be upheld, then punishment for sin is viewed through that grid, instead of our strange and often slanted idea of fairness.

Secondly, we find in Scripture the fact that we are made in His image. That image has been distorted by the fall, but it is still there. It seems to me that it would be better, as His image bearers, to have a more full, rather than less full, revealed image of His character. Connecting back to God’s freedom, it seems that He would somehow be less free if there was a world in which He only showed mercy or only showed justice et cetera.

Within the context of Christianity, I find that the more fully the Holy Spirit reveals to me through the pages of Scripture the nature of God, the better it is for me. This is one of the reasons I’m reformed. The doctrines of grace give me a larger view of God and humble me greatly (even if my pride fights against it).

I submit that this brief explanation of the goodness of a more full revelation of the character of God, may be the morally sufficient reason (or at least one of or part of) that God has for allowing the existence of evil. However, this deals primarily with the logical problem of evil. The emotional or experiential problem of evil is another animal entirely.

You might have everything settled in your mind about the logical problem of evil, but when disaster strikes, it’s very easy for that to not help you one bit. Personally, it helps me greatly to realize that God is sovereign. Even if something awful happens, God is in control, and I may be taken through a dark night of the soul like Paul, but God is faithful. This is where it is helpful to have a God that is not simply a mushy, lovey dovey sort of human god, but One who is big enough to handle the hard. The Scriptures are rife with examples of God bringing individuals and nations through incredible hardships, and we have the unique advantage of being able to see why He did those things. These are the sort of things that are to build our faith in our Creator. We are to reflect on the concrete things He has done in the past and use those to illuminate our present calamity.

This is not a solution to either the logical problem or the emotional problem of evil, but I hope it is a step in the right direction, and that it is a step that is honoring to God and edifying to His people.

SDG

The Idol of Culture

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges that Christian individuals and churches face is how to deal with culture. We are called to preach the gospel to everyone, and that means by going out in the culture and interacting with people who believe differently than we do. But how we are to do that?

Some have taken to the idea that perhaps if we try and make certain parts of Christianity less offensive, or incorporate certain elements of culture that aren’t necessarily bad, that we can kinda find some common ground and go from there. I’m also pretty sure nobody is immune to this sort of thinking because Paul had to rebuke Peter in Galatians 2 for doing something similar. Besides, it sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? Let’s bring in a band or get some video game systems for our youth group, that way we already have things that hold people’s attention, then once we can get them to church, we can preach the gospel. Well, let’s actually not preach the whole counsel of God, because we don’t want to offend people. We want them to stay and to keep coming back.

I think this is preaching to the choir if you’re already reading this blog, but it’s just as easy of a slip for those of us who would consider ourselves gospel-centered (or whatever other term you want to use). Because we like the idea of relational evangelism (which, to quote matt chandler, there’s nothing wrong with it, provided it leads to real evangelism) so that we don’t have to have awkward conversations. We believe that if we just be their friend and show them the love of Christ (which I have no idea what that means in this context usually) that eventually they will open up and start asking questions of us. Or perhaps we take the more extreme approach and we want to “live a life that demands explanation”, whatever that means. Or maybe we want our pastors to do the heavy lifting for us. We go to a solid church and we just want to get people to church somehow and then they’ll hear the real gospel (which is good). But you see the circle begins again with how to get them there etc.

I realized this issue not too long ago when I thought about how I had never shared the gospel with the friend I had known the longest. It’s incredibly awkward when you’ve known someone for over a decade and haven’t bothered to clearly share something that they are well aware you find important. I’d like to tell you that it went very smoothly and he went from being an atheist to a Christian and things are great, but unfortunately, that is not the case. He responded how I assumed he would, for he is not a rude person, and simply said “oh, ok.” and that was it. Does that mean that he’s lost forever? No, but it brings up a very important point about the gospel. It has power.

