I am sure that many of you have seen the movie, The 300, the story of 300 Spartans who defended the pass at Thermopylae against an overwhelming army of Persians in 480 BC. It is based on a historical event and it is considered one of the most remarkable military feats in history. Although the 300 inevitably lost the battle, they allowed the Greek city of Athens to evacuate and be spared from the revenge of the Persians who were defeated by the Athenians at the battle of Marathon. The Persian king, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), who led the Persian army, married Esther after returning from this invasion of Greece.
But I am not focusing on that event, but on another battle recorded in the book of Judges that occurred 700 years or so earlier. It is the story of Gideon and his 300 warriors who defeated an invading army against overwhelming odds. God had called Gideon to raise and lead an army to defeat the Midianites who had invaded Israel. Gideon called on the Israelites to defend their country and 32,000 men showed up. Then God told Gideon to send most of them home.
"The LORD said to Gideon, You have too many men for me to deliver Midian into their hands. In order that Israel may not boast against me that her own strength has saved her, announce now to the people, 'Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead.' So twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained. But the LORD said to Gideon, There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them out for you there. If I say, 'This one shall go with you,' he shall go; but if I say, 'This one shall not go with you,' he shall not go. So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink. Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink. The LORD said to Gideon, With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midians into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place." Judges 7:2-7
First, God sent 22,000 home. Then He sent another 10,000 home, leaving only 300. Then those 300 defeated the Midianites in battle. It's a great story, but what lessons can we learn from it?
The first lesson we find in the passage above. If the Israelites had a military advantage, then they could boast of the victory themselves instead of giving God the credit and glory that was due Him. It needed to be obvious that God won the victory.
We must not take credit for the victories that God gives us. How prone we are to say the our faith or works has accomplished some good thing for God. No, it is God Who has done it and we have played a part in it.
Another lesson can derived from this as well. And that is the principle that God does not need everyone to accomplish any particular good work, even as something as big and important as delivering Israel from its oppressors. Now don't get me wrong, God needs all of us to do something for Him. We all have assignments from God. But we all have different assignments. He calls some to do one thing and others to do something else.
But I have noticed something that happens often in the church. Someone deeply cares about some important issue and, perhaps, is called by God to do something about it. They then try to recruit every Christian to fulfill their vision and help them with their ministry. However, not every Christian (or church or ministry) may be called to do that. I have heard time after time, though, that this particular issue is so important and so urgent that everyone needs to pull together to solve this problem. But it is simply not so.
God is the One who solves the problem. It is He who calls whom He wills to do something about it. It is He who gives them the strategy and wisdom and ability to accomplish the task. It is He who gets the glory. He is not going to bless our plan.
Now there are some things that God calls all Christians to do. We are all to pray for those in authority and government. We are to pray for one another. And as we pray about the bad things that we see, God will begin to prepare the way and call some to help Him bring deliverance and change where it is needed.
And God will not just work on one problem, but on all of them. He will call some to one task and others to the rest. He will give the leaders the vision and direction necessary to accomplish the task and He will provide others to help fulfill the vision. Some works will have many workers and some will have a few, but "nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few" (1 Samuel 14:6).
I think that this tendency to recruit everyone to our good cause is the result of our focusing on our meager resources rather than on God and His abundant supply. We focus too much on the problem and not on the solution that God can bring. And we generally would not approach the problem the way that God would. Which one of us would have done what God told Gideon to do? God's ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So let's do things His way and not our own. Let's get the victory from God and give Him the glory.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tears in Wineskins
One of the great things about studying the Bible is finding out new things through the study of the customs and culture of the society of the ancient Hebrews. One little tidbit that I found was in Psalms 56:8. It reads, "You Yourself have recorded my wanderings. Put my tears in Your bottle. Are they not in Your records?" In almost every English translation, the middle part of this verse uses the word 'bottle' as a place that God puts our tears.
That's a little blind to us. Why would someone put tears in a bottle? When we dig deeper we find that the Hebrew word translated 'bottle' is actually the Hebrew word for a wineskin. Well, then, why put tears in a wineskin?
