"'Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone,' declares the Sovereign LORD. 'Repent and live!'" (Ezekiel 18:31-32)
We all stumble and sin, even after we have been saved; some of us fall in "little" ways, others of us fall in what we consider "big" ways. But no sin is beyond the power of God to forgive. He forgave David's adultery as surely as He forgave Hezekiah's pride, and returned them to their former place before Him. How much more can we, as believers on this side of the Cross, trust that He will forgive us when we repent! For we know that all of our sins are paid for and washed away in Christ's blood; not that we don't still repent when we commit a sin, but that we can put our trust in the Lord Jesus and know that He is our Great High Priest, who offered up the sacrifice of His body once for all and now "ever lives to make intercession for us."
The Old Testament ritual of repentance and forgiveness can be seen in Leviticus 5:5-6: "'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.'" In a way, this is the same thing that we do, in that we do confess our sin to God and there is a sin offering involved - but the sin offering is not lifted up by us, but by Jesus Christ, who lifted it up on the cross for His chosen ones. Therefore, by confessing our sins we now know that atonement will be made by our High Priest for our sin.
God is the One who gives a spirit of repentance. There can be no repentance in an unregenerate heart unless God first makes that heart alive, for one who is dead in their trespasses and sins cannot and has no desire to ask forgiveness of God. By our very act of true repentance, we know that He will respond to it with forgiveness, because it was He who made us to repent in the first place. There is no need to fret over whether or not God will remember our sin or not; is He not a "forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love"? Does He not "delight to show mercy"? He is holy and will not let the guilty go unpunished, yes, but all our sin has been fully paid for by the perfect Man, Jesus Christ, and if we believe on Him there is now "no condemnation" for us.
It's a paradox and a mystery: all our sin has been atoned for and removed from us, and yet because we still dwell in what Paul calls "this body of death," we still sin. There is no condemnation, yet we still must and do repent when we see our sin. We can't fully understand it, even as believers, but we can know this:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:8-9)
Bad Things? Good People?
One of the most common complaints that Christians hear from unbelievers these days is, "If God is so good, why do all these bad things happen?" Or, alternatively, "If there is a God, then why is there so much starvation and so many wars?" What a person really means when they say this is, "Why do bad things happen to innocent people?" No one really expends much brain power on the question of why tragedies happen to bad people - either because they don't believe in bad people (difficult to do, considering history, but not impossible), or because it seems fitting that bad things should happen to bad people. It's when a person who doesn't seem to have done anything wrong is effected that we ask the question, "Why did it happen, if God is so good?"
Theologians and philosophers, and a few random preachers and such, have written on the problem; a well-known book nowadays that deals with the subject is transparently entitled When Bad Things Happen to Good People. However, the question is a rather simple one to answer in the end and can be refuted from a number of different angles. The first is that all those who ask the question will freely admit that they are saying that bad things do happen, and so "bad" exists. Obviously. If asked if they then believe that there is good in the world - the way things ought to be - they will say yes again.
From here, the argument is fairly easy. The existence of bad things, the complainer will admit, does not negate the existence of good things and just plain Good - rather it proves it, because "bad" cannot exist in a person's rational thinking without there being "good" for the bad to be compared to. Similarly, you cannot speak of darkness without assuming the existence of light; a blind man does not call what he is in "darkness," because he is unable to compare it with something else - light. Therefore, following this logic, the presence of bad and bad things can no more negate the existence of the One Supreme Good than it can the existence of the goodness we see around us; it actually strengthens the case for God's existence and His Goodness.
There's also another point to be made about the question (which is usually meant rhetorically), and that is that the person is assuming that there are good people in the world. From a Christian perspective, this cannot be accepted as true. While it's obvious from experience that not all people are as bad in their actions as they could be, it is clear from Scripture that there is no one who is "good" - Jesus states that when the rich young ruler calls Him "Good Rabbi"; Christ replied with, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good but One, that is, God." (Mat. 19:17) There are other passages that deal with this doctrine (known as total depravity), including Paul in Romans 3:
"There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."
Once a person can wrap their mind around the fact that we are all evil at heart, with no redeeming qualities in us (as the Bible teaches), it becomes clear that we all truly deserve the things we call tragedies. Most of us realize that bad people deserve punishment; when we then grasp the fact that we are all "bad people," then we are logically forced to concede that we all deserve punishment as well. It is only by the goodness of God that they are trying to disprove that any of us are saved from suffering the fruits of our sin.