I think the reason we don’t share the gospel very often and why we as individuals and collectively as churches try to capitulate to culture is that we have lost our trust in the power of the Holy Spirit and of the proclamation of the gospel. In a way, the gospel is dangerous, because there is a 0% chance that it will do nothing. The gospel will either soften someone’s heart or it will harden it. Practically speaking, you might not see that effect straight away, but God is always working. When we realize this, we no longer worry about what to do to make church more appealing or acceptable or how we can word sharing the gospel with people, because it’s not about any of that. Rest assured, if your church does not have the gospel, it is not truly Christian. Culture will always be opposed to the gospel, and so you can’t draw them in with secularism and then assume they will just absorb Christianity via osmosis.

We are not to escape from culture, but to engage it. And it is tempting to capitulate to it because we are living in it 24/7. We like culture, because it was designed for us as people (trusim, I know). However, we are called to be in the world, not of it. We are to be salt and light. We need to remember the power of the gospel, and trust that God will act as He promises that He will. He will draw His people to Himself. It’s very freeing really, and helpful. I’m not good at sharing the gospel, so I’m right there with you in the worrying etc. God is strong where we are weak.

SDG

A Burden For Christians

I want to clear a few things up before I write this, so that I won’t be misunderstood. I want to talk about the process of sanctification within the life of a believer. I feel this is a topic that is very misunderstood among Christians and something that is incredibly important. I also think I have such a burden about this topic because it is something that I see myself not taking very seriously. Perhaps I am the only one, and indeed I hope so, but I do not think that to be the case.

I want to be very clear that what I say about sanctification must not be confused with justification. Justification is a work wholly of God. That is, it is something that God does, and not something that we earn or can add to. God is the one who saves us, and not the other way around. Also, sanctification is a gift of God. What I mean is that, if we make progress in our Christian life, it is because God is being gracious to us and we are growing through the power of the Holy Spirit within us.

It’s always good to start with a definition of words that are not common to us. The word sanctification is the lifelong work of the Holy Spirit in us which empowers us to work in such a way that we are conformed more and more to the likeness of Christ. It is a synergistic thing, meaning that it is Christ that works in us, but we are still putting forth the hard work, as it were. This is contrasted with the monergistic work of salvation, which means that salvation is all of God (Jonah 2:9). From eternity past, God predestined those for whom He would send Christ to save. And he effectually calls all of them, and they come to faith and are never cast out.

But what of sanctification then? You could think of it this way, it is the living of your Christian life in such a way that you are progressing away from your old, dead self, and toward Christ-likeness. I found that there are passages all over the Bible that talk about this, and I hadn’t really cared much about them or noticed them before. At least not in a way that changed anything or caused me to feel/think anything particular.

A question that will always come up in the life of a Christian (at least, I hope it does) is “How do I know that I’m saved?” Perhaps in years gone by you raised your hand and repeated a prayer after a pastor or walked down an isle and got prayed for. So you point back to that and use that, but Scripture says nothing of that. I think there are a couple things that are important when thinking about this question. First, someone who is truly saved is someone who endures to the end. John writes in 1 John 2:19 that “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” Secondly, I think we look to the process of sanctification. I call it a process because we are never perfected in this earthly life. Do we see ourselves growing more and more toward becoming like Christ? Or do we see no difference now than before we were saved? It seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is within us, and God has saved us and given us a new nature, then that should have some pretty drastic changes on how we live our lives.

I get so tired/frustrated at how lightly our society, or perhaps “Christian” culture takes the idea of what it means to be a Christian. I am probably on the computer and facebook too much, but it provides perhaps some of the most potent examples of this. We see people post statuses all the time like “Jesus said we deny him before men, then he will deny us before his father. So I would like to say that I believe in Jesus! 90% of people won’t repost this. Let’s see who the real followers are.” et. ad nauseum. In fact, I have even seen a status like that posted, and then this person’s friends were quite confused as to why the person had posted something like that in the first place. Why were they confused? Because the person’s life had absolutely nothing to do with Christ. I think the world can see right through this, and more importantly, the Bible speaks about it.

