A Quick Study in Biblical Exegesis

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

By Steven Barto, B.S. Psych.

WHAT IS EXEGESIS?

Whether you have picked up the Holy Bible for the first time, you’re a college student studying biblical interpretation or theology, or have been reading Scripture since early childhood, there will be passages you think you understand but which your pastor, instructors, classmates, fellow church members, or family members interpret quite differently. Such incidents occur when people read any kind of literature, but we become particularly aware of them when we read religious literature—i.e., writings that make claims regarding who we are, where we come from, where we go when we die, and whether our lives have any relevance in the whole scheme of existence.

Not to worry. Although there are many approaches to the Bible, there is also a decent amount of common ground among responsible readers of the Bible. As you can imagine, atheists tend to look for seeming contradictions and inconsistencies in Scripture in an attempt to defeat the claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Regardless, it is critical that we read, think about, and write about the Bible carefully and systematically. This can only be accomplished by sticking to common strategies. Exegesis can be useful for understanding an entire text—indeed, it is important to see the commonalities in a publication—but is typically applied to a smaller section such as a brief narrative, psalm, lament, prophetic utterance, speech, parable, vision, or chapter-length exposition. The technical term for this careful study and analysis of a biblical text or passage is exegesis, from the Greek verb exêgeisthai, meaning “to lead out.”

EXEGESIS AS INVESTIGATION

Exegesis may be defined as careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text. We could describe it as “scholarly reading” that ascertains the sense and vitality of the text through complete, systematic recording of the intrinsic meaning of the text. Exegesis requires “close reading,” which is a term quite familiar to students of literature. This exercise describes the deliberate word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase consideration of all the parts of a text in order to determine its overall meaning as a whole.

It is worth noting that many people over the decades have come to realize the goal of exegesis is to discover the biblical writer’s purpose or meaning in the original text. This is what scholars refer to as the “authorial intention,” which can be rather difficult to ascertain. Many biblical scholars believe this is not the only goal of exegesis. When I write an original poem, I am sometimes hard-pressed to determine where the idea and the words came from. Some writers have a hard time expressing their intentions for something someone else has written. It is even more difficult to understand the meaning behind the writings of another person from another time and culture. A more modest and appropriate goal would be to arrive at a credible and discernible understanding of the text on its own merits within its own context.

Exegesis is an investigation: An in-depth look at the many levels or composition of a particular text. To engage in exegesis is to ask historical questions about a text, including the situation or occasion. It also means asking literary questions of the text, such as what is its theological or philosophical aim? Furthermore, exegesis includes asking questions about the religious or theological dimensions of the text. Productive exegesis requires us not being afraid of difficult questions, such as “Why does this verse, phrase, or text seem to contradict that one?” Occasionally, exegesis leads to greater ambiguity rather than a clearer understanding. If you experience this, do not give up. Press on in prayer and meditation.

EXEGESIS AS CONVERSATION

Exegesis involves conversation as much as it does analysis and investigation. It is a dialog with readers (living and dead, more educated and less educated, absent and present). It’s a conversation about about texts and their inherent meaning; about sacred words and what they claim to be true—and what others who have analyzed them claim as their meaning. Beneficial exegesis entails listening to others, even others with whom we disagree. Dissent just might lead to a deeper conversation and a clearer answer. For the sake of universal understanding, exegesis simply cannot take place in a vacuum. It’s a process that needs to occur in the company of others through reading and discussing with them—carefully, critically, and creatively—about the text. Those who like to read and study in isolation would not be an ideal biblical exegete.

Many Christians read the Bible alone, which is perfectly fine. Especially when the object is devotional. I often spend time by myself with Scripture. I will find a collection of verses, for example, that teach who I am in Christ and pray and meditate on those passages. In addition, I like to read Eugene Peterson’s interpretation of Scripture, The Message. It is essentially a paraphrase of Scripture, and is an excellent version for reading the Bible in common language.

It is not wise, however, to attempt exegesis alone. Certainly, ministers, students and biblical scholars spend a lot of time examining Scripture prior to preparing for a paper, sermon, or lecture. They often do this in their private study or office. It is critical that whatever translation they use that they become well-prepared to have an ongoing conversation about the text they’ve consulted for their work. Accordingly, they need a proper exegetical method. In this instance, method should not be considered on equal terms with “scientific” or “historical” analysis. Good reading—just like good conversation—is an art more than a science.

Although there are certain principles that must be followed in order to properly read, analyze, and report on Scripture, exegesis is an art. An acquired skill. The key is learning what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to put your exegetical analysis together for public discourse. This can never be done with complete certainty or with only a “method” in mind. Instead, an exegete needs not only have principles, rules, hard work, and research skills, but also intuition, imagination, sensitivity, and the ability to listen for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Exegesis is Investigation, Conversation, and Art

According to Michael J. Gorman (2009), good exegetical practice must involve understanding the unique setting (historical context) in which the text was produced and how it fits within the book or text being studied (literary context). We can understand a text only if we pay careful attention to both the whole and the parts (details)—like the proverbial forest as well as the trees. In addition, there are several options which can be applied to the work. Exegesis is typically a rather technical and challenging undertaking.

Interpreters of the Bible systematically use a number of general approaches and specific methods to help them engage with the text they are examining. Some of these methods are called criticisms. The use of the term criticism, as in redaction criticism, does not necessarily imply negative judgment; the primary meaning is analysis as it applies to the historical, literary, or theological value of a text.

The Synchronic Approach

One approach to exegesis is called synchronic (meaning “within time,” or “same time”). However, this method looks only at the final form of the text as it stands in the Bible. It is not concerned with the “long view” or “prehistory” of the text—including any oral traditions, earlier versions, or possible collateral sources. Instead, this approach uses methods designed to analyze the text itself and the text in relation to the world in which it first showed up as a text. This method is not unlike narrative-critical, social-scientific, and socio-rhetorical. To take a socio-rhetorical approach typically involves integrating the ways people use language in their everyday existence.

Types of Criticism in a Synchronic Approach

  • Literary Criticism—the quest to understand the text as literature by employing either traditional or more recent models of literary criticism that are employed in the study of literature generally; corollaries of literary criticism are genre and form analysis, the quests to classify a text as to its type
  • Narrative Criticism—as a subset of literary criticism, the quest to understand the formal and material features of narrative texts (stories) or other texts that have an implicit or underlying narrative within or behind them
  • Rhetorical  Criticism—the quest to understand the devices, strategies, and structures employed in the text to persuade and/or otherwise affect the reader, as well as the overall goals or effects of those rhetorical elements
  • Lexical, Grammatical, and Syntactical Analysis—the quest to understand words, idioms, grammatical forms, and the relationship among these items according to the norms of usage at the time the text was produced
  • Semantic or Discourse Analysis—the quest to understand the ways in which a text conveys meaning according to modern principles and theories of linguistics
  • Social-Scientific Criticism—the quest for the social identity, perceptions of the world, and cultural characteristics of the writers, readers/hearers, and communities suggested by the text; usually divided into two distinct sub-disciplines, social description and social-scientific analysis

It is worth noting that the above approach is often used in the study of literature as well as Scripture. Taking a synchronic approach to the text is quite similar to the technique used by literary critics analyze a poem or other short text. When explicating a poem, for example, they may consider the following features of it:

  • Genre and implied Situation—the type of literature the text is, and the life situation implied by the text
  • Intellectual Core—the topic and theme (the “slant”) of the text
  • Structure and Unity—the arrangement of the text
  • Literary Texture (e.g., poetic)—the details of the text
  • Artistry—the beauty of the text

Let’s look at an example from Scripture by taking a synchronic approach to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). An exegete might ask questions such as the following:

  • What are the various sections of the Sermon, and how do they fit together to make a literary whole?
  • What does the narrator of this Gospel communicate by indicating the setting of the Sermon, the composition of the audience before and after the Sermon, and the audience’s reaction to it?
  • What is the function of the Sermon in the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus and of discipleship?
  • How would a first-century reader/hearer understand and be affected by this Sermon?

The Diachronic Approach (The Historical-Critical Method)

The second approach to exegesis is the diachronic (meaning “across time”) approach, and it focuses on the origin and development of a text, employing methods designed to uncover these aspects of it. It takes the “long view” of a text and may be considered a longitudinal perspective. This approach is often referred to as the historical-critical method, and it was the approach of choice by many, if not most, biblical scholars of the twentieth century.

Types of Criticism in a Diachronic Approach

  • Textual Criticism—the quest for the original wording of the text and the ways later scribes might have altered it
  • Historical Linguistics—the quest to understand words, idioms, grammatical forms, and the relationships among these items, often with attention to their historical development within a language
  • Form Criticism—the quest for the original type of oral or written tradition reflected in the text, and for the sort of situation in the life of Israel or the early church out of which such a tradition might have developed
  • Tradition Criticism—the quest for understanding the growth of a tradition over time from its original form to its incorporation in the final text
  • Source Criticism—the quest for the written sources used in the text
  • Redaction Criticism—the quest for perceiving the ways in which the final author of the text purposefully adopted and adapted sources
  • Historical Criticism—the quest for the events that surrounded the production of the text, including the purported events narrated by the text itself

A diachronic analysis of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, might involve the exegete asking the following questions:

  • What written or oral sources did the evangelist (writer of the gospel) adopt, adapt, and combine to compose this “Sermon?”
  • What are the various components of the Sermon (beatitudes, prayers, parables, pithy sayings, etc.), and what is their origin and development in Jewish tradition, the career of the earthly Jesus, and/or the life of the early church?
  • What does the evangelist’s use of sources reveal about his theological interests?
  • To what degree do these teachings represent the words or ideas of the historical Jesus?

It is very important when studying biblical texts that we consider not only our own preconceptions, biases, and presuppositions, but also those of the writer of the original text or sources used. For example, there are practitioners who deny the current operation of miracles or the role of the Holy Spirit. These individuals are called cessationists. They believe that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing ended with the last apostle. Consequently, they also do not support a modern-day office of apostle. I do not support this conclusion.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Eugene Peterson, in his translation The Message, puts it this way: “For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s totally himself.” How can we limit Jesus to certain “dispensations” relative to the works of the Holy Spirit, especially in isolated or developing countries where the Gospel has yet to be preached? Besides, in John 14:12-14 Jesus says, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV).

The Existential Approach

There is a third approach that is often applied when practicing exegesis, but it does not seem to have an official or commonly used name. Michael J. Gorman (2009) says this method could be labeled existential. It seems this technique is often criticized. This is true for a number of reasons.

Those who support the existential approach to reading Scripture are predisposed to see the subject text as something to be engaged with. Existential methods are therefore considered “instrumental.” They see the text as a vehicle; a means to an end as opposed to an end it itself. For them, perhaps it is a springboard. The existential approach by its very nature will include elements grounded in a reality beyond the text itself. In other words, metaphysical. With this approach, the text “bears witness” to the subject matter. This “something beyond” may be a set of relations among people, such as a “spiritual” truth beyond the “literal.” I believe this approach may also be categorized as theological or transformative. Remember the precept that God’s Word is alive and is power unto personal or psychic change.