This argument is best used with those who profess to believe the Bible, and then it takes the wind out of their sails. Not, of course, that it is terribly easy to change a person's opinion, even if you have bucketloads of fine arguments and logic to back you up; unfortunately, the response is usually either irrational anger or the common phrase, "Well, you believe what you want to and I'll believe what I want to" (which is irrational enough in itself). However, these are two of the arguments that I learned in philosophy class and reasoned through, and I've actually used the first on someone who thanked me and said it made sense. I don't know if she actually meant it or was just trying to end the conversation, but I'll hope for the best.
Theologians and philosophers, and a few random preachers and such, have written on the problem; a well-known book nowadays that deals with the subject is transparently entitled When Bad Things Happen to Good People. However, the question is a rather simple one to answer in the end and can be refuted from a number of different angles. The first is that all those who ask the question will freely admit that they are saying that bad things do happen, and so "bad" exists. Obviously. If asked if they then believe that there is good in the world - the way things ought to be - they will say yes again.
From here, the argument is fairly easy. The existence of bad things, the complainer will admit, does not negate the existence of good things and just plain Good - rather it proves it, because "bad" cannot exist in a person's rational thinking without there being "good" for the bad to be compared to. Similarly, you cannot speak of darkness without assuming the existence of light; a blind man does not call what he is in "darkness," because he is unable to compare it with something else - light. Therefore, following this logic, the presence of bad and bad things can no more negate the existence of the One Supreme Good than it can the existence of the goodness we see around us; it actually strengthens the case for God's existence and His Goodness.
There's also another point to be made about the question (which is usually meant rhetorically), and that is that the person is assuming that there are good people in the world. From a Christian perspective, this cannot be accepted as true. While it's obvious from experience that not all people are as bad in their actions as they could be, it is clear from Scripture that there is no one who is "good" - Jesus states that when the rich young ruler calls Him "Good Rabbi"; Christ replied with, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good but One, that is, God." (Mat. 19:17) There are other passages that deal with this doctrine (known as total depravity), including Paul in Romans 3:
"There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."
Once a person can wrap their mind around the fact that we are all evil at heart, with no redeeming qualities in us (as the Bible teaches), it becomes clear that we all truly deserve the things we call tragedies. Most of us realize that bad people deserve punishment; when we then grasp the fact that we are all "bad people," then we are logically forced to concede that we all deserve punishment as well. It is only by the goodness of God that they are trying to disprove that any of us are saved from suffering the fruits of our sin.
This argument is best used with those who profess to believe the Bible, and then it takes the wind out of their sails. Not, of course, that it is terribly easy to change a person's opinion, even if you have bucketloads of fine arguments and logic to back you up; unfortunately, the response is usually either irrational anger or the common phrase, "Well, you believe what you want to and I'll believe what I want to" (which is irrational enough in itself). However, these are two of the arguments that I learned in philosophy class and reasoned through, and I've actually used the first on someone who thanked me and said it made sense. I don't know if she actually meant it or was just trying to end the conversation, but I'll hope for the best.
Steadfast
"Here is a faithful saying: If we died with Him, then we shall also live with Him...if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot disown Himself." II Timothy 2:11, 14
A couple evenings ago I read a lengthy portion out of the middle of Isaiah. I didn't mean to when I started; I'm actually reading through the book of Acts, and I was only in Isaiah to look at the context of a passage I'd quoted earlier - Isaiah 55, where the "Your ways are not My ways" verses are. I got distracted by a passage chapters earlier - in fact, by a familiar one in chapter 40 - and from there began reading/skimming up to chapter 55.
I have read through Isaiah before, but at the time it didn't really click with me. It seemed a rather dark and dismal book; after all, it deals with Judah's unfaithfulness and idolatry and God's response to her. On the surface that doesn't seem to make for a very cheery book. I knew, of course, about the beautiful prophesies of the Messiah in the book, especially in chapter 53, but subconsciously I still thought of Isaiah as sad and a little depressing as a whole. But several verses in chapter 40 caught my eye, and my subsequent reading gave me a better look at Isaiah and the promises of God's faithfulness and undying love.
"'Comfort, comfort my people,' says your God. 'Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins.'"
Those are the first two verses of chapter 40, and they jumped out at me with their encouragement and strength. Despite Judah's apostasy (which God clearly addresses throughout the book), God commands Isaiah here to speak comfort to His people. He speaks and says that her sins have been paid for, and that she has received double for all her sins; later on in the chapter there is the reminder of the power of God and His steadfastness to those who put their hope in Him:
"...but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint."