To know why this image is used we have to understand one of the ways that wineskins were used. Of course, wineskins were used to hold wine, but scholars tell us that wineskins were also used to hold precious liquids. Wineskins were the best way to preserve various liquids just as pottery jars were used to store just about everything else. (The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in pottery jars.)
If God put our tears in wineskins, it must mean that they are very precious to Him. The psalmist asks God to store his tears as precious things. And He does. Sometimes we think that God is far away when we are suffering, but we must know that He is storing our tears and writing them in his book. They are preserved forever.
So when you read Psalm 56, remember what this meant when it was written. I think the translators used the word 'bottle' because we would be confused by the notion of storing tears in wineskins. But I prefer a very literal translation with explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page. Then it speaks to us more clearly than trying to translate ancient customs in modern parlance. "Tears in a bottle" just does not do it for me.
That's a little blind to us. Why would someone put tears in a bottle? When we dig deeper we find that the Hebrew word translated 'bottle' is actually the Hebrew word for a wineskin. Well, then, why put tears in a wineskin?
To know why this image is used we have to understand one of the ways that wineskins were used. Of course, wineskins were used to hold wine, but scholars tell us that wineskins were also used to hold precious liquids. Wineskins were the best way to preserve various liquids just as pottery jars were used to store just about everything else. (The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in pottery jars.)
If God put our tears in wineskins, it must mean that they are very precious to Him. The psalmist asks God to store his tears as precious things. And He does. Sometimes we think that God is far away when we are suffering, but we must know that He is storing our tears and writing them in his book. They are preserved forever.
So when you read Psalm 56, remember what this meant when it was written. I think the translators used the word 'bottle' because we would be confused by the notion of storing tears in wineskins. But I prefer a very literal translation with explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page. Then it speaks to us more clearly than trying to translate ancient customs in modern parlance. "Tears in a bottle" just does not do it for me.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Facts and Interpretation
Usually when Christians think of the word 'interpretation' they think of interpretation of the Bible. For this blog, however, our subject is the interpretation of facts. But, you may say, do facts need interpretation? Aren't they true all by themselves?
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Liberal Theology is Idolatry
Liberal theology should not be confused with liberal political or social views. In Christian theology, a liberal is a person, claiming to be a Christian, but denying certain fundamental truths that Christians have held for 2000 years. Two truths that liberal Christians do not believe is in the infallibility of Scripture and the deity of Jesus Christ. There have been those who believe in the infallibility of Scripture and have still denied the deity of Christ through the ages but it requires that one read the scriptures in some extraordinary ways. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own corrupted translation of the Bible in order to deny Christ's full deity.
Liberal Christians use the scriptures in the way that they see fit (in a "scholarly" manner, of course) but do not hold that the scriptures are altogether true. They pick and choose what to believe, or not believe, according to the thinking of the age in which they live. They interpret it as metaphor as it pleases their own modern sensibilities and decry any sort of 'literalism' that would require them to actually believe what it says. They generally interpret clearly historical events such as the Resurrection of Christ as something that happened to the disciples rather that something that happened to Jesus. They deny the physical reality of the Resurrection while claiming to accept the spiritual import of it.
In the nineteenth century, liberal Bible scholars began to interpret Jesus according to their own liking. They felt free to reject the deity of Jesus while accepting him as a great moral teacher or a prophet or whatever suited them. Another liberal scholar, Albert Schweitzer, wrote a book in the early 20th century pointing out that each of these new views of Jesus turned out to support that scholars view. Their own individual "Jesus" agreed with them completely. How convenient. It just so happened that Jesus believed whatever that scholar believed.
What was happening here was obvious. These scholars were trying to make Jesus in their own image and likeness. They were making an idol out of him. It is no different from what Isaiah told the unfaithful Israelites. "He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, Ah! I am warm; I see the fire. From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, Save me; you are my god." Here is a description of the ancient Israelite making an idol for himself. Isaiah shows clearly how foolish this is.