The existential (theological or transformative) approach is by nature self-involving. Exegetes using this method do not see the text as a historical or literary artifact to be examined, but as something to engage with—as something that could or should affect their lives. The text is taken seriously with respect to present-day experience, as it impacts the individual and the community. We see this with the Word of God, which has the potential to create a new self and a new community. It is, therefore, both personal and corporate.

Types of Criticism in an Existential Approach

  • Theological exegesis, missional interpretation, and spiritual reading—exegesis is done in the context of a specific religious tradition and or religious purposes
  • Canonical criticism—exegesis is done in the context of the Bible as a whole
  • Embodiment or actualization—exegesis is done in the context of attempting to appropriate and embody the text in the world.
  • Ideological criticism (including post-colonial criticism), advocacy criticism, and liberationist exegesis—exegesis is done in the context of the struggle against unequal power relations and injustice and for justice or liberation

Interestingly, the existential approach is subjective and leaves a lot open to personal interpretation. This can be both good and bad. The existential approach has been with us in Western civilization since the Enlightenment. Enlightened individuals tend to equate knowledge and education with the procurement of truth. This rather ethereal approach to acquiring knowledge is often limiting as it involves an individual’s ability to apply collective values and intuition to understand others and the world around them. Existential methodology features metacognition, which is the act of thinking about what it is you’re thinking about. The upside is people well-versed in this approach are able to see “the big picture,” and are less likely to get lost in the minutiae.

An existential analysis of the Sermon on the Mount might involve asking the following questions:

  • To what kind of modern-day faith and practice does the Sermon call contemporary readers?
  • How might the text about “turning the other cheek” be a potential source of difficulty or even oppression for the politically or socially downtrodden?
  • Does love of enemies rule out the use of resistance or violence in every instance? What does it mean practically to embody the teachings about non-violence in the Sermon?
  • What spiritual practices are necessary for individuals and churches to live the message of the Sermon in the contemporary (albeit pluralistic, self-centered, reactionary) world?

Scholars who approach a text in this way use diverse methods and have a wide variety of goals or agendas. Both diachronic and synchronic methods can be appropriated, and others may be introduced as well. Practitioners  of existential exegesis judge the adequacy of a specific method on the basis of its ability to assist in achieving the overall goal of exegesis. This goal may be described as something rather fundamental, such as conversion or spiritual maturity, or for something more specific, such as a personal encounter with God.

EXEGESIS VERSUS HERMENEUTICS

Making sense of Scripture is an arduous and sometimes confusing undertaking. Some scholars describe exegesis and hermeneutics as “How to read the Bible for all it’s worth.” There is an appreciable difference between explaining what the Bible says and agreeing what it means by what it says. It seems many in the church today tend to argue over how the Bible should control or impact their lifestyle, if at all. This is in part why each individual who approaches interpretation of Scripture will bring a great deal of subjectivity to the exercise. If you study Scripture intent on finding loopholes to justify how you’re living or what you’re believing, you will likely end up confused, indecisive, and (unfortunately) miserable.

The difference between exegesis and hermeneutics is not as sharp as you might think. It could be said they are two sides of the same coin.

Exegesis is the interpretation of a text by way of critical analysis of its content in order to clarify its true meaning. The main goal in exegesis is to uncover the original intended meaning of a given text through careful, systematic study. When we undertake examination of biblical texts in accordance with exegesis, we are examining the text in order to decode the original meaning and determine how it applies to a current situation. Exegesis, by its nature, includes reaching back into history.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods used to interpret religious texts and philosophical works. Its main goal is to determine the contemporary relevance of such ancient writings. Specific to the Bible, hermeneutics looks for ways that Scripture applies to the “here and now.” In 1764 French philosopher  Voltaire wrote, “The Bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles commend, what rogues teach, and young children are made to learn by heart.” Numerous skeptics of Christianity have attacked the names, dates, events and conclusions in the Bible, often proclaiming that Scripture is riddled with errors. For example, people who accept Darwinian evolution ridicule the claim of Creation as a leftover fantasy from the age of barbarians and illiterates. These early scholars believed that science would ultimately provide concrete answers about the origin of life and the universe. We’re still waiting for that to happen.

Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Jr. (2017) discuss how presupposition can skew what we seek and how we interpret. They write, “We are convinced that the goal of hermeneutics is to enable interpreters to arrive at the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended their readers to understand” (p. 224). Of course, most Christians hold the presupposition that God’s Word is eternal and will always be relevant. It is inspired and alive, having relevance beyond its original circumstance or intention. It is a living text.

It seems appropriate to take a moment to accept and engage with the fact of presupposition. Here are a few critical elements presupposition that needs to be faced:

  • Admit that you have presuppositions
  • Identify those presuppositions that you bring to the task
  • Evaluate or assess your presuppositions
  • Embrace those presuppositions you believe to be valid
  • Take steps to discard those presuppositions you deem invalid

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If we are going to explain, interpret, or translate Scripture in a manner that preserves its meaning and power, we have to move from mere “rules” for decoding texts to a more far-reaching understanding of how to understand Scripture. It also must include admitting our own presuppositions, biases, and preconceived notions, which may or may not be true. It is important to rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate Scripture. The Spirit will (i) convince us that the Bible is accurate and true, (ii) instill in us an ability to possess rather than merely comprehend the meaning, and (iii) eventually lead us to conviction in our hearts that enable us to fully embrace and live within its meaning.

References

Gorman, M. (2009). Elements of Biblical Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Klein, W., Blomberg, C. and Hubbard, Jr., R. (2017). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

 

 

 

 

 

The First Deception

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

I had a tough time picking a title for this post. Although I am presenting an account of the first deception in the Bible, there is also an amazing correlation between the punishment God administered for that deception—which is also the first sin—and the torture and torment suffered by Christ on the cross. A lot of deception occurs in Genesis. The Latin root for the word “deception” is decipere, which means to “ensnare.” Accordingly, this indicates man’s tendency to be caught up or carried away.

Deception can be found from Genesis to Revelation. Abraham deceived when he stated that Sarah was his sister. Isaac also stated that his wife was a sibling. Joseph’s brothers informed their father that Joseph had been killed by wild beasts when, in fact, they had thrown him into a pit and left him. Delilah deceived Samson. Herod deceived his men when he asked them to locate the baby Jesus so he might go worship him when he intended to kill him. Paul noted in Romans 3:13 that a man’s tongue practices deceit. The prophet Jeremiah said the heart is “deceitful above all things and beyond cure” (Jeremiah 17:9, NIV). Second Timothy 3:13 tells us that evildoers and imposters go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

How It All Started

Satan beset our first parents, Adam and Eve, drawing them into sin. The temptation proved fatal for them and for the unregenerate man. The tempter was Satan, in the form of a serpent, who slithered in and accosted Eve while she walking near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil alone. This was intentional, as temptation is difficult to resist when we’re faced with it unaccompanied. Satan’s plan was to drive a wedge between our first parents and God. Satan tempted Eve, that by her he might draw Adam into disobedience. Simply, it is the devil’s practice to send temptation through people we do not suspect and that have the most influence over us.

We know Satan is a liar and a murderer and a scoffer from the beginning (John 8:43-45). He likes to teach men first to doubt, and then to deny. This leaves us rather vulnerable to practice sin. He promises advantages from our disobedience while downplaying the punishment. In fact, he tempts us to seek elevation to a new office or authority—to be like gods. He tempted Adam and Eve with the same desire so he might ruin them as he’d been ruined. Satan ruined himself by seeking to be like God; therefore, he sought to infect our first parents with the desire to know as God knows. He continues today to bring as many of us he can along with him in his eventual doom into the pit of Hell. Simply put, misery loves company.

The Steps of Transgression

Let’s look at the steps of transgression when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. You should note this was a trending down toward the pit, not up toward heaven and eternal fellowship with God.

  1. Eve first saw. Much of our sin comes in through the eyes. We need to avoid focusing on or gazing at that which we are in danger of lusting after (see Matthew 5:28).
  2. Eve then took. It is one thing to look, but once we reach out and take that which we’ve lusted after we have reached a decision that is quite difficult to undo. Satan can tempt us, but he has no power to force us to sin, whether believer or unbeliever.
  3. Eve did eat. When she looked, perhaps she did not intend to take; or when she took, not to eat, but it ended with that. It is wise to stop the first motions of sin and to turn away before it’s too late and we end up in full-blown disobedience.
  4. Eve gave it also to her husband. Those that have done wrong are often willing to draw others in with them to do the same. This is quite prevalent in active addiction where relapse often breeds company.
  5. Adam did eat. In neglecting the Tree of Life, of which he was allowed to eat, he ate from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam chose contempt for God, disobeying God and attempting to have that which God did not see fit to provide for him. Adam chose being like God rather than enjoying fellowship with God. He would have what he wanted when he wanted it rather than wait on God.

Adam’s sin was disobedience. Romans 5:19 says, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (NIV). Interestingly, Adam had no sin nature within him in the Garden, but he had a free will. Falling to temptation, he withdrew from posterity and paradise into sin and ruin. It was too late when Adam and Eve realized the error of disobeying God. They saw the happiness and joy from which they fell, and the misery they would now experience. They realized that a loving God had provided them with everything they needed through grace and favor. That was all gone now. The contrast must have been overwhelming!

God’s Reaction to the Disobedience of Adam and Eve

In Genesis 3:8-10, we learn that Adam and Eve attempted to hide from God. This is the first incident of loss of fellowship with the Father due to unholiness. God cried out, “Where are you?” (verse 8). I truly believe this was not a question of location. God knew where they were. He is, after all, omniscient. Instead, I believe He meant for Adam and Eve to examine that they were now in a bad place, hiding and afraid to approach God as He was walking in the Garden in the cool of the day. Is this not the first examination of one’s “position” in God as a result of practicing sin?

Where were they? In the midst of broken fellowship with God. Indeed, they were now in bondage to Satan and on the road to certain ruin. They would have wandered endlessly without end, cut of from the sunlight of the Spirit, lost forever, had the good Shepherd not sought them. God always leaves the flock to look for the lost sheep. Bethel Music has produced an amazing song titled Reckless Love. The chorus includes the following lines:

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights til I’m found, leaves the 99

The message of Genesis 3:8-10 is that as sinners we must consider where we are versus where God intends us to be, and to realize that no matter what we do we will not be content until we return to God. However, like Adam, we have reason to fear God when we’ve been disobedient. This is true for two basic reasons: (i) we are ashamed for our offense; and (ii) we are fearful of the punishment or correction. Fortunately, as believers we are saints, covered in the righteousness of Christ. Adam and Eve lacked such a covering when they fell from grace and were expelled from the Garden.

Although God did not leave Adam and Eve without a “covering,” when He made clothing He made it warm and strong—in other words, adequate—but he did not clothe them in long flowing robes of scarlet. Instead, he made coats of animal skin. This clothing was coarse and very plain. It is fascinating to recognize the foreshadowing of such a “covering” for our unrighteousness. When God killed an animal to fabricate clothing for Adam and Eve, blood was spilled. There is, therefore, no covering for sin without the shedding of blood. Let’s look at the clothing Adam and Eve attempted to make for themselves. They concocted a “garment” from fig leaves, but it was too narrow to hide their nakedness. This is like the “rags” of our own righteousness. Isaiah 64:6 tells us, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away” (NIV). God made an adequate covering for Adam and Eve that serves as a precursor to our putting on the righteousness of Christ!

