You know how you read and study the Bible and think you understand it pretty well? And then someone offers an insight and you wonder how you could have missed it. In Eugene Peterson's latest book, "Tell It Slant", he points out that in the series of parables in Luke about the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son(s) there is an interesting progression. At the beginning of what we call chapter 15, tax collectors and sinners are drawing near to Jesus. In response to the grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes about Jesus' willingness to receive sinners and even eat with them, Jesus tells 3 stories. In the first story, a man has 100 sheep. He loses 1, so he leaves the 99 to go find it. When it is found, he rejoices and invites others to join him in his rejoicing. The Pharisees and scribes could have missed the point of the story since the ratio of "lostness" is 1 out of 100. They tell themselves they certainly wouldn't be in that lost group.
The second story is about a woman with 10 coins. She loses 1. She seeks diligently for the coin. When it is found, she rejoices and invites others to join her in rejoicing. The Pharisees could have missed the point of the story since the ratio of "lostness" is 1 out of 10. They tell themselves they certainly wouldn't be in that lost group.
The third story is about a man who had 2 sons. He loses 1. He waits patiently for that 1 son to return. When the son returns, he rejoices and invites others to join him in rejoicing. The Pharisees could have missed the point of the story since the ratio of "lostness" is 1 out of 2. They tell themselves they certainly wouldn't be in that lost group.
The final part of the third story is about the prodigal's brother. The father loses the 1 son he still had at home. He wants that son to join in the celebration of finding his lost brother. The son refuses and is lost to the father. The ratio of "lostness" in this part of the story is 1 out of 1. Could the Pharisees have failed to see that when it comes down to it, we are all lost. Some of us are just more respectably lost. We haven't been eating with the pigs, but we are lost just the same. We all need to be found. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Which includes me. And you. And when we recognize our lostness and come home to the Father, we are rejoiced over by the One who loves us most.
My prayer is that all who read this blog will be reconciled to the Father, through his son, Jesus Christ. There is salvation in no other. God has done all that is necessary for us to return to Him. Our part is to respond, by faith, to the free gift of life provided for us by Jesus dying in our place. God could justly judge us for our sin. Instead He placed our sin on Jesus who, because he was perfect, had no sins of his own to pay for. Because Jesus was infinitely perfect, he could infinitely pay for our sin. God's holiness and justice were satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice of himself in our place. While the satisfaction is sufficient for all, it is effective only for those who reject any attempt to make themselves right with God and, instead, embrace what God has done for them in Jesus Christ.
If this concept is new to you, ask a Christian you know to explain it further. They'd love to tell you the story of Jesus and answer your questions. Remember the ratio of "lostness" is 1 out of 1.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Because I'm Being Asked
The general election will take place two weeks from today. (It seems like the process has been going for 4 years now.) In addition to selecting the next president, we in California have our usual smorgasbord of Propositions. As recently as last Sunday in a class on the EFCA Statement of Faith I was asked about Proposition 8 and what we were going to do, as Christians, if it is defeated. My answer, I would like to think, was thoughtful and lacking my usual glib retorts.
I answered that I was going to go into the voting booth and, because propositions are really just the electorate's way of asking questions, I was going to voice my opinion on what I thought would be in the best interest of our culture. That is, my vote on Proposition 8 will be my way of giving my opinion on the issue presented. I will give that opinion on the basis of what I think Scripture clearly teaches about marriage in both the older and newer Testaments. The fact is, everyone who enters the booth on Tuesday, November 4, will give their opinion on the basis of their values, their view of life, their understanding of what is right and wrong. All laws are statements of values, whether they be about speed limits, taxes or marriage. Since we're being asked what values should be reflected in marriage, we should give our opinion. It is a great privilege in this country to even be asked what we think. There are still many nations where citizens, regardless of religious background, are never asked what they think about laws and moral issues. Those who govern the country simply tell the citizens what the leadership thinks is right.
Which brings me to the second part of the answer I gave. On Wednesday, November 5, I will live, Lord willing, exactly as I did on November 4, regardless of whether Proposition 8 passes or fails. This answer is not intended to minimize the importance of the vote on this issue or the potential consequences for our culture whichever way the issue is decided. (I predict acts of civil disobedience from individuals and groups from whichever side "loses" the vote.) The reason this is my answer is that a relationship with Christ, a relationship which often changes cultures, does not require cultural support.