This is no different than the modern, liberal Christian making Jesus into whoever they want him to be. They are making him into an idol. They use their tools (critical scholarship) like the workman in Isaiah. And like that workman they apply the same tools to God's Word that they would to any common book. They have no respect or awe for the Word or for the real Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
We cannot pick and choose what aspect of Jesus we want to believe in. We have to accept those things about him that offend modern sensibilities (things like miracles, pronouncement of judgments to come, and especially who he claimed to be). We must accept things we do not like and assume that God knows better than we do.
What the modern liberal Christian do is really worship his or her own thoughts. They do not worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They set up idols in their minds and expect us all to bow down to their 'enlightened' views.
This should be a warning to us conservative, Bible-believing Christians as well. We must make sure that we are not trying to make Jesus into Someone who supports whatever we think or believe. We have no right to believe anything but God's Word. We need to accept what the Word says no matter how it fits our personal theology.
Many times I have had trouble accepting certain things in the Bible because they did not seem right to me. I accepted them anyway. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Liberals think that their thoughts are above the Word.) As I have matured in the Lord I began to more fully comprehend some of the things that I had trouble with earlier. I gained wisdom. "[God] lays up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a shield to them that walk upright. He keeps the paths of judgment, and preserves the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness, and judgment." Proverbs 2:7-9
So let's not follow down the liberal path of idolatry. Let's renew our minds to the Word.
Liberal Christians use the scriptures in the way that they see fit (in a "scholarly" manner, of course) but do not hold that the scriptures are altogether true. They pick and choose what to believe, or not believe, according to the thinking of the age in which they live. They interpret it as metaphor as it pleases their own modern sensibilities and decry any sort of 'literalism' that would require them to actually believe what it says. They generally interpret clearly historical events such as the Resurrection of Christ as something that happened to the disciples rather that something that happened to Jesus. They deny the physical reality of the Resurrection while claiming to accept the spiritual import of it.
In the nineteenth century, liberal Bible scholars began to interpret Jesus according to their own liking. They felt free to reject the deity of Jesus while accepting him as a great moral teacher or a prophet or whatever suited them. Another liberal scholar, Albert Schweitzer, wrote a book in the early 20th century pointing out that each of these new views of Jesus turned out to support that scholars view. Their own individual "Jesus" agreed with them completely. How convenient. It just so happened that Jesus believed whatever that scholar believed.
What was happening here was obvious. These scholars were trying to make Jesus in their own image and likeness. They were making an idol out of him. It is no different from what Isaiah told the unfaithful Israelites. "He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, Ah! I am warm; I see the fire. From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, Save me; you are my god." Here is a description of the ancient Israelite making an idol for himself. Isaiah shows clearly how foolish this is.
This is no different than the modern, liberal Christian making Jesus into whoever they want him to be. They are making him into an idol. They use their tools (critical scholarship) like the workman in Isaiah. And like that workman they apply the same tools to God's Word that they would to any common book. They have no respect or awe for the Word or for the real Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
We cannot pick and choose what aspect of Jesus we want to believe in. We have to accept those things about him that offend modern sensibilities (things like miracles, pronouncement of judgments to come, and especially who he claimed to be). We must accept things we do not like and assume that God knows better than we do.
What the modern liberal Christian do is really worship his or her own thoughts. They do not worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They set up idols in their minds and expect us all to bow down to their 'enlightened' views.
This should be a warning to us conservative, Bible-believing Christians as well. We must make sure that we are not trying to make Jesus into Someone who supports whatever we think or believe. We have no right to believe anything but God's Word. We need to accept what the Word says no matter how it fits our personal theology.