We see this attitude in churches too though. A popular (or at least it was a few years ago) worship song is “I am a Friend of God” which highlights how God calls us (Christians) His friends. In fact, that’s pretty much 90% of the lyrics of the song. The problem is not in it being false, but rather, in it only being a half-truth. It is quite true that Christ called His followers friends, but He didn’t just leave it at that. “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” John 15:14 (emphasis added). That second part doesn’t fit real well into a poppy, feely, worship song, but if you’re going to speak the truth, then speak the whole truth. As a church, we have taken the truth that we are to “come as we are” and have turned it subtly into “stay as we are.”

What I mean is that it is quite true that in order to be saved, we don’t have to change into some sort of super holy looking people in order for God to take us. When Christ called the disciples, He didn’t tell them to first go change and clean up and look presentable first, He just told them to follow Him and they did immediately. However, this does not mean that we are to stay as we are once He saves us. I’m not talking about dressing nicer (though maybe that will happen) or surface level stuff like that. After all, the Pharisees were perfect examples of people who had all the outward trappings of religion and yet were dead inside. Christ was quite harsh with them in Matthew 23. (In light of that, for those familiar with the theological discussion, why is it that we always assume Matthew 7:16 refers to outward things?) Once we see that we are to come as we are to Christ, for salvation, it is important to understand that we are not to stay as we are. Saving faith is something that should change our entire lives!

For some, this may mean changing what they wear, but what it should certainly do is change what we think and what we say and how we act and what we do and what we are concerned about etc. I think the books of James and 1 John are incredibly helpful, clear, practical, and challenging about this.

“But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” – James 1:22. It is quite possible to hear good preaching, and have developed a good intellectual grasp of correct doctrine, but if it doesn’t change your life, what good is it?

“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” – James 1:26. Guard what you say and how you say it!

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” , “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works is dead. But someone will say , ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” – James 2:14, 17-18. It is faith alone that saves you, but that faith is never by itself. True, saving faith, produces good works in the one who is saved.

“You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” – James 4:4. You can’t play both sides of the field. Either you are living your life for God, or you are not.

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” , “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the way in which he walked.” , “Do not love the world o the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is no in him.” , “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.” , “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” – 1 John 1:6; 2:3-6, 15; 3:6-8a, 9-10.

These are serious passages, and those are only a few passages from a couple books. This sort of thing is all over the Bible! Yet we take it so lightly! I can hear already someone saying “yeah, but you already said sanctification can’t be completed in this life. nobody’s perfect. give me a break.” I say, enough of that excuse! It is true that we will never be able to perfectly follow the commands of God. That is why the law cannot save anyone. However, in His sermon on the mount, Jesus Himself says “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Matthew 5:48. Should not the command of Christ be enough? Is what He is asking impossible? Yes, it is. But I think we too often (at least I do) take that truth as an excuse to be lazy and not put in the hard work. The bar is set so incredibly high that in order for anyone to be saved, it must be God Himself that reaches the bar. That is the point of the gospel. But the fact that sanctification will not be perfected in this life should be no excuse for us to be lazy and not work towards becoming more like Christ (which is another way of saying perfect, since He alone is the standard for perfection).

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it is not that we are so passionate that we go after the things of the world, but rather, that we are not passionate enough so that we go after eternal things.

I want to lay out several helpful/practical things from a book I am currently reading by J.C. Ryle called “Holiness”, but before I do that I want to offer a word of encouragement. I know this is sort of a downer of a blog because I am writing passionately and heavily. I do not say for a moment that if you are not currently a super-Christian, that you aren’t saved. A light may be very dim and still be a light. It is not for no reason that Scripture refers to new Christians as newborns, and then as children, young men, and fathers finally. As I said before, the process of sanctification is one that will last our whole life and there is always a point of starting where you fall into sin more than you avoid it. But take heart, for Christ has overcome the world, and if He truly dwells in you, then you will begin to have victory over sin your life. However long and hard the road may be, you are in the company of a countless multitude of saints who have walked that road before you.

