This has been an eventful week in the USA. The peaceful transfer of power is always quite a spectacular display of democracy and freedom. This week was no exception. I found myself proud of the character displayed by both of this week's Presidents.
First, I sat with admiration as the first person of color was sworn in as the President of the United States. I remember the days of race riots. I remember watching Martin Luther King Jr. walk down a street near our home. At the time I wondered: Why does everyone seem so angry? This last summer we visited the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. It was a sobering visit. The dream of Martin Luther King Jr. has been realized.
I am proud of President Obama for thanking President Bush for his hard work at making a smooth transition. I am proud that one of his first acts as President was to establish an ethics mandate for his own staff. I am proud he has selected a variety of people to the cabinet. Way to lead by example, Mr. President! It is my prayer that President Obama will continue to lead with wisdom and with the special wisdom that comes from the Spirit of God.
I am also proud of President Bush. Though vilified in the media for four years he held to his principles. Though dismissed during the Republican convention and abandoned by his own party, he remained kind. Though blamed for everything from the missing WMD (that was at least partly his fault) to the economic situation (not really his fault) he did not strike out. He did not blame. Though he was ridiculed on talk shows by people who acted like children, President Bush continued to act like the President. He continued to act honorably. He was gracious to President-elect Obama even though he knew this man opposed many of the things he fought for. I hope both men have as much class as they seemed to have this last week. President Bush kept us safe for eight years. I'm sorry he was not treated with the honor and respect he deserved.
It may seem unusual to express both of these men because they come from different parties and ideologies. However, they both exemplify what is good about the United States of America.
Now, if we could get some work done in the State of Illinois!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Defining Truth
Much of the debate about religion in our society stems from a single question: "What is our standard for measuring what is true?" Is it personal opinion, political clout, public opinion, the Bible, the Koran or some other standard?
I would contend the Bible is the only true standard of truth. It is indeed God's Word delivered through the hands of men who have been supernaturally guided by God's Spirit to communicate the heart of God to sinful humanity. We are to measure our views by what the Bible says.
I don't intend to go into the arguments for trusting the Bible in this post. I do want to make an observation. Increasingly there are those who claim the Bible as their authority who feel free to dismiss various parts of the Bible as not truly from God or as no longer relevant. This is troublesome.
Let's be clear. Christians who submit to the Word of God as their authority do disagree on issues. Sometimes it is hard to know how to apply Scriptural truth. These discussions are usually helpful.
It is also very difficult to know how to interpret some of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. I understand this struggle. How are we supposed to view the food laws of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament that seems to argue that all things are clean in Christ? How do we view the purification laws and the sacrifices? How do we view the capital punishment commands of the Old Testament in light of the emphasis on love and forgiveness in the New Testament? Christians will continue to struggle with these questions.
I'm more troubled by selective readings of New Testament passages (such as passages on greed, homosexuality, prejudice, the definition of marriage, and the way of salvation). When people dismiss what the New Testament clearly teaches and conclude that such things are no longer authoritative, then the Bible is no longer the standard of truth . . .we are! When we stand as "editors" of Scripture we take up a position of authority over the Word of God!! The Bible calls that idolatry.
When we no longer submit our thinking to the Word of God but instead submit the Word to our opinions, truth becomes slippery. Truth then will be defined differently for each person depending on what that person wants to call authoritative. That's not truth, that's confusion.
We need to once again be people of "the Book".
I would contend the Bible is the only true standard of truth. It is indeed God's Word delivered through the hands of men who have been supernaturally guided by God's Spirit to communicate the heart of God to sinful humanity. We are to measure our views by what the Bible says.
I don't intend to go into the arguments for trusting the Bible in this post. I do want to make an observation. Increasingly there are those who claim the Bible as their authority who feel free to dismiss various parts of the Bible as not truly from God or as no longer relevant. This is troublesome.
Let's be clear. Christians who submit to the Word of God as their authority do disagree on issues. Sometimes it is hard to know how to apply Scriptural truth. These discussions are usually helpful.
It is also very difficult to know how to interpret some of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. I understand this struggle. How are we supposed to view the food laws of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament that seems to argue that all things are clean in Christ? How do we view the purification laws and the sacrifices? How do we view the capital punishment commands of the Old Testament in light of the emphasis on love and forgiveness in the New Testament? Christians will continue to struggle with these questions.