Many times I have had trouble accepting certain things in the Bible because they did not seem right to me. I accepted them anyway. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Liberals think that their thoughts are above the Word.) As I have matured in the Lord I began to more fully comprehend some of the things that I had trouble with earlier. I gained wisdom. "[God] lays up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a shield to them that walk upright. He keeps the paths of judgment, and preserves the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness, and judgment." Proverbs 2:7-9
So let's not follow down the liberal path of idolatry. Let's renew our minds to the Word.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
A Few Thoughts at Year's End
At the close of every year I wonder how much longer it will be until Jesus comes back for His church. We know when the year ends but we do not know when the end of the age will be. Perhaps there are only days left, as there are in the year.
Are you ready?
I am.
**************************************
(This is a bit sardonic. Apologies in advance.)
I have always liked Philippians 4:8, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy- think about such things." I just wanted to note that 'cute' and 'adorable' are not in this list.
It is hard to keep one's mind on these things. The world has nothing that fits all these criteria.
*********************************
Oral Roberts, RIP.
In my Sunday School class I am teaching church history. We are discussing historical figures and how history will judge the impact of a person on the world. Now I am not saying that we judge the individual (that is forbidden by Matthew 7:1) or that we judge their ministry (that is forbidden in 1 Corinthians 4:5) but what their effect, for better or worse, is upon the church (in this case) or the world.
I use the example of Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence. Some have said that he was bad because he owned slaves. Okay, but what effect did that have on history? None. Many owned slaves in that time and place.
But his authorship of the Declaration and his other activities associated with the founding of our nation have had a tremendous effect on our nation and the world.
Let's look at Roberts from this perspective. Look past his faults and examine his effect on the church. Nobody besides Billy Graham has had as much impact as Oral Roberts had in the second half of the 20th century. He brought knowledge of divine healing to a skeptical church. If you pray for the sick to be healed by the direct action of God you probably should thank Roberts who did it very publicly. Whether you liked him or not you ought to acknowledge that divine healing and Pentecostal Christianity were made respectable to most of the church by his ministry. He also pioneered spreading the gospel by television when other Christians cursed "the Devil's box".
When Roberts began preaching in the late 40's, Pentecostal Christians were marginalized and generally despised. Today they are the most dynamic, and numerous, group of Protestant Christians in the world. (The numbers are now estimated to be over 500 million.) It is easily the fastest growing Christian movement in the world and shows no sign of stopping. It is hard to imagine this happening without Oral Roberts.
****************************************
A Happy New Year to all!
Are you ready?
I am.
**************************************
(This is a bit sardonic. Apologies in advance.)
I have always liked Philippians 4:8, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy- think about such things." I just wanted to note that 'cute' and 'adorable' are not in this list.
It is hard to keep one's mind on these things. The world has nothing that fits all these criteria.
*********************************
Oral Roberts, RIP.
In my Sunday School class I am teaching church history. We are discussing historical figures and how history will judge the impact of a person on the world. Now I am not saying that we judge the individual (that is forbidden by Matthew 7:1) or that we judge their ministry (that is forbidden in 1 Corinthians 4:5) but what their effect, for better or worse, is upon the church (in this case) or the world.
I use the example of Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence. Some have said that he was bad because he owned slaves. Okay, but what effect did that have on history? None. Many owned slaves in that time and place.
But his authorship of the Declaration and his other activities associated with the founding of our nation have had a tremendous effect on our nation and the world.
Let's look at Roberts from this perspective. Look past his faults and examine his effect on the church. Nobody besides Billy Graham has had as much impact as Oral Roberts had in the second half of the 20th century. He brought knowledge of divine healing to a skeptical church. If you pray for the sick to be healed by the direct action of God you probably should thank Roberts who did it very publicly. Whether you liked him or not you ought to acknowledge that divine healing and Pentecostal Christianity were made respectable to most of the church by his ministry. He also pioneered spreading the gospel by television when other Christians cursed "the Devil's box".
When Roberts began preaching in the late 40's, Pentecostal Christians were marginalized and generally despised. Today they are the most dynamic, and numerous, group of Protestant Christians in the world. (The numbers are now estimated to be over 500 million.) It is easily the fastest growing Christian movement in the world and shows no sign of stopping. It is hard to imagine this happening without Oral Roberts.