God continues in the next chapter to voice that He is the LORD and talks of His power and how He rules the elements of the earth as well as the lives of all men, and in the midst of it He speaks of how He watches over and guards His people Judah. "'Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you,' declares the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Though He reminds us that we are no more than worms, no better than the dust of the earth, He also reiterates His promise to help us; the double statement of "I Myself" makes the promise even stronger, as if God were swearing by Himself that He will help His people. Again in the next chapter He says that He has "called us in righteousness and will take hold of our hand."
From the middle to the end of chapter 42 Isaiah talks again of how Israel and Judah have sinned against the LORD, but immediately in the next chapter God demonstrates again His faithfulness, though they were faithless. "'Fear not,'" He says, "'for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.'"
In verse 4 of that chapter, He states that Judah and Israel are precious in His sight. He has redeemed them and because they are His, they are precious to Him. And we, as redeemed children of God, are precious in His sight as well. "'I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions, for My own sake, and remembers your sins no more.'"
Again, mixed in with these promises are verses and whole passages that speak of Israel's persistent unfaithfulness, but they make the punctuations that declare God's mercy all the clearer in the text. He does not forget His justice; He says that He will bring disgrace upon Israel because of her sin, and yet, because all of God's attributes work in harmony with each other at all times, He tempers that justice with mercy.
It's passages like these that lead up to what I posted earlier in chapter 55 of Isaiah, the wonderful promise of forgiveness to sinners. God is steadfast; when we are faithless, He is faithful, and ever ready to forgive our sins.
"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live."
A couple evenings ago I read a lengthy portion out of the middle of Isaiah. I didn't mean to when I started; I'm actually reading through the book of Acts, and I was only in Isaiah to look at the context of a passage I'd quoted earlier - Isaiah 55, where the "Your ways are not My ways" verses are. I got distracted by a passage chapters earlier - in fact, by a familiar one in chapter 40 - and from there began reading/skimming up to chapter 55.
I have read through Isaiah before, but at the time it didn't really click with me. It seemed a rather dark and dismal book; after all, it deals with Judah's unfaithfulness and idolatry and God's response to her. On the surface that doesn't seem to make for a very cheery book. I knew, of course, about the beautiful prophesies of the Messiah in the book, especially in chapter 53, but subconsciously I still thought of Isaiah as sad and a little depressing as a whole. But several verses in chapter 40 caught my eye, and my subsequent reading gave me a better look at Isaiah and the promises of God's faithfulness and undying love.
"'Comfort, comfort my people,' says your God. 'Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins.'"
Those are the first two verses of chapter 40, and they jumped out at me with their encouragement and strength. Despite Judah's apostasy (which God clearly addresses throughout the book), God commands Isaiah here to speak comfort to His people. He speaks and says that her sins have been paid for, and that she has received double for all her sins; later on in the chapter there is the reminder of the power of God and His steadfastness to those who put their hope in Him:
"...but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint."
God continues in the next chapter to voice that He is the LORD and talks of His power and how He rules the elements of the earth as well as the lives of all men, and in the midst of it He speaks of how He watches over and guards His people Judah. "'Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you,' declares the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Though He reminds us that we are no more than worms, no better than the dust of the earth, He also reiterates His promise to help us; the double statement of "I Myself" makes the promise even stronger, as if God were swearing by Himself that He will help His people. Again in the next chapter He says that He has "called us in righteousness and will take hold of our hand."
From the middle to the end of chapter 42 Isaiah talks again of how Israel and Judah have sinned against the LORD, but immediately in the next chapter God demonstrates again His faithfulness, though they were faithless. "'Fear not,'" He says, "'for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.'"
In verse 4 of that chapter, He states that Judah and Israel are precious in His sight. He has redeemed them and because they are His, they are precious to Him. And we, as redeemed children of God, are precious in His sight as well. "'I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions, for My own sake, and remembers your sins no more.'"
Again, mixed in with these promises are verses and whole passages that speak of Israel's persistent unfaithfulness, but they make the punctuations that declare God's mercy all the clearer in the text. He does not forget His justice; He says that He will bring disgrace upon Israel because of her sin, and yet, because all of God's attributes work in harmony with each other at all times, He tempers that justice with mercy.
