Impotent Immanuel
Acts 1:8-But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (NIV)
Where is the power of the Holy Spirit in our communities today? Even in many of the charismatic churches the power of the Holy Spirit is not seen outside the church walls or outside the walls of home prayer/bible studies. God is with us, not only in our churches but outside them. When the curtain of the temple tore it represented the releasing of God's presence from the temple to the world, all were given access to the holy of holies through Christ. As Christians when the Holy Spirit comes on us we are empowered, to be witnesses to the world.
Holy Spirit empowerment is not meant to be kept in the church, it is given to us so that we can be witnesses to the ends of the earth. God is with us and he is not impotent. When we ignore the power of the Holy Spirit or keep it in our churches we are treating God as if he is impotent. It is about time that those outside our churches see the power of the Holy Spirit on their streets and in their lives. It is no wonder that Churches are closing all around the states and more and more people are turning away from God. The church will not see the fullness of its power in the Spirit if it does not move out in to the community.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Ex Nihilo. . . No, No
This article can be looked at as a double sided dagger, that is it is cutting two different ways at one time. I will be bringing up a new way to look at creatio ex nihilo while also exposing the importance of semantics in Christian theological discussion.
Let us begin with the problem of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The phrase is commonly used to describe how God created the universe. The argument goes that God created everything from nothing, he did not use any other material. As Genesis says, God spoke and it came into being. This language is not only misleading it is wrong. God did not create ex nihilo he created ex dei (out of god). God has always triunly existed (father, son, spirit). Creation was an outflowing of this eternal relationship. Creation did not come from nothing, it came from God. It is time we give credit where credit should be given. God, not nothing, should be credited for the universe. I do not believe that those who hold to a creatio ex nihilo theology of creation, would think I am saying anything wrong. They might however say, "we are not saying that God did not create, what we are saying is that God did not use any outside material when he created." To this I would have to suggest that we use the language creatio ex dei since it captures what actually happened. God created from himself, not from nothing.
This brings us to semantics. The old cl'ech'e goes "let's not argue over semantics," needs to be put to rest. Semantics are what allow us to communicate clearly. When we discuss semantics we are usually discussing the smaller meanings behind what the greater message is. In the argument of creatio ex nihilo vs. creatio ex dei the big issue is that God created, and the smaller meaning behind that big issue is how he did it. While in discussion among other Christians the semantical issues may seem meaningless (or at least not critical), although to those outside the Christian culture, semantics are huge. As stated earlier, semantics allow us to communicate clearly. As Christians when discussing theology it is imperative that we are careful to say what we mean. For, if we do not we run the risk of being gravely misinterpreted.
For the sake of clarity and to avoid being misinterpreted I must add one more paragraph. When I cay that God created ex dei, I am not saying that he created by spreading himself out, that is I am not saying that all matter is made up of God. What I am saying is that when God created he created by the means of himself. Matter was an outflowing of the triune relationship (which may be the topic of a future post).
Let us begin with the problem of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The phrase is commonly used to describe how God created the universe. The argument goes that God created everything from nothing, he did not use any other material. As Genesis says, God spoke and it came into being. This language is not only misleading it is wrong. God did not create ex nihilo he created ex dei (out of god). God has always triunly existed (father, son, spirit). Creation was an outflowing of this eternal relationship. Creation did not come from nothing, it came from God. It is time we give credit where credit should be given. God, not nothing, should be credited for the universe. I do not believe that those who hold to a creatio ex nihilo theology of creation, would think I am saying anything wrong. They might however say, "we are not saying that God did not create, what we are saying is that God did not use any outside material when he created." To this I would have to suggest that we use the language creatio ex dei since it captures what actually happened. God created from himself, not from nothing.
This brings us to semantics. The old cl'ech'e goes "let's not argue over semantics," needs to be put to rest. Semantics are what allow us to communicate clearly. When we discuss semantics we are usually discussing the smaller meanings behind what the greater message is. In the argument of creatio ex nihilo vs. creatio ex dei the big issue is that God created, and the smaller meaning behind that big issue is how he did it. While in discussion among other Christians the semantical issues may seem meaningless (or at least not critical), although to those outside the Christian culture, semantics are huge. As stated earlier, semantics allow us to communicate clearly. As Christians when discussing theology it is imperative that we are careful to say what we mean. For, if we do not we run the risk of being gravely misinterpreted.