As hard as it may be to believe, the society in which Christianity was birthed was, from a Biblical standpoint, more decadent than our own. The first century Christians lived out their relationship with Christ in the context of family, friends and neighbors who were monogamists, heterosexuals and celibates as well as polygamists, homosexuals and pederasts. There is no record I know of that indicates the Christians sought to change the hearts, minds and lifestyles of their family, friends or neighbors through legislation. It wasn't much of an option, especially since the Roman Senate had its share of legislators whose lifestyles would certainly not align with Biblical values. Those first century Christians did not throw up their hands in despair. In keeping with the parable of the leaven, they quietly, faithfully and almost invisibly (like yeast permeating dough) lived their relationship with Christ and shared the Gospel as opportunity presented itself. It is recorded that they turned the world upside down.
Lest someone has missed my point, let me go over it again. I have a strong opinion on what I think, on the basis of Scripture, constitutes a marriage and, because of that, what would be best for our culture in the long run. Since I am being asked to voice that opinion on November 4, I will do so. The outcome of the vote on Proposition 8 will not change my faith, regardless of which way the vote goes. And regardless of the outcome of the vote, I pray God that it will not change the way I interact with people whose values are different than my own.
I answered that I was going to go into the voting booth and, because propositions are really just the electorate's way of asking questions, I was going to voice my opinion on what I thought would be in the best interest of our culture. That is, my vote on Proposition 8 will be my way of giving my opinion on the issue presented. I will give that opinion on the basis of what I think Scripture clearly teaches about marriage in both the older and newer Testaments. The fact is, everyone who enters the booth on Tuesday, November 4, will give their opinion on the basis of their values, their view of life, their understanding of what is right and wrong. All laws are statements of values, whether they be about speed limits, taxes or marriage. Since we're being asked what values should be reflected in marriage, we should give our opinion. It is a great privilege in this country to even be asked what we think. There are still many nations where citizens, regardless of religious background, are never asked what they think about laws and moral issues. Those who govern the country simply tell the citizens what the leadership thinks is right.
Which brings me to the second part of the answer I gave. On Wednesday, November 5, I will live, Lord willing, exactly as I did on November 4, regardless of whether Proposition 8 passes or fails. This answer is not intended to minimize the importance of the vote on this issue or the potential consequences for our culture whichever way the issue is decided. (I predict acts of civil disobedience from individuals and groups from whichever side "loses" the vote.) The reason this is my answer is that a relationship with Christ, a relationship which often changes cultures, does not require cultural support.
As hard as it may be to believe, the society in which Christianity was birthed was, from a Biblical standpoint, more decadent than our own. The first century Christians lived out their relationship with Christ in the context of family, friends and neighbors who were monogamists, heterosexuals and celibates as well as polygamists, homosexuals and pederasts. There is no record I know of that indicates the Christians sought to change the hearts, minds and lifestyles of their family, friends or neighbors through legislation. It wasn't much of an option, especially since the Roman Senate had its share of legislators whose lifestyles would certainly not align with Biblical values. Those first century Christians did not throw up their hands in despair. In keeping with the parable of the leaven, they quietly, faithfully and almost invisibly (like yeast permeating dough) lived their relationship with Christ and shared the Gospel as opportunity presented itself. It is recorded that they turned the world upside down.
Lest someone has missed my point, let me go over it again. I have a strong opinion on what I think, on the basis of Scripture, constitutes a marriage and, because of that, what would be best for our culture in the long run. Since I am being asked to voice that opinion on November 4, I will do so. The outcome of the vote on Proposition 8 will not change my faith, regardless of which way the vote goes. And regardless of the outcome of the vote, I pray God that it will not change the way I interact with people whose values are different than my own.
Friday, October 17, 2008
We Don't Become More Spiritual By Becoming Less Human
Sharon and I are currently in a Life Group that is working through Pete Scazzero's book, "Emotionally Healthy Spirituality." (Some of you thought I was joking when I referred to this earlier.) His thesis is that "it is impossible to be spiritually mature while remaining emotionally immature." If you've been around church for more than about 6 months, you know this is true. When was the last time you heard that a church had an argument or split over a central doctrine such as the divinity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the immutability of God. (It does happen, but seldom in our culture.) No, most often it is because one or more of those who attend the church have gotten their feelings hurt by someone else (This is not new, of course, read Philippians 4:2-3) or no one noticed their sacrifice of time or the pastor doesn't feel appreciated or supported. These are emotional issues with spiritual implications. These situations are, at their core, discipleship issues. Allowing God to do the work in us that allows us to respond in godly ways, or at least come back to apologize for not acting godly initially, are both spiritual and emotional.
