"We have educated ourselves into imbecility," said the famous journalist Malcolm Muggeridge as he mourned over the many ideas currently shaping our modern culture. It is true that in many ways, people in America today are obese on knowledge. We know so much that we don't even know what to do with it, and practical application of simple wisdom has become something quaint, often associated with the days of horses and carts. No longer do we have men such as Benjamin Franklin, who seemed to gain insight about this world and willingly shared the practical wisdom necessary to live in it fruitfully. Where are such men today? Where do we turn for wisdom and guidance in a time filled with deceit and sordid gain?
Only a couple hundred years ago, a short time for a nation so young, 3 million Americans produced men such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams. Today, 300 million Americans have produced...nothing quite as impressive. Is there a reason for this? Is there an explanation? Have we degraded so much over time?
While I am confident that the evil side of man existed as much then as it does today, I have to recognize the shocking degree of the atrocities around me. On the morning news, one is told that a few blocks away some estranged boy-friend murdered a young lady, cut her into pieces, and then burned her remains on an outside grill in order to cover his crime. We hear of the rapists, the child molesters, and the sexual predators...and it becomes almost normal. There is an alarming level of desensitization in the modern mind. What is most shocking to me, is the fact that there is no more any wrongdoing for which some professor cannot offer an explanation, as pointed out by Ravi Zacharias. For any crime that is committed, there is an explanation for it which bids us to "understand."
The parallel I see, is that over the years we have witnessed our higher learning institutions bent on making a one-sided case against God with the goal of developing a serious prejudice in the minds of young learners. Theistic belief has been portrayed as lacking any form of reason, and if any shred of doubt could be cast upon any Biblical subject, it was gleefully proclaimed that the entire system of thought should be thrown out. For instance, I have read a group of essays which were supposed to prove that God was an illusion, based on the confusion about why He didn't heal amputees. The essays were strewn with nice language, and even did a fair job of appearing to be unbiased. The essays sought to disprove the existence of God by asking why He does not heal amputees. A fair question, but a question does not prove a conclusion, and a lack of understanding does not propel oneself into greater knowledge. And this has been the goal of this movement as I see it: to give the impression that new saviors will deliver us from an "old" way of thinking, and provide the freedom from moral constraint that has for so long held sway. God has been made into a tyrant, and the distortion of language and misrepresentation of truth have been the main weapons used by those who claim to lead us into a bright future. Without a doubt, it has been a successful tactic to take over our universities and colleges, and to infuse this thinking into the young minds of this generation. Sadly, this was predictable, as it was the logical outcome from the thinking of men like Nietzsche. We have seen the results of a generation that "killed" God. Who can forget the acts of Stalin, or the Third Reich?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Islam and Our New Administration- Part 2
I realize that my last post could have come off a bit one-sided, and so I'd like to balance it a bit. There is a great deal about Islam and the Muslim world that I do not understand, but I do understand enough to know that Obama was trying to make a good move when he made the statements about the U.S. not being their enemy.
In Islamic countries, the "Freedom Fighters" are portrayed as heroes. The populace in Islamic countries will be totally loyal to their leaders, based upon an ideology that is nearly impossible to change. They view us as their hated enemy, as shown through history time and time again. So, I understand that Obama is trying to negate some of that intense and deep-rooted brainwashing. We are not the enemy of these people, at least from our point of view, and it will be difficult to convince them otherwise. I suppose that it just needs to be communicated that their view isn't any fault of ours. Their religion bids them to hate us, and few people are willing to admit it.
I just hope that Obama's plan to reduce the level of anxiety in this situation goes further than trying to hold hands. He's going to have to stand for the truths of the matter. But I appreciate what he is trying to do.
In Islamic countries, the "Freedom Fighters" are portrayed as heroes. The populace in Islamic countries will be totally loyal to their leaders, based upon an ideology that is nearly impossible to change. They view us as their hated enemy, as shown through history time and time again. So, I understand that Obama is trying to negate some of that intense and deep-rooted brainwashing. We are not the enemy of these people, at least from our point of view, and it will be difficult to convince them otherwise. I suppose that it just needs to be communicated that their view isn't any fault of ours. Their religion bids them to hate us, and few people are willing to admit it.
I just hope that Obama's plan to reduce the level of anxiety in this situation goes further than trying to hold hands. He's going to have to stand for the truths of the matter. But I appreciate what he is trying to do.
Islam and Our New Administration
Our new administration in the White House has a distinct desire to start steering this country in a different direction, a fact about which we are all aware. That was the basis of Obama's entire campaign-- "Something Different." There were a large number of people who asked some critical questions during the campaign, and unfortunately these questions went unheard among the General Public. These questions included ones like, "What change will be made" and "How will we make these changes". Or, even better, "What are the details behind that?". It cannot be denied that Obama was swept into the White House under the historically dangerous "Leader as a movement" motif, a tendency which America used to resist. He was selected into office while in my estimation the majority of voters had no idea just how exactly Obama planned to change our health care, world standing, economic situation, education, and countless other social programs. The point is, that now we all get to see for ourselves what we get with President Obama. Unlike the vast majority of past U.S. Presidents, Obama gets to start revealing himself only after he has been elected into office. Usually, you have to do that before people vote for you. Nevertheless, I promised that I would wait and see what he did and said. And so I have.