So God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden. He said they could “no longer occupy” the space they were in. This is because they were now unclean, mired by the sin of disobedience. Unrighteous at best. Doomed to toil and suffer and die at worst. God knew they’d be unwilling to leave this garden paradise, so He had to chase them out and placed cherubim as guards to the entrance. Why? Because Adam and Eve were no longer eligible to eat from the Tree of Life. That’s pretty heavy. Oh, but it gets heavier. God essentially banned all of mankind from entering the Garden of Eden. Man had fallen from grace. But here’s what this amazing grace looks like. Adam and Eve were not killed for their disobedience. Instead, they were sentenced to live under harsh conditions, to a place of toil, not to a place of torment.

A Ripple Effect

Unfortunately, the place where the Tree of Life was situated was now closed to all mankind. Adam and Eve had been shut out from the privileges of their state of innocence, yet they were not left in a place of despair with no way out. God had planned (since before the foundation of the universe) for a method of achieving salvation. It would, of course, involve the shedding of blood at Calvary. In the meantime, our first parents fell under a covenant of works. The original covenant had been broken by sin. The curse for disobedience was in full force. Man is without hope if he is judged by the Adamic Covenant, for we simply cannot obey the Law to the letter. God showed this to Adam and Eve not to discourage them or drive them into despair, but to quicken them to look for life and happiness and peace through the Promised Seed, by whom a new and everlasting covenant—an unconditional covenant wherein salvation need not be earned through works—would open the door to a better way into the holy presence of God.

We can learn from this first incident of deception and disobedience what dishonor and trouble sin will bring into our lives. It brings mischief wherever it goes, destroying our joy and comfort. Eventually, especially with habitual sin, we will feel shame and regret. This can cause us to end up forgetting our role and begin to experience contempt for God, as if God tempts man. James 1:13 says, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (NIV). Verse 14 reminds us that we are tempted when we’re dragged away from God and enticed by our own evil desires.

Not surprisingly,  when we commit deception we are more concerned with getting caught by our fellow man, and care to restore our “reputation” in this life rather than desiring to be forgiven and pardoned by God. We forget to fear the Lord. Much of our striving to cover our sins and offenses is in vain and typically frivolous. This is akin to Adam and Eve attempting to cover their nakedness (indeed, the fallout of their disobedience was shame) with fig leaves. Similarly, we all try to cover up our misdeeds and transgressions as Adam and Eve did in the Garden. Before they sinned, they would have welcomed God’s presence and would not have felt embarrassed to be naked before Him. No doubt, having fallen, they became terrified and ashamed. This is not what the serpent promised. He said they’d be like God, knowing what He knows.

Correlation Between the Wages of Sin in Genesis and the Crucifixion

We know that God passed sentence on Adam and Eve. What we tend to forget—and what today’s New Atheists don’t understand—is that when the First Adam sinned he passed on his fallen sin nature to all future generations. This may or may not sound fair to you, but God’s righteous judgment is just. For example, our willful disobedience and deceitfulness deserves the punishment that Christ accepted on our behalf at Calvary.

The devil’s instruments of deception and temptation are cunning at the very least, and are deserving of the punishment God has planned for him. Under the cover of the serpent (in the Garden), Satan is sentenced to be degraded and accursed of God; detested and abhorred of all mankind. He is to be destroyed and ruined at last by our Great Redeemer, signified by the breaking of his head. War is declared between the Seed of the woman (Jesus Christ) and the seed of the serpent. God gives a foreshadow of the promise of a Savior who will suffer in our stead. What is most amazing is that no sooner had man fallen than the timely remedy was provided and revealed. Ephesians 1:4 says, “He’s the Father of our Master, Jesus Christ, and takes us to the high places of blessing in him. Long before he laid down earth’s foundations, he had us in mind, had settled on us as the focus of his love, to be made whole and holy by his love. Long, long ago he decided to adopt us into his family through Jesus Christ” (MSG).

Jesus, by His death and suffering, answered the sentence passed on our First Parents. Did travailing pains come with sin? We read of the travail of Christ’s soul (Isaiah 53:11) and the excruciating pain He endured on the cross. Did subjection come in with sin? Christ was made subject to the Law (Galatians 4:4). Did the curse come in with sin? Christ was made a curse for us. Galatians 3:13 tells us, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)” (NKJV). Did thorns come in with sin? Christ was crowned with thorns for us. Did sweat come in with sin? He sweat blood for us to the point that He exuded great drops of blood. Did sorrow come in with sin? He was a man of sorrows; His soul was, in His agony, exceeding sorrowful. Did death come in with sin? He became obedient unto death.

Reconciliation

We are told in 1 Peter 1:19-21, “…but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot… He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (NKJV) [emphasis mine]. In the beginning was the Word, through whom God created the world and everything in it. We’re told that without Him nothing was made that has been made: (see John 1:1-3). Colossians 1:16 tells us, “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him” (NIV). Jesus is the path by which fallen Creation could be reconciled with God.

The apostle Paul teaches about reconciliation, and describes examples that include siblings, litigants, lost sheep, the prodigal to his father, and man to God. Indeed, reconciliation is exemplified in Jesus’ attitude toward sinners—the truth in Athanasius’s belief that incarnation is reconciliation. He butted heads with Arius, the father of Arianism. This heretical view held that Jesus was begotten by God at a specific point in time, distinct from and not an equal of God. Arius said, “There was a time when the Son was not.” Accordingly, this blasphemy teaches that the Holy Spirit and Jesus did not always exist.

Reconciliation is certainly the central theme in Christianity. It means that God made Christ to be sin for us. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (NIV). We are in desperate need for this reconciliation as we have been alienated from God through sin. It is when our estrangement leads us to hit our knees in prayer that we begin to build a bridge back to God. This not only includes reconciliation to God, it also involves reconciliation of man to one another and to life itself. I believe this is the very foundation of restoration.

The New Testament teaches that we are reconciled through “the death of the son,” “through the cross,” “by the shed blood of Jesus Christ,” and “through Christ made to be sin” as our substitute. He was the very propitiation for our sins. It is fascinating to note that in Romans 3:25 the Greek word for propitiation is hilasterion, which refers specifically to the lid on the Ark of the Covenant. The phrase means that Christ took upon Himself the punishment we should have. This is the great work that took place on Calvary so that we might regain fellowship with God. It is important to note that there was truly no other way back to God. This was and is our only hope.

Christianity declares that God reconciled mankind to Himself through Christ. Paul wants us to realize that this action is an established fact. Romans 5:11 says, “Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation” (RSV). Eugene Peterson’s translation The Message//Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language states the following: “Now that we are set right with God by means of this sacrificial death, the consummate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a question of being at odds with God in any way. If, when we were at our worst, we were put on friendly terms with God by the sacrificial death of his Son, now that we’re at our best, just think of how our lives will expand and deepen by means of his resurrection life” (vv. 9-10).

Indeed, this amounts to coming full-circle. Adam and Eve sinned and were in need of a “covering” for their sin because of shame and guilt. They tried to hide from God, perhaps hoping He wouldn’t “find” them. Their greatest fear was his wrath. I don’t believe they anticipated that such an “innocent” act of curiosity would lead to being cut off by God and expelled from the Garden of Eden. However, I am not sure whether being armed with such knowledge would have made a difference. They were enticed by the beguiling of the serpent, through his deception and trickery, to disobey God, saying, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:3-4, NKJV). This sounded good to Eve. After all, would it not be prudent to have an eye for the difference between what is good and what is evil? Where’s the harm in that?

The consequences of that self-delusion and abject disobedience set the stage for the entire Creation to go off track. Nothing is as God intended it to be. Thanks to God we have been given the means to patch things up with the Father and be reunited with Him in fellowship. Indeed, we now have the means to participate with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the redemption and restoration of all of God’s glorious Creation.

References

Cory Asbury, Caleb Culver, Ran Jackson. (2017). Reckless Love [recorded by Bethel Music]. On Reckless Love [CD recording]. Los Angeles, CA: Bethel Music.

Peterson, E. (2009). The Message//Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs, CA: NavPress.

Henri Nouwen and The Spiritual Life

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

Henri Nouwen (1932-1996) was a Dutch Catholic priest, professor, writer, and theologian. He focused on integrating Christian theology, philosophy, and psychology. He unfortunately died of a massive heart attack while traveling to Russia to participate in a documentary about his book The Return of the Prodigal Son. He authored a total of thirty-nine books and hundreds of articles during his ministry. He struggled with loneliness, but had an uncanny ability to describe his personal struggles in a way that resonated with his many readers.

“I wanted to know how we could integrate the life of Christ in our daily concerns. I was always trying to articulate what I was dealing with. I thought that if it was very deep, it might also be something other people were struggling with. It was based on the idea that what is most personal might be the more universal.“

In his seminal book The Spiritual Life: Eight Essential Titles, Nouwen described a persistent urge to enter more deeply into the spiritual life, but said he was confused about the direction in which to go. He desperately wanted to be among the believers who have a deep desire to “know” and experience the “story of Christ.” He noted that heart-knowledge was necessary over head-knowledge in order to accomplish this. He intimated that the method for accomplishing this was to “…set your hearts on [H]is kingdom first.”

I hope to expound on his journey and the results of his search in a way that incites you to do the same.

All These Other Things

I think it is natural for the layperson (indeed, even the young minister) to determine that “the spiritual life” can only be realized through monk-like study and contemplation. Many believe we must sell our earthly possessions, quit our jobs, leave our family and our paramour, and walk into the dessert to confront our flesh and yield to the Spirit. First of all, if this were indeed the only way we can live a truly spiritual life then there would not be many among us who could achieve it.

Nouwen taught that the spiritual life is not a life “…before, after, or beyond our everyday existence.” Instead, the spiritual life can only be real when it is lived in the midst of the pains, joys, difficulties, and successes of the here and now. We simply must begin our search for a Spirit-filled life by taking a careful and thorough look at the way we think, speak, feel, and act from hour to hour, day to day, week to week, and year to year. It is only through this exercise that we can become more fully aware of our need for the Spirit in our lives. While earning my bachelor’s degree in psychology, I learned about a rather unique concept called metacognition. Essentially, this is an awareness and understanding of one’s thought processes. I like to call it thinking about what I’m thinking about.

When we are not content with the way our lives are going, we are not really very happy. There is no joy and no peace. Indeed, Christ said, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (John 14:27, NASB). We must understand that any mood of resignation to our “lot in life” will prevent us from actively searching (and ultimately finding) the life of the Spirit. To get there, we need instead to be honest, show courage, and trust in a positive outcome from our journey. We must honestly unmask and courageously confront our many self-deceptive games.

From a psychological standpoint, we tend to bury (repress) our true feelings. We “stuff them,” hoping that ignoring them will work. That somehow this “baggage” will take itself out to the trash container. In addition, we are prone to project unwanted feelings and attributes within ourselves onto others. In other words, we “displace” our emotions. We also tend to use denial to cope with uncomfortable emotions and, sometimes, actions that have been perpetrated on us. Because many of our so-called defense mechanisms are subconscious and (accordingly) automatic, finding them and bringing them to the light of day requires us performing a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. I first heard of this concept while attending 12-step meetings in Alcoholics Anonymous. Believe me, this is a lot harder than it sounds.