It's passages like these that lead up to what I posted earlier in chapter 55 of Isaiah, the wonderful promise of forgiveness to sinners. God is steadfast; when we are faithless, He is faithful, and ever ready to forgive our sins.
"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live."
The Knowledge of the Holy
"Can you by searching find out God? can you find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what can you do? deeper than hell; what can you know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." Job 11:7-8 (Zophar)
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.'" Isaiah 55:7-9
It's pretty clear from the Bible that Man is incapable of "finding out," or completely knowing, God. How can we? He is infinite, and we are finite; He is eternal, and we are mortal; He is perfection, and we are broken and sinful creatures. We cannot even fully know our own hearts; how can we understand the Almighty God? We can't.
And yet, for the very reason that His ways are not our ways, God has blessed us with a means of knowing Him in part. He sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "the image of the invisible God," and in whom "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," that we might know Him. And when Christ ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit to "lead us into all truth." We have the Scriptures so that we may know the God we worship. Through the guidance of the Spirit who indwells us, we can now "discover" God through His Word - not fully, of course, but we can have a taste of the unfathomable wonders of God.
A.W. Tozer, who lived from 1897 to 1963, wrote and published an innumerable amount of books and essays on God, the Christian life, and all manner of theological issues - really stupendous works, like "The Root of the Righteous" and "Jesus: Our Man in Glory." He's known as a true prophet, because the things he wrote at the turn of the 20th Century are still true and needed now. When he died, the only thing written on his gravestone was "A.W. Tozer: A Man of God." Now that is a wonderful thing to be known for!
Late in his life, he published a work under the title The Knowledge of the Holy. It's a little book that delves into the perfections, or attributes, of God; each chapter deals with a different aspect of God, but Tozer weaves them all together and shows clearly that none of His "attributes" are really separate from one another. We know that God is One, and all His perfections are One. God is not at odds with Himself; all His thoughts are unified.
The book is a wonderful, beautiful look at God. We can't plumb the depths of His thoughts or ways, but we are called to know Him better all the same, and this little work by a Man of God is perfect for that. It is absolutely a must for all believers, young and old in the faith, because how can we worship or love God without longing to know Him better?
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.'" Isaiah 55:7-9
It's pretty clear from the Bible that Man is incapable of "finding out," or completely knowing, God. How can we? He is infinite, and we are finite; He is eternal, and we are mortal; He is perfection, and we are broken and sinful creatures. We cannot even fully know our own hearts; how can we understand the Almighty God? We can't.
And yet, for the very reason that His ways are not our ways, God has blessed us with a means of knowing Him in part. He sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "the image of the invisible God," and in whom "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," that we might know Him. And when Christ ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit to "lead us into all truth." We have the Scriptures so that we may know the God we worship. Through the guidance of the Spirit who indwells us, we can now "discover" God through His Word - not fully, of course, but we can have a taste of the unfathomable wonders of God.
A.W. Tozer, who lived from 1897 to 1963, wrote and published an innumerable amount of books and essays on God, the Christian life, and all manner of theological issues - really stupendous works, like "The Root of the Righteous" and "Jesus: Our Man in Glory." He's known as a true prophet, because the things he wrote at the turn of the 20th Century are still true and needed now. When he died, the only thing written on his gravestone was "A.W. Tozer: A Man of God." Now that is a wonderful thing to be known for!
Late in his life, he published a work under the title The Knowledge of the Holy. It's a little book that delves into the perfections, or attributes, of God; each chapter deals with a different aspect of God, but Tozer weaves them all together and shows clearly that none of His "attributes" are really separate from one another. We know that God is One, and all His perfections are One. God is not at odds with Himself; all His thoughts are unified.
The book is a wonderful, beautiful look at God. We can't plumb the depths of His thoughts or ways, but we are called to know Him better all the same, and this little work by a Man of God is perfect for that. It is absolutely a must for all believers, young and old in the faith, because how can we worship or love God without longing to know Him better?
More Dark Than Light
The easiest way to find a good book these days is to dig one up that was published more than fifty years ago. Modern books can almost always be counted on to have some bad content in them, whether or not they're published by Christian editors.
What is it with Americans' current love of gory, creepy suspense? Gross romances? Admittedly, even in the 1800s Gothic novels were in vogue among the younger generation (as addressed by Jane Austen in her Northanger Abbey), but that was more of a fad. Now it's a settled thing. Everybody reads these books, and almost everybody writes them; they're everywhere, populating the Amazon website and the Barnes & Noble bookshelves.