I was reading an article about how the Obama administration wants to stop using the phrase "War on Terror", because it has such a negative feel to it. Yes, that negative, safe feeling that we have been basking in for 7 years now. That one. That's the connotation that Obama wants to dissolve. Speaking about the war on terror, here is the White House's current viewpoint with regard to the war:
"The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."
Obama has made it clear in his first days in office that he is courting the Muslim community and making what is at least a symbolic shift away from the previous administration's often more combative tone.
He chose an Arab network for his first televised interview, declaring that "Americans are not your enemy." Before his first full week in office ended, he named former Sen. George J. Mitchell as his special envoy for the Middle East and sent him to the region for talks with leaders.
According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran."
If this doesn't bother you, then you don't have a pulse. I get frustrated when I read that we should avoid the "rhetoric" that "implies this is a struggle against a religion or culture." Well, that's precisely what this is, no matter how we feel about it. Being honest enough to see that the religion of Islam wants Americans and Western Society destroyed is not "rhetoric." It's common sense. It is frightening to me that this truth is now labeled as "rhetoric." And I fear that this is the beginning of one of Obama's changes. No longer will we as a country be allowed to stand for moral truths that concern the reality of Islam. Our president is too busy trying to get a squeeze in with the Muslims, like an excited little school-boy at his first dance trying to get his arm around his favorite girl. It's embarrassing. Obama is foolishly giving our enemies leeway, and there will likely be severe consequences. I can guarantee you that they see this as a struggle against a culture--our culture. What was 9/11? An attack against the buildings?
If you find it offensive, for some odd reason, that I suggest we ought to realistically view the Islamic culture as a danger, consider this: After the recent attacks in Mumbai, not a single Islamic country or entity denounced the killing of so many innocent people. There was no word from any Muslim country, no outcry at the murder of so many. Think about it. Consider any attack you can remember that has been proven to be an act of terrorism by Islamic people (a long list indeed), and you see that no Islamic country ever says much about it. That is because they are held under control and fear by their religious/militant leaders. I will have to write more about this separately, but you cannot tell me that we are only dealing with a sliver of the Islamic people when it comes to defining our threats to National Security. Witness for yourself an entire culture, spanning many countries, that holds its people under a level of control that ought to frighten you.
I am glad that Obama wants to tell Eastern nations that we are not their enemy. But we need to have the courage to understand that Muslims don't really care about our view on that. And we are making a mockery of ourselves as the beacon of Freedom when we have our president kissing up to nations that enjoy Islam. The Islamic world has one image of us--infidels. You cannot "repair" that, because their is nothing to repair. People act like Islam was peaceable with the West until they attacked us again on 9/11 and we actually did something about it for once. It may shock you, but Islam hated us before that, and they will always hate us. If some Americans don't like that fact, then its tough cookies. That's just the way it is, and Islam will not be convinced otherwise. George Bush seemed to understand this reality, and he managed somehow to keep America free from attacks after 9/11. But NOW we need to drastically change all that, right? Our "image" in the eyes of the Islamic world will not be repaired, because its not broken. Our image in their eyes is what it has always been. I am afraid for how much damage we will experience before Obama gets a grip on that.
This is going to get very ugly, just like the weak kid on the playground always seems to get beaten up by the bullies. There are facts about reality that seem to have been ignored in all the hype about "change". I can only hope that Obama does not wait until we experience another major attack to realize that he can't say enough nice words to thwart off a religion of hate.
I was reading an article about how the Obama administration wants to stop using the phrase "War on Terror", because it has such a negative feel to it. Yes, that negative, safe feeling that we have been basking in for 7 years now. That one. That's the connotation that Obama wants to dissolve. Speaking about the war on terror, here is the White House's current viewpoint with regard to the war:
"The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."
Obama has made it clear in his first days in office that he is courting the Muslim community and making what is at least a symbolic shift away from the previous administration's often more combative tone.
He chose an Arab network for his first televised interview, declaring that "Americans are not your enemy." Before his first full week in office ended, he named former Sen. George J. Mitchell as his special envoy for the Middle East and sent him to the region for talks with leaders.
According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran."
If this doesn't bother you, then you don't have a pulse. I get frustrated when I read that we should avoid the "rhetoric" that "implies this is a struggle against a religion or culture." Well, that's precisely what this is, no matter how we feel about it. Being honest enough to see that the religion of Islam wants Americans and Western Society destroyed is not "rhetoric." It's common sense. It is frightening to me that this truth is now labeled as "rhetoric." And I fear that this is the beginning of one of Obama's changes. No longer will we as a country be allowed to stand for moral truths that concern the reality of Islam. Our president is too busy trying to get a squeeze in with the Muslims, like an excited little school-boy at his first dance trying to get his arm around his favorite girl. It's embarrassing. Obama is foolishly giving our enemies leeway, and there will likely be severe consequences. I can guarantee you that they see this as a struggle against a culture--our culture. What was 9/11? An attack against the buildings?