The “Holiness” book is basically a collection of papers under the topic of holiness and of the chapters I have read so far, the ones on sanctification and growth have been the most helpful, practical, and convicting for me. I know writing out all this will make this already long blog even longer, but I think you will find this helpful.

First, he lays out several visible marks of sanctification.

-True sanctification does not consist in talk about religion.

- True sanctification does not consist in temporary religious feelings.

- True sanctification does not consist in outward formalism and external devoutness.

- Sanctification does not consist in retirement from our place in life, and the renunciation of our social duties.

- Sanctification does not consist in the occasional performance of right actions.

- Genuine sanctification will show itself in habitual respect to God’s law, and habitual effort to live in obedience to it as the rule of life.

- Genuine sanctification will show itself in an habitual endeavor to do Christ’s will, and to live by his practical precepts. (Here he makes reference to the practical precepts found in the gospels and particularly in the sermon on the mount. There’s a lot of practical goodness found there to be used toward living the Christian life.)

- Genuine sanctification will show itself in an habitual desire to live up to the standard which St. Paul sets before the churches in his writings. (He references the closing chapters of nearly all his epistles. Again, look for the practical goodness. He wrote to specific churches, but his advice applies to living the Christian life.)

- Genuine sanctification will show itself in habitual attention to the active graces which our Lord so beautifully exemplified, and especially to the grace of charity. (How did Jesus act? A good thing would be to reference the fruits of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5.)

- Genuine sanctification, in the last place, will show itself in habitual attention to the passive graces of Christianity. (Those shown especially in submission to the will of God and in bearing and forbearing toward one another.)

In his chapter on growth, he lists out several marks of how it is we can know, if we desire to, if we are growing in sanctification. It is true that there is no such thing as a stand still faith. Either we are going forward or we are not, and if we are not, it is quite likely that we are going backwards. He then lists some practical things which answers the question of how we grow, if we desire to.

- One mark of “growth in grace” is increased humility.

- Another mark of “growth in grace” is increased faith and love toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Do you love Christ more than you did before? Do you find more about Him to rest on? Are you finding Him to satisfy you more than sin?)

- Another mark of “growth in grace” is increased holiness of life and conversation. (The man whose soul is “growing” gets more dominion over sin, the world, and the devil every year. In other words, you start winning your fight against the flesh more.)

- Another mark of “growth in grace” is increased spirituality of taste and mind. (You take more of an interest in spiritual things.)

- Another mark of “growth in grace” is increase of charity.

- One more mark of “growth in grace” is increased zeal and diligence in trying to do good to souls. (Do you care about the souls of those unsaved? As you grow more, you should care more.)

Now, how do you go about accomplishing this growth?

- One thing essential to growth in grace is diligence in the use of private means of grace. (private prayer, private reading of the Bible, private meditation and self-examination.)

- Another thing which is essential to growth in grace is carefulness in the use of public means of grace. (Going to church, uniting with God’s people for common prayer and praise, the preaching of the Word, and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Also, how do you go about those things? Does your church bear the marks of a healthy church? See here. What is your attitude about church? That’s the careful part of this point.)

- Another thing essential to growth in grace is watchfulness over our conduct in the little matters of everyday life. (Our tempers, what we say, how we act, how we use our time, and our relationships with other people.)

- Another thing which is essential to growth in grace is caution about the company we keep and the friendships we form. (This is a tough one, because we want to be friends with everyone. But the conduct of who we surround ourselves with will effect our conduct and it is much easier for bad conduct to influence us than for good conduct to, if you have a mix.)

- There is one more thing which is absolutely essential to growth in grace – and that is regular and habitual communion with the Lord Jesus. (He means a daily habit of fellowship between us and Him. We do this through prayer and meditation. So this is connected with the other points.)

I know this has been a very long blog, but I feel it is something that is needed greatly today. I know it is something I personally need greatly. I know that in writing this, it is likely that the coming days will be harder for me, because that just seems to be the way things work. So I ask for your prayer for me, that I am able to live out what I write, and that I do not take the lazy way out of things. I pray this has been edifying to you and that it will ignite a desire in you for personal holiness/sanctification.

