As many of you know I attend Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, Michigan. This week I've decided to write just a little about my church in order to clear up some misinformation that has been making the rounds. I've heard several versions of what has gone on in Warren and there's always an element of inaccuracy in each one. While it is not my intention to detail the events of 2009, what I will say is that important facts have been omitted, skewing peoples perceptions of this church [1][2]. The rumors that have been circulating have led some to question the legitimacy and order of this church. Thus I feel to write about the current condition of GLCC in Warren in order to give a more perfect picture of how God is meeting us today.
There is no one in our church that wouldn't recognize that there was great turmoil last summer. It affected us all, from our eldest saints down to the little children just beginning to perceive what was going on around them. I myself at one time did not see how we would survive the shaking and trouble that our church was experiencing. To be completely honest it wasn't until some time had past that I was able to look back with enough clarity to be able to see that Jesus had His hand on us even in the midst of our problems.
I think a good example of how we felt can be found in Daniel 3:20 as I'm sure that many of us could relate to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they were tossed in the fiery furnace. During the entire summer we were feeling the heat and while I can't say that I had the faith of these men at the time, I've come to realize that just like them, we had a Fourth Man in the fire (Dan 3:25).
I can't say for certain that all of our shaking is over, there may still be some aftershocks coming our way, but we are moving forward. Some of us have been hurt and those wounds take time to heal, but they are healing. I'd say that right now we are in a stabilization mode and we are still discovering that although we have been shaken, our foundation has not been and that we can still hold onto the solid rock. I can also happily report that much like after a forest has been devastated by a fire there come signs of new life, I see signs of new life in our church and an renewed expectancy for more of the same to come.
Earlier this year I got up on a Sunday night and sang a song to the church. I told the people that I was singing it because I could say that it had once again become true of our church. That song was Sweet, Sweet Spirit and thank God that when I sang the line "There are sweet expressions on each face", it could not have been more accurate. You see, our Fourth Man in the fire has never left us and we have begun to trust in Him and rely on Him more fully than before.
Just this week I've heard three separate stories from different people telling that when they too felt the despair and anguish that we experienced last year crushing down on them, what got them through was that they still felt Jesus with them. I think that each of us on an individual level as well as a corporate level have begun to recognize the presence of our Fourth Man in the fire, and we are being renewed because of it.
My church is not the same church it was even just a few years ago, we've changed and we are still changing but that change is for the better. We're becoming stronger and more sure of the wonderful things God has in store for us. We're becoming a closer knit family and our sorrow is being turned into joy (John 16:20). It is my estimation that we are becoming a church whose testimony has become "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us" (Dan 3:17). The next time that this church is shaken we will look back to the last year and know without a shadow of doubt that "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us".
I want to encourage those of you who are reading this who do not attend GLCC in Warren to come and visit us and see for yourself that what I've said in this post is true. The perfect opportunity for this is nine days away at our Regional Fellowship meeting, however even if you cannot attend this meeting, I'd still encourage you to come and visit us if you can. Don't rely on either the rumor mill or me alone to determine the legitimacy of the church in Warren, come and see that sure enough there is a Fourth Man in the fire with us and that He is continuing to meet us on a daily basis. Find out that regardless what some might say, God is not through with His church in Warren (Phil 1:6).
References:
[1] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-with-comments.html
[2] http://paulbdyal.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-we-leaving-established-pattern.html
(Note: I am assuming that these posts refer to the church in Warren because of the detail and timing even though they do not name us directly)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A New Beatitude
Blessed are the forgetful, for when other people are angry, they won't remember what all the fuss is about.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
I Had To Write This Post
I am going to tackle predestination in this post, not only to address what is an easily misunderstood doctrine but also to make one other point that should apply to all of our doctrinal teachings.
Predestination in a nutshell is the belief that God planned everything that will ever happen in His creation from the beginning until the end. An excellent example of predestination in action is Jesus foretelling the disciples of Judas' betrayal (John 13:21). Another well known example can be found when Jesus foretells Peter's denial of Him later in the same chapter (John 13:38). A strict application of predestination would state that these men were meant to do these things from the very foundation of the Earth.
The whole thought of predestination however seems to fly in the face of the concept of free will. I've heard from my earliest days in Sunday School that God created us with free will because He desired a people who would make the choice to worship Him because they wanted to. As far as I know choice has been a root of Christianity, and is taught as one of the primary elements of salvation. Do we not preach to those without Jesus that they need to choose to listen to His call and follow Him?