If you find it offensive, for some odd reason, that I suggest we ought to realistically view the Islamic culture as a danger, consider this: After the recent attacks in Mumbai, not a single Islamic country or entity denounced the killing of so many innocent people. There was no word from any Muslim country, no outcry at the murder of so many. Think about it. Consider any attack you can remember that has been proven to be an act of terrorism by Islamic people (a long list indeed), and you see that no Islamic country ever says much about it. That is because they are held under control and fear by their religious/militant leaders. I will have to write more about this separately, but you cannot tell me that we are only dealing with a sliver of the Islamic people when it comes to defining our threats to National Security. Witness for yourself an entire culture, spanning many countries, that holds its people under a level of control that ought to frighten you.
I am glad that Obama wants to tell Eastern nations that we are not their enemy. But we need to have the courage to understand that Muslims don't really care about our view on that. And we are making a mockery of ourselves as the beacon of Freedom when we have our president kissing up to nations that enjoy Islam. The Islamic world has one image of us--infidels. You cannot "repair" that, because their is nothing to repair. People act like Islam was peaceable with the West until they attacked us again on 9/11 and we actually did something about it for once. It may shock you, but Islam hated us before that, and they will always hate us. If some Americans don't like that fact, then its tough cookies. That's just the way it is, and Islam will not be convinced otherwise. George Bush seemed to understand this reality, and he managed somehow to keep America free from attacks after 9/11. But NOW we need to drastically change all that, right? Our "image" in the eyes of the Islamic world will not be repaired, because its not broken. Our image in their eyes is what it has always been. I am afraid for how much damage we will experience before Obama gets a grip on that.
This is going to get very ugly, just like the weak kid on the playground always seems to get beaten up by the bullies. There are facts about reality that seem to have been ignored in all the hype about "change". I can only hope that Obama does not wait until we experience another major attack to realize that he can't say enough nice words to thwart off a religion of hate.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Assuming For The Best
Lately I've noticed a common problem that, if remedied, would greatly help any congregation in their efforts to be of one mind, even as the church as a whole strives for this. I'm sure that anyone reading this has found himself or herself in a situation where someone has assumed something about them, and the source is hearsay. You know, when little bits of information get spread around in circles, and before much time passes, what was first a matter of speculation becomes a matter of fact. Everyone has been involved with this to some degree. In the church, its sad state of affairs when this goes on, because we ought to leave such destructive practices in the world- where we came from. Christians should realize that gossip is an underhanded and powerful way to destroy the character of another person. If you don't believe me, it should be enough proof that gossip is a regular practice of politicians. That settles it for me anyway...
So I've been thinking about a way to stem off the caustic erosion damaging words can cause to individual character. How do we stop ourselves from spreading half-truths within the body? What can we do about it? I think that we should assume for the best. What I mean is that we should have the kind of respect for our fellow Christians that resolves us to take anything we hear about a brother or sister and pass it through this mental filter: "That brother/sister of mine is God's possession, and will be going with me when we pass from this world. Is what I'm hearing constructive in any way? Does it even matter?" Something like that should be passing through our minds when we hear gossip about our fellow Christians. Try to put aside the human desire to hear that juicy little piece of bad information, even if it is true. That's not what is important. I think of Paul’s words to the Ephesians, “ Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29)
I imagine that so many problems in a congregation could be solved if more people took on this thought pattern. I've seen it, and it works. Just stop and think about how many things you've heard in the miniature speakeasies that form up after church. Its reminiscent of prohibition-era, clandestine information lines. We are good at it! And we have to stop, because this is one of the most seemingly innocent yet damaging actions we can take in a congregation. Christians talking negatively about other Christians- I'm sure that Satan loves it. I imagine that he looks on at Christians who smile when face to face but slander each other when walking away, and I imagine that he laughs. One of our greatest realizations about the encouragements we read in scripture to be unified ought to be that we are struggling against an adversary who has unified forces. Think about it. Do you think that Satan’s minions are divided? Do they argue amongst themselves and fight about their purpose? Or do you imagine that they all work together for their goals? I believe that the Devil has forces that are unified in what they do, and I believe this is part of why we are so encouraged to be unified as Christians. Our working together is vital, and gossiping tears our brotherhood apart.
My challenge today is for all of us to act in a way that gives respect to our brothers and sisters. This ought to be a respect that cannot tolerate damaging words.