For the sake of clarity and to avoid being misinterpreted I must add one more paragraph. When I cay that God created ex dei, I am not saying that he created by spreading himself out, that is I am not saying that all matter is made up of God. What I am saying is that when God created he created by the means of himself. Matter was an outflowing of the triune relationship (which may be the topic of a future post).
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Crippled Christ vol. 2
Paralyzed Potentate
We as the church are lead by an all powerful king (potentate) yet we treat him as if he has no power. We in effect paralyze the potentate when we ignore his healing power in our churches and culture. The body of Christ does not exist to build itself up, it is not an inwardly focused body. So much focus has been put on preaching the gospel, that we have forgotten to live the gospel. When we deny the healing power of God we paralyze the healing arms and legs of the body of Christ.
Healing is a part of God's redemptive work in the world. Throughout scriptures healing is present, healing has and always will be a part of God's work with humanity. By rejecting healing, or ignoring it we turn from that which at the heart of the gospel. In Luke 4:14-21 it is revealed that Jesus has come to preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners, restore sight for the blind, and to release the oppressed, then he went out and did that. We sing songs such as "Amazing Grace" and believe that we need healing of spiritual sight. Jesus went out spit in the mud and healed physically. He told the lame to get up and walk and they did. It is rare to see healing happening in our churches. Don't get me wrong, healing is more than just physical, however healing from God includes spiritual and physical healing. It is time this is recognized and the body of Christ starts moving out and healing those in their communities. The gospel includes healing. As Leslie Newbigin has said "preaching is meaningless without . . . healings" (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 132).
One final clarification, salvation does not equal physical healing. People who are not healed can be saved. However this is no reason to abandon healing, healing is part of salvation.
We as the church are lead by an all powerful king (potentate) yet we treat him as if he has no power. We in effect paralyze the potentate when we ignore his healing power in our churches and culture. The body of Christ does not exist to build itself up, it is not an inwardly focused body. So much focus has been put on preaching the gospel, that we have forgotten to live the gospel. When we deny the healing power of God we paralyze the healing arms and legs of the body of Christ.
Healing is a part of God's redemptive work in the world. Throughout scriptures healing is present, healing has and always will be a part of God's work with humanity. By rejecting healing, or ignoring it we turn from that which at the heart of the gospel. In Luke 4:14-21 it is revealed that Jesus has come to preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners, restore sight for the blind, and to release the oppressed, then he went out and did that. We sing songs such as "Amazing Grace" and believe that we need healing of spiritual sight. Jesus went out spit in the mud and healed physically. He told the lame to get up and walk and they did. It is rare to see healing happening in our churches. Don't get me wrong, healing is more than just physical, however healing from God includes spiritual and physical healing. It is time this is recognized and the body of Christ starts moving out and healing those in their communities. The gospel includes healing. As Leslie Newbigin has said "preaching is meaningless without . . . healings" (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 132).
One final clarification, salvation does not equal physical healing. People who are not healed can be saved. However this is no reason to abandon healing, healing is part of salvation.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Who or what do you worship?
About a month ago I was listening to the radio and John MacArthur was ripping on Brian McLaren and the emergent church movement. MacArthur admittedly was not able to follow McLaren's arguments saying, "how can you make an argument against someone who does not make sense." He then went on to make statements against the emergent church movement saying that those in the movement have created a new god for themselves. As he was speaking, he was continually saying that his beliefs are based on the Bible, that church needs to be biblically based, he kept pushing that everything came back to the Bible. With this continuous rhetoric of getting back to the Bible and basing everything on the Bible I realized something, it appeared that he was making a new god for himself. He appeared to be making an idol of the Bible. As I mentioned this to others and began observing churches and Christian conversations, this is not an idol which is limited to MacArthur. I believe that the biggest drawback of evangelicalism is that it has begun (or has been) worshiping the Bible and not the God revealed through the Bible. Since developing this conclusion I have seen this everywhere and have been bringing it up everywhere, this tends to be a sub-theme of my posts and conversations. I am now making it the theme of this post and this conversation.