****************************************
A Happy New Year to all!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Change of Mind
Before I blog (is that a verb?) I usually think about my subject for a week or so and mull over what I am going to write. This week I had a topic all ready to go when something else presented itself to me that I now feel compelled to write about. In other words, I have changed my mind about what I would write about today.
My topic is now mainly about repentance. (The more clever of my readers will now realize that I am playing with my theme. The original meaning of the Greek word for repentance is 'change of mind'.) The reason that I changed my mind on the subject is twofold. First, my pastor has preached on repentance the last couple of Sundays and, second, I read a quote today in a book I was reading that really struck me as true.
It was a quote by G. K. Chesterton. It read, "There is a notion that to win a man [to the Lord] we must agree with him. Actually the opposite is true ... The man who is going in the wrong direction will never be set right by the affable religionist who falls into step beside him and goes the same way. Someone must place himself the path and insist that the straying man turn around and go in the right direction."
What Chesterton is telling us is that for a person to get right with God he must repent, he must change his mind, he must change the direction of his life. And he must do this in response to what Jesus did for him. He must believe that Jesus died for his sins and that God raised Him from the dead. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) And when He is the Lord of your life He will require that you stop sinning and do what He says you must do.
Some will say that this is very narrow. It is narrow and that is exactly what Jesus told us. He told us that the way to eternal life was narrow. That should settle it for us, but some are not satisfied with that. They want the church to be more inclusive. I do as well, but not necessarily in the same way they do. It all depends on what you mean by 'inclusive'.
I have heard some say that we must accept people of all kinds - whites, blacks, Hispanics, men, women, homosexuals and the like. I cannot help but notice something odd about a list like this. It is one thing to say that churches should accept people of all races and ethnicities, but what is the point of adding something that is behavior-based?
The reason is simple. They are trying to get the church to accept homosexual behavior and that is easier to do when you put them into categories alongside of race, gender and ethnicity. I think that this is a phony means of grouping people together. It is a list based on 'civil rights' and not on truly biblical categories. Homosexuals are a group of people who have certain sexual proclivities and one that the Bible categorically condemns. Now I am not suggesting that we reject homosexuals or bar them from church attendance. I am suggesting that we group them with other behavior-based groups. For example, we could say that God desires the salvation of all including the alcoholic, drug-addict, prostitute, thief, murderer, adulterer and homosexual. This is grouping according to behavior. And, of course, God does not approve of any of these activities. You will also find this kind of list in the Bible.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9) Notice that it speaks to the church at Corinth about what some of them used to do. Notice also that it lumps homosexuals in with other kinds of sinners. Then it says that some of the Corinthian Christians WERE these various things. They WERE homosexuals, swindlers, etc. But God has washed, sanctified and justified them and they are no longer any of these things. They repented and God cleansed them of their sins. When sinners come to God they must repent. Only then does God cleanse them.
I like the saying, "God accepts us the way we are". But that is not the end of it. He does not leave us the way were are (or were). He transforms us.
Other lists categorize people not based on behavior but on what they are naturally or socially. "Put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:10) This is the inclusiveness that the church needs. Every kind of person, regardless of ethnicity, social class, gender, and former relationship to God through Judaism are equal before God and should be accepted as equals in the church setting. We are all one in Christ. What we are naturally and socially speaking has no bearing on our spiritual relationship with God.
What does affect our relationship with God is our sin. We must acknowledge it as wrong and repent of it. Here is a great summary of this lesson. "God commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) This is really good news for all. God calls all to repentance and that means every group of people are included. All are included in the gospel and all are called to repent of their sins.
My topic is now mainly about repentance. (The more clever of my readers will now realize that I am playing with my theme. The original meaning of the Greek word for repentance is 'change of mind'.) The reason that I changed my mind on the subject is twofold. First, my pastor has preached on repentance the last couple of Sundays and, second, I read a quote today in a book I was reading that really struck me as true.