SDG

What is a Worldview?

Have you ever asked yourself that question? I don’t think I was even familiar with the term until I was a juniorish in college. It sounds rather sophisticated, doesn’t it?

I think, in a way, it’s both incredibly easy to understand, and yet much more complicated than you think. Just looking at the word, you would correctly assume that it’s how someone views the world. But what does that mean? Obviously, it’s more than just “hey, look at that big blue circle.”

It’s a sort of philosophical web of ideas, that, once combined, make up your view of everything. Every idea that comes to mind or every circumstance that happen to you or you hear about, is filtered through your worldview. Reflecting on that makes me realize how complex it is, but yet, I never sat down and though “ok, today I’m going to start creating my worldview.” I just sort of already had one, just like everyone has one. Now, later in life, once you start learning things and studying certain aspects or ideas, your worldview can change, but you still have something to start with.

Ravi Zacharias often says that every worldview must address the following four issues: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. These things must be addressed because they are the four big questions everyone asks at some point. Things like “where did I come from?” , “what is the meaning of life?” , “Is there truth/right and wrong?” , “where am I going?” etc. There are entire branches of philosophy devoted to answering questions like that. These things must be addressed in relation to the correspondence and coherence theories of truth.

Those sound complicated, but they’re really not. Basically, do the answers that come from a certain worldview make sense of reality as it actually is? And do those answers cohere in such a way that the worldview is consistent within itself. Apply the law of noncontradiction to it. (My car can’t be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time.) There’s a lot of places you could go into when you start talking about worldview, but I would like to emphasize just one.

When you look at the word “worldview” you notice that grandness of it. This is how you view the entire world. It’s a holistic system. This means that your belief system has to be able to address everything. That doesn’t mean that you have the perfect answer to everything or are able to solve every dilemma in such a way that everyone is satisfied with it. What it does mean, is that your worldview is big enough, that answers can be found, if someone went looking for them.

Jesus spoke in worldview terms a lot in the Bible. For example, when He said that “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” in John 14:6, he was answering a lot of those questions that I mentioned above.

I was thinking about how my Christian faith is a worldview, and if it’s big enough to address things that happen to me on a day to day basis. It’s really easy to pick on, say, the prosperity gospel people and say “yeah, well what happens to you when a horrible tragedy happens? your worldview falls apart!” but what about mine? Does my worldview explain why I’m tempted to sin in the same ways, even after Christ has freed me from the bondage of certain sins? Does my worldview have an answer for the man who just go laid off from his job and is coming to me for advice? Does my worldview know what to do when a friend has a miscarriage? How do I explain a world where sometimes, the bad people get good things and the good people get bad things? Does it tell me why there are so many denominations within Christianity?

I think the answer is yes. I think it’s a hard yes, and I mean that not to say it more emphatically, but rather to say that the questions are hard to deal with, even if I have answers for them. Because it’s one thing to logically be able to say the right answer (that’s easier for me), but it’s another to have those answers actually have an effect on my life. I think the tendency within Christianity is to limit our worldview so that we only emphasize one area (which ultimately means we’re over-emphasizing one aspect of God’s character) at the expense of others. We emphasize the aspect that’s easy or comforting to us, so that we don’t have to think about the hard stuff.

I know that’s what I do. I know there are some aspects of my life that my right answers haven’t connected to. That means that I’m living inconsistently with my worldview. The key there, is that I have a consistent, clear, and coherent worldview with which you can compare to.

I challenge you to take some time this week and take one issue, one hard question like some of the ones I listed above, and see if your worldview has an answer for it. Then take a look at your life, and see if that answer is being applied properly. Are you living like you have an answer to the problem? Or are you just letting things happen to you without putting in the hard work and figuring out what needs to be done, and then doing it.

Also, if you think about it, pray for me as I do the same thing. I know there are some areas that I need to put in the hard work, and it’s really easy for me to be lazy.