The Essence of Spirituality

Spirituality is described by J.M. Houston as “the state of deep relationship to God.” It is noted that prior terms like “holiness” or “discipleship” tended to turn believers away from seeking a spiritual life, liking it to intense dedication at the expense of the day to day life. In addition, “spirituality” is somewhat abstract. It seems Catholic devotion was a spin-off of spirituality. Interestingly, the influence of secularism, atheism, pluralism, and moral relativism into virtually every avenue of Western life caused enough alarm among ministers and believers that many began to take devotion to Christ more seriously.

Christian heresies within the early church all won popularity because of the ascetic and mystical properties they featured more than the “doctrine” they espoused. Some heresies responsible for this reaction included Gnosticism, Greek mystical thought (especially during the period of Diaspora when the Jews were forced out of Israel), Trinitarian and Christological belief, Arianism, Docetism, and others. In fact, Islam is considered by some biblical scholars as a heresy of Judaism. You may remember the story of Abraham and God’s promise to him to bless him with a vast land and countless heirs through his otherwise barren wife Sarah. God said Abraham would be blessed and he would bless many. It was through Abraham that God instilled his plan for the redemption of mankind. Unfortunately, Abraham grew impatient and his faith waned. He and Sarah agreed that he would have sexual relations with Sarah’s handmaiden, Hagar. As a result, Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, through whom the Muslim faith was established.

The Nature of Christian Spirituality

According to J.M. Houston, there are six aspects that characterize Christian spirituality:

  1. Asceticism as such does not define Christian spirituality because much of asceticism involves contempt for the material world. The biblical doctrine of creation recognizes that God created all things, and they were “good” (see Genesis 1). God does not ask the believer to detach from this good life.
  2. Biblical revelation of God as “personal” leaves no place for relying on human wisdom. Moses spoke with God face-to-face, the temple was filled with the Glory of God (Gr. shekinah), and the prophets all manifested God’s will and developed a degree of Christian spirituality never seen before.
  3.  Christian spirituality must be Christ-centered. Paul frequently talked about being “in Christ” to emphasize the union Christians can have with Jesus. The synoptic gospel writers describe following Jesus to mean being in union with love. God’s original purpose was to create man in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). Moreover, redemption is interpreted as being “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29).
  4. Christian spirituality by definition is life in the Trinity: believers accept God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as one triune God. It is through the Holy Spirit that Christians can cry, “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6).
  5. Christian spirituality is the outworking of God’s grace in the human soul, beginning with conversion and concluding with having been killed, buried, and resurrected (to new life) with Christ.
  6. Christian  spirituality engenders fellowship, and the communion of saints. This aids in deepening the believer’s character. After all, iron sharpens iron. Spirituality can be tested by measurement of a believer’s public behavior and worship (Acts 2:42-47). Frankly, godliness and spiritual fellowship compliment each other. Christian worship is primarily a matter not of special practices or performances, but of lifestyle (Romans 12:1; 14:6; 1 Corinthians 10:31).

Nouwen speaks of being “filled” or “unfilled” relative to the spiritual life:

Filled

It seems that today’s believers are always busy. This is true for all of Western society. It is practically a badge of honor to be “too busy” to get everything done in a day. The fallout is a nagging sense that there are unfinished tasks, unfulfilled promises, unrealized potential. As if that were not enough to distract us, Nouwen says “more enslaving that our occupations, however, are our preoccupations. To be pre-occupied means to fill our time and place long before we are there.” I’ve been there many times. All those “ifs” running through my brain. What if that persistent left lower abdomen pain is cancer? What if I get killed in an automobile accident? What if my mother dies suddenly? What if I can never own a home? What if I can’t find a job in my chosen vocation? This habitual negative prognostication makes us wonder constantly what to do and what to say in case something happens in the future. We ruminate, making us anxious, fearful, suspicious, greedy, nervous, and morose.

What would our lives be like if we were to stop worrying? If we could ignore the urge to be entertained, to travel the world “in search of ourselves,” to buy so much, and to arm ourselves, perhaps our society as it exists today would fall apart. Unfortunately, we all seem to get caught up in materialism, wanderlust, competition, contrived needs, self-sufficiency, and workaholic behavior. We become so filled with the world and our selves that there is no room for God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. When this happens to a follower of Christianity, his or her walk with Christ is sorely compromised. This pervasive materialism can quench the Spirit and lead to a continual walk in the flesh.

Unfilled

Beneath our worrying lives, however, something else is going on. Our minds and hearts are filled with many things, and we wonder how we can ever hope to measure up to the hype. While busy with “this and that,” we seldom feel truly fulfilled. How can we? The material world is experienced solely through the flesh. The result is a gnawing sense of being unfulfilled. Nouwen says, “Boredom is a sentiment of disconnectedness.” He believes to be bored doesn’t really mean we have nothing to do. On the contrary, we question the value of the things we are so busy doing. He writes, “The great paradox of our time is that many of us are busy and bored at the same time” [italics mine]. The most debilitating expression of our unfulfillment is depression. Perhaps we can call this the spirituality of boredom.

This pervasive depression raises it’s ugly head in thought: “Is my life worth living?”

Boredom, resentment, and depression are sentiments of disconnectedness. There it is, plain as the nose on our faces. Man was created to be in fellowship with God and with each other. When we feel unfulfilled, our life is perceived as nothing more than a series of broken connections. Loneliness is one of the most widespread social diseases of our time. It affects not only retired life (although my father was never bored during his retirement), but also family life, neighborhood life, school life, and business life. Frankly, it is because of this sense of separation that many among us are suffering. This is true because when we feel cut off from the human family, we quickly lose heart.

We cannot, however, think of ourselves as passive participants in life who have no contribution to make. I’ve been there way too many times. Not unlike others, I have a need to feel relevant. Without that, we start to believe our pains are no longer growing pains and our struggles no longer offer the potential of a new or changed life. Our past is pointless, dead to us; our future seems to be leading us nowhere. It simply leaves us worried, preoccupied, and without promise.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

One of the most notable characteristics of worrying is that it fragments our very existence, cutting us off from everyone and everything, troubled by events that may never happen. But in our minds, we’ve come to believe we’re no longer destined for success or happiness. We’ve essentially “gone fleshly,” forgetting how to walk in the Spirit. The minutiae of our daily empirical world takes us in a million directions. We struggle to make sense of it all. Nouwen puts it this way: “…most of us have an address but cannot be found there. We know where we belong, but we keep being pulled away in many directions, as if we were still homeless.”

The proper way to address this inescapable spiritual malaise is through Jesus Christ. He responds to this condition of being filled yet unfufilled, very busy yet disconnected, running and looking, yet never leaving home. He wants to bring us to the place where we belong. But His call to live a spiritual life can only be heard when we are willing to honestly admit our own “homelessness” and fretful existence, and instead recognize that we are all from God, and He loves us much more than we could ever comprehend. He gave His one and only son to die a gruesome, painful death on the cross in order for us to live a life for salvation. A spiritual life. Not a life in the flesh, competing, compiling, coveting, stealing, worrying, or amassing material possessions just so we can “become fulfilled” in the flesh.

Instead of feeding our flesh, essentially our ego, with money and fame and “things,” we need to work at feeding our souls with the Spirit of Christ. When our treasure is with God, we will have no reason to worry—economic recession, falling stock prices, government shutdowns, pollution, extinction of various species, failing health. It would be more productive to realize nothing in this world, indeed in the entire universe, is as God intended. Man’s fall has impacted virtually every realm of physical existence, and it has shut us off from communion with God.

Christ did not die to fuel our material desires. He is not pleased with televangelists who speak only of “having it all,” indicating God seeks to bless us with wealth and success (which He does so long as it doesn’t own us, and we use it to bless others) but forgetting to talk about the wages of sin, the essential need for living in the Spirit denying the lusts of the flesh, and moving toward becoming Christ-like. He died an excruciating death on the cross to provide the means by which we can become redeemed and have the power to crucify the flesh. There is no other way to lead a true spiritual life.

References

Houston, J.M. (2017). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Nouwen, H. (1985). The Spiritual Life: Eight Essential Titles. New York, NY: Harper One.

 

 

 

The Essence of the Gospel

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

the-gospel-03.jpg

The Gospel is the heart of the Bible. Everything in Scripture is either preparation for the Gospel, presentation of the Gospel, or participation in the Gospel.

Many believers “know” God intellectually. I did, initially. Actually, in many ways, I still do. I seem to know of Him more than I know Him. But head knowledge doesn’t cut it. It won’t change our lives. It might tell us how our lives can change. It may provide countless biblical examples of what this so-called changed life looks like; what we can and should do once we’ve become a new creation. But it will not imbue us with godliness or allow us to become Christ-like. The only way we can accomplish this is to get God from our head into our heart. Trust me, this is a lot harder than it sounds.

The most important doctrine in the Christian church is the Gospel. Pastors often encourage believers to begin with the Bible, but this approach challenges contemporary telling of the Gospel. For example, some think the Gospel is about social justice, others see it as salvation, and still others might see the Gospel as theological doctrine (kingdom, justification, sanctification). Just referring people to the Bible risks us losing them in the quagmire of confusion. We need to (i) promote the Gospel through how we live; and (ii) break the Gospel message down to the most basic.

We need God in our heart; not just in our head. This, however, is a life-long process.

As Christians, we often want to believe God in our head yet hang on to who we want to be in our heart. The heart is the seat of our soul: our emotions, desires, and will. To hold onto God intellectually while giving in to our every whim and desire of the flesh is precisely what is meant by trying to serve two masters. To dumb it down, this is also referred to as having our cake and eating it too. Eugene Peterson translates Matthew 6:24, “You can’t worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you’ll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other” (MSG). Well, that’s pretty plain, isn’t it? Okay, I’ll admit that from a sociological or legal perspective it is actually possible to serve two masters. But psychologically, or spiritually, if pressured to choose, our devotion for one will always drown out the other.

Faithful Servants Banner.png

As humans, whether we choose to believe it or not, we are servants. Yes, all of us! The bosses. The billionaires. The entrepreneurs. The retirees. Even when we’re not actively serving another human being, we are servants to our wants and desires. Paul understood the broad application of this passage. In Romans 8:5-6, he says, “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace” (NIV). He says we can either be in the flesh (Romans 7:5) or in the Spirit (Romans 8:9). The litmus test for flesh versus Spirit is simple: How do you live your life? What do you give in to on a daily basis?