The debate that has centered around the doctrine of predestination for hundreds of years can be summed up in the following question: If every action that we take has already been planned out and God has predetermined what will happen throughout His creation, how can you say that we act as free agents capable of making decisions in our own lives?
It seems on the surface that predestination and free will are at least inconsistent if not in complete opposition to each other. I've even heard some detractors of the Bible bring up the subject of predestination as one of those contradictions or discrepancies that in their opinion disprove the Bible. Certainly it can seem that the idea of free will contradicts predestination, but in truth this is just not the case and is instead a problem with understanding.
The problem as I see it is actually a matter of pride. People assume that they can understand everything, but this is just not the case. The Lord's ways are above our ways and in some cases we are just not capable of understanding them (Isa 55:8-9). People often come into contact with this concept at great times of loss in their lives; an example of which would be the loss of a loved one. Most likely they will struggle to work out in their own mind why God would take this person away from them but will eventually console themselves with the thought that we cannot totally understand God's ways. We are able to accept on a base level when emotional trauma has stripped us of so much of our resistance, but when there is no emotional impact involved we struggle with it from an academic standpoint.
To imagine that we are capable of completely understanding how God set up creation is laughable (Rom 11:33-34). How can we really think that our understanding is actually on par with that of God (Prov 3:5,7)? This condition is prevalent enough however that we have developed a word to describe this way of thinking: hubris. There is also an aspect of this hubris where we impose the limits of our understanding on God as well. We are limited in not only our understanding, but also in our perception. Does our arrogance translates those limitations to God as well? Are we really so confident in ourselves that we think that our ability to understand somehow dictates God's ability to act? I think that unfortunately this is all too common a belief, and one God has addressed (Job 38:4, 40:2).
How can we know something that is unknowable? Paul seemed to think that this was possible (Eph 3:19). Is Paul speaking in riddles in this passage or is there something else happening here with this comprehension that Paul is speaking of (Eph 3:17-18)? Instead of a full understanding, Paul is referencing an appreciation of the fact that God is not only more capable than us, He is more capable than we can conceive (Eph 3:20). It is possible to know a thing and not completely understand all of it's design and harmonious inner workings. How much more the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11)? Put your trust in Him.
Personally speaking I do not find it in any way incongruous to believe that God is capable of predetermining His creation in such a way that it incorporates our free will. Ask yourself, is your God powerful enough to do such a thing even if you are not able to understand it? Ponder that question while we look at predestination at a personal level.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a real difference between free will and predestination for arguments sake. Unless you had explicit, detailed knowledge of the future, your ignorance of said future would render the difference between the two a moot point at least to you would it not? What is the real difference between complete free will, and unknowable determinism? Conceptually they are different, but in any real life application they are indistinct from each other.
This certainly hasn't stopped people from perverting predestination doctrine in an effort to absolve themselves from personal responsibility though. I've heard this abdication of responsibility from both sides of the argument. On one hand, I've heard people who will justify horrendous acts as being predetermined by God in such a way that it seems that they are almost blaming Him. Atrocities have happened and well-meaning but misguided individuals have either stated that these actions are the judgment of God or might point out that if it was not in God's plan, He would have stopped it. In essence, they are stating that God is responsible for actions perpetrated by people. On the flip side I've heard people ignore their own responsibilities to live productive lives for Christ, and instead using reliance on Christ as if it were some kind of a all-encompassing waiver. I saw an example of this in high school when one of my friends told me that she did not see any reason to try to tell anyone about Jesus because He was capable of adding to the church as He saw fit which was an obvious misuse of Acts 2:47 (BTW, I questioned her about this further and this is really how she had been taught at her church). In both cases, people were more than willing to abuse the doctrine of predestination to dump the responsibility of their actions, or lack thereof, squarely on God's shoulders, and in some cases the blame too. This is just despicable.
This brings me to my other point. Our doctrines as well as our actions should bring glory to God and not reproach. In my examples of how the doctrine of predestination can be misunderstood it is important to realize that these applications can be logically derived from how predestination is actually taught in many churches (it certainly was in the case of my friend). This being true, this understanding of predestination has in it an inherent application that brings reproach to God. If for no other reason this is enough in my estimation to bring this doctrine into question. Yes, I do understand that people can misunderstand any doctrine and any scripture can be misused, but in this case the applications can be inferred by how the doctrine is taught. This to me is indicative of a faulty doctrine.