In his latest book, Eugene Peterson addresses the same issue, but from a different angle. In his chapter on Luke 11:1-13 he writes:
"Life is personal. By definition. All parts of it...When any one of us quits being personally present to our child, our spouse, or our friend, life leaks out...Jesus is our primary revelation that God is personal, extravagantly personal...What the biblical revelation tells us...is that we can't become more like Jesus (more pleasing or acceptable to God) by becoming less human, less physical, less emotional, less involved with our families, less associated with socially or morally undesirable people. We don't become more spiritual by becoming less human."
When did we, as a Christian subculture, allow this first century heresy to creep back in? It's time we recognized that our redemption is about ALL the areas of our life. We focus on giving up smoking or swearing while God calls us to give up anger and causing trouble among the family of God. Maybe its because smoking and swearing are easier to spot that we focus on the externals. Or maybe its because we find ways to rationalize our anger as "righteous indignation." Or maybe its because we can point to Jesus' attitude when he cleared the Temple courtyard that we can justify our behavior. Maybe its because we can claim our trouble making is really just "standing for the truth."
Whatever it is, we need to invite the Holy Spirit to do a more complete work in us. Or is it just in me? Sorry, I didn't mean to judge. I forgot you have this stuff all figured out. Well, you can pray for me. I'm still having a hard time letting God work in these areas of emotionally healthy spirituality.
In his latest book, Eugene Peterson addresses the same issue, but from a different angle. In his chapter on Luke 11:1-13 he writes:
"Life is personal. By definition. All parts of it...When any one of us quits being personally present to our child, our spouse, or our friend, life leaks out...Jesus is our primary revelation that God is personal, extravagantly personal...What the biblical revelation tells us...is that we can't become more like Jesus (more pleasing or acceptable to God) by becoming less human, less physical, less emotional, less involved with our families, less associated with socially or morally undesirable people. We don't become more spiritual by becoming less human."
When did we, as a Christian subculture, allow this first century heresy to creep back in? It's time we recognized that our redemption is about ALL the areas of our life. We focus on giving up smoking or swearing while God calls us to give up anger and causing trouble among the family of God. Maybe its because smoking and swearing are easier to spot that we focus on the externals. Or maybe its because we find ways to rationalize our anger as "righteous indignation." Or maybe its because we can point to Jesus' attitude when he cleared the Temple courtyard that we can justify our behavior. Maybe its because we can claim our trouble making is really just "standing for the truth."
Whatever it is, we need to invite the Holy Spirit to do a more complete work in us. Or is it just in me? Sorry, I didn't mean to judge. I forgot you have this stuff all figured out. Well, you can pray for me. I'm still having a hard time letting God work in these areas of emotionally healthy spirituality.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Isn't It Just Like God?
I am currently reading Eugene Peterson's latest book, "Tell It Slant, a conversation on the language of Jesus in his stories and prayers" (available in bookstores on October 15). In chapter 2, where Peterson re-visits the story of the Good Samaritan, I found these words: “One of the standard ploys of defensiveness is to seize the offense to put the other person on the defense, to take attention off of my weakness or fault and shift attention to the other person.” Immediately my mind went to my recent e-mail response to the brother in Christ who thinks I'm emergent/postmodern. When he came to mind, I thought, "Oh, man! God you couldn't be asking me to look at my own defensiveness toward him, could you?" But, of course, He was. And isn't it just like God to use Eugene Peterson to call me to repentance for my defensiveness toward someone who thinks Eugene Peterson's translation of Scripture is "nothing short of a hack job on scripture through the distortions of a mystic."
So today I wrote an apology to my brother in Christ. The apology was for the defensive tone I took in my quite lengthy response to his concerns about my theology. If my theology and pedagogy are orthodox, than why the defensiveness? Rather than simply inviting him into a dialogue, I came at him with a point-by-point rebuttal to what he had written about what he perceived to be my theological positions. After reading the Peterson quote, I went back to my e-mail to this brother and found that, in the emotions of the moment, I had made sure it was clear that I was on the side of Jesus and Paul in my teaching methods, which certainly had to communicate that somehow he was not. As I looked back over my lengthy e-mail response, I had to admit to him that, at some level, I had felt, "I've been in vocational ministry about as long as he's been alive." In case you missed it, that's called pride. Not a particularly endearing or engaging quality to exhibit.
