“The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father…It is a subject so vast, that all of our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity.”–Charles Spurgeon
Yep…theology.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Bible, Christianity, Faith, God, Jesus, religion, Spirituality
I’ll believe in God etc one day when I’m certain I’m strong enough to do good in the world without them. Until then I will try to contribute to a higher good before taking solace in the symbols and prosey words that one religion has assigned it.
A Facebook friend attributed this to Pat Sajak. I have no idea if Sajak actually said it, but I’m gonna roll with it.
Folks, this is what we call a non-sequitur…at least the first part. His inability to do good apart from God (or apart from believing in God) is a good reason for rejecting the existence of God? How does that follow? At best, it’s a lame excuse.
It’s kind of like me saying, “I’ll believe in farmers when my stomach is big enough such that I can eat a 100 oz. steak in one sitting.”
On the second half of the quote, here was my response to my friend: Sajak spoke of a “higher good.” If God doesn’t really exist, and He’s just a cultural projection or something of the sort, the “higher good” turns out to be the herd instinct. That’s not very…high. In other words, in a world without a real supernatural God, what we *call* good is nothing of the moral sort: its merely behavior that has helped us survive up untl the present as a species…that’s not “good” in any moral sense, its just survival.
In my mind, if Sajak’s attitude is the way to go, we’re all shuffling chairs on the Titanic. He can behave in a way he calls “good” without believing in any specific religion (people do it all the time), but his beliefs won’t cohere with his actions….to continue with the above analogy on farming, it’s kinda like a suburbanite sitting down to a meal of eggs and bacon who doesn’t believe in the existence of farming.
I know, I know: don’t expect a game show host to follow logic in spiritual and philosophical things. People on Facebook were giving “amens” left and right on it, though, so I just gotta say, you know?
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Christianity, Faith, God, philosophy, religion, Spirituality
Christian persecution in Morocco.
From the article:
Approximately 60 officers from the Moroccan security services on Thursday afternoon (Feb. 4) raided the home of a Christian in Amizmiz, a picturesque city of 10,000 mainly Berber people 56 kilometers (35 miles) southeast of Marrakech. A church Bible study was in progress at the home with visitors from western and southern Morocco, the leaders said.
Five of the 18 people held for 14 hours were small children, two of them infants no more than 6 months old. The other small children ranged from 20 months to 4 years old, and also detained was the visiting 16-year-old nephew of one of the participants.
The Christian leaders said authorities interrogated participants in the Bible study for 14 hours. The authorities filmed the interrogations with digital video cameras and cell phones.
The leader of the Christian group, who requested anonymity for security reasons, said the raiding party was unusually large. It included an accompaniment of 15 vehicles led by a colonel and two captains.
Quoting a statement by the Interior Ministry, the state-run Maghreb Arabe Presse news agency reported that a “foreign missionary” had been arrested for trying to “spread evangelist creed in the Kingdom and locate new Moroccan nationals for recruitment.”
The statement added that the raid took place “following information on the organization of a secret meeting to initiate people into Christianity, which would shake Muslims’ faith and undermine the Kingdom’s religious values.”
And later in the article:
“The authorities reportedly pressured the women to return to Islam, mocked their Christian faith, questioned why they left Islam to become Christians, and asked if there were other Christians in their families,” the report states.
Hm. Guess proselytizing is ok if an Islamic government does it aggressively with intimidation, mockery, and threats. If a regular citizen does it through literature and persuasion, that’s verboten, of course. Evil Christians.
I wonder how relativists would react to this. Would their reaction be any different if, say, the persecuted faith was Hinduism or Buddhism? What if the person was a devotee of Richard Dawkins, and he was holding a discussion on The God Delusion with some Muslims (in other words, he’d be making an evangelistic effort)?
Please pray for the Christians in Morocco, and for the government officials to come to their senses.
Tim Tebow is the source of much commentary in the sports world, for a number of reasons. Most often the commentary is praise and adoration. But this was not the case in USA Today a few weeks back.
courtesy of markdroberts.com
Tom Krattenmaker, author of a new book, Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers, leveled some pretty heavy critique at the very evangelical Tebow and others in his theological camp:
Anyone who watches pro and college football or follows the drama of the baseball playoffs can’t help but notice something else that often competes for our attention amid the passes, pitches and home runs: religion.