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE GOSPEL

What is the “essence” of the Gospel? The word Essence refers to the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character. Some relevant synonyms include soul, spirit, ethos, intrinsic nature, reality. That last one is rather on point, isn’t it? As if we’re asking the question, “What is the reality of the Gospel?” Philosophers who teach on worldview talk of discovering the “really real.”

painted cross

Unconditional love and unwavering grace is the very essence of the Gospel. Jesus came to Earth to live among us, teach and inspire us, serving as Messiah and Exemplar. Man was created in the image of God. Jesus showed us what it looks like when we mirror that image. His entire life was a legacy of unconditional love, sacrifice, and servitude. We need to show love in all our day-to-day interactions with others. We must fine-tune our ability to recognize someone’s need, and then responding to that need. We are presented daily with opportunities to show love and kindness to those around us. There are many attributes which are manifestations of love, such as kindness, patience, selflessness, understanding, grace, and forgiveness. In all our associations, whenever we can, if we display these attributes it will be outward proof of the love and grace we have in our hearts as a result of becoming one with Christ.

For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! — Charles Spurgeon

But what does it mean to preach the entire Gospel? Unfortunately, there are nearly as many answers to this question as there are denominations and sects within the Body of Christ. To truly preach the Gospel is to clearly and unabashedly state every doctrine contained in God’s Word. It includes giving the Word the prominence it deserves. I’ve been to a number of church services in my lifetime. Some of the experiences were, to be as polite as possible, very interesting. Some were, well, just a bit of a downer. All the doom and gloom—how bad we are, nothing but sinners, deserving of eternal pain and separation from God—yet with no mention of the “Good News.” I left more than one sermon feeling as lost and confused as I did when I walked in. Thankfully, I have come full-circle and returned to the church of my youth where I accepted Christ at an alter call at age thirteen and was baptized as an outward display of my new-found faith.

Preach the Gospel Preach it Right.jpg

No man can claim to preach the whole Gospel if he knowingly and routinely leaves out even one single truth about Jesus Christ, God the Father, or the Holy Spirit. I’m a real fanatic when it comes to pastors sticking to the true Gospel message. Many church leaders today “tone it down,” perhaps hoping to avoid offending the congregation. People love hearing “it’s not your fault,” and “Jesus loves you anyway.” They don’t want to be confronted about their wrongdoing. I know I don’t! But I’ve come to accept who I am and realize there is work to be done if I ever hope to fulfill God’s plan for me.

Pastors who are afraid to speak doctrinal truth because they might scare people away are not being shepherds. Such an approach to ministry can actually serve to detract others from the Good News. The apostle Paul summarized the Gospel as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, through whom sin is atoned, sinners are reconciled to God, and the hope of the resurrection awaits all who believe. He wrote, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2, NASB). If it sounds like a difficult undertaking, it is. I’ve found it requires singleness of purpose even if we have to wear blinders to the distractions of the flesh.

WHAT’S GOING ON IN OUR CHURCHES?

We’re told in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day” (NIV). The early church grew exponentially. New believers were devoted to the teaching of the Apostles and were possessed by a great sense of awe over God’s glory. I asked a member of my church, “If you had a choice, would you rather be living in the twenty-first century or back in the first century where you’d have a chance to meet Jesus and sit at His feet and hang on His every word? Walk with Him throughout Judea as He tells you about God’s love and grace?” Hands down, he’d rather be living during the time of Christ. Imagine the power and charisma that must have radiated from Jesus! I imagine His empathy and love were palpable. He judged no one. He hated no one. When put to the test by the Pharisees, Jesus always responded with the entire Gospel in mind, typically saying, “It is written.”

fellowship333.jpg

A friend of mine who has served as a youth pastor and associate pastor said, “I am upset and discouraged by the dwindling number true Bible-believing churches that teach the Gospel in America today.” His biggest pet peeve is churches who have “professional” concerts, coffee clatches before or between services, movie night, dozens of support groups, countless missions they support, and yet near-silence on the wages of sin, the answer to breaking free from the bondage of the flesh, and an obligation to preach the entire Gospel. He said, “Church isn’t about entertainment.” Personally, I love worshiping Jesus in song. My church has a full-time (paid) worship leader, and we’ve invested a fairly large of money in sound equipment, in-ear wireless monitors for the team members, lights, and a computer-controlled projection of lyrics and related images.

WATERED-DOWN CHRISTIANITY LEADS TO LUKEWARM CHRISTIANS

Frankly, however, I see my friend’s point. The Christian church of today has been leaning toward “watering down” the Gospel at a critical time in history where we should be screaming from the rooftops the entire truth about sin and death, Christ and grace, the cross and forgiveness. Pastors who preach a less-than message risk lulling their congregations into a state of lukewarmness the Book of Revelation warns us about. Revelation 3:15-16 says, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (NIV)[italics mine].

Lukewarm Christian What Does It Mean.png

Lukewarm Christians clearly risk being rejected by Christ. It would seem critical, therefore, that we recognize the signs. First, do you seek God before making decisions? One of the major aspects of the Christian life is trusting God to lead. It’s a desire to see His will in our lives over our own. This requires having faith that God’s way is the best way. The lukewarm Christian doesn’t really believe this; they will always make their own decisions without consulting God. Second, people do not take your “Christian walk” seriously. A lukewarm Christian displays an inconsistent witness at best. Friends are able to tell you’re not “all in” for Jesus. If your friends don’t believe what you confess about your commitment to Jesus, is it because your words don’t match your actions? Third, lukewarm Christians  tend to make a habit of testing the limits of God by trying to serve Him and the flesh. A compromised Christian walk is more dangerous than no walk at all.

Thom S. Rainer, in his blog post “Fifteen Reasons Our Churches are Less Evangelistic Today,” provided the following table listing those reasons:

  1. Christians have lost their sense of urgency to reach lost people.
  2. Many Christians and church members do not befriend and spend time with those who are lost and in need of the Good News.
  3. Many Christians and church members have become apathetic.
  4. We are more known for what we’re against than what we’re for.
  5. Churches have an ineffective evangelistic strategy of “you come” rather than “we go” (see Matthew 28:16-20).
  6. Many church members think that evangelism is the role of the pastor and paid staff.
  7. Church membership today is more about getting “my needs met” rather than reaching the lost and the worse off.
  8. Church members are in a retreat mode as culture become more worldly and unbiblical. Culture has begun to tie the hands of Christianity.
  9. Many church members don’t really believe that Christ is the only way to salvation.
  10. Our churches are no longer houses of prayer.
  11. Churches have lost their focus on making disciples who will be motivated and equipped to reach the lost.
  12. Christians to not wish to share the truth of the Gospel for fear they will offend others. Political correctness is too commonplace, even among Christians.
  13. Most churches have unregenerate members who have not received Christ themselves.
  14. Some churches have theological systems that do not encourage evangelism.
  15. Our churches have too many activities; they are too busy to do the things that really matter.

THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM

The synoptic gospels unite in opening the ministry of Jesus with a summary statement of His message. Matthew writes, “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mark tells us that Jesus preached “…the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (ESV). The Gospel of Luke is specifically addressed to Theophilus and is focused on the complete story and history of Jesus Christ from His birth and ministry to His crucifixion and ressurection. Luke focuses on the teachings of Christ about salvation and Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming Messiah. It includes the beautiful birth story of the baby Jesus and the miracle conception by God. The first five verses of the Gospel of John show us the divine participation of Jesus as the Word who was present at the moment of Creation. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made.

CT Today Banner

Ed Stetzer (2012) wrote in Christianity Today, “The gospel is not habit, but history. The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn’t something we can do, but it is something we must announce. We do live out its implications, but if we are to make the gospel known, we will do so through words.” Of course, evangelism is about speaking Christ to others; it’s also about living Christ in front of others. Virtually any activity provides Christians with the opportunity share their faith in Christ. This involves sharing the good word and doing the good deed. Frankly, this is a huge responsibility. My pastor recently said, “The number one attraction to the Gospel is other Christians.” Makes sense, right? He wasn’t done. He added, “But unfortunately the number one detractor to the Gospel is other Christians.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Christian ministers have always sought new ways to attract non-believers to their gatherings. The more non-believers you have, the greater likelihood that at least some of them will come to faith in Jesus. The great British pastor, Charles Spurgeon, observed that when hunting ducks, if you are shooting at a large group of them flying overhead, you have a much greater chance of hitting one or two than if you are shooting at a solitary fowl. However, it is imperative that believers refrain from going to church just to sit in the pew and wait for unbelievers to show up. Clearly, Jesus commanded that we “go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20, NKJV)[emphasis mine].

Some of the means ministers use to attract people are innovative and effective; others are downright silly and accomplish nothing. Non-Christians may be devoid of the Holy Spirit, but they are usually smart enough to smell nonsense when they see it. Other church leaders, considering themselves too spiritual to ever use any means whatsoever to attract unbelievers, are content to simply pray and preach the gospel, and hope that somehow people will just show up in their meetings. Sometimes it happens; often it does not. However, too many churches have “competitive” and rather manipulative ways to attract non-believers to their gatherings.

This is one situation in which “keep it simple” is the perfect attitude. A successful evangelical message serves to convict people of their sins, explaining the Good News in a contextual manner, while keeping the core message explicit and clear. The message should be delivered from a position of compassion for the lost sheep. This is especially true when reaching out to those whom we believe are living a lifestyle that is in direct contrast to biblical principles. For example, we will never reach same-sex couples, alcoholics, drug addicts, or those experiencing gender confusion if we convict or (worse yet) condemn them. Never forget that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (see Romans 8:1). We simply cannot reach those whom we despise as we won’t want to spend any time with them. Of course, lastly, the message must be Christ-centered and include reference to what occurred because of the cross.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life (1 Timothy 1:15-16)

References

Peterson, E. (2006). The Message//Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Rainer, T. (Feb. 23, 2015). “Fifteen Reasons Our Churches are Less Evangelistic Today,” [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from: https://thomrainer.com/2015/02/fifteen-reasons-churches-less-evangelistic-today/

Stetzer, E. (June 25, 2012). “Preach the Gospel, and Since It’s Necessary, Use Words.” Christianity Today. Retrieved from: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/june/preach-gospel-and-since-its-necessary-use-words.html

 

 

 

Did God Use the Big Bang to Create the Universe?

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

Most science textbooks on cosmology credit Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson with the discovery that the universe began with a hot big bang creation event. While Penzias and Wilson were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from the creation event, they were not the first scientists to recognize that the universe is expanding from an extremely hot and compact beginning. Over time, energy and matter has become less and less dense. In fact, the universe is significantly cooler than it was at the moment of creation.

Theoretically, the idea of a “big bang” does not negate God’s creation of the universe. Of course, physicists and theologians constantly bicker about the origin of life and the universe. This is part of the problem. The “bickering.” Most physicists do their research from the mentality of a zero-sum proposition. In other words, they believe science and religion cannot both be right. One is true only through the complete annihilation of the other. Science has its realm—observing and explaining the physical elements and all that we can see—whereas religion is concerned with the spiritual, the metaphysical. They say never should the two meet. This ignores the idea that all truth is God’s truth.

The Big Bang and the Expanding Universe

In 1946, George Gamow calculated that only a universe expanding from a near infinitely hot beginning could account for the existing abundance of elements. In 1912, Vesto Slipher observed the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, indicating their velocities relative to ours. In 1929, observations made by Edwin Hubble (after whom the Hubble Telescope is named) established that the velocities of nearly all galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe. Beginning in 1925, astrophysicist and Jesuit priest Abbe Georges Lemaitre was the first scientist to promote the idea of a big bang creation event. The first theoretical scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916 when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.