It's to be expected from non-Christian authors and publishers, but it's very galling when it comes from writers who purport to be Christian. Some examples that spring to mind are Francine Rivers, Stephen R. Lawhead, and Ted Dekker; very popular names, but you can't open one of their books without expecting something bad in the pages. Is it right that books under the genre of "Christian" should have such shock-value?
Generally the excuse that people use is that the books are darkening the "evil" to make the "good" appear even brighter. But it isn't really necessary. A reader can get a feel for a villain's evil character without the author having to go into gritty detail. What happens in a lot of good-against-evil stories in which the writer has tried to do this is that the accentuated evil overpowers the righteousness. Sure, you probably have the redemption in the end, but most readers will come away with a clearer memory of the bad things than of the good. Teenagers read Ted Dekker's and Frank Peretti's books for the suspense, the dark murders, the horror aspects - not for the light and the beauty of God's Word. Readers come away from many "Christian" romances with more information than they needed.
These books and authors aren't salt and light in the world. What's more, they don't help readers in their faith. Whatever happened to Paul's exhortation in Philippians?
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)
What is it with Americans' current love of gory, creepy suspense? Gross romances? Admittedly, even in the 1800s Gothic novels were in vogue among the younger generation (as addressed by Jane Austen in her Northanger Abbey), but that was more of a fad. Now it's a settled thing. Everybody reads these books, and almost everybody writes them; they're everywhere, populating the Amazon website and the Barnes & Noble bookshelves.
It's to be expected from non-Christian authors and publishers, but it's very galling when it comes from writers who purport to be Christian. Some examples that spring to mind are Francine Rivers, Stephen R. Lawhead, and Ted Dekker; very popular names, but you can't open one of their books without expecting something bad in the pages. Is it right that books under the genre of "Christian" should have such shock-value?
Generally the excuse that people use is that the books are darkening the "evil" to make the "good" appear even brighter. But it isn't really necessary. A reader can get a feel for a villain's evil character without the author having to go into gritty detail. What happens in a lot of good-against-evil stories in which the writer has tried to do this is that the accentuated evil overpowers the righteousness. Sure, you probably have the redemption in the end, but most readers will come away with a clearer memory of the bad things than of the good. Teenagers read Ted Dekker's and Frank Peretti's books for the suspense, the dark murders, the horror aspects - not for the light and the beauty of God's Word. Readers come away from many "Christian" romances with more information than they needed.
These books and authors aren't salt and light in the world. What's more, they don't help readers in their faith. Whatever happened to Paul's exhortation in Philippians?
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Philippians 4:8)
Love
We have a stupid journal in our city; that's an undisputed fact in our household. It's not just that the articles themselves are boring, either, because that could be because nothing much happens around town that is worth a proper news column; it is usually the writing style itself, which, to use the modern vernacular, "sucks." However, there was one article in the edition several weeks ago that was so bad in and of itself that I, nicknamed the Grammar Nazi by friends and family, was so irritated as to not even be interested in the possible spelling or grammar problems.
The article, in essence, was about how the religions of the world are not as irreconcilable as most people think. It was about how they all basically teach the same principles, and how if we were to just lay aside our biases, we could all get along. It's a common theme in today's New-Age steeped society, but it drives me batty every time I see it. It is no surprise that the author of this column is a preacher at a Unitarian church who regularly writes articles addressing world peace, living together in harmony, and "loving" everyone; indeed, the only thing that was slightly encouraging about the section was that it was not written by a professing member of the true Church. Unfortunately, the majority of the world looks about Unitarians, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., as all part of the Church, and therefore opinions expressed by any of those sects are thought to reflect the view of reformed Christianity.
But on to the actual article. The man used as illustrations of his point the religions of Islam and Christianity (not surprising, considering the current war between the "Christian" United States and Muslim Middle East), and made a point of stating that perhaps neither Muhammad nor Jesus came to - as he put it - start a religion, but rather to show people how to live good lives. And if this is so, then we're all really just trying to live good lives and we should help one another instead of being enemies. He even ended his article by addressing those who would disagree with the exhortation to consider Christ's words in the Gospels when he instructed us to love our enemies.