Instead, how much better to believe that yes we are responsible for our actions because of free will and that the predestination in creation exists as a greater level than we do (not that it does not apply to us)? This brings glory to God in our recognition of just how great He really is and it keeps us aware of our role in His plan (Isa 64:8). Should this qualification not be one of the measurements by which we determine whether a doctrine is good or not? Should we not endeavor to glorify God in every aspect of our lives, especially our doctrine? I certainly think so.
Predestination in a nutshell is the belief that God planned everything that will ever happen in His creation from the beginning until the end. An excellent example of predestination in action is Jesus foretelling the disciples of Judas' betrayal (John 13:21). Another well known example can be found when Jesus foretells Peter's denial of Him later in the same chapter (John 13:38). A strict application of predestination would state that these men were meant to do these things from the very foundation of the Earth.
The whole thought of predestination however seems to fly in the face of the concept of free will. I've heard from my earliest days in Sunday School that God created us with free will because He desired a people who would make the choice to worship Him because they wanted to. As far as I know choice has been a root of Christianity, and is taught as one of the primary elements of salvation. Do we not preach to those without Jesus that they need to choose to listen to His call and follow Him?
The debate that has centered around the doctrine of predestination for hundreds of years can be summed up in the following question: If every action that we take has already been planned out and God has predetermined what will happen throughout His creation, how can you say that we act as free agents capable of making decisions in our own lives?
It seems on the surface that predestination and free will are at least inconsistent if not in complete opposition to each other. I've even heard some detractors of the Bible bring up the subject of predestination as one of those contradictions or discrepancies that in their opinion disprove the Bible. Certainly it can seem that the idea of free will contradicts predestination, but in truth this is just not the case and is instead a problem with understanding.
The problem as I see it is actually a matter of pride. People assume that they can understand everything, but this is just not the case. The Lord's ways are above our ways and in some cases we are just not capable of understanding them (Isa 55:8-9). People often come into contact with this concept at great times of loss in their lives; an example of which would be the loss of a loved one. Most likely they will struggle to work out in their own mind why God would take this person away from them but will eventually console themselves with the thought that we cannot totally understand God's ways. We are able to accept on a base level when emotional trauma has stripped us of so much of our resistance, but when there is no emotional impact involved we struggle with it from an academic standpoint.
To imagine that we are capable of completely understanding how God set up creation is laughable (Rom 11:33-34). How can we really think that our understanding is actually on par with that of God (Prov 3:5,7)? This condition is prevalent enough however that we have developed a word to describe this way of thinking: hubris. There is also an aspect of this hubris where we impose the limits of our understanding on God as well. We are limited in not only our understanding, but also in our perception. Does our arrogance translates those limitations to God as well? Are we really so confident in ourselves that we think that our ability to understand somehow dictates God's ability to act? I think that unfortunately this is all too common a belief, and one God has addressed (Job 38:4, 40:2).
How can we know something that is unknowable? Paul seemed to think that this was possible (Eph 3:19). Is Paul speaking in riddles in this passage or is there something else happening here with this comprehension that Paul is speaking of (Eph 3:17-18)? Instead of a full understanding, Paul is referencing an appreciation of the fact that God is not only more capable than us, He is more capable than we can conceive (Eph 3:20). It is possible to know a thing and not completely understand all of it's design and harmonious inner workings. How much more the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11)? Put your trust in Him.
Personally speaking I do not find it in any way incongruous to believe that God is capable of predetermining His creation in such a way that it incorporates our free will. Ask yourself, is your God powerful enough to do such a thing even if you are not able to understand it? Ponder that question while we look at predestination at a personal level.
Let's assume for a minute that there is a real difference between free will and predestination for arguments sake. Unless you had explicit, detailed knowledge of the future, your ignorance of said future would render the difference between the two a moot point at least to you would it not? What is the real difference between complete free will, and unknowable determinism? Conceptually they are different, but in any real life application they are indistinct from each other.