Players point skyward to the Almighty after reaching the end zone or home plate, star athletes voice thanks and praise to their savior after a big win, and sports heroes use their media spotlight to promote the Christian message. (See University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his eye-black, touting Scripture.) These are the outward signs of a faith surge that has made big-time sports one of the most outwardly religious sectors of American culture.
So far so good. If he were merely commenting on the fact that many of these displays are hypocritical (Barry Bonds, anyone?), or superficial, he’d have my sympathy. I’d agree entirely if his commentary was focused on how many players, when they pray, merely ask for the win, erroneously citing Phil 4:13 for support.
But he focuses on something other than that: the exclusivity of the Gospel message touted by many Christian athletes. He acknowledges that these athletes have a right to express their faith, but, somewhat paradoxically, thinks it is time we remove the exclusive claims of what he calls a “far right theology”:
But Jesus’ representatives in sports aren’t just practicing faith. They are also leveraging sports’ popularity to promote a message and doctrine that are out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams. Typifying the exclusive creed taught by many sports-world Christians is the belief statement published by Baseball Chapel, which provides chaplains for all major- and minor-league baseball teams. Non-believers in Jesus, the ministry declares, can look forward to “everlasting punishment separated from God.”
Urban Meyer, Tebow’s coach at Florida, has praised his quarterback’s faith-promoting ways as “good for college football … good for young people … good for everything.” Such is the rhetoric usually heard from those who defend sports-world Christianity as wholesome and harmless.
But should we be pleased that the civic resource known as “our team” — a resource supported by the diverse whole through our ticket-buying, game-watching and tax-paying — is being leveraged by a one-truth evangelical campaign that has little appreciation for the beliefs of the rest of us?
…If their take on God and truth and life is the only right one — which their creed boldly states — everyone else is wrong.
…It’s not just non-Christians who might have a thing or two to say about this exclusive theology. According to a December 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 65% of American Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. Our pluralism is a defining and positive reality of American life — but not one that is much valued by those who define the faith coursing through the veins of sports culture.
After noting that Tim Tebow does missionary work for his father’s ministry, which adheres to a “far right theology” (Should I point out that such beliefs are hardly far right? For the whole of Christian history, they have been smack dab in the center, hardly considered controversial in the Church. Perhaps Krattenmaker’s loaded language is misplaced, then?) that Christ is the only doorway to salvation, Krattenmaker concludes:
Certainly, Tim Tebow must be applauded for the good he does working on his father’s missions, but he should be seen, too, as one who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else’s religion. Let’s not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving Jewish kids and parents, for example, or by champions for interfaith cooperation, when adored sports figures like Tebow use their fame to push a Jesus-or-else message.
The irony is lost on Krattenmaker. In taking Tebow and his fellow evangelical believers to task about saying “everyone else is wrong,” Krattenmaker foists himself on the same petard. That is, he’s a pluralist–all roads lead to God, and every (or most) religion(s) is (are) right for each individual. The Jew’s path is right for him. The Muslim’s path is right for him, and so on.
Sounds nice, but what him and many others don’t realize is that by taking exception with conservative evangelicals, he is saying that “if someone disagrees with my belief (in pluralism), they are wrong.” While Moral Therapeutic Deists (more on Moral Therapeutic Deism in youth) in America might hold to pluralism in like manner, he unwittingly pits himself against the majority of the world. According to Islam, there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. Jesus is not the King. Jews are in error, etc, etc. According to Judaism, Jesus is not the Messiah. They think Christians are wrong. Same for much of the Hindu and Buddhist world–they’ll balk big time at many of Jesus’ statements. Even if you listen to a follower of B’hai, you’ll hear exclusivistic statements left and right–they think they’ve got it right (that all the leaders of the big religions are prophets) and evangelical Christians/Muslims/orthodox Jews are wrong! That’s a big chunk of the world right there.
Krattenmaker thinks he’s right–otherwise, why would he be writing the column chastising the likes of Tebow–and evangelical Christians are wrong. Period. Why is it that when he takes that stance, he’s just right, but when Tebow et al take the very same stance in regard to their beliefs, they are suddenly intolerant?