Fighting with you,

Jesse

Quick Thoughts on The Olympics

I’ve never been someone that’s terribly into much of anything you could call a sport. But I do enjoy watching the major events every now and again, particularly for the social aspect and the food. Basically, whichever respective sport’s championship happens to be around and whoever hosts a party.

The Olympics are upon us, and it’s quite a bit bigger than any national championship. It staggers the mind to think that the same events are being watched all around the world. I think it’s a great way for people to feel patriotic without actually doing anything other than cheer on their country’s specific athlete(s). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that either. But I think there are other reasons people watch the games (odd to refer to them as “games”) as well.

As I was thinking about them, the thing that struck me was the difference between, say, movies and the Olympics is the “real” factor. Not necessarily just the fact that these are real people vs. obviously, movies are fake stuff either. I think in our day, or at least in America, we have a very hard time telling stories in films that depict people as truly good or truly evil. Our good guys have to be tainted somehow, in an attempt to be more “human”, meanwhile our philosophers/sociologists/psychologists struggle to come to a definition of what being human really means. While our bad guys can’t be actually evil, but rather, guys you end up rooting for even if you don’t like them because they’re actually just victims of something, or they actually have good points so you love to hate them etc.

I don’t think the Olympics is an example of good guys vs. bad guys, but there are very clear cut winners and losers. All of the athletes competing are incredibly talented, so it’s just entertaining to watch from the standpoint of spectacle, but I think there’s something refreshing about looking at something and going “yep, that guy got 1st and that guy got last” without having any sort of strange need to change the 1st place guy into something or the last place guy into something to “bring em down to our level” for some unknown reason.

As a culture, we’re pretty against God and absolute truth, so naturally, we have to be against true definitions of good and evil. Take the Christopher Nolan Batman films. I rather enjoy them, but it’s obviously an attempt at casting a darker look on Batman. You look at previous Batman films and they were more lighthearted, and it was a lot easier to say “ok, this guy’s good and that guy’s evil.” Whereas with the new ones, everyone has to be not quite on one side or the other. Perhaps the change came when, thinking particularly of the Batman movies, it was popular to sort of make everyone a good guy (Mr. Freeze turns into a good guy and such). However, you look at the 3 new batman movies and you have the love interests of Bruce Wayne being either busy and shortsighted or hiding true identities or teaching Bruce some of the hard truths of life etc. You have even the butler turning into a character that Bruce is against, at least temporarily. All the good guys have to be bad at least on some level and in some cases. Every one of them, without exception to my knowledge. I think that’s because we have this allergy toward absolute right and wrong or good and evil. Francis Schaeffer said that ideas start with the philosophers, but eventually they go down the ladder and enter popular culture through the arts, and it seems he was right. We’re uncomfortable with someone like Superman who, at least in the comics, is actually someone truly good. (I’ll bet the new Superman movie will have him not such.)

I could probably go on about that for quite awhile but all that to say that we need more clear cut categories. I think it’s just good for us to look at something and say “he’s a good guy” and “he’s a bad guy” without having to qualify what we mean and without having all these gray areas. Which is why the Olympics is such a great thing to watch. We already know they’re amazing athletes, so we can say they’re all incredible. But it’s just nice to see very clear cut winners and losers. There’s probably a good bit in there to tell to the self-esteem culture too, but that’s another blog.

In a Genesis 3 world, it’s helpful to keep our categories straight, because it helps us to think clearly about a good number of issues. It’s not popular, but nobody said it would be; in fact Jesus said it would be just the opposite. That said, enjoy the Olympics. Root for your team and try to take some of that objectivity you’ve used and bring it back into the rest of life. It’s refreshing.

Fight the Blindness!

A friend of mine was talking about reading through 1st Peter and how that book really shook him up. So I decided to read through it as well, and I just kept on going to 2nd Peter. It’s in 2nd Peter that I found some things that really hit me. In particular, I want to talk about 2nd Peter 1:5-9.

In verses 3-4, Peter talks about what God has done for us. He talks about how God has granted us all things that pertain to life and godliness. How did He do this? Through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence. By His own power and for His own glory did He call us, so that we may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. That’s pretty powerful stuff. So, in light of that, this is what Peter tells us to do.