I'm more troubled by selective readings of New Testament passages (such as passages on greed, homosexuality, prejudice, the definition of marriage, and the way of salvation). When people dismiss what the New Testament clearly teaches and conclude that such things are no longer authoritative, then the Bible is no longer the standard of truth . . .we are! When we stand as "editors" of Scripture we take up a position of authority over the Word of God!! The Bible calls that idolatry.
When we no longer submit our thinking to the Word of God but instead submit the Word to our opinions, truth becomes slippery. Truth then will be defined differently for each person depending on what that person wants to call authoritative. That's not truth, that's confusion.
We need to once again be people of "the Book".
Thursday, January 15, 2009
BOOK REVIEW: Approaching God
Rick and I thought it would be valuable to add reviews of the books we are reading to our blog. I recently finished reading APPROACHING GOD Accepting the Invitation to Stand in the Presence of God. by Steve Brown (New York: Howard Books 2008)
Steve Brown is often called irreverent because of his sometimes brash and unorthodox style. I think of Brown as uncommonly honest.
The thing that was refreshing about this book was that it was not a push to spend so many minutes praying about certain things. The book is an invitation to a relationship with God. It is penetrating in it's appraisal of some of our shallow spirituality. Brown recognizes that too often our prayer times are stiff rituals that lack intimacy.
Brown believes in prayer. In fact, scattered throughout the book are stories of people who testify of God's remarkable answers to their prayers. Brown believes prayer is vital and important. He believes prayer's power comes not from the form of our prayer but the heart of our prayer. His emphasis is on developing a relationship with God.
This is a book that everyone can understand. It is a book that will leave you saying, "I can do this". [BAG]
Steve Brown is often called irreverent because of his sometimes brash and unorthodox style. I think of Brown as uncommonly honest.
The thing that was refreshing about this book was that it was not a push to spend so many minutes praying about certain things. The book is an invitation to a relationship with God. It is penetrating in it's appraisal of some of our shallow spirituality. Brown recognizes that too often our prayer times are stiff rituals that lack intimacy.
Brown believes in prayer. In fact, scattered throughout the book are stories of people who testify of God's remarkable answers to their prayers. Brown believes prayer is vital and important. He believes prayer's power comes not from the form of our prayer but the heart of our prayer. His emphasis is on developing a relationship with God.
This is a book that everyone can understand. It is a book that will leave you saying, "I can do this". [BAG]
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Abortion Debate Confusion
I must admit the whole abortion debate confuses me.
The Bible tells us that each person is created in the image of God. This means they are of intrinsic value. I know some say this doesn't relate to the abortion debate because a baby does not become "human" until they are born. Yet parents talk to this baby, view their pictures, and perform surgery on them . . . all before they are "alive". Preemies survive at earlier and earlier ages. I don't understand how this baby could be seen as "not human" until they are delivered. Most mothers are excited the moment they learn they are pregnant. If they lose that baby through a miscarriage, try telling them that what they were carrying was really "nothing."
I'm confused because many of the same people who campaign for the ethical treatment of animals have no problem supporting and cheering for the killing of innocent children in the womb. Many of those who clamor for tougher rules for the protection of the environment so that our children will also be able to enjoy the world are also OK with killing those children in the womb. Some of the same people who protest any military actions support ending a babies life. That confuses me.
The soundbite talks about "pro-choice" yet it seems to me that no one is trying to take a woman's choice away from her. Men and women can freely choose to engage in activities that have a risk of pregnancy! However, once a person has freely chosen why should they not have to live with the consequence of their actions? Freedom and consequence go together. If a person freely chooses to engage in intercourse I don't understand why it should be law that the person does not have to live with the consequences for that choice. Why must the baby lose it's freedom so that the parents don't have to live with the consequences of their free choices? Why is this position called pro-choice rather than anti-consequence?
I wonder if this idea that we should not have to live with the consequences of our choices in this issue isn't the foundation for all the frivolous lawsuits (I put my hot coffee between my legs and got burned so now the restaurant should compensate me for the consequence of MY stupid choice). Is this what is leading to the truckload of cases where people feel they should not be punished for murder? I just don't get it.
I am confused by those who say an abortion is a "simple procedure". Really? This is a real surgery with the risk of bleeding, scarring and more. I also find it hard to believe that these women don't look back one day and wonder what life would have been like if they had kept the child they destroyed. Every time they see a child around the age of the child they destroyed I find it hard to believe there is no regret or sadness.