It was a quote by G. K. Chesterton. It read, "There is a notion that to win a man [to the Lord] we must agree with him. Actually the opposite is true ... The man who is going in the wrong direction will never be set right by the affable religionist who falls into step beside him and goes the same way. Someone must place himself the path and insist that the straying man turn around and go in the right direction."
What Chesterton is telling us is that for a person to get right with God he must repent, he must change his mind, he must change the direction of his life. And he must do this in response to what Jesus did for him. He must believe that Jesus died for his sins and that God raised Him from the dead. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9) And when He is the Lord of your life He will require that you stop sinning and do what He says you must do.
Some will say that this is very narrow. It is narrow and that is exactly what Jesus told us. He told us that the way to eternal life was narrow. That should settle it for us, but some are not satisfied with that. They want the church to be more inclusive. I do as well, but not necessarily in the same way they do. It all depends on what you mean by 'inclusive'.
I have heard some say that we must accept people of all kinds - whites, blacks, Hispanics, men, women, homosexuals and the like. I cannot help but notice something odd about a list like this. It is one thing to say that churches should accept people of all races and ethnicities, but what is the point of adding something that is behavior-based?
The reason is simple. They are trying to get the church to accept homosexual behavior and that is easier to do when you put them into categories alongside of race, gender and ethnicity. I think that this is a phony means of grouping people together. It is a list based on 'civil rights' and not on truly biblical categories. Homosexuals are a group of people who have certain sexual proclivities and one that the Bible categorically condemns. Now I am not suggesting that we reject homosexuals or bar them from church attendance. I am suggesting that we group them with other behavior-based groups. For example, we could say that God desires the salvation of all including the alcoholic, drug-addict, prostitute, thief, murderer, adulterer and homosexual. This is grouping according to behavior. And, of course, God does not approve of any of these activities. You will also find this kind of list in the Bible.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9) Notice that it speaks to the church at Corinth about what some of them used to do. Notice also that it lumps homosexuals in with other kinds of sinners. Then it says that some of the Corinthian Christians WERE these various things. They WERE homosexuals, swindlers, etc. But God has washed, sanctified and justified them and they are no longer any of these things. They repented and God cleansed them of their sins. When sinners come to God they must repent. Only then does God cleanse them.
I like the saying, "God accepts us the way we are". But that is not the end of it. He does not leave us the way were are (or were). He transforms us.
Other lists categorize people not based on behavior but on what they are naturally or socially. "Put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:10) This is the inclusiveness that the church needs. Every kind of person, regardless of ethnicity, social class, gender, and former relationship to God through Judaism are equal before God and should be accepted as equals in the church setting. We are all one in Christ. What we are naturally and socially speaking has no bearing on our spiritual relationship with God.
What does affect our relationship with God is our sin. We must acknowledge it as wrong and repent of it. Here is a great summary of this lesson. "God commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) This is really good news for all. God calls all to repentance and that means every group of people are included. All are included in the gospel and all are called to repent of their sins.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Spiritual Economics Lesson
My undergraduate degree is in economics though my graduate degree is in theology. I imagine it's a rare combination. Economics has been called the 'dismal science' and is boring to most people. However, I have found that the kinds of analyses that economists use can be useful to gain a better understanding of issues that face Christians today.
I recall years ago reading some material regarding what is called "Liberation Theology". Now it sounds very good and has seduced some who care deeply for the poor, but it is basically Marxism in Christian garb. I immediately recognized the Marxist social and economic themes that dominate this false theology.
Now most of us are not going to fall for that sort of thing, but there are some more subtle things that Christians do fall for some times. One of them is confusing intrinsic worth of something (or someone) with its value in the marketplace. When someone is paid, say, $10.00 per hour to do some job, the employer is not saying that that is what this person is worth as a person. They are saying what the job they are performing is worth. No employer could possibly pay someone what they were worth as a person. (Only Jesus could do that.)