“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” (v.5-9)

Now the word “supplement” does not mean that you add something to your salvation, nor is this list in a strict chronological order necessarily. In terms of basic structure, what is being said is this:

Because of ____

Do ____

If you aren’t increasing in that, you are blind.

That’s a very straightforward and practical way to look at things. Another important thing to notice is that this is a passage directed toward believers. It is fairly easy to look at that list and say, “ok, well, if someone doesn’t show those things, then clearly they aren’t saved.” but that’s not what the passage says. It doesn’t say they aren’t saved, it says that they are blind. They have forgotten that they were cleansed by Christ of their former sins. Besides, all that stuff in verses 3 and 4 are the reason we are to be striving for this stuff in the first place.

Here’s a wake up call for you; if you are not increasing in those things, you are blind. Is there a particular sin(s) you are struggling with? You probably are starting to go blind. Because this applies in a couple ways, one is that if you aren’t increasing in the qualities that are listed, then you are going blind. However, after it states that the person is blind, it says that they have forgotten that they were cleansed of their former sins. If you are cleansed of your former sins, that means you are no longer a slave to them, so you no longer have to do them or obey them. I know it’s tough to stop certain sins, especially if you have a long history of doing it, believe me, I know how hard it is. But you have to realize that if Christ sets you free, you are free indeed.

However, if you are still continuing in your sin and are not increasing in all those qualities, DANGER! YOU ARE BLIND! I think it is certainly possible to be blind and yet be saved, but I have to wonder what sort of assurance you would have in that state. We are to hope in Christ alone for our salvation, but if we do not see spiritual growth and evidences of God’s grace in our lives, it seems to me that our sin is sapping our assurance.

Another helpful list is found in Galatians 5. Here, Paul lists the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit.

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Galatians 5:19-24 (Emphasis added)

Pretty sobering isn’t it. This is why we need to fight against blindness. Again, we do not earn or work for or add anything to our salvation. Christ accomplished the salvation of His people perfectly. Because He did all that, and sent the Spirit to live in us, we are to fight for our assurance. Fight to crucify the desires of the flesh. Fight to follow Christ.

As a fun side note, here’s the song where the title of this blog came from. Old Christian metal band.

SDG

Some Thoughts From VBS

I’m helping out with another church’s Vacation Bible School, and I’d like to share some thoughts based on what I heard today.

When Jesus raises Lazarus in John 11, He prays “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this one account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” and one of the kids asked “If Jesus is God, then why is He praying to God?” and there was a lot of talking as other kids were trying to explain the Trinity. I heard “It’s one God, but three Spirits”, “It’s three people in God”, “It’s one God with three Personalities” “God is God. Jesus isn’t God. He can’t be God if He’s Jesus.”

At a craft making activity, a conversation between a couple of them went like this

“You look like Harry Potter.”

“I’m not Harry Potter. Harry Potter isn’t a Christian”

“What’s a Christian?”

(after a surprised look) “Someone who believes in God.”

“I’m not going to believe in God until I see Him. (When I get to heaven and do whatever I want).” That last part is what I think he said, since they were walking away.

In both cases, I was dealing with 4th and 5th graders. All I do to help is basically make sure the kids get from station to station and pay attention, but it got me thinking. We really need to start doing youth apologetics as well, because kids start asking hard questions early on. I’m not saying anything about what the leaders in these kids’ church have been teaching, because I have no idea, but I think there’s a temptation to say “well, we’ll wait until you’re older for that”.

I’ll be completely honest, I don’t know how I would’ve responded to those questions/issues. I know how I would respond to them if they were coming from an adult, but as far as relating that information to children, I’ve never really thought about it. I know I’ve heard about youth apologetics resources, but even those are mostly High School. How do we do apologetics for children? I should probably figure that out long before I start having them.

Over all, I think we need to teach the hard stuff with clarity and with a mind to the fact that children are listening.