This idolatry is found everywhere. When you look at the doctrinal statements of most churches they begin with their #1 statement being something to the tune of, "we believe scripture to be the authoritative, inerrant, word of God." Then after that comes either their statements on christology or the trinity. I think it is ridiculous that the godhead is not listed as #1 on every doctrinal statement. I know that most churches would agree that the order is not done because of priority, however it does say something when the first thing mentioned of what is important continues to be the Bible not God.
Another place where this idolatry is found is in the way Christians speak. When discussing theology or preaching we almost always support our arguments by saying, "in the Bible it says," or simply, "the Bible says," both of these show that we are trusting a book not God. The authority of scripture comes from it being the word of God. Why don't we say, "in the Bible God says," or simply, "God says?"
Another way this idolatry is found in our conversations is how we label things. We have, "biblical theology," "biblical leadership," "biblical seminaries," "Bible churches," "Bible schools/colleges," and the list goes on and on. The emphasis is put on the Bible not on God.
One more example came up in an evangelism class which I had. The professor asked if someone could be saved with out knowledge of the Bible. The class tended to think that a person must have at least some understanding of the Bible to be a Christian. I found this to be outrageous. Being a Christian is about having a relationship with God, not about reading a book, even if it is the recorded word of that God (which I believe the Bible is).
I do not want you to misunderstand me. I think that the Bible is the written word of God. I think that the Bible is inerrant. I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. I even believe that Paul wrote all the epistles credited to him, and that Jonah spent some time in the belly of a big fish. However I do not think that the Bible is the crowning achievement of Christianity. I think that that belongs to Christ who was sent by the Father in the Spirit, who reigns and will reign forever. I think that if we are going to get back to authentic Christianity it means that we need to get back to the authentic Christ not back to the Bible. I think that if we are going to get back to the heart of worship and not continue in idolatry we need to realize that it is all about Him, we need to worship God and God alone. As the Israelites thought they could control God through the ark of the Covenant, and began worshiping the ark, we as Christians are in danger of trying to control God through the Bible and worshiping the Bible. If we do fall prey to this form of idolatry we may be found without a god like the Israelites after the Philistines took the ark.
This idolatry is found everywhere. When you look at the doctrinal statements of most churches they begin with their #1 statement being something to the tune of, "we believe scripture to be the authoritative, inerrant, word of God." Then after that comes either their statements on christology or the trinity. I think it is ridiculous that the godhead is not listed as #1 on every doctrinal statement. I know that most churches would agree that the order is not done because of priority, however it does say something when the first thing mentioned of what is important continues to be the Bible not God.
Another place where this idolatry is found is in the way Christians speak. When discussing theology or preaching we almost always support our arguments by saying, "in the Bible it says," or simply, "the Bible says," both of these show that we are trusting a book not God. The authority of scripture comes from it being the word of God. Why don't we say, "in the Bible God says," or simply, "God says?"
Another way this idolatry is found in our conversations is how we label things. We have, "biblical theology," "biblical leadership," "biblical seminaries," "Bible churches," "Bible schools/colleges," and the list goes on and on. The emphasis is put on the Bible not on God.
One more example came up in an evangelism class which I had. The professor asked if someone could be saved with out knowledge of the Bible. The class tended to think that a person must have at least some understanding of the Bible to be a Christian. I found this to be outrageous. Being a Christian is about having a relationship with God, not about reading a book, even if it is the recorded word of that God (which I believe the Bible is).
I do not want you to misunderstand me. I think that the Bible is the written word of God. I think that the Bible is inerrant. I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. I even believe that Paul wrote all the epistles credited to him, and that Jonah spent some time in the belly of a big fish. However I do not think that the Bible is the crowning achievement of Christianity. I think that that belongs to Christ who was sent by the Father in the Spirit, who reigns and will reign forever. I think that if we are going to get back to authentic Christianity it means that we need to get back to the authentic Christ not back to the Bible. I think that if we are going to get back to the heart of worship and not continue in idolatry we need to realize that it is all about Him, we need to worship God and God alone. As the Israelites thought they could control God through the ark of the Covenant, and began worshiping the ark, we as Christians are in danger of trying to control God through the Bible and worshiping the Bible. If we do fall prey to this form of idolatry we may be found without a god like the Israelites after the Philistines took the ark.