Not surprisingly, many big bang theories exist. They share three fundamental characteristics: (1) a transcendent cosmic beginning that occurred a finite amount of time ago; (2) a continuous, universal cosmic expansion; and (3) a cosmic cooling from an extremely hot beginning. All three of the fundamental characteristics of the big bang were explicitly taught in the Bible two to three thousand years before scientists discovered them through their astronomical measurements. Moreover, the Bible alone among all the scriptures of the world’s religions expounds these three big bang fundamentals. Scientific proofs for a big bang universe, thus, can do much to establish the existence of the God of the Bible and the accuracy of the words of the Bible.

The term big bang is problematic. It’s not a “bang” per se. This expression typically conjures up images of a bomb blast or exploding dynamite. Such event would unleash disorder and destruction. Instead, this “bang” represents a very powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time, the behavior of which must occur according to specific fine-tuned physical constraints and laws of physics. This type of power and precision exceeds the ability of the human mind.

This begs the question, Why, then would astronomers retain the term? The simple answer is that nicknames, for better or worse, tend to stick. In this case, the term came not from proponents of the theory, but rather from the mind of Sir Fred Hoyle. He coined the expression in the 1950s as an attempt to ridicule the big bang, which was at odds with his “steady state” theory. Steady-state theory is a scientific hypothesis that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant average density. Its proponents believe matter is continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as they increase in velocity and distance from the center of the galaxy. Such a universe would have no beginning or end. Hoyle objected to any theory that would place the origin or cause of the universe outside the universe proper—outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It seems he wanted to side-step any hint of a metaphysical explanation for the physical universe.

What the Bible Says About a Transcendent Universe

To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. The LORD God Almighty (Hebrew, El Shaddai) created all things on the earth, beneath the earth and in the heavens above, yet He exists above and independent from them. We see this in Hebrews 1:3a, which states, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV).

Being transcendent, God is the incomprehensible Creator existing outside of space and time and thus is unknowable and unsearchable. Neither by an act of our will nor by our own reasoning can we possibly come to understand God. God wants us to seek to know Him, yet how can the finite possibly know and understand the infinite when our minds and thoughts are so far beneath His. In Isaisah 55:8-9, God says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, [a]s the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (NIV).

As you might guess, scientists see this Christian tenet as ill-advised at best. It is said that Christians believe in a “fairy tale” story of Creation, and that they hide behind metaphysics, completely unaffected by the so-called “lack of physical evidence” to prove that a Supreme Being spoke all of Creation into existence.

Creation and the Militant Atheist

A militant atheist is one who displays extreme hostility toward religion—with a particular disdain for Christianity. The difference between them and the average skeptic who simply does not believe in God is that they intend to propagate their atheism throughout society. In fact, it is their sincere desire to stop all reference to religion, God, Christ, Christianity, Allah, Islam, or Buddha. Their main aim is to quash any public mention or display of religion or its icons and reference to the subject matter in any public school or college. In addition, they hold all religion to be harmful. Interestingly, militant atheism first popped up during the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution, and in the Soviet Union.

The militant atheist, Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) likened parents forcing their theistic beliefs to their children as a form of child abuse. He believed parents have no right to “indoctrinate” their sons and daughters with the notion of a Supreme Being. He expressed four irreducible objections to faith: (1) that it wholly misrepresents the origin of man and the universe; (2) that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility—an excessive willingness to serve or please others—with the maximum of solipsism, which means anything outside one’s mind is outside the realm of human comprehension, (3) that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression; and (4) that it is ultimately grounded in wishful thinking.

Hitchens said we are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe, but believes these should be limited to the arts, music, and literature. They have no place in the scientific inquiry into the origin of life and the cosmos. In fact, he believed that serious moral and ethical dilemmas should be relegated to the likes of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Schiller, and Dostoyevsky, not in the “mythical morality” of holy books and scriptures. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and soul.

“I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me.”—Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir

Hitchens believed that man can live a moral and proper life without religion. In fact, he said when man accepts that this life on Earth is all there is, that we live only once (with the exception of living on through our progeny), we will behave better rather than worse. First, this is far from true in reality. One only has to watch the nightly network newscasts to see that man cannot simply “get alone” to avoid wasting time, life, love,or relationships. Violence is but one symptom of this problem. Christianity, of course, teaches that man is born in sin, with an innate tendency to seek what the individual wants at any cost, and that this aspect of sin nature will prevent man from acting ethically and fairly on his or her own power. Simply put, Hitchens believed religion is man-made. I concur. Christianity, however, is not necessarily just a religion; instead, it is about relationships: with God the Father, with Jesus Christ, and with one another.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, Virus of the Mind, and The Blind Watchmaker, among others, said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” He believes faith is “the great copout;” merely an excuse to evade the need to think and to evaluate evidence. Hebrews 11: 1 tells us, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (NKJV)[emphasis mine]. Dawkins is not shy in his condemnation of Christianity, stating, “It is a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, couldn’t think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed” [emphasis mine].

Dawkins seems tremendously militant about his atheist views, stating, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.” He went over the top when he invoked the memory of 9/11, stating that many atheists saw religion as “senseless nonsense,” with belief systems that lack physical evidence to back their claims. He said if people need “a crutch” to get through life, where is the harm? He concludes, “September 11th changed all that.”

Not All Scientists Deny the Existence of a Supreme Being

The universe is, of course, tangible. We can observe it (at least as far as current technology permits). But there is an infinite and transcendent aspect to the universe as well. The tangible is typically explored by obstinate observers and exasperated experimenters. These “scientific” individuals come to the search with preconceptions, biases, and presuppositions. But no matter their extensive education (at and beyond the master’s degree level), these individuals are sentient beings with limited understanding, bound by time and space, and can only peripherally comprehend what they observe. Moreover, they are saddled with trying to prove a negative: God does not exist! We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative.

Albert Einstein once said, “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature, and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking ultimately concluded that there is no God. For me, it’s a matter of science’s failure to completely and thoroughly demystify nature and the cosmos. I agree that we know many things as a result of scientific inquiry. For example, we know why the sky is blue: Among the wavelengths of light in our sun’s spectrum, blue oscillates at the highest frequency and is, therefore, scattered quite nicely by the molecules of air in our atmosphere. Because the blue wavelength bounces off air in all directions, the sky appears blue.

We also have come to understand how gravity works. Newton understood gravity to be a force exerted by objects in space, but Einstein proved that it is a property of space: the curvature, or what he called “warping” of spacetime. Perhaps this is why Gene Roddenberry coined the term “warp speed” relative to escaping the pull of gravity on space ships in order to travel faster than the speed of light. Einstein said this warping is similar to bouncing on a trampoline. He believed that massive objects warp and curve the universe, resulting in other objects moving on or orbiting along those curves. The predictions of Einstein’s theories have been validated time and time again. Now, 100 years after the formulation of his theory of gravity, another one of its predictions—the existence of gravitational waves—has been directly measured, despite Einstein’s belief that we’d never be able to do this.

Darwin’s Black Box

The term “black box” is a whimsical reference to a device that does something, but whose inner workings remain mysterious—sometimes because the workings can’t be seen, and sometimes because they just aren’t comprehensible. When Leeuwenhoek first saw a bacterial cell he essentially revealed a black box (the cell) within a black box (the organism itself). The cell theory was promulgated in the early nineteenth century by Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann. It was Schwann who concluded that cells or the secretion of cells compose the entire bodies of animals and plants, and that in some way the cells are individual units with a life of their own. Schleiden added, “The primary question is, what is the origin of this particular little organism, the cell?”

The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his colleagues were able to answer. They knew eyes were for seeing, but wondered exactly how sight works. How does blood clot? How does the body fight off disease? What was the smallest “unit” of life? Things began to open up a bit when Justus von Liebig showed that the body heat of animals is due to the combustion of food at the cellular level. From this discovery, he formulated the idea of metabolism, whereby the body builds up and breaks down substances through chemical processes.

A Fine Example

To Darwin, vision was a black box. Today, however, after the work of numerous biochemists, we have a better understanding of sight. Michael J. Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, recounts the biochemistry of how a human is able to experience vision:

When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodospsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II  now binds to a protein called phosphodiestrerase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative to both GDP and GTP). Initially, there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub… Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle.

The Odds of Random Life

Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Science has calculated the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for creating life as one out of 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power—a number that exceeds human imagination. Sir Fred Hoyle believed the odds of the random formation of a single enzyme  from amino acids (necessary for life itself) anywhere on Earth are one in 10 to the 20th power. He believed this tremendous chance-happening is rooted in the fact that there are approximately two thousand enzymes, with the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial only one in 10 to the 40,000th power! Say what? This is an outrageously small probability that would not likely occur even if the entire universe were made up of organic soup. Nothing has yet been stated relative to DNA and where it came from, or of the transcription of DNA to RNA, which even atheist-minded scientists admit cannot be mathematically computed. Nor has anything been said of mitosis or meiosis. It would seem any chance of the random ordering of organic molecules in a manner consistent with formation of life is zero.

Replacing Darwin

Nathaniel T. Jeanson, in his amazing book Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species, stated the following in his Afterward:

In the beginning… God created “kinds” of creatures—the original min. Representing creatures somewhere between the rank of sub-genus and order, these min contained millions of heterozygous sites in their genomes. As they reproduced, shifts from heterozygosity to homozygosity led to diverse offspring… after the creation of these min, their population sizes were dramatically reduced. At least for the land-dwelling, air-breathing min, their population sizes were reduced to no more than fourteen individuals. In some cases, their populations declined to just two. However, because this population bottleneck was so short, the heterozygosity of the Ark passengers would have been minimally affected. For sexually reproducing min, a male and female could have possessed a combined four copies of nuclear DNA. These copies could have been very different, preserving a massive amount of speciation potential.

If you’re familiar with Noah’s Ark, you’ve probably heard the phrase “two-by-two,” as if Noah brought animals on board the Ark only in groups of two. For some animals, Noah brought at least seven male and seven female individuals of that animal (see Genesis 7:1-3). Some biblical scholars agreesuspect that “seven” might refer to pairs (rather than to individuals), implying that Noah brought fourteen individuals (7×2=14) of these types of animals.

There has been a fundamental misunderstanding among most scientists (and atheists, for that matter) of both science and Christian faith. First, we must remember that some important scientific theories have yet to be tested—for example, Stephen Hawking postulated that black holes rotate. Second, Christianity can be tested. We have already been successful at the factual level regarding Christian doctrine standing up to atheistic scrutiny. The reliability of the biblical documents and evidence for the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus has stood the test of time. In addition, Christianity is observable and testable at the individual level.

The Nature of Science

I’ve heard it said that science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. For a scientist to claim he or she can disprove the existence of God—trying to prove a “negative”—is like saying a mechanic can disprove the existence of Henry Ford. In fact, it would be more accurate to state that theism supports science, not that science supports theism. Scientists are responsible for collecting data and interpreting it properly. This is not the function of science; rather, it is the responsibility of the scientist. They function as judges of the data. Science itself is a tool, not a judge. Even in jurisprudence, the jury is the trier of the facts. Because if this, we are presented with a dilemma. Qualitative data is inherently necessary when doing science, but each scientist comes to the lab with certain preconceptions and biases.