Let's look at some of the distinctions that economists make to help us understand this better. Aristotle (who might be considered the world's first economist) made the distinction between value-in-use and value-in-exchange. The classic example of these two things is diamonds and water. The value-in-exchange (price) of a diamond is much higher than that of water. I get water to the faucets of my house for about $25 per month and I use thousands of gallons a month. That is cheap. Can you imagine what the cost of that would be if it were diamonds? It would be astronomical because the value-in-exchange of diamonds is many times that of water.
But what about value-in-use? Which one is greater? Water is much more useful than diamonds. You can live without diamonds but you cannot live without water. This does not mean, however, that water ought to cost more than diamonds. Indeed, it is very good thing that water does not cost more than diamonds. We need more of the things that have a high value-in-use. The fact that diamonds cost more is irrelevant to the value we place on water.
Well, so what? Too dismal for you?
Have you ever heard someone say something like this: "We pay pro basketball players millions of dollars a year and we pay our school teachers only a fraction of that. Doesn't that show that our society places a much lower value on teachers than it does basketball players?" No, it does not! What we pay basketball players has no bearing on the value we place on school teachers.
Let's break this down. There are about 400 NBA players and millions of fans. But there are hundreds of thousands of school teachers with millions of students. We actually pay more in total to school teachers than we do to basketball players, but there are far fewer players so each player gets more.
Let's pose a hypothetical. Let's pay an NBA player $1 per fan per game at the arena. There are 82 games per year and let's say that attendance averages 15,000 per game. 82 times 15,000 equals $1.23 million per year. We have not included advertising and TV revenues here and we are only paying the player a dollar per person!
Now for our hypothetical school teacher. Let's pay the teacher $1 per student in a class. The teacher teaches 25 students per class and teaches 6 classes a day. There are 180 school days. 25 times 6 times 180 equals $27,000 per year.
It is easy to see that the teacher is paid much less than the basketball player, but can we really say that the basketball player is overpaid? Not really. His income, by this analysis, seems quite reasonable. Each fan is only paying a dollar to see him play. Is the teacher underpaid? Perhaps so, but it has nothing to do with the basketball player.
Also, and more importantly, I have no doubt that if you asked the most rabid basketball fan if he would rather have teachers or the NBA that he would choose the teachers. In other words, the teachers have a higher value-in-use. The price of a basketball player is much higher than that of a school teacher, but that is a good thing. If we paid teachers like basketball players it would bankrupt all of us. It is not possible. So why begrudge a basketball player his money? It has nothing to do with the 'value' we place on teachers. Teachers are like water - cheap, abundant and valuable. Basketball players are like diamonds - rare, expensive, entertaining and expendable.
Now back to our original subject.
The value of something in the marketplace is not how that society determines its intrinsic value. That is because prices and wages are determined by the laws of supply and demand and not by some sort of evaluation of its intrinsic worth. In fact, the things with the most intrinsic worth (water, for example) are cheaper because they are abundant. Where it is not abundant it becomes very expensive and that is a bad thing. We need things of high intrinsic value (water, food, clothing) to be abundant and cheap, that is, affordable to all.
You might be saying that this is all very interesting but what does it have to do with being a Christian. First of all, I have heard Christians talk about things like this in the pulpit and in Sunday Schools, etc. They make the same mistakes that the world does about these things. Except that they are worse. I have heard Christians condemn the supposedly higher value that we place on entertainers than we do on more necessary things. Now that may be true but the examples used are fallacious.
What a basketball player or movie star is paid has to do with the demand for their services and what price the market will bear. But this is not really the issue at all. The issue, if there is one, is the amount of attention we may pay to these things to the detriment of our spiritual lives. That is a real issue. What someone is paid is not really an issue at all. Too often we focus on the material side of something instead of the real, spiritual issues.
I recall years ago reading some material regarding what is called "Liberation Theology". Now it sounds very good and has seduced some who care deeply for the poor, but it is basically Marxism in Christian garb. I immediately recognized the Marxist social and economic themes that dominate this false theology.