So I've been thinking about a way to stem off the caustic erosion damaging words can cause to individual character. How do we stop ourselves from spreading half-truths within the body? What can we do about it? I think that we should assume for the best. What I mean is that we should have the kind of respect for our fellow Christians that resolves us to take anything we hear about a brother or sister and pass it through this mental filter: "That brother/sister of mine is God's possession, and will be going with me when we pass from this world. Is what I'm hearing constructive in any way? Does it even matter?" Something like that should be passing through our minds when we hear gossip about our fellow Christians. Try to put aside the human desire to hear that juicy little piece of bad information, even if it is true. That's not what is important. I think of Paul’s words to the Ephesians, “ Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29)
I imagine that so many problems in a congregation could be solved if more people took on this thought pattern. I've seen it, and it works. Just stop and think about how many things you've heard in the miniature speakeasies that form up after church. Its reminiscent of prohibition-era, clandestine information lines. We are good at it! And we have to stop, because this is one of the most seemingly innocent yet damaging actions we can take in a congregation. Christians talking negatively about other Christians- I'm sure that Satan loves it. I imagine that he looks on at Christians who smile when face to face but slander each other when walking away, and I imagine that he laughs. One of our greatest realizations about the encouragements we read in scripture to be unified ought to be that we are struggling against an adversary who has unified forces. Think about it. Do you think that Satan’s minions are divided? Do they argue amongst themselves and fight about their purpose? Or do you imagine that they all work together for their goals? I believe that the Devil has forces that are unified in what they do, and I believe this is part of why we are so encouraged to be unified as Christians. Our working together is vital, and gossiping tears our brotherhood apart.
My challenge today is for all of us to act in a way that gives respect to our brothers and sisters. This ought to be a respect that cannot tolerate damaging words.
Joy and Arrogance Don't Mix
One of the bedrock principles of the Christian faith is joy. It is something that the world searches for, and Jesus offers it to those who seek and find Him. It is invaluable, immeasurable, and completely unchangeable. Joy cannot be touched by circumstance, and it is not dependent on mood swings. Yes, it is a treasure that Christians enjoy because of what we have been given. Our joy is found in the result of our faith; salvation unto the soul. This is why we are different when compared to the world in circumstances of emotional pain, financial unrest, or general uncertainty. This joy that comes from our salvation, and how we received that salvation, filters down into all the things that we do. We are joyful in our interactions with others, we are joyful in the church, we are joyful in serving... and the list goes on. Unfortunately, I find that joy has lost a great deal of its purity in the modern church. Let me explain what I mean.
In all of my interactions with people of a denominational faith, and with people who have no faith in Jesus at all, the one uniform complaint given against those in the church of Christ is that they are either arrogant, pushy, legalistic, or just plain self-righteous. I have heard this from almost every person I've spoken to who has been seriously involved in a Bible study with a member of the church. Now, a good deal of that view is most likely rooted in misunderstanding, but let's face it; we have a reputation for being arrogant. Its no secret, so let's stop acting like that stigma doesn't exist. With such an overwhelming number of individuals who all come away with the same impression, I find myself asking why this might be. This is alarming information. I'm not sure that I have even some of the answers, but I can tell you first of all why this shouldn't be happening. This problem is truly heartbreaking for me to realize, because a Christian who really had a grasp on joy wouldn't behave in an arrogant fashion. It just doesn't make sense, when you think about it.
Let's take a step back for a minute. Why do we have joy? Because we earned our place in God's family? Was it our wonderful performance and sinless life that brought us into the kingdom? Well, we all know that answer to that, at least. We are part of God's family because he adopted us as sons and daughters (Eph 2:1-10), even though we were sinners. Every single Christian has been adopted by divine grace; brought into a covenant relationship with God after obeying the Gospel. This is the source of our joy, the fact that God was rich in His mercy, and that at the cross was made the perfect sacrifice that allows God to forgive us all our sins! What did we earn? We earned death, as it says in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death." So there's what you earned. There is a payday involved with sin, and the check had your name on it. You earned that by your performance. What did you not earn? Your place in the kingdom, and your place in heaven. That was given to you, by grace through faith in Jesus. But this is all a little bit too elementary, right? I mean, we learned this in VBS, didn't we? If you're wondering why I'm covering all this, this is my point: The Christian who really understands this will have a hard time being arrogant when sharing the same information with someone else. It must take some concentrated effort to understand this in a way that produces true joy in the heart, and to simultaneously act in an arrogant manner when speaking to others about matters of faith. How is it that so many Christians can seem self-righteous to others, if we are supposed to be joyful in what we have? How can it be possible for this view of the church to be so widespread, if we are the people who are supposed to have pure joy? Having joy in something ought to naturally negate any haughty feelings in the matter. How can you be joyful to have received something, and then be abrasive about it when telling someone about this gift you've received? The arrogant Christian, the one who thinks he has all the right answers, has forgotten that it is a gift and that he has been adopted into God's family.
I think that this is exactly the problem. Many Christians do not have the joy in their faith that they should. If they did, I think we might see a serious change in attitude. I can't imagine myself thinking about the cross, knowing the means by which I have salvation, and then acting in an insulting manner toward someone for their views on instrumental music in worship. It just doesn't make sense. Can the two attitudes coexist? It appears that they can, because I've seen it; sadly enough. But this existence of two opposing attitudes requires a hard heart, and a short memory. When I picture a Christian who has true joy in their heart because of what Jesus has done for them, it is hard to imagine that person being self-righteous about it. We're talking about oil and water here. And yet we in the church, so ready to remind ourselves that we alone have the truth, have a stigma for being arrogant the way that Bill Clinton has a stigma for lying. Everyone knows it. We are supposed to be the bastion of hope for this country! We are surrounded by enough evil, hurt, pain, and suffering as it is. Let's not add to the problem by forgetting about the joy we can experience when we have the correct perspective on this thing we call "life". We are told in Ephesians 3:10 that the "manifold wisdom of God" is made known to the world by way of the church. We are God's chosen vehicle for communication, so to speak. So our purpose, among other things, is to bring others to a saving knowledge of the truth; to help them fall in love with it. That is not easily done when arrogance gets in the way.