So I took the time to acknowledge my sin against him and to let him know that my door is still open if he wants a dialogue rather than a monologue from either him or me. I don't know if he'll take me up on the offer, but I didn't want to resist what seemed clear to me to be what the Holy Spirit was asking me to do. Isn't it just like God to use all the pieces of our life (the books we read, the people we encounter, even the failures [which being translated means sin] we experience), if we'll let Him, to conform us to the image of His Son?
So today I wrote an apology to my brother in Christ. The apology was for the defensive tone I took in my quite lengthy response to his concerns about my theology. If my theology and pedagogy are orthodox, than why the defensiveness? Rather than simply inviting him into a dialogue, I came at him with a point-by-point rebuttal to what he had written about what he perceived to be my theological positions. After reading the Peterson quote, I went back to my e-mail to this brother and found that, in the emotions of the moment, I had made sure it was clear that I was on the side of Jesus and Paul in my teaching methods, which certainly had to communicate that somehow he was not. As I looked back over my lengthy e-mail response, I had to admit to him that, at some level, I had felt, "I've been in vocational ministry about as long as he's been alive." In case you missed it, that's called pride. Not a particularly endearing or engaging quality to exhibit.
So I took the time to acknowledge my sin against him and to let him know that my door is still open if he wants a dialogue rather than a monologue from either him or me. I don't know if he'll take me up on the offer, but I didn't want to resist what seemed clear to me to be what the Holy Spirit was asking me to do. Isn't it just like God to use all the pieces of our life (the books we read, the people we encounter, even the failures [which being translated means sin] we experience), if we'll let Him, to conform us to the image of His Son?
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Putting It Into Perspective
Several of you commented on my last blog, referring to it as a "rant." I'll own that. But today I think I know, at least in part, why there was emotion in the response to this brother's charge of emergent/postmodern. You see, yesterday, unexpectedly, a friend of mine dropped dead from a aortic aneurysm. This friend loved Jesus and had a great, dry sense of humor. When you talked to Larry, you kept feeling a tug as he would gently pull your leg about something.
Life is brief, as Scripture so often reminds us. So when I get pulled into discussions about whether or not I'm emergent because I started my Sunday School class with a chips and salsa taste test as a way to get people thinking about their preferences and whether you get that luxury when it comes to what you will or won't believe about what God has revealed about Himself (the answer, by the way, is "no". God comes the way He has revealed Himself. No optional equipment. As I often say, I don't care what "your" god would or wouldn't do or is or isn't like. I'm concerned about what "the" God is and does. But don't get me started....), I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time and gray cells since the people who voice these "concerns", in most cases, don't really want to have those concerns addressed. They just want you to admit you're wrong and they're right. [Obviously I haven't let this go yet, eh? I'm working on it. I've even joined a group who is learning about Emotionally Healthy Spirituality.]
This is kind of a strange eulogy for my friend, Larry, but Larry was a Bible-believing, truth-telling, walk-the-talk kind of Christian who also knew how to laugh. He always took God seriously. He just didn't take himself (or me) very seriously because he understood that we are looking in a dark glass as we go through this life. Now Larry sees clearly. And I have it on good authority that he's enjoying every minute of it.
I'm grateful to have known Larry. I'm richer for the friendship and for the privilege of seeing Jesus live through him. May his tribe increase.
Life is brief, as Scripture so often reminds us. So when I get pulled into discussions about whether or not I'm emergent because I started my Sunday School class with a chips and salsa taste test as a way to get people thinking about their preferences and whether you get that luxury when it comes to what you will or won't believe about what God has revealed about Himself (the answer, by the way, is "no". God comes the way He has revealed Himself. No optional equipment. As I often say, I don't care what "your" god would or wouldn't do or is or isn't like. I'm concerned about what "the" God is and does. But don't get me started....), I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time and gray cells since the people who voice these "concerns", in most cases, don't really want to have those concerns addressed. They just want you to admit you're wrong and they're right. [Obviously I haven't let this go yet, eh? I'm working on it. I've even joined a group who is learning about Emotionally Healthy Spirituality.]