As one commenter noted:
Ah! So it’s just the conservative brand of Christianity that needs to receive condemnation for being divisive. Why? You don’t think that liberal Christian theologians think that they have a more accurate summation of Christianity? Islam? Hinduism?
Face it: truth by nature is exclusive. When you say something is right or true, that means its opposite is false…can’t get around that. Why is Krattenmaker so sensitive to that when those he disagrees with point that out, but he’s ok with his theologically like-minded friends standing upon that principle? His sensitivity to the nature of truth is popular, but odd. Imagine if I said, a la Krattenmaker above, “Let’s not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving evangelical kids and parents, for example, or by champions for Chuck Colson’s prison ministries, when adored sports writers like Krattenmaker use their fame to push a pluralism-or-else message.”
My message to Tom K: what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What’s more, I don’t know why he thinks its important that a majority of what he calls “Christian” Americans agree with him. Since when have numbers mattered in determining what is true?
You might think I’m making the same error when I talk about the majority of the world disagreeing with Krattenmaker, but my point is different: it is ironic that he takes to task those who are narrow in their theology when his own theology is narrow by his own definition.
Perhaps I’m not being wholly charitable to him. Maybe his problem isn’t with the exclusivity of evangelical claims (though much of his column does suggest that), but with the preaching on hell: those who don’t believe in Jesus go to hell.
I can see how this doesn’t make sense to a pluralist. Many well-meaning Christians, in an attempt to stand for their beliefs, awkwardly defend and explain this part of Christianity. Put the way it is–if you don’t believe in Jesus, you go to hell–doesn’t make much sense to the typical non-believer. It sounds as if a few sincere errors on a theology quiz can condemn a person to hell, regardless of behavior or the state of his heart.
But when one considers our natural state as rebels against God, and when one considers the depth of our rejection of God and the serious nature of our rebellion, the belief makes more sense. We aren’t good (you’ll need the following to view the link: ID–pugnacious PW–irishman): our problem isn’t a few errors on a quiz. Rather, we don’t bring a clean resume before God–we bring a lengthy rap sheet. Our moral crimes have earned us not God’s gifts, but His judgement. This goes for those in the West and the East. But God, in His love for us, graciously provided us amnesty. The thing is, since we’ve offended God, forgiveness is on His terms, not ours, and His terms are through Jesus. We should be grateful that He provides a pardon at all, not offended that He provides an infinite number of possible pardons that suit our tastes. It is us in the dock, not Him.
If Krattenmaker still has a problem with this, then I suggest he take it up with Jesus, not Tebow. It is Jesus who spoke of hell and God’s judgment more than anyone in the Bible, and Tebow is merely faithfully communicating the message of his Sovereign.
Lastly, I suggest conservative Christians take note. We have been accused of being intolerant for our beliefs for some time now. Actually, Jesus and His disciples got the same treatment. As Albert Mohler points out, things will only continue to go in this direction:
You can count on seeing these same arguments appear anywhere evangelical Christians express their faith in public or within ear-shot of those who may be offended. The belief that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation is now at the very center of secular outrage.
Consider this: Tom Krattenmaker ransacked the website of the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association in order to find the statement that caused him to criticize Tim Tebow as espousing “a far-right theology.” The outrage directed at Tim Tebow is not just about a Bible reference written in eye-black. The outrage is directed at the sincerely-held beliefs of a young man and an evangelistic association.
Tom Krattenmaker suggests that Tim Tebow should adopt a “more generous conception of salvation.” And now we all know the price of being seen as “more generous.” Just abandon the Gospel.
I am confident that Tim Tebow will withstand this pressure. He has shown enough theological maturity and strength of conviction to earn that confidence. But, we have to wonder, how many others will fold under the intimidation?
I echo Mohler’s encouragement: it is my hope that conservative Christians buck up and refuse to be intimidated by the passive-aggressive “secular outrage.”
Posted in religion
Tagged Christianity, culture, Evangelism, Faith, God, Jesus, religion, Society, sports
Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking with a kid who is thinking about quitting his sport.