Now most of us are not going to fall for that sort of thing, but there are some more subtle things that Christians do fall for some times. One of them is confusing intrinsic worth of something (or someone) with its value in the marketplace. When someone is paid, say, $10.00 per hour to do some job, the employer is not saying that that is what this person is worth as a person. They are saying what the job they are performing is worth. No employer could possibly pay someone what they were worth as a person. (Only Jesus could do that.)
Let's look at some of the distinctions that economists make to help us understand this better. Aristotle (who might be considered the world's first economist) made the distinction between value-in-use and value-in-exchange. The classic example of these two things is diamonds and water. The value-in-exchange (price) of a diamond is much higher than that of water. I get water to the faucets of my house for about $25 per month and I use thousands of gallons a month. That is cheap. Can you imagine what the cost of that would be if it were diamonds? It would be astronomical because the value-in-exchange of diamonds is many times that of water.
But what about value-in-use? Which one is greater? Water is much more useful than diamonds. You can live without diamonds but you cannot live without water. This does not mean, however, that water ought to cost more than diamonds. Indeed, it is very good thing that water does not cost more than diamonds. We need more of the things that have a high value-in-use. The fact that diamonds cost more is irrelevant to the value we place on water.
Well, so what? Too dismal for you?
Have you ever heard someone say something like this: "We pay pro basketball players millions of dollars a year and we pay our school teachers only a fraction of that. Doesn't that show that our society places a much lower value on teachers than it does basketball players?" No, it does not! What we pay basketball players has no bearing on the value we place on school teachers.
Let's break this down. There are about 400 NBA players and millions of fans. But there are hundreds of thousands of school teachers with millions of students. We actually pay more in total to school teachers than we do to basketball players, but there are far fewer players so each player gets more.
Let's pose a hypothetical. Let's pay an NBA player $1 per fan per game at the arena. There are 82 games per year and let's say that attendance averages 15,000 per game. 82 times 15,000 equals $1.23 million per year. We have not included advertising and TV revenues here and we are only paying the player a dollar per person!
Now for our hypothetical school teacher. Let's pay the teacher $1 per student in a class. The teacher teaches 25 students per class and teaches 6 classes a day. There are 180 school days. 25 times 6 times 180 equals $27,000 per year.
It is easy to see that the teacher is paid much less than the basketball player, but can we really say that the basketball player is overpaid? Not really. His income, by this analysis, seems quite reasonable. Each fan is only paying a dollar to see him play. Is the teacher underpaid? Perhaps so, but it has nothing to do with the basketball player.
Also, and more importantly, I have no doubt that if you asked the most rabid basketball fan if he would rather have teachers or the NBA that he would choose the teachers. In other words, the teachers have a higher value-in-use. The price of a basketball player is much higher than that of a school teacher, but that is a good thing. If we paid teachers like basketball players it would bankrupt all of us. It is not possible. So why begrudge a basketball player his money? It has nothing to do with the 'value' we place on teachers. Teachers are like water - cheap, abundant and valuable. Basketball players are like diamonds - rare, expensive, entertaining and expendable.
Now back to our original subject.
The value of something in the marketplace is not how that society determines its intrinsic value. That is because prices and wages are determined by the laws of supply and demand and not by some sort of evaluation of its intrinsic worth. In fact, the things with the most intrinsic worth (water, for example) are cheaper because they are abundant. Where it is not abundant it becomes very expensive and that is a bad thing. We need things of high intrinsic value (water, food, clothing) to be abundant and cheap, that is, affordable to all.
You might be saying that this is all very interesting but what does it have to do with being a Christian. First of all, I have heard Christians talk about things like this in the pulpit and in Sunday Schools, etc. They make the same mistakes that the world does about these things. Except that they are worse. I have heard Christians condemn the supposedly higher value that we place on entertainers than we do on more necessary things. Now that may be true but the examples used are fallacious.
What a basketball player or movie star is paid has to do with the demand for their services and what price the market will bear. But this is not really the issue at all. The issue, if there is one, is the amount of attention we may pay to these things to the detriment of our spiritual lives. That is a real issue. What someone is paid is not really an issue at all. Too often we focus on the material side of something instead of the real, spiritual issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)