Setting aside the fact that even orthodox Muslims would scorn such a call for peace and unification between our religions, Mr. Author's arguments themselves leave something lacking. First, he has seriously misused the words of Christ and twisted them to his own use. We are indeed to do good to those that hate us, to love or neighbours, and to strive to be at peace with all men as far as possible. These are all Biblical truths that we ought to follow, and I am in no way advocating that we resurrect the Crusades or any such thing. But we must consider the words of Christ in the light of other Bible passages and realize that this call to love is not a call to "oneness."
I believe one of Mr. Author's first problems is a false view of the Gospel itself, so I'll try first to set that right. It has become a view of the World that the Sermon on the Mount is Christianity's gospel - the Beatitudes, especially. This is not correct at all. Jesus did teach there what all men ought to know already, and that is that we are to be perfect: it's what we were created to be. In the same Sermon on the Mount that unbelievers like so often to quote He says, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Perfection is something that we cannot attain, however; not now, not in our current state. That's the bad news of the Good News.
But God, in His infinite mercy, did not leave it there. He sent His Son, that "those who believe on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." God has brought to life those formerly dead souls and given them the ability to believe and be saved. That's the good news of the Good News, and that is what true Christianity teaches - "Christ," as Paul said, "and Him crucified." That's the Gospel, not the Sermon on the Mount itself.
So, did Jesus come to start a religion? Not in the way Mr. Author meant the phrase, I am sure, for he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not teach His teachings in order to draw a gathering - no, indeed, for many left Him because of the hard things He said! He came and He taught the words of eternal life, and He died to reconcile Man to God. That was the purpose of Jesus' life. He did not come to "start a religion", but He came to be a sacrifice for the sins of those that God chose.
There is the Gospel. Mr. Author's second problem is a wrong definition of the word "love" - another common problem in the World today. Love has come to mean a kind of pat-on-the-head, a hug-and-a-kiss, a live-and-let-live feeling from one person to another; it has lost the power contained even in the concept of chivalry in the Middle Ages, where the man went to war and into battle to fight for the one he loved. Love is now considered weak, where it once was strong. Love is now considered live a sapling that breaks in the wind, instead of the oak that stands firm against it. Love has lost its meaning.
This calamity has affected many passages of Scripture (notably the "God is love" verse), but since this post is dealing with Mr. Author's article, I'll only address the problems it poses in Jesus' command for us to love our enemies. Mr. Author believes this verse means that we are to embrace the religious differences of other people groups and never disagree with them outwardly or rebuke them for their beliefs. This is his definition of what it means to love our enemies. But other passages of the Bible will support me when I say that this was not Jesus' meaning in the least. Paul says that we are not to be conformed to this world; Jesus says that the disciples (and all believers) will encounter persecution for their beliefs, and that they should count it a blessing; and we see countless examples of the apostles and Jesus Himself preaching the falsity of all other religions. You need not look far to find chapters and verses that say that Christianity alone is true, so I will not go into all the ones that are kicking about in my head.
Mr. Author's definition of love is incorrect - even blasphemous. So what did Jesus truly mean? C.S. Lewis gives good insight into this in his work Mere Christianity, where he addresses the verse that says that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Well, says Lewis, how do I love myself? Simple enough, but rarely looked at. He starts by saying that loving oneself does not always mean that "you", or your conscience, agrees with the actions you take. It doesn't mean that you always actively love yourself; sometimes you can downright hate yourself. It doesn't mean that there aren't things that you want to change about yourself. But it does mean that you want the best for yourself, no matter your other feelings.
Looking at it this way, we see that the passage doesn't mean that we always agree with our neighbour/enemy, it doesn't mean that we don't sometimes "hate" our neighbour/enemy (in the same way we "hate" ourselves), and it doesn't mean that we don't try to change our neighbour/enemy. But it does mean that we seek the best for them - the best for them in the long run. It's the same principle that comes into play when a mother doesn't let her child eat all the chocolate he wants (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have a stomach-ache) or play outside in the snow barefoot (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have the flu).
And in the long run, what is best for our enemies? Their eternal salvation. And if their current beliefs are leading them to Hell, what should we do - stand by and watch, thinking that we thus show love, or speak the Truth and preach the Gospel and try to show them that they are wrong? Right now they may be quite mad that we have messed with their paradigm, but in the long run they may realize that it was for the best and done in true and godly Love.
God convicted us of sin and led us to Christ, which is no pleasant process. But it's Love - true Love, that seeks the good of its object foremost.