So the answer to the question about how this problem came about isn't easy. I think this has been a long, historical development on the part of modern Christians. Part of it may be the fact humans like being part of something special, and I dare say that many people have let that bleed into the church. We joke about denominations and T.V. evangelists, and some of that is basically harmless- but amidst it all I see that an attitude of "special position" has come into the picture. Some people like it that they are part of the "only church." It feels nice, like being on the winning team. That's why so many people like open debates- so they can "win." Yeah, so after its all said and done, and you showed that silly pastor how wrong he is, what have you won? I'll tell you one thing- you didn't win him. There's nothing to "win" by showing others how wrong they are. God doesn't need you out there humiliating people for Him. You think He can't handle it? I'm not advocating the tolerance of false teaching by any means. I'm just saying that there may be a better way to help others know the truth more fully. Let's try loving them a little bit for a change. You know, something revolutionary, like the stuff Jesus talked about. It is God's love being shared through us that will transform lives. That is the light that we are to bring into the world. Correct doctrine is a must, and I'm not saying anything to the contrary. But let the light identify the correctness. In other words, you can't turn off dark. Think about it. You walk into a dark room (the world), and you flip the switch to turn the dark off, right? Of course not. You turn the light on. My point is that spending all of our time trying to "turn off the dark" is a useless endeavor.
If I seem spiced-up about this, it might be because this hits very close to home for me. But I don't think these words are too strong. How long can we endure the reputation of pushing people away from the truth? Its time we made a mid-course change in direction, and took a moment to get our bearings again. All the sudden, "back to the Bible" has a whole new ring to it, doesn't it? Yes, let's get back to the Bible; in word, in deed, and in attitude.
In all of my interactions with people of a denominational faith, and with people who have no faith in Jesus at all, the one uniform complaint given against those in the church of Christ is that they are either arrogant, pushy, legalistic, or just plain self-righteous. I have heard this from almost every person I've spoken to who has been seriously involved in a Bible study with a member of the church. Now, a good deal of that view is most likely rooted in misunderstanding, but let's face it; we have a reputation for being arrogant. Its no secret, so let's stop acting like that stigma doesn't exist. With such an overwhelming number of individuals who all come away with the same impression, I find myself asking why this might be. This is alarming information. I'm not sure that I have even some of the answers, but I can tell you first of all why this shouldn't be happening. This problem is truly heartbreaking for me to realize, because a Christian who really had a grasp on joy wouldn't behave in an arrogant fashion. It just doesn't make sense, when you think about it.
Let's take a step back for a minute. Why do we have joy? Because we earned our place in God's family? Was it our wonderful performance and sinless life that brought us into the kingdom? Well, we all know that answer to that, at least. We are part of God's family because he adopted us as sons and daughters (Eph 2:1-10), even though we were sinners. Every single Christian has been adopted by divine grace; brought into a covenant relationship with God after obeying the Gospel. This is the source of our joy, the fact that God was rich in His mercy, and that at the cross was made the perfect sacrifice that allows God to forgive us all our sins! What did we earn? We earned death, as it says in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death." So there's what you earned. There is a payday involved with sin, and the check had your name on it. You earned that by your performance. What did you not earn? Your place in the kingdom, and your place in heaven. That was given to you, by grace through faith in Jesus. But this is all a little bit too elementary, right? I mean, we learned this in VBS, didn't we? If you're wondering why I'm covering all this, this is my point: The Christian who really understands this will have a hard time being arrogant when sharing the same information with someone else. It must take some concentrated effort to understand this in a way that produces true joy in the heart, and to simultaneously act in an arrogant manner when speaking to others about matters of faith. How is it that so many Christians can seem self-righteous to others, if we are supposed to be joyful in what we have? How can it be possible for this view of the church to be so widespread, if we are the people who are supposed to have pure joy? Having joy in something ought to naturally negate any haughty feelings in the matter. How can you be joyful to have received something, and then be abrasive about it when telling someone about this gift you've received? The arrogant Christian, the one who thinks he has all the right answers, has forgotten that it is a gift and that he has been adopted into God's family.