I know there are people having children who are not fit to be parents. I know there are people having children simply to get the welfare money. I know there are people who are raped and turn up pregnant. These are tough issues but I'm just not convinced that ending the life of the baby and creating this idea that you can be sexually reckless without consequence is the way to address even these toughest of issues.
I hear all the debates but I have to tell you . . . I just don't get it.
The Bible tells us that each person is created in the image of God. This means they are of intrinsic value. I know some say this doesn't relate to the abortion debate because a baby does not become "human" until they are born. Yet parents talk to this baby, view their pictures, and perform surgery on them . . . all before they are "alive". Preemies survive at earlier and earlier ages. I don't understand how this baby could be seen as "not human" until they are delivered. Most mothers are excited the moment they learn they are pregnant. If they lose that baby through a miscarriage, try telling them that what they were carrying was really "nothing."
I'm confused because many of the same people who campaign for the ethical treatment of animals have no problem supporting and cheering for the killing of innocent children in the womb. Many of those who clamor for tougher rules for the protection of the environment so that our children will also be able to enjoy the world are also OK with killing those children in the womb. Some of the same people who protest any military actions support ending a babies life. That confuses me.
The soundbite talks about "pro-choice" yet it seems to me that no one is trying to take a woman's choice away from her. Men and women can freely choose to engage in activities that have a risk of pregnancy! However, once a person has freely chosen why should they not have to live with the consequence of their actions? Freedom and consequence go together. If a person freely chooses to engage in intercourse I don't understand why it should be law that the person does not have to live with the consequences for that choice. Why must the baby lose it's freedom so that the parents don't have to live with the consequences of their free choices? Why is this position called pro-choice rather than anti-consequence?
I wonder if this idea that we should not have to live with the consequences of our choices in this issue isn't the foundation for all the frivolous lawsuits (I put my hot coffee between my legs and got burned so now the restaurant should compensate me for the consequence of MY stupid choice). Is this what is leading to the truckload of cases where people feel they should not be punished for murder? I just don't get it.
I am confused by those who say an abortion is a "simple procedure". Really? This is a real surgery with the risk of bleeding, scarring and more. I also find it hard to believe that these women don't look back one day and wonder what life would have been like if they had kept the child they destroyed. Every time they see a child around the age of the child they destroyed I find it hard to believe there is no regret or sadness.
I know there are people having children who are not fit to be parents. I know there are people having children simply to get the welfare money. I know there are people who are raped and turn up pregnant. These are tough issues but I'm just not convinced that ending the life of the baby and creating this idea that you can be sexually reckless without consequence is the way to address even these toughest of issues.
I hear all the debates but I have to tell you . . . I just don't get it.
Friday, January 9, 2009
What is a Good Church?
The church (speaking generally, not of the Union Church) is certainly in a state of disarray. Leadership often denies the authority of the Bible, negotiates spiritual truth, and is more concerned about size than message.
I'm currently reading the book Stop Dating the Church by Joshua Harris (I recommend it to you.) It's a small book that contains some pretty good wisdom. In one of the chapters Harris gives ten guidelines when looking for a good church to commit to. Here they are:
I'm currently reading the book Stop Dating the Church by Joshua Harris (I recommend it to you.) It's a small book that contains some pretty good wisdom. In one of the chapters Harris gives ten guidelines when looking for a good church to commit to. Here they are:
- Is this a church where God's word is faithfully taught? Every church reads the Bible but not all of them truly teach the Scriptures. Another way of stating it is this, Do the messages teach the scriptures or are the Scriptures used to support the teaching of men?
- Is this a church where sound doctrine matters? Does the church know what it believes and care about these beliefs?
- Is this a church in which the gospel is cherished and clearly proclaimed? In other words, does the church believe people need to be changed by trusting Christ?
- Is this a church committed to reaching non-Christians with the gospel?
- Is this a church whose leaders are characterized by humility and integrity?
- Is this a church where people strive to live by God's Word?
- Is this a church where I can find and cultivate godly relationships?
- Is this a church where members are challenged to serve?
- Is this a church that is willing to kick me out? In other words, does it take sin and its consequences seriously?
- Is this a church I'm willing to join "as is" (rather than thinking I need to change the church) with enthusiasm and faith in God?
Harris points out that no church does these things perfectly. He also cautions us to have the right attitude when looking at churches.