The article, in essence, was about how the religions of the world are not as irreconcilable as most people think. It was about how they all basically teach the same principles, and how if we were to just lay aside our biases, we could all get along. It's a common theme in today's New-Age steeped society, but it drives me batty every time I see it. It is no surprise that the author of this column is a preacher at a Unitarian church who regularly writes articles addressing world peace, living together in harmony, and "loving" everyone; indeed, the only thing that was slightly encouraging about the section was that it was not written by a professing member of the true Church. Unfortunately, the majority of the world looks about Unitarians, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., as all part of the Church, and therefore opinions expressed by any of those sects are thought to reflect the view of reformed Christianity.
But on to the actual article. The man used as illustrations of his point the religions of Islam and Christianity (not surprising, considering the current war between the "Christian" United States and Muslim Middle East), and made a point of stating that perhaps neither Muhammad nor Jesus came to - as he put it - start a religion, but rather to show people how to live good lives. And if this is so, then we're all really just trying to live good lives and we should help one another instead of being enemies. He even ended his article by addressing those who would disagree with the exhortation to consider Christ's words in the Gospels when he instructed us to love our enemies.
Setting aside the fact that even orthodox Muslims would scorn such a call for peace and unification between our religions, Mr. Author's arguments themselves leave something lacking. First, he has seriously misused the words of Christ and twisted them to his own use. We are indeed to do good to those that hate us, to love or neighbours, and to strive to be at peace with all men as far as possible. These are all Biblical truths that we ought to follow, and I am in no way advocating that we resurrect the Crusades or any such thing. But we must consider the words of Christ in the light of other Bible passages and realize that this call to love is not a call to "oneness."
I believe one of Mr. Author's first problems is a false view of the Gospel itself, so I'll try first to set that right. It has become a view of the World that the Sermon on the Mount is Christianity's gospel - the Beatitudes, especially. This is not correct at all. Jesus did teach there what all men ought to know already, and that is that we are to be perfect: it's what we were created to be. In the same Sermon on the Mount that unbelievers like so often to quote He says, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Perfection is something that we cannot attain, however; not now, not in our current state. That's the bad news of the Good News.
But God, in His infinite mercy, did not leave it there. He sent His Son, that "those who believe on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." God has brought to life those formerly dead souls and given them the ability to believe and be saved. That's the good news of the Good News, and that is what true Christianity teaches - "Christ," as Paul said, "and Him crucified." That's the Gospel, not the Sermon on the Mount itself.
So, did Jesus come to start a religion? Not in the way Mr. Author meant the phrase, I am sure, for he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not teach His teachings in order to draw a gathering - no, indeed, for many left Him because of the hard things He said! He came and He taught the words of eternal life, and He died to reconcile Man to God. That was the purpose of Jesus' life. He did not come to "start a religion", but He came to be a sacrifice for the sins of those that God chose.
There is the Gospel. Mr. Author's second problem is a wrong definition of the word "love" - another common problem in the World today. Love has come to mean a kind of pat-on-the-head, a hug-and-a-kiss, a live-and-let-live feeling from one person to another; it has lost the power contained even in the concept of chivalry in the Middle Ages, where the man went to war and into battle to fight for the one he loved. Love is now considered weak, where it once was strong. Love is now considered live a sapling that breaks in the wind, instead of the oak that stands firm against it. Love has lost its meaning.
This calamity has affected many passages of Scripture (notably the "God is love" verse), but since this post is dealing with Mr. Author's article, I'll only address the problems it poses in Jesus' command for us to love our enemies. Mr. Author believes this verse means that we are to embrace the religious differences of other people groups and never disagree with them outwardly or rebuke them for their beliefs. This is his definition of what it means to love our enemies. But other passages of the Bible will support me when I say that this was not Jesus' meaning in the least. Paul says that we are not to be conformed to this world; Jesus says that the disciples (and all believers) will encounter persecution for their beliefs, and that they should count it a blessing; and we see countless examples of the apostles and Jesus Himself preaching the falsity of all other religions. You need not look far to find chapters and verses that say that Christianity alone is true, so I will not go into all the ones that are kicking about in my head.
Mr. Author's definition of love is incorrect - even blasphemous. So what did Jesus truly mean? C.S. Lewis gives good insight into this in his work Mere Christianity, where he addresses the verse that says that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Well, says Lewis, how do I love myself? Simple enough, but rarely looked at. He starts by saying that loving oneself does not always mean that "you", or your conscience, agrees with the actions you take. It doesn't mean that you always actively love yourself; sometimes you can downright hate yourself. It doesn't mean that there aren't things that you want to change about yourself. But it does mean that you want the best for yourself, no matter your other feelings.