This young man is a devout Christian; he goes to and/or leads several church and youth functions.
One of the points I made to him was that his sport is a ministry; it is an incredible sphere of influence. “Look at your teammates,” I said. “They are in need of Christ. Share the gospel with them and talk to them about Jesus! If you quit, you won’t have that opportunity. Sport is an incredible platform for the gospel because there’s something about bleeding and sweating with your teammates that bonds you and brings you close. You can, of course, still share with them if you quit, but you won’t have the same respect and authority.”
His eyes kind of lit up when I said that. I wonder how many times he’s heard that before. Probably not many. I haven’t yet heard it in any of the messages that have been given at the one student Christian group I attend. I’ve heard about “hurting God’s feelings,” but not about talking about Jesus.
This reminds me of what commenter Tim said the other day in reaction to one of my posts:
I agree that talking to people about salvation through Jesus Christ is important, but do you think you might be working with a narrow definition of evangelism. By calling it ‘evangelism proper’ and referring to this as the act of talking to people about your religious convictions I think you miss the wider meaning of what evangelism is. I think we could agree that the word evangelism comes for the Greek word euangelion or good news. The good news Jesus says he came to proclaim in Luke 4 says nothing about belief or faith or doctrinal convictions. Instead he speaks of release of captives, blind people seeing and the downtrodden freed (sounds a lot like social justice to me).
All I’m saying is I think it’s a both/and kind of situation. Unfortunately the majority of traditions have chosen to major in either one or the other and not both.
I can certainly agree with Tim in the last paragraph. It’s a both/and. That’s what I’ve been arguing a lot lately. In a certain sense, I can also agree with the first paragraph. The problem is that in the church’s effort to embrace a wider definition of “missional,” it is very, very easy to leave the “talking about Jesus” part out. It’s unpopular. It’s just not sexy. People will speak ill of you and regard you as slightly annoying. Many in church leadership, who are trying to bring the Church a little positive PR, might subconsciously drop that and still think, “hey, we are sharing the gospel.”
Speaking and proclaiming and dialoguing about our sin problem and *the* solution Jesus offers (the only adequate solution!) is not sufficient…but it is necessary.
Yes, in Luke 4 Jesus might focus on the “social gospel” and might speak little or nothing of doctrinal convictions and such and salvation by faith, but both Him and His apostles do elsewhere all over the place. That needs to be emphasized.
My point is not that we should dump the “freeing the downtrodden” part. My point is that we need to correct the imbalance and emphasize sharing our Savior via proclamation more. If we don’t, we’ll be missing an incredible opportunity, just like the young man above.
Posted in religion
Tagged Christianity, culture, Evangelism, Faith, Jesus, religion, Spirituality
“I’ll start sharing my faith as soon as I learn how to defend it and answer questions.”
That’s a common thought these days amongst Christians. Sounds responsible, but it’s misguided.
First, the person who says this cuts off a main thoroughfare to learn how to defend the faith: conversing with others about Christianity. Think about it: you don’t get good at something without actually doing that activity itself. You hear an objection, and you go back to study and find an answer for it. Then you are ready the next time. The more that happens, the more you learn.
I heard philosopher William Lane Craig remark one time that one of the first things the original Marxists would do to new converts is send them out on the street corner to hand out Marxist literature. They did that knowing full well the poor fella would be annihilated in discussion by pedestrians, and this would fuel his study of Marxism.
The same concept applies here. The two things–talking to others about Christ and learning how to defend Christianity–come in tandem.
Plus, there’s no shame at all in saying, “I don’t know. Let me do some looking into it and I’ll get back to you next week.” Seriously, Bible friend, what do you have to lose?
Secondly, what standard would this person use? How would he know when he’s reached a satisfactory level? It is too easy to either not set the bar at all, and thus always be “learning” but never engaging others, or to set the bar so high that it’s unreachable…or at least unreachable for an extended period of time.
Thirdly, though not in every case, in many cases this is just thinly veiled cowardice. The person really isn’t interested in sharing the gospel, so he concocts a swell-sounding excuse. It’s always some form of “I’ll do that later, as soon as I…X,” but the person never intends to actually commit time and energy to X.