The point is important: we need to pick our church carefully. We are careful about selecting our food, our vehicles, our partners in life . . . . we should be equally careful (if not more so) about choosing the place that will help us prepare to serve God now and to enjoy Him in eternity.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Do All Roads Lead to Heaven
A survey at the end of the year provided some disturbing findings. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life did a survey that concluded
"A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life. Indeed, among Christians who believe many religions can lead to eternal life, 80% name at least one non-Christian faith that can do so. These are among the key findings of a national survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life from July 31-Aug. 10, 2008, among 2,905 adults."http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380
In other words, many "Christians" believe that you can get to Heaven in ways other than through faith in Jesus Christ.
The New York Times had an Op-ed piece where the writer suggested that this is a good thing because it means we are being nicer to each other.
There is no doubt that our society believes that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere (unless of course you believe that there is an ultimate standard of truth . . . then you are just plain wrong, empty-headed and apparently mean). The fact that people claiming to be Christians are saying these things is very troubling for several reasons.
"A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life. Indeed, among Christians who believe many religions can lead to eternal life, 80% name at least one non-Christian faith that can do so. These are among the key findings of a national survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life from July 31-Aug. 10, 2008, among 2,905 adults."http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380
In other words, many "Christians" believe that you can get to Heaven in ways other than through faith in Jesus Christ.
The New York Times had an Op-ed piece where the writer suggested that this is a good thing because it means we are being nicer to each other.
There is no doubt that our society believes that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere (unless of course you believe that there is an ultimate standard of truth . . . then you are just plain wrong, empty-headed and apparently mean). The fact that people claiming to be Christians are saying these things is very troubling for several reasons.
First It is not what Jesus teaches. Jesus told us that He is "the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him." This is the consistent message of the New Testament . . . we do not simply believe something and we will be saved . . .we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Second It negates the work of the cross. If we can get to Heaven without Christ then His death as a payment for our sin was unnecessary. Jesus is no longer the King of King and Lord of Lords . . . He is a messenger from God who has called us to love each other.
Third It diminishes the character of God. Now some people would disagree with me. They would say that inclusiveness reveals God as more loving. No . . . I think it makes Him less holy.
The cross of Jesus says God cares about sin and evil. It is an offense to Him. It also says God cares about us . . . so much so that Jesus took the penalty we deserved upon Himself so we might have the opportunity to know forgiveness and a measure of amnesty for our past without compromising God's holy and good character.
If there was a Judge who refused to hold to the Law but simply let everyone off because he believed everyone was good at heart we would hopefully get that guy off of the bench. He is not a just Judge. It is the same with God. To simply shrug at sin does not make Him good . . . it actually makes Him less than good.
Fourth it is actually unloving to adopt such a belief. If the Bible is the standard of truth (which I believe wholeheartedly), and Jesus is the only way to Heaven (as the Bible says), then to simply shrug and let everyone do their own thing is an act of indifference, not kindness. To not tell someone the truth of the gospel simply to be "nice" to others, is to do nothing as they head to an eternity facing Hell.
I know such teaching isn't popular. However, it's the truth . . .and it is the truth alone that can set people free.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Obamamania
In a couple of weeks Barak Obama will become President of the United States. I believe Mr. Obama is a good man who wants to do what is best for the country. What concerns me are the incredible expectations. As the old saying goes: "even the best of men are only men at best."
When such huge expectations are placed on someone things can get terribly distorted. People make foolish decisions trying to live up to expectations. People may begin to put the confidence they should place in God, in an earthly leader and a system, that has proved to be anything but flawless.
We must be careful! The problems that we now have as a country were not caused by George W. Bush. They are the culmination of years and years of short-sighted decisions and runaway greed. Our problems will not be solved by throwing money at them. Such well-meaning actions may just make things worse (as we learn from Herbert Hoover). This is a time for careful wisdom. This is a time for cautious action. This is not a time to put our hope in men. This is a time when prayer for wisdom and God's influence should be our top priority.
When such huge expectations are placed on someone things can get terribly distorted. People make foolish decisions trying to live up to expectations. People may begin to put the confidence they should place in God, in an earthly leader and a system, that has proved to be anything but flawless.
We must be careful! The problems that we now have as a country were not caused by George W. Bush. They are the culmination of years and years of short-sighted decisions and runaway greed. Our problems will not be solved by throwing money at them. Such well-meaning actions may just make things worse (as we learn from Herbert Hoover). This is a time for careful wisdom. This is a time for cautious action. This is not a time to put our hope in men. This is a time when prayer for wisdom and God's influence should be our top priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)