James W. Sire (2015) explains what is meant by a worldview. He states it is “…a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world” (p. 19). David Entwistle (2015) warns us that assumptions and biases affect data interpretation. He said, “…what we see depends, to some degree, on what we expect and are predisposed to see.” (p. 93) Our ability to know is both dependent upon and limited by the assumptions of our worldview. This is problematic in science, especially because a person’s worldview is not just a set of basic concepts, but a fundamental orientation of the heart.

Accordingly, atheists and theists are not really arguing over the data, nor are they bickering over the vast majority of scientific issues. Instead, they are butting heads over contrasting worldviews. In order for science to be fair and balanced, scientists must take a forensic approach similar to that of a detective reviewing evidence at a crime scene. You can certainly imagine what happens if a detective approaches a homicide absolutely convinced about who committed the murder and why. Little-to-no investigation of exculpatory evidence or alternative suspects would be entertained. This would frequently lead to the wrong conclusion and conviction of the wrong individual.

Richard Lewontin, a Darwinist from Harvard University, addressed the philosophical biases that plague science. He wrote the following in The New York Review of Books:

Our willingness to accept accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to the material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanation, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door [emphasis added].

Here’s my thought on this matter. If nature behaved in an erratic and unpredictable manner then life and science would be impossible. Laws of nature must point to a Law Giver. Most atheists have come to believe that God is no longer necessary. They think God and the laws discovered  through scientific study are diametrically opposed. Militant atheists take this viewpoint further, insisting that belief in God actually derails scientific progress. They believe “God” merely fills in the gaps in data until we “figure it all out.” In other words, who needs faith when we can empirically prove the whys and the means for how the physical world operates.

John C. Lennox, a mathematics professor at Oxford University and accomplished Christian apologist, noted that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, “I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.” Rather, because he understood how it worked, he was even more in awe of God who designed it that way. Granted, the prestige of science and technology is indeed impressive. But there’s more “code” and intricate functionality in just one of our forty trillion cells than in the latest iPhone.

Revisiting the concept that we all bring our preconceptions and biases to the table when taking on a subject, it is important to note that before doing science scientists frame their own philosophical rules for doing science. How can this not have a deciding impact on what they see or don’t see? Should scientists be open to only natural causes, or are intelligent or metaphysical causes worthy of consideration. While doing science, scientists rely on the orderly laws of nature, the law of causality, and the theory of knowledge known as realism when conducting an experiment or empirical investigation. After doing science, scientists must decide what is good evidence. What counts as evidence is not evidence itself—a philosophical value judgment must be made. Moreover, they must remain honest and open-minded throughout the entire process.

References

Behe, M. (2006). Darwin’s Black Box. New York, NY: Free Press, Div. of Simon and Schuster.
Entwistle, D. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity, third edition. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Jeanson, J. (2017). Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing Group.
Sire, J. (2015). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept, second edition. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.

“Why Do I Keep Getting Angry?”

The Accidental PoetLeave a comment

ANGER HAS BEEN MY go-to emotion for most of my life. At times my anger is focused inward, upset that I cannot let things go. Too often it’s focused outward. Although I have little patience for incidents of road rage, I seem to cave to it far too often when behind the wheel. Just today, I was driving my mother’s car when I came to an intersection where two other cars had stopped. When the person who had the right of way didn’t go, but just sat there, I began cursing at them. After they went, I tried going and the car to my right (who had just arrived) pulled out in front of me. They saw the anger on my face and flipped me off. I put the driver’s side window down and yelled an un-Christian expletive. Serius XM’s 63 The Message was playing on the stereo. As always happens, I immediately regretted what I said and asked for God’s forgiveness.

I always do. But I keep getting angry behind the wheel.

Many people, including me, believe it’s not spiritual or Christ-like to be angry, and they feel guilty when they are. Anger, however, is a normal human emotion. I recall a night at work last year when I was beginning to boil over the way my boss was treatment me. While still steaming, I took two annoying phone calls. After hanging up, I turned quickly and spilled soda onto the pages of a $321 college text book. That’s it! I picked up the book and threw it across the office floor. My pulse was racing and I felt out of control. Not a very comfortable feeling.

After calming down, I picked up my cell phone and called one of my buddies at church. When I finished telling him what happened, he paused, took a breath, and said, “Well, brother, I hate to tell you this, but you’re afflicted with a little thing I like to call being human.” None of my “yeah, but” comments won him over. He said there were no buts. It is a fact of living in the flesh. Today, when I got home, my mother played a voice mail message from me I did not know I left. I had somehow called my mother’s cell phone while snapping out at that intersection. When she got home, we talked about how things have been bothering me and that I keep getting angry. She played the message. I didn’t want to hear it, but it was necessary. My brother said the family has begun to see me as a Jekyll and Hyde. As you can imagine, that didn’t set to well with me.

When We Let Our Emotions Control Us

We are quite easily ruled by our emotions; especially when we don’t realize it is occurring. Naturally, we all have days when we feel more emotional than others, and there may be a good reason why. It’s hard to simply tell ourselves, “This too shall pass.” However, some of us have a long history of out-of-balance emotional behavior. Many are facing long-standing problems that might go back to childhood or adolescence. But without confrontation of painful issues from the past, it is impossible to move forward with a healthy soul.

forIt is critical that we don’t waste today or put our future in jeopardy because we keep living in the past. If we are constantly looking back with regret, sadness, and resentment, and forward with fear, we will fail to realize that each day is a new beginning. Holding on to our past cost us our future.

If we cling on to the past and keep on using it as an excuse for why our lives are crappy, we can’t move forward. Our future will be very similar to our past. This is known by the colloquial expression emotional baggage. Whenever we bring up past hurts, continually rehearsing our failures and agonizing over things we should have done but didn’t, we’re tying ourselves to our past. We’re risking the chance that our present and future will not be different. In reality, our past isn’t the past. William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” How can it die if we keep reliving it? I read sometime ago that our thoughts affect our emotions, our emotions affect our actions, our actions affect our habits, our habits affect our lifestyle, and our lifestyle becomes our destiny. Please take a minute and read that again.

I’ll wait.

So What About All These Emotions?

Our emotions tend to ebb and flow like the tide at the beach. Joyce Meyer wrote, “It would be so nice if they would just ask permission to come or go, but they don’t.” Obviously, wishing our emotions were different won’t change a thing, so we need to do more than daydream about “better times, better feelings.” I spent my childhood years in a bad relationship with my father. I could not seem to behave, and dad couldn’t seem to control me. He’d ask, “Why do you keep doing these things?” I’d simply respond with the truth: “I don’t know.” He tried everything: lectures from the pastor, loss of privileges, corporal punishment. He even tried to predict where I’d end up if I didn’t change. I’d end up in prison. He was right.

My first mode of escape was writing. I also listened to a lot of music. It seemed the song lyrics of many hits from the 70s were telling my story. One song that stands out is The Logical Song by Supertramp from the Breakfast Over America album. The words still haunt me.

“When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical; and all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily, oh joyfully, playfully watching me; but then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible, and they showed me a world where I could be so dependable; oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical… there are times when all the world’s asleep, the questions run too deep for such a simple man; won’t you please, please tell me what I’ve learned, I know it sounds absurd, please tell me who I am.”

Another anthem of mine from that era was Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man) by Styx. The song title alone said it all. The older I got, the harder it was for me to grasp the root of my melancholy, moody, angry, bitter, life. I remember loving the beach, swimming at the public pool with friends, eating cherries fresh from the cherry tree in my back yard, rescuing lost and injured animals, going camping on weekends, hiking, photography, drinking from the garden hose. Sadly, by the time I hit high school, nothing made sense anymore.

“You see the world through your cynical eyes, you’re a troubled young man I can tell; you’ve got it all in the palm of your hand, but your hand’s wet with sweat and your head needs a rest… how can you be such an angry young man when your future looks quite bright to me; how can there be such a sinister plan that could hide such a lamb, such a caring young man…”

I had accepted Christ at age 13 and was baptized. Our family regularly attended every church service held at Sunbury Bible Church—Wednesday Bible study, Thursday prayer and worship, Sunday school and worship, and Sunday evening evangelism broadcasts live on a local radio station. None of that seemed to matter any more once my father decided we were quitting church cold-turkey. He said he was tired of the hypocrisy and being constantly asked to give more or serve more. I didn’t realize I could attend church by myself. Shortly after we stopped going to church, I fell out of relationship with Jesus Christ. Things grew exponentially worse after that.

An Epidemic of Violence in America?

Anger is a huge problem in our world. Especially over the past decade. Whether it’s a disgruntled employee or bullied high school student unleashing violence through mass murder, or domestic violence, road rage, terrorism, politics, abortion rights, the economy, or war, we are constantly reminded of the global anger that is a part of the society in which we are living. Violence continues to rise while everyone debates the Second Amendment, mental illness, drug abuse, and bullying. We seem obsessed with a quick fix. Confiscate all guns. It is not an easy topic.

Virginia Beach Shooting Pic 01.jpg

A police officer walks near the scene where at least twelve people were killed during a mass shooting at the Virginia Beach city public works building on May 31, 2019.

PsychCentral calls anger and resentment “relationship killers.” Anger hurts. Naturally. When we don’t handle anger, it can overwhelm us. If we’re in denial about our anger, we cannot hope to accept it or properly deal with it. Difficulty with anger is typically due to poor role models growing up. Learning to manage anger should be taught in childhood, but if our parents lacked skills to handle their own anger maturely, they were unable to pass them on.

Unattended anger can quickly turn into a resentment. It is, unfortunately, a formidable foe. Resentment is often defined as anger and indignation experienced as a result of unfair treatment. The problem with anger is that it’s one of the densest forms of communication. It contains tons of information (including emotion), which tends to spill out all at once. Arguments are more apples-to-oranges than apples-to-apples. Everything that’s been building up—even past hurts and offenses you thought you let go of weeks, months, or years ago. It seems likely that individuals who resort to mass murder have been extremely angry for decades. They feel marginalized. As if they don’t really matter. The past builds, rolls down a hill as the proverbial snowball, growing, growing, then…

“And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 24:10-13, NKJV).”

Consider the Virginia Beach shooting. CNN has confirmed that DeWayne Craddock had resigned earlier in the day before killing 12 coworkers and injuring several others, including one police officer. Mr. Craddock had worked for the city for about 15 years, and had trained as an engineer. He spent time in the Virginia National Guard, and public records did not suggest that he had any history with the criminal justice system other than traffic violations. Initial reports were that he’d just been fired and was disgruntled enough to commit mass murder. A spokesperson for the city said Craddock’s resignation was not connected with any decision that had been made about Craddock’s future position in the government. Begs the question, where did all this anger come from? Unfortunately, we can’t ask Craddock. He was killed in a hail of bullets when he opened fire on police officers.

The Sin of Offense

Our natural reaction in conflict is to blame others and focus on what they did to us. There is a known moral imperative that fairness and justice means “you get what you deserve.” This is a difficult concept to grasp in the middle of being hurt or offended. In this manner, our “feelings” often get in the way of conflict resolution. We feel absolutely justified or indignant about our anger. After all, look what he or she did to me! Often when we are offended we see ourselves as victims and blame those who have hurt us. We justify our anger, resentment, bitterness, and unforgiveness. Sometimes we resent those who remind us of others who have hurt us. Just because we are offended or mistreated, we do not have the right to hold onto offense. 