I think that this is exactly the problem. Many Christians do not have the joy in their faith that they should. If they did, I think we might see a serious change in attitude. I can't imagine myself thinking about the cross, knowing the means by which I have salvation, and then acting in an insulting manner toward someone for their views on instrumental music in worship. It just doesn't make sense. Can the two attitudes coexist? It appears that they can, because I've seen it; sadly enough. But this existence of two opposing attitudes requires a hard heart, and a short memory. When I picture a Christian who has true joy in their heart because of what Jesus has done for them, it is hard to imagine that person being self-righteous about it. We're talking about oil and water here. And yet we in the church, so ready to remind ourselves that we alone have the truth, have a stigma for being arrogant the way that Bill Clinton has a stigma for lying. Everyone knows it. We are supposed to be the bastion of hope for this country! We are surrounded by enough evil, hurt, pain, and suffering as it is. Let's not add to the problem by forgetting about the joy we can experience when we have the correct perspective on this thing we call "life". We are told in Ephesians 3:10 that the "manifold wisdom of God" is made known to the world by way of the church. We are God's chosen vehicle for communication, so to speak. So our purpose, among other things, is to bring others to a saving knowledge of the truth; to help them fall in love with it. That is not easily done when arrogance gets in the way.
So the answer to the question about how this problem came about isn't easy. I think this has been a long, historical development on the part of modern Christians. Part of it may be the fact humans like being part of something special, and I dare say that many people have let that bleed into the church. We joke about denominations and T.V. evangelists, and some of that is basically harmless- but amidst it all I see that an attitude of "special position" has come into the picture. Some people like it that they are part of the "only church." It feels nice, like being on the winning team. That's why so many people like open debates- so they can "win." Yeah, so after its all said and done, and you showed that silly pastor how wrong he is, what have you won? I'll tell you one thing- you didn't win him. There's nothing to "win" by showing others how wrong they are. God doesn't need you out there humiliating people for Him. You think He can't handle it? I'm not advocating the tolerance of false teaching by any means. I'm just saying that there may be a better way to help others know the truth more fully. Let's try loving them a little bit for a change. You know, something revolutionary, like the stuff Jesus talked about. It is God's love being shared through us that will transform lives. That is the light that we are to bring into the world. Correct doctrine is a must, and I'm not saying anything to the contrary. But let the light identify the correctness. In other words, you can't turn off dark. Think about it. You walk into a dark room (the world), and you flip the switch to turn the dark off, right? Of course not. You turn the light on. My point is that spending all of our time trying to "turn off the dark" is a useless endeavor.
If I seem spiced-up about this, it might be because this hits very close to home for me. But I don't think these words are too strong. How long can we endure the reputation of pushing people away from the truth? Its time we made a mid-course change in direction, and took a moment to get our bearings again. All the sudden, "back to the Bible" has a whole new ring to it, doesn't it? Yes, let's get back to the Bible; in word, in deed, and in attitude.
Women's Role in Prayer
The role of women in the act of prayer is a current and controversial subject. There has been a great deal of discussion about this issue; some of it healthy, and some of it not as constructive as a mature conversation should be. The Bible does lend itself specifically to the topic, but not in the ways that we currently discuss it. 1 Timothy 2:8 is a well worn passage for both parties involved in this debate. However, the passage itself does not determine whether or not women ought to pray in the presence of men. There are some who stand behind the idea that because of Paul’s use of the male gender word in this verse, it is clear that he teaches that men only are to pray in a mixed gender situation. This position also calls on the “principle of exclusion” to say that men are the only Christians who ought to be praying when Christians are gathered. This view, regardless of its intentions, ignores both the contextual and specific teaching from Paul. The apostle is not discussing who may or who may not pray, but his teaching is that the men ought to pray with a healthy attitude and without dissension or bickering. Conveniently placing a period in the middle of the verse during this discussion, some teachers place a great deal of focus on the phrase that “ Men ought to pray in every place”. But that is not the sentence written by the apostle. For those of us who proclaim “Back to the Bible”, this sort of interpretation simply will not do. Let me illustrate. If Paul’s use of the male gender in verse eight so strongly shows that only men can be praying in the presence of mixed genders, then verse nine clearly teaches that those same men must not “adorn themselves with proper clothing”, because Paul used the female gender word. Hermeneutics should not change from verse to verse in a contextual teaching. The principle of exclusion cannot be applied to verse eight, and then immediately discarded in verse nine when the outcome is undesirable. It is not honest study practice to do so. The sentence written by the apostle says that wherever men are praying, anywhere they might be, they should do without dissention. It seems that the men in question were having severe attitude problems, and were standing in front of Christians to lead prayers, acting as if they hadn't just now been fighting with those same Christians. So the comma in the sentence is read by some to mean that, 1. Men are the only Christians who can pray in a mixed gender environment, and , 2. That, by the way, when you do that, make sure you aren't bickering. This strongly emphazised interpretation is plain wrong. Even after all this, I find myself wondering at the value of a theological position that hinges on the assumed voice inflection and comma position is a single sentence. I don't think the issue is quite that complicated at all.