Looking at it this way, we see that the passage doesn't mean that we always agree with our neighbour/enemy, it doesn't mean that we don't sometimes "hate" our neighbour/enemy (in the same way we "hate" ourselves), and it doesn't mean that we don't try to change our neighbour/enemy. But it does mean that we seek the best for them - the best for them in the long run. It's the same principle that comes into play when a mother doesn't let her child eat all the chocolate he wants (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have a stomach-ache) or play outside in the snow barefoot (in the long run he'll be glad he doesn't have the flu).
And in the long run, what is best for our enemies? Their eternal salvation. And if their current beliefs are leading them to Hell, what should we do - stand by and watch, thinking that we thus show love, or speak the Truth and preach the Gospel and try to show them that they are wrong? Right now they may be quite mad that we have messed with their paradigm, but in the long run they may realize that it was for the best and done in true and godly Love.
God convicted us of sin and led us to Christ, which is no pleasant process. But it's Love - true Love, that seeks the good of its object foremost.
April Fools' Day
Since it is the first of April, I did a little research on the whole "April Fools' Day" holiday. It's a rather vague celebration; feast periods that are characterized by practical jokes and such date back to the Romans and their Saturnalia (December 17-December 23), but the origin of the actual celebration of April Fools' Day is cloudy.
Saturnalia seems to have been the most popular of the Roman holidays - and no wonder, because it was basically a time of eating and drinking and making merry. And - let's face it - periods of feasting are always more popular than ones of fasting. It was ostensibly a time of honouring Saturn, the god of agriculture and of the harvest, but after the priests offered sacrifices in the Temple of Saturn, the festivities began. It was a common practice for slaves and masters to switch roles during these days, which may have been something that carried over into the Medieval Feast of Fools.
The Feast of Saturnalia was so popular that it was probably difficult to banish after the rise of Christianity, so, like many of the pagan celebrations, it seems to have been "adapted" to fit the Church. This is more than likely the origins of the Feast of Fools that was so popular in the Middle Ages (and well-known through The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Ironically enough, the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to sanction this pagan holiday backfired, as the feasts often included someone to play a mock bishop or pope and the clergy were very much mocked.
The merriment and the excess of just about everything continued in this newer holiday; the word "fool" then was used in the context of silliness and merriment - hence the naming of the feast itself. After the Church put an end to the Feast of Fools, the jollity no doubt carried over into a celebration on the first of April. It is possible that April Fools' Day originated from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, in which Chauntecler is tricked by the fox on a date that most took to mean April 1, but it is unclear.
April Fools' Day, like the feast of Saturnalia and the Feast of Fools, had a switching of roles by the higher and lower people and also was characterized by the practical jokes and pranks that we now have today. Fortunately, however, our April Fools' is somewhat less wild than Rome's was...
Saturnalia seems to have been the most popular of the Roman holidays - and no wonder, because it was basically a time of eating and drinking and making merry. And - let's face it - periods of feasting are always more popular than ones of fasting. It was ostensibly a time of honouring Saturn, the god of agriculture and of the harvest, but after the priests offered sacrifices in the Temple of Saturn, the festivities began. It was a common practice for slaves and masters to switch roles during these days, which may have been something that carried over into the Medieval Feast of Fools.
The Feast of Saturnalia was so popular that it was probably difficult to banish after the rise of Christianity, so, like many of the pagan celebrations, it seems to have been "adapted" to fit the Church. This is more than likely the origins of the Feast of Fools that was so popular in the Middle Ages (and well-known through The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Ironically enough, the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to sanction this pagan holiday backfired, as the feasts often included someone to play a mock bishop or pope and the clergy were very much mocked.
The merriment and the excess of just about everything continued in this newer holiday; the word "fool" then was used in the context of silliness and merriment - hence the naming of the feast itself. After the Church put an end to the Feast of Fools, the jollity no doubt carried over into a celebration on the first of April. It is possible that April Fools' Day originated from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, in which Chauntecler is tricked by the fox on a date that most took to mean April 1, but it is unclear.
April Fools' Day, like the feast of Saturnalia and the Feast of Fools, had a switching of roles by the higher and lower people and also was characterized by the practical jokes and pranks that we now have today. Fortunately, however, our April Fools' is somewhat less wild than Rome's was...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