“Then he said to the disciples, ‘It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come'” (Luke 17:1, NKJV).

The Greek word for “offend” in Luke 17:1 comes from the word skandalon. This word initially referred to the part of the trap to which the bait was attached. Accordingly, the word signifies laying a trap in someone’s way. John Bevere (2004) says no matter what the situation, offended people can be divided into two major categories: (1) those who have been treated unjustly, or (2) those who believe they have been treated unjustly. I have spent a great deal of time in the second category. My pride keeps me from admitting my part—my true condition—in the matter. Pride keeps us from dealing with truth. It distorts our vision. We cannot change when we think either everything is fine, or we’ve done nothing wrong to anger someone. Pride can actually harden our hearts despite God having given us a heart of flesh at conversion.

We construct walls when we are hurt to safeguard our hearts and prevent any future wounds. We become quite picky about who we will let in. No one knows how long, but eventually these walls of protection become an emotional prison. The angrier we get, the more likely we will continue to get angry. Whenever we expend energy defending ourselves, isolating, withholding love and good will, we forget about forgiveness, grace, and the love of God. Here’s a great point from Bevere: “If we don’t risk being hurt, we cannot give unconditional love. [Unfortunately], unconditional love gives others the right to hurt us.” For me, he means love does not seek its own. He is suggesting that if we wallow in our hurts and offenses, we become increasingly self-seeking and self-contained. When we filter everything through past hurts, rejections, and offenses, we find it impossible to believe God.

So Now What?

When we are hurt or offended and in unforgiveness—and when we refuse to repent of this sin—we have not arrived at the truth. We are deceived, and our hypocrisy confuses those we could otherwise lead to Christ. This is unfortunately true for me more times than I’d like to admit, but we’re only as sick as our secrets. My mantra was, “If it weren’t for my father, I would have had a normal life.” For too long I hung on to the idea that I can’t forgive others, and I am globally angry, because that’s what dad taught me. To the degree that this is even somewhat true, at some point it becomes irrelevant. It’s sort of like knowing what is causing us to suffer a physical ailment but not stopping the activity causing us to be sick.

If we stay free from offense, we are better able to stay in God’s will. When offended, we are taken hostage by Satan to fulfill his own purpose and will. Not God’s and not ours. First Corinthians 13 (often called the “Love Chapter”) defines unconditional (Greek, agape) love. One of my favorite interpretations of this critical biblical principle is described in Eugene Peterson’s (2006) The Message//Remix. He writes, “Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn’t want what is doesn’t have. Love doesn’t strut, doesn’t have a swelled head, doesn’t force itself on others, isn’t always ‘me first,’ doesn’t fly off the handle, doesn’t keep score of the sins of others, doesn’t revel when others grovel, takes pleasure in the flowering truth, puts up with anything, trusts God always, always looks for the best, never looks back, but keeps going to the end” [italics mine].

“This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (Acts 24:16).

Reaching this seemingly lofty and elusive goal cannot be accomplished on our power alone. We are simply incapable of unconditional love and acceptance. It takes spiritual growth and a reliance on the Holy Spirit to lead us down the paths we are to take as Christians who have been redeemed from the power and the wages of sin. We can, however, start by making an effort to stay free from offense. It’s a lot like working out at the gym. When we regularly exercise our forgiveness and work toward God’s ideal for love (1 Corinthians 13), we slowly get better at it. We drastically increase the odds that we will become less and less offended and instead begin to let go and forgive.

I will be praying that you are able to break the bondage of hurt, offense, anger, resentment, and unforgiveness. I would ask that you pray for me as well. Now, let’s go forth in grace and kindness. May we forgive ourselves and see ourselves as God sees us. This is critical if we are ever to curb our anger and express our love and acceptance of others and our situation.

References

Bevere, J. (2004). The Bait of Satan: Living Free From the Deadly Trap of Offense. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House.

Peterson, E. The Message//Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

“I’m Not Who I Wanna Be!”

The Accidental Poet2 Comments
The greatest revolution in our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives. —William James

Girl in Meadow Sunset Contemplating

KNOWING YOURSELF IS ONE OF the greatest feelings. It has a deep meaning. Frankly, it’s how you enable yourself to move forward. When you are able to clearly and honestly see who you are deep down, you are better equipped to begin working on personal growth. There simply is no growth without honesty. I learned this lesson the hard way—which is an understatement. It took me over four decades to discover who I had become, who Jesus sees me to be, and what to do about it.

Too many Christians today suffer from an identity crisis. Whenever we forget who we are in Christ, we create a void in our spirit that nothing can satisfy, although not for lack of trying—overeating, sex, booze, drugs, gambling, excess shopping, pornography, working eighteen hours a day, whatever. Of course, what’s critical is this: How we see ourselves is our identity. Identity is strongly linked to self-image and self-esteem.

WHO DOES CULTURE SAY WE ARE?

Culture tries to create us as they see fit. Enculturation begins with our first primary caregivers and continues through academia and religious or other “life-defining” practices. Culture influences identity. We are both individuals and members of the human family. Clyde Kluckhohn (1954) wrote “culture is to society what memory is to individuals.” Webster’s dictionary defines culture as “…the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief and behavior that depends upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.” It also includes values and beliefs of a particular group. Because we’re social beings—according to Genesis 2:18, God believed man should not be alone—the cultural influences we’re subjected to play a large role in the development of our identity.

Culture provides a lens through which we view and interpret the world. This is typically called a worldview. It’s been said that culture suggests the way a group of people may appear to an anthropologist; worldview suggests how the universe appears to the group. Accordingly, worldview helps generate our specific experiences. Everyone has a worldview—a window through which he or she views the world, framed by the assumptions and beliefs that color what he or she sees. The basic role of a worldview is to present the relationship of the human mind to the riddle of the world and life. Nietzsche viewed every worldview as a product of time, place, and culture.

Identity is not determined by biology; rather, it is informed by social and environmental influences. For example, language is a large part of who we are—including how and what we speak—is determined from birth by environment and social culture. It is further influenced by academics. Somewhere, in the mix of all this, culture gives us a label for the group to which we each belong. We all “see” the same world, but it will be understood differently. Our “glasses” (worldview) do not shape reality, nor do they ensure a correct perception, but they do determine how we interpret and explain life and the world.

WHO DOES PSYCHOLOGY SAY WE ARE?

Dissociative-Identity-Disorder-800x435

Identity is largely concerned with the question Who am I? Identity relates to our basic values that dictate the choices we make (e.g., relationships, career, academic interests). These choices reflect who we are and what we value. Some believe identity may be acquired—at least in part—indirectly from parents, peers, and other role models. Children come to define themselves in terms of how they think their parents see them. If their mother or father sees them as worthless, they will come to define themselves as worthless. People who perceive themselves as likable probably heard more positive than negative statements.

Standard elements of the word personality include:

  • the state of being a person
  • the characteristics and qualities that form a person’s distinctive character
  • the sum of all the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of a person

Essentially, personality is everything about us that makes us what we are—a unique individual who is different, in large and small ways, from everybody else. Our personality is one of our most important assets. It helps shape our experiences. Personality type can limit or expand our options and choices in life, and can even prevent us from sharing certain experiences or keep us from taking full advantage of them. Accordingly, sometimes personality can vary with the situation. Psychologists and sociologists assume that identity formation is a matter of “finding oneself” by matching one’s talents and potential with available social roles.

WHO DOES PAUL SAY WE ARE IN CHRIST?

Ephesians-960x350

According to Ephesians 1, we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing; we have been chosen, adopted, redeemed, forgiven, grace-lavished, and unconditionally loved and accepted. We are pure, blameless and forgiven. We have received the hope of spending eternity with God. When we are in Christ, these aspects of our identity can never be altered by what we do.

For Paul, union with Jesus is summed up in the short phrase he uses over 200 times in his epistles: in Christ (and other variations of same). This wording is said to have originated with Paul. C.K. Barrett, British biblical scholar and Methodist minister known for such books as The Gospel of Saint John and A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, believed we cannot define the term “in Christ” exactly because Paul does not elucidate or explain the how—i.e. the mechanism—of such a union suggested by the phrase. So, what does the phrase mean?

One of the richest passages about identity in the Bible is found in Ephesians 1:3-14. In this passage, Paul addresses the church in Ephesus, explaining the new identity given to a person when they are in Christ. Unfortunately, often a gap exists between intellectually knowing these truths about who God says we are and living them out. This can be hindered by how we see ourselves, our life experiences, and the ways we allow the world to define us. In order to live out the fullness of our new identity in Christ, we must determine what is hindering us from seeing ourselves as He sees us. Many times, a false belief has wedged itself between how God defines us and seeing ourselves in the same light.

Jesus With Open Arms

For example, the opposite of “pure and blameless” would be “impure, stained or guilty.” Perhaps a life experience has caused you to feel impure, so you believe God sees you this way. You then create and live out of an identity based on your beliefs, which are  contrary to how God sees you. In order to fight against these false beliefs, we must discover the exact belief we are allowing to form our identity.

When reflecting on Ephesians 1, I see some false beliefs we may live out:

  • rejected instead of accepted,
  • in bondage instead of redeemed,
  • under the law instead of covered by grace,
  • feeling orphaned instead of adopted

Instead, we need to focus on who we are and what we have in Christ:

  • spiritually blessed
  • redeemed
  • sealed
  • grace through faith
  • one in Christ
  • joint heirs with Christ
  • access to the Father
  • fellow citizens of heaven
  • boldness
  • new life
  • access to the whole armor of God

Just saying “I’m in Christ” does not make it so. What must come first is the means by which we can be one with the Messiah. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (NIV) [italics mine]. The mechanism is right there. Christ had to become sin for us, thereby washing us white as snow, before we could become the righteousness of God and be one with Jesus. Paul tells us in Romans 3:22-24, “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (NIV) [italics mine].

Romans 6:11 says, “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus (NIV) [italics mine]. Further, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:2). Paul addresses our identity in Christ in his Epistle to the Ephesians. In 1:12, he writes, “…in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory” (NIV). Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:6 that He raised us up together with Him by our virtue of being in Christ. Ultimately, we press on to win the prize to which God the Father is calling us heavenward in Christ (Philippians 3:14). John says, “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (NKJV).

WHO DOES GOD SAY WE ARE?

God says we are valuable. We are created in His image (Genesis 2:7) and tasked with carrying that image like a torch to light the world. We are woven into the tapestry of all He has created. We’re crowned with His glory and honor as the pinnacle and last act of the six days of Creation.

Perhaps the best way God sees us is redeemed. The truth we have to remind ourselves every day is the fight has already been won. We don’t need to try to fix ourselves. No self-effort will ever save us. We cannot make up for past struggles and efforts. We must remember that grace is already ours. When we die to our old self, we live with Christ in God. The Father no longer sees our sins. When He looks at us, he sees the righteousness of Christ.

We have all this through Jesus Christ.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25, NIV).