Eternal Security
Lately I have been thinking about the whole eternal security thing and something hit me; can you really have eternal security if you cannot lose your salvation? Those who argue that we have eternal security say that once you are saved you are always saved. Opponents of this idea always bring up some example of someone who "becomes" a Christian and then "falls away." Those who are in favor of the preservation of the saints reply, "that person was never truly saved." And, it is with this answer I have decided that if you cannot loose your salvation you cannot be secure in your eternal state (you can not have eternal security). Following this logic, I cannot be assured of my salvation until I die and enter heaven. Why do I say this, because many people have thought that they became Christians only to have fallen away and been put in the category of "never really being saved." If this is true, how can I know that I am truly saved, well I can't, that is until I die. There is no way for me to know if I am "really saved" or if I only think that I am. However, If I can loose my salvation, I can be assured that I am saved right now, if I die right now I can be assured that I am going to heaven because I have not turned my back on God. If I can loose my salvation I can have eternal security. I can be eternally secure that if I remain in Christ I have salvation.
Crippled Christ
This is the beginning of at least three posts which are going to focus on how we as the church have crippled Christ. It is my belief that the church has crippled itself through denying its true identity and by denying the true identity of the God it serves. I am not saying that we have actually done damage to God but we have done damage to our-self (the church) by treating God as if he were crippled. My hope in this series is to expose where we are crippling God and get us thinking about how we can move on to a place where we can truly live as the body of Christ. I would also like to explain that the critiques I am making are generalizations of the church in America and are not representational of every congregation everywhere. Many congregations are living as the un-crippled body of Christ, to those congregations I am not speaking.
Vol. 1-Mute Master
I am astonished at how reluctant the church is to preach the word of God. A couple of nights ago I was speaking with my brother and mentioned to him that God has gifted me to "be his voice to his church." At first this statement might seem heretical, however if it is understood it is not. What I am saying is that God has gifted me to preach. He has not gifted me to merely repeat the Bible, anyone who can read can do that. He has gifted me to speak his words. This does not make the Bible meaningless. On the contrary, the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and I must not contradict it, I must remain within it. Anyone who feels called to preach the word, needs to preach the words of God's.Yet, the church has muted God. The church tends to believe that once John wrote "amen" that was it, God stopped speaking. This could not be further from the truth. God continues to speak today. It is God's desire that we are in relationship with him. If he does not speak how can we be in relationship with him. A relationship where only one person speaks is a poor relationship. And don't go off and say that he speaks through the Bible. I know he does. But, imagine if my wife stopped speaking to me and I only talked to her and the only way she spoke to me was through the letters she wrote at the beginning of our relationship. That relationship would suck. As important as early letters are, quite possibly the backbone of the relationship. If my wife stopped speaking to me, we would not have a good relationship. If God stopped speaking after John finished his Revelation of Jesus Christ, we would have a relationship with him which sucks.It is about time that preachers realize that GOD IS SPEAKING TODAY. I have been called to be (one of many) God's voice to his church. It is time that preachers realize that when they preach they need to speak the words of God. Preaching is not to be taken lightly. Preaching is the speaking of God's word to his church (and beyond). I hope that this can allow us to remove the gag from God's mouth. We need to stop muting the master.