Allow me to point out that it is my conviction that women ought not pray in the public assembly of Christians. But my view is based upon the totality of New Testament scripture, and the examples and inferences contained in it that teach about this idea of prayer. My conviction is also based upon the truth that humans tend to take things too far. If we allow women to pray in the assembly, then it will be a short step to contradict other clear teaching of our roles. The main reason most people hold to the idea that women cannot pray in any mixed gender setting is due to the combination of I Tim 2:8 and 2:12, which states that a woman cannot have authority over a man. The interpretation then, is that praying while a man is present is equal to assuming authority over him. However, this conviction is based not in Paul’s teaching but in the realm of a conscience that is offended by women praying. There is nothing wrong with sensitivity towards women praying in the presence of men, but for the sake of honesty, it needs to be admitted that this is a matter of conscience and not a matter of biblical doctrine. Paul never teaches that a woman praying is an issue of authority. It certainly can be, but not because it just “is”. If critical thinking is applied it would be noticed that the issue of intent is being blatantly ignored in this whole discussion. We in the church agree that a person’s intent in baptism can mean the difference between salvation and a bath. And that is true. So if intent plays a part so strongly in a person’s salvation, surely it plays a part in issues that are not salvation oriented. What needs to be considered is not whether Paul’s one time use of the male gender should forever and ultimately disbar women from praying to God while men are around, but whether the intent of the person praying is worth the distinction. Is the woman praying in order to take away authority? Are the men allowing her to pray with the intention of giving their authority away? And doesn’t maturity play a part in this as well? If she is not praying with the thought of stepping outside of the boundaries of what she understands to be her God given role, then how is it that authority is being infringed upon? I know that discussion should and will follow, but I propose that a man’s role of authority, which is given by God, is not so fickle that it can be destroyed or taken away so easily. It is not so vulnerable that men should prohibit their wives from praying in front of them. It is not so trite that unrealistic interpretations need to be conjured in order to hold to a certain conviction.
Allow me to point out that it is my conviction that women ought not pray in the public assembly of Christians. But my view is based upon the totality of New Testament scripture, and the examples and inferences contained in it that teach about this idea of prayer. My conviction is also based upon the truth that humans tend to take things too far. If we allow women to pray in the assembly, then it will be a short step to contradict other clear teaching of our roles. The main reason most people hold to the idea that women cannot pray in any mixed gender setting is due to the combination of I Tim 2:8 and 2:12, which states that a woman cannot have authority over a man. The interpretation then, is that praying while a man is present is equal to assuming authority over him. However, this conviction is based not in Paul’s teaching but in the realm of a conscience that is offended by women praying. There is nothing wrong with sensitivity towards women praying in the presence of men, but for the sake of honesty, it needs to be admitted that this is a matter of conscience and not a matter of biblical doctrine. Paul never teaches that a woman praying is an issue of authority. It certainly can be, but not because it just “is”. If critical thinking is applied it would be noticed that the issue of intent is being blatantly ignored in this whole discussion. We in the church agree that a person’s intent in baptism can mean the difference between salvation and a bath. And that is true. So if intent plays a part so strongly in a person’s salvation, surely it plays a part in issues that are not salvation oriented. What needs to be considered is not whether Paul’s one time use of the male gender should forever and ultimately disbar women from praying to God while men are around, but whether the intent of the person praying is worth the distinction. Is the woman praying in order to take away authority? Are the men allowing her to pray with the intention of giving their authority away? And doesn’t maturity play a part in this as well? If she is not praying with the thought of stepping outside of the boundaries of what she understands to be her God given role, then how is it that authority is being infringed upon? I know that discussion should and will follow, but I propose that a man’s role of authority, which is given by God, is not so fickle that it can be destroyed or taken away so easily. It is not so vulnerable that men should prohibit their wives from praying in front of them. It is not so trite that unrealistic interpretations need to be conjured in order to hold to a certain conviction.
"We Have The Truth"
Have you ever noticed that people become numb to phrases that they hear, especially when those phrases are frequently used? This is an interesting habit, that we start to lose interest in thinking about certain words or sayings that we hear all the time. Honestly, I was a bit frustrated with myself last night, as I was sitting in church and a realization hit me like a frisbee that you didn't see your buddy throw right at you. It stung a little bit.
A phrase that has been coined to tragic death in our churches is: "We have the truth." Now, this phrase is usually followed by a negative designation, such as: "...and the denominations don't." As a preacher uttered that phrase last night, in came the high-flying frisbee. We have the truth...what does that mean? When this is said in reference to what we have, and what someone else doesn't have, what it is that we are trying to point out, exactly? Do we have more truth than anyone else? Is there a resource of truth to which we alone have VIP access? No, God's truth is open to all men, isn't it? I think what this little saying is appealing to is our understanding of the Bible; our understanding of truth. If it's not, then it basically means that other folks don't have the means by which to understand truth. Let's remember that God is the one who has the truth, not us. And since we have His word, we have the truth that we need to learn about Him, to come to a saving knowledge of Him, and to follow Him. And since we aren't the only people with a Bible, it becomes obvious that this phrase is referring to our understanding of the Bible.
Now, if we are at this point to say, "We have the truth", then what we're saying is that we are the only ones who understand it. All of it. Every bit of it. We've got it. But I propose that even churches which clearly have some teaching errors understand parts of God's truth. So we can't haul off and say things like, "...and the denominations don't." It's too all-inclusive; too broad. On the flip side, if we say that we have it, we are saying that we understand, without mistake, every facet of God's word. But we don't, and since we know that we don't, we shouldn't say things like the phrase in question. See what it really sounds like, when you think about it? (which is the problem- not enough people think about it) So it would be more honest to say this instead: "We see that we have a healthier and more accurate understanding of scripture than other people who understand some, but are missing some very important parts of it." But no one wants to say something like that--which brings up a question. Why? Well, it doesn't sound as good. It doesn't have the same ring to it, and it doesn't make you feel as good about yourself as the original one does. What is the value in pointing this out? That's my question. Because when you state the phrase in more honest terms, like I just did, it really sounds dumb. It especially begins sound dumb when a bunch of people say it all the time from the pulpit. Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back. So why do we feel the need to point this out?