This is kind of a strange eulogy for my friend, Larry, but Larry was a Bible-believing, truth-telling, walk-the-talk kind of Christian who also knew how to laugh. He always took God seriously. He just didn't take himself (or me) very seriously because he understood that we are looking in a dark glass as we go through this life. Now Larry sees clearly. And I have it on good authority that he's enjoying every minute of it.
I'm grateful to have known Larry. I'm richer for the friendship and for the privilege of seeing Jesus live through him. May his tribe increase.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Making it Clear
A Christian who is concerned that I'm emergent/postmodern spent some time on my blog recently and found his worst fears confirmed because I quote from Gore Vidal, Frederick Buechner, Eugene Peterson, Henri Nouwen, A.J. Jacobs and other authors who either don't know Jesus or don't know him in a way that meets his criteria. He wrote a mutual friend of ours to say, "Paul seems to agree with, and openly appreciates, Gore Vidal on his blog post in August 2008. Why on earth does a pastor give credit to the ideas/ideology of a wild-eyed liberal and atheist?"
Maybe its because what Gore Vidal said reflects what most of us have felt at times. (What I wrote was: I find myself agreeing with Gore Vidal, "There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.") Has this brother never felt that he has all the answers to everyone's problems and if they would do what he tells them, then the problem would be solved? Here's the irony, lost to my brother in Christ I'm sure, that his judgment of me (without actually talking TO me, only ABOUT me) is exactly what Gore Vidal was talking about.
He went on to write, "Tim Challies (who is a solid, biblical Christian with an excellent blog [in contrast to my blog, no doubt]) makes it absolutely clear that Buechner is indeed an emergent." So I took a minute to look up Tim Challies blog and this is what he wrote, "Here is Kevin DeYoung, co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) on how you might know if you are emergent… "You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of ... Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner..."
Did I miss the part where Tim makes it "absolutely clear" that Frederick Buechner is emergent? Using this brother's logic, would that mean it is "absolutely clear" that everyone who uses a Mac (my 91 year-old mother-in-law used a Mac until recently, so I guess she's quit being emergent) or drinks lattes or Guiness is an emergent? Much like my use of the Gore Vidal quote, I don't think this young man saw Kevin DeYoung's (or Tim Challies') tongue firmly planted in their cheek. Maybe Tim, Kevin and I have learned to take God more seriously and ourselves less seriously.
Let me go on record, in writing, that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible does not simply contain the word of God, it is the Word of God. There is salvation in no other. Christ alone is the sufficient sacrifice for my sin and only through Christ can I be reconciled to God.
All of this to say, I guess I need to make clear something that I thought went without saying (You know what they say about assume........."don't".):
When I quote people on this blog, it DOES NOT mean that I agree with everything they say or write. Including this brother who thinks I'm emergent.
Maybe its because what Gore Vidal said reflects what most of us have felt at times. (What I wrote was: I find myself agreeing with Gore Vidal, "There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.") Has this brother never felt that he has all the answers to everyone's problems and if they would do what he tells them, then the problem would be solved? Here's the irony, lost to my brother in Christ I'm sure, that his judgment of me (without actually talking TO me, only ABOUT me) is exactly what Gore Vidal was talking about.
He went on to write, "Tim Challies (who is a solid, biblical Christian with an excellent blog [in contrast to my blog, no doubt]) makes it absolutely clear that Buechner is indeed an emergent." So I took a minute to look up Tim Challies blog and this is what he wrote, "Here is Kevin DeYoung, co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) on how you might know if you are emergent… "You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of ... Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner..."
Did I miss the part where Tim makes it "absolutely clear" that Frederick Buechner is emergent? Using this brother's logic, would that mean it is "absolutely clear" that everyone who uses a Mac (my 91 year-old mother-in-law used a Mac until recently, so I guess she's quit being emergent) or drinks lattes or Guiness is an emergent? Much like my use of the Gore Vidal quote, I don't think this young man saw Kevin DeYoung's (or Tim Challies') tongue firmly planted in their cheek. Maybe Tim, Kevin and I have learned to take God more seriously and ourselves less seriously.
Let me go on record, in writing, that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The Bible does not simply contain the word of God, it is the Word of God. There is salvation in no other. Christ alone is the sufficient sacrifice for my sin and only through Christ can I be reconciled to God.
All of this to say, I guess I need to make clear something that I thought went without saying (You know what they say about assume........."don't".):
When I quote people on this blog, it DOES NOT mean that I agree with everything they say or write. Including this brother who thinks I'm emergent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)