Vol. 1-Mute Master
I am astonished at how reluctant the church is to preach the word of God. A couple of nights ago I was speaking with my brother and mentioned to him that God has gifted me to "be his voice to his church." At first this statement might seem heretical, however if it is understood it is not. What I am saying is that God has gifted me to preach. He has not gifted me to merely repeat the Bible, anyone who can read can do that. He has gifted me to speak his words. This does not make the Bible meaningless. On the contrary, the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and I must not contradict it, I must remain within it. Anyone who feels called to preach the word, needs to preach the words of God's.Yet, the church has muted God. The church tends to believe that once John wrote "amen" that was it, God stopped speaking. This could not be further from the truth. God continues to speak today. It is God's desire that we are in relationship with him. If he does not speak how can we be in relationship with him. A relationship where only one person speaks is a poor relationship. And don't go off and say that he speaks through the Bible. I know he does. But, imagine if my wife stopped speaking to me and I only talked to her and the only way she spoke to me was through the letters she wrote at the beginning of our relationship. That relationship would suck. As important as early letters are, quite possibly the backbone of the relationship. If my wife stopped speaking to me, we would not have a good relationship. If God stopped speaking after John finished his Revelation of Jesus Christ, we would have a relationship with him which sucks.It is about time that preachers realize that GOD IS SPEAKING TODAY. I have been called to be (one of many) God's voice to his church. It is time that preachers realize that when they preach they need to speak the words of God. Preaching is not to be taken lightly. Preaching is the speaking of God's word to his church (and beyond). I hope that this can allow us to remove the gag from God's mouth. We need to stop muting the master.
Jesusless Theology
If you were to ask most Christians what book of the Bible they should turn to, to get some deep theology, you might hear responses like, Romans, Hebrews or for those totally obsessed with eschatology (end times) Revelation. And, I think that this is the problem with our theology today. We are so concerned with "theology" we have forgotten what "Christianity" is all about. We are so concerned with the proper interpretation of this or that Greek word, the actual historical context, or the author's original intent (all things which are important) that we have overlooked the most important thing. Jesus. Don't get me wrong it is important to know how to read and interpret the Bible but we should not do it at the cost of neglecting Jesus. As Anne Graham Lots would say "just give me Jesus." I would give up all of the years theological studies I have done to be able to spend time discussing theology with Jesus for a couple of hours. Christianity is about following Jesus, isn't it? If it is shouldn't our best books of the Bible to learn theology be the gospels?
I think that one of the great problems with Christianity today is that we have left Jesus for "theology" and for "biblical study" for that matter. I never hear people in accountability groups asking "who did you love today?" Yet they always seem to be asking "how many times have you read your Bible this week?" The result of this "theology and biblically" based Christianity as opposed to Jesus (Christ) based Christianity, is a Christianity which "knows" but does not "do." I believe that if we as Christians paid more attention to Jesus and learned from him and looked at the rest of the Bible through Jesus colored glasses we would enter into a Christianity similar to that of the first century. A Christianity which was world changing, a Christianity which "did" more than it discussed.
I think that one of the great problems with Christianity today is that we have left Jesus for "theology" and for "biblical study" for that matter. I never hear people in accountability groups asking "who did you love today?" Yet they always seem to be asking "how many times have you read your Bible this week?" The result of this "theology and biblically" based Christianity as opposed to Jesus (Christ) based Christianity, is a Christianity which "knows" but does not "do." I believe that if we as Christians paid more attention to Jesus and learned from him and looked at the rest of the Bible through Jesus colored glasses we would enter into a Christianity similar to that of the first century. A Christianity which was world changing, a Christianity which "did" more than it discussed.
The "M" Word
I recently taught on Matthew 5:21-31 and realized something which I think is worthy of noting. This section of scripture is in the middle of Jesus' famous "Sermon on the Mount." In verse 21 Jesus begins talking about murder, in his discussion he states that if anyone is angry with his brother he is guilty of murder. Jesus then further clarifies his statement by with the examples of calling a brother raka or you fool. Later in verse 31 Jesus brings up the subject of divorce, in his discussion he states that there is no reason to divorce other than unfaithfulness. Again Jesus clarifies this by stating that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The passage I skipped over, the one which goes from verses 27-30 are the verses I would like to pay special attention to. In this section Jesus is confronting adultery, again like in the other passages he furthers (fulfills see v. 17) the command against adultery saying that if anyone has looked at someone with lust he has committed adultery with that person in his heart.
Here comes the part which caught me off guard. In Jesus' discussion on murder and divorce he made his argument and then explained it further. In this instance Jesus uses an unusual way to explain his argument. He says that if anyone lusts after another woman he should gouge out his eye or cut off his hand. At first cutting out your eye does seem to go right along with lust, I mean lust usually happens after seeing something. Yet it is this second part which intrigues me. What does your hand have to do with lusting in your heart? Hopefully you have all caught on to my new discovery. If, not let me explain. I can only think of one reason cutting off your hand could be related to lust and that is masturbation.