Perhaps we need to tell ourselves something else. We will always have misconceptions about the Bible. I know that I will. The entire Word is not going to come into my understanding by the time I pass from this world. We will, however understand what we need to in order to know that we are saved, and to understand enough about our salvation to follow orders and go tell other people about it, and to see them brought into God's family. That's the point, and we ought to be telling ourselves about that instead of falsely reminding ourselves about our higher understanding of God (if there is such a thing). You know what other group in history did that on a regular basis? The Pharisees. Yep, and there goes that frisbee again...
So I begin to wonder why I hear people continue to coin this phrase all the time. What is the goal of saying this? What is it supposed to produce, what effect is desired? We always talk about what the denominations don't have, but I realize something that they don't have is enough prayers from us! Why don't we ever pray for them? Goodness sakes, we talk about them enough, but I don't ever recall hearing someone bring them up in order to pray for them, that they can come to know God more and be part of the family. Why don't we do that for them? I want to coin a phrase about that. My encouragement is that these kinds of phrases should be thought out before they are repeated anymore. Imagine what that would sound like to a visitor, a potential Christian. Put yourself in their shoes, where it matters. Doesn't sound like a humble thing to say, does it? I want to encourage our brotherhood to be more concerned with how we present ourselves to the world around us, if we are to impact them and to help them to know God.
A phrase that has been coined to tragic death in our churches is: "We have the truth." Now, this phrase is usually followed by a negative designation, such as: "...and the denominations don't." As a preacher uttered that phrase last night, in came the high-flying frisbee. We have the truth...what does that mean? When this is said in reference to what we have, and what someone else doesn't have, what it is that we are trying to point out, exactly? Do we have more truth than anyone else? Is there a resource of truth to which we alone have VIP access? No, God's truth is open to all men, isn't it? I think what this little saying is appealing to is our understanding of the Bible; our understanding of truth. If it's not, then it basically means that other folks don't have the means by which to understand truth. Let's remember that God is the one who has the truth, not us. And since we have His word, we have the truth that we need to learn about Him, to come to a saving knowledge of Him, and to follow Him. And since we aren't the only people with a Bible, it becomes obvious that this phrase is referring to our understanding of the Bible.
Now, if we are at this point to say, "We have the truth", then what we're saying is that we are the only ones who understand it. All of it. Every bit of it. We've got it. But I propose that even churches which clearly have some teaching errors understand parts of God's truth. So we can't haul off and say things like, "...and the denominations don't." It's too all-inclusive; too broad. On the flip side, if we say that we have it, we are saying that we understand, without mistake, every facet of God's word. But we don't, and since we know that we don't, we shouldn't say things like the phrase in question. See what it really sounds like, when you think about it? (which is the problem- not enough people think about it) So it would be more honest to say this instead: "We see that we have a healthier and more accurate understanding of scripture than other people who understand some, but are missing some very important parts of it." But no one wants to say something like that--which brings up a question. Why? Well, it doesn't sound as good. It doesn't have the same ring to it, and it doesn't make you feel as good about yourself as the original one does. What is the value in pointing this out? That's my question. Because when you state the phrase in more honest terms, like I just did, it really sounds dumb. It especially begins sound dumb when a bunch of people say it all the time from the pulpit. Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back. So why do we feel the need to point this out?
Perhaps we need to tell ourselves something else. We will always have misconceptions about the Bible. I know that I will. The entire Word is not going to come into my understanding by the time I pass from this world. We will, however understand what we need to in order to know that we are saved, and to understand enough about our salvation to follow orders and go tell other people about it, and to see them brought into God's family. That's the point, and we ought to be telling ourselves about that instead of falsely reminding ourselves about our higher understanding of God (if there is such a thing). You know what other group in history did that on a regular basis? The Pharisees. Yep, and there goes that frisbee again...
So I begin to wonder why I hear people continue to coin this phrase all the time. What is the goal of saying this? What is it supposed to produce, what effect is desired? We always talk about what the denominations don't have, but I realize something that they don't have is enough prayers from us! Why don't we ever pray for them? Goodness sakes, we talk about them enough, but I don't ever recall hearing someone bring them up in order to pray for them, that they can come to know God more and be part of the family. Why don't we do that for them? I want to coin a phrase about that. My encouragement is that these kinds of phrases should be thought out before they are repeated anymore. Imagine what that would sound like to a visitor, a potential Christian. Put yourself in their shoes, where it matters. Doesn't sound like a humble thing to say, does it? I want to encourage our brotherhood to be more concerned with how we present ourselves to the world around us, if we are to impact them and to help them to know God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)