Posted in religion
Tagged Apologetics, Christianity, Evangelism, Faith, Jesus, religion, sprituality
How should you react to a friend who claims to be a believer, but openly celebrates a sin and seeks a church that will embrace his sin?
Though the sin in question in the video is homosexual behavior, the same would go for a number of openly celebrated sins.
Recently there was a big ta-do about this video on Facebook. Here are some of the comments (all names have been changed to protect the innocent):
Suzy Q–
Holy ostracism is a last resort. Mercy is a good first resort. Talking to the person, trying to help them through any confusion, reminding them of the Lord they have lost sight of, and, perhaps smacking them around a bit. Ostracism only works on people who are invested enough in your community to care about being ostracised.
Frankie V–
I don’t think it’s right to ostracize anyone. I think it’s God’s job to change someone’s heart, not mine. Of course the woman he spoke of was crushed. No one wants to lose their entire support structure. how would that community know that she didn’t end the relationship solely because she felt like an outcast? I don’t agree with the concept of “holy ostracism”. It’s a little ridiculous. When he says “it worked” it sounds like it was a manipulative ploy. Kinda creepy. Reminds me of the office when Dwight tells Andy he’s going to shun him.
MJ–
There are gifted Christian counselors (many of whom God has delivered from homosexuality) who are specially trained to understand and deal with those battling this problem. If your Christian friend is open to such pastoral counseling, then that would be the first option. Ostracising should only be a last resort.
A good friend of mine confided in me that they were battling this problem and considering suicide. I immediately made an appointment for them (without their permission) with a specially trained counselor. When they met together God used this specially trained counselor to radically change my friend’s life… that person is now happily married and walking in victory through the power of God’s Spirit.
Clark K–
I Cor also says that a woman who prays or worships with her head uncovered dishonors herself, however, I don’t see people lined up with shawls at any church I go to. Are men with long hair directed to the barbers before being allowed to “dishonor themselves” in church? When was the last time some one spoke in tongues at your church service? That apparently is a key sign to believers, as is prophecy.
The Bible is full of instructions given in a cultural context. Not to discount the truth therein, but how many of it’s commands are actually followed as spelled out? Circumcision isn’t done on the eighth day, we wear gold, and braids. We work, drive, & cook meals on the sabbath and we sue those who wrong us in court. Am I now tepid?
What say I? Welp, a few make some good points about giving grace to the humble. Of course, if a person wants to battle his sin (whatever that sin is), we should envelope him with help and grace. If a person comes to church seeking support to repent, we should absolutely rally around him. This goes for lying, adultery, gossip, homosexual behavior, etc.
We should welcome those who visit the church, open sin or not. I once heard of a gay couple that visited a church holding hands. As soon as they sat down, someone next to them loudly said, “disgusting!” That *is* disgusting…and I’m not referring to the gay couple.
But the situation Piper is talking about is totally different. This person is claiming to be a brother and is actively embracing his sin and seeking to justify it.
Say a married man claims to be a believer but openly celebrates his adulterous relationship. He seeks out an environment that will support his relationship with his mistress. Are we to say that we should slap him on the back like nothing is wrong? If not, then how is it different for celebrating any other sin (whether homosexual behavior or something else)? If we have a problem with the adulterous man, why the special pleading here? What’s the relevant difference? I think their concerns are about a totally different situation. To continue to be with this guy isn’t mercy…it’s enabling.
Law to the proud, grace to the humble. By looking at the video, doesn’t seem like this guy in question is humble.
Also, though many might express personal distaste for Piper’s points, the fact of the matter is that they are incredibly biblical. Church discipline comes straight out of 1 Corinthians 5. For MJ above, what reasons does he have for saying that his reading of the “woman uncovering her head” part is the correct one? What does he think that passage actually means, and why does he think that? He’s making some pretty skimpy claims, and he needs to defend them.
There are pretty good reasons for drawing church discipline principles from 1 Cor 5. Pointing to other parts of Scripture that might or might not be difficult to interpret doesn’t overshadow those reasons.
Lastly, yes, it is God’s job to change a heart, but He uses us to do it! Saying it is God’s job does not relinquish us of the responsibility to trust and obey Him in situations that might make us unpopular.