I believe that many years have passes where we (main stream Christianity) has thought that masturbation was wrong (I know that not all of us feel this way) but when pressed could give no biblical basis for it. Well, I believe that Jesus in the "Sermon on the Mount," one of his most popular speeches, is dealing with this exact issue. I also believe that the reason it has been overlooked is because we have sterilized Jesus. We never think that Jesus might have beaten around the bush on certain things, or used some sarcasm. I tend to wonder what hand motion he was making when he said to cut off your right hand (body language can speak much louder than words). I am almost positive (although I could be completely wrong) that in this passage Jesus is telling us that it is better to cut off your hand than it is to wack off with it. Although let me clarify that I do not believe we should be going around cutting off our hands, I think that Jesus is using the extreme of dismemberment to show the seriousness of what he is talking about.
This then brings me to a deeper issue. In all of these passages Jesus focuses on building relationships. We shouldn't be angry with others, we should be reconciled to others, we shouldn't divorce so quickly we should reconcile troubled marriages. So, it comes as no surprise that masturbation can be equal to adultery. In adultery a married person robs their spouse of sexual relationship and gives it to another person. In masturbation a married person robs their spouse of sexual relationship and hoards it all for themselves. Masturbation is one of the greatest forms of anti-relationship. Sex and sexuality is to be shared in relationship (in a marriage relationship). We were created as sexual beings which can only be truly satisfied in relationship with another person. Masturbation removes the other person from the equation. Masturbation takes something which is great in relationship and turns it into something which isolating and imprisoning. Masturbation is a completely selfish act, and I do not see how our god can see it any other way.
The passage I skipped over, the one which goes from verses 27-30 are the verses I would like to pay special attention to. In this section Jesus is confronting adultery, again like in the other passages he furthers (fulfills see v. 17) the command against adultery saying that if anyone has looked at someone with lust he has committed adultery with that person in his heart.
Here comes the part which caught me off guard. In Jesus' discussion on murder and divorce he made his argument and then explained it further. In this instance Jesus uses an unusual way to explain his argument. He says that if anyone lusts after another woman he should gouge out his eye or cut off his hand. At first cutting out your eye does seem to go right along with lust, I mean lust usually happens after seeing something. Yet it is this second part which intrigues me. What does your hand have to do with lusting in your heart? Hopefully you have all caught on to my new discovery. If, not let me explain. I can only think of one reason cutting off your hand could be related to lust and that is masturbation.
I believe that many years have passes where we (main stream Christianity) has thought that masturbation was wrong (I know that not all of us feel this way) but when pressed could give no biblical basis for it. Well, I believe that Jesus in the "Sermon on the Mount," one of his most popular speeches, is dealing with this exact issue. I also believe that the reason it has been overlooked is because we have sterilized Jesus. We never think that Jesus might have beaten around the bush on certain things, or used some sarcasm. I tend to wonder what hand motion he was making when he said to cut off your right hand (body language can speak much louder than words). I am almost positive (although I could be completely wrong) that in this passage Jesus is telling us that it is better to cut off your hand than it is to wack off with it. Although let me clarify that I do not believe we should be going around cutting off our hands, I think that Jesus is using the extreme of dismemberment to show the seriousness of what he is talking about.
This then brings me to a deeper issue. In all of these passages Jesus focuses on building relationships. We shouldn't be angry with others, we should be reconciled to others, we shouldn't divorce so quickly we should reconcile troubled marriages. So, it comes as no surprise that masturbation can be equal to adultery. In adultery a married person robs their spouse of sexual relationship and gives it to another person. In masturbation a married person robs their spouse of sexual relationship and hoards it all for themselves. Masturbation is one of the greatest forms of anti-relationship. Sex and sexuality is to be shared in relationship (in a marriage relationship). We were created as sexual beings which can only be truly satisfied in relationship with another person. Masturbation removes the other person from the equation. Masturbation takes something which is great in relationship and turns it into something which isolating and imprisoning. Masturbation is a completely selfish act, and I do not see how our god can see it any other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)