This certainly hasn't stopped people from perverting predestination doctrine in an effort to absolve themselves from personal responsibility though. I've heard this abdication of responsibility from both sides of the argument. On one hand, I've heard people who will justify horrendous acts as being predetermined by God in such a way that it seems that they are almost blaming Him. Atrocities have happened and well-meaning but misguided individuals have either stated that these actions are the judgment of God or might point out that if it was not in God's plan, He would have stopped it. In essence, they are stating that God is responsible for actions perpetrated by people. On the flip side I've heard people ignore their own responsibilities to live productive lives for Christ, and instead using reliance on Christ as if it were some kind of a all-encompassing waiver. I saw an example of this in high school when one of my friends told me that she did not see any reason to try to tell anyone about Jesus because He was capable of adding to the church as He saw fit which was an obvious misuse of Acts 2:47 (BTW, I questioned her about this further and this is really how she had been taught at her church). In both cases, people were more than willing to abuse the doctrine of predestination to dump the responsibility of their actions, or lack thereof, squarely on God's shoulders, and in some cases the blame too. This is just despicable.
This brings me to my other point. Our doctrines as well as our actions should bring glory to God and not reproach. In my examples of how the doctrine of predestination can be misunderstood it is important to realize that these applications can be logically derived from how predestination is actually taught in many churches (it certainly was in the case of my friend). This being true, this understanding of predestination has in it an inherent application that brings reproach to God. If for no other reason this is enough in my estimation to bring this doctrine into question. Yes, I do understand that people can misunderstand any doctrine and any scripture can be misused, but in this case the applications can be inferred by how the doctrine is taught. This to me is indicative of a faulty doctrine.
Instead, how much better to believe that yes we are responsible for our actions because of free will and that the predestination in creation exists as a greater level than we do (not that it does not apply to us)? This brings glory to God in our recognition of just how great He really is and it keeps us aware of our role in His plan (Isa 64:8). Should this qualification not be one of the measurements by which we determine whether a doctrine is good or not? Should we not endeavor to glorify God in every aspect of our lives, especially our doctrine? I certainly think so.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
You're Invited
I just wanted to remind anyone who reads this blog that Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, MI, is having a Regional Fellowship Meeting on May 6-8. I am inviting you to attend our meeting, if you can and are not already attending the meeting in Beaverton, OR. Consider this my personal invitation to you to join us in fellowship and worship and if you are interested, you can click the links I've listed above. They will take you to a Facebook group and the church's website for more information, or you can contact me through the comments for this post.
I look forward to seeing you there. If you're looking for me btw, I'll be in the band during services, probably cutting up.
I look forward to seeing you there. If you're looking for me btw, I'll be in the band during services, probably cutting up.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Local Expression
I think this post will be my last follow up to A Remnant and Consider the Sources. I believe that this post wraps up the subject well, although I'm sure that there are aspects that I haven't yet discussed, but I'm not the only person speaking so I'll leave that to someone else.
How do you define our group of people? On the whole we call ourselves the Body of Christ. I've said that we use this term much in the way that denominational churches refers to the greater organization of which they are a part, and frankly many of us do. I've also said we are a special group, and I won't rehash this here, but this remains my opinion. But really, how would you define our group?
We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), however it seems that we don't really have much say so in the matter (1 Cor. 12:18). Does it surprise you to think that not only is God in control, but that He takes an active role in the development of the Body of Christ? How much more that it pleases Him to set the members in His order, by His design? Why then would we attempt to dictate what is and what is not the Body of Christ? This exclusivity that some espouse which dictates that this group of people whom Paul calls the Body of Christ must be derived solely from our rank and file is hogwash. I don't doubt that people in our group help comprise the Body of Christ, but to think that no one else who bears the name Christian could ever qualify for that distinction and that instead they partake in some lesser Christianity is nothing other than a superiority complex on our part. This my friends is not only prideful in the extreme, it is also ludicrous.
When did we start subdividing Christianity anyway? When did statements like "It's our group and not some other group that is special" or "This denomination has this doctrine here wrong and that's why the can't be used by God" become part of our lives? The truth is that we are all one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Additionally, this body that we are all a part of is not a homogeneous body (1 Cor. 12:14). Instead it is a varied body, and all parts of it are important and to say that one part is more important than another or that one part of it is not valuable is wrong (1 Cor. 12:20-21). Does this not apply to everyone, or did the translators miss an "if" and some kind of qualifier when they were translating verse 31?
Some of you might have problems with me using 1 Cor. 12 to address denominational divisions because Paul is obviously dealing with the church in Corinth and not the greater amalgamation of churches that comprised Christianity in the first century. Although I think that not only this chapter but also 1 Cor. 3:4-6,9,11 can apply, I agree that 1 Cor. 12 is not addressing large organizational divisions like those that are present in contemporary Christianity. I recognize that 1 Corinthians was addressed to a local church quite clearly and this is in fact one of the points I so very much want to bring out. Although Paul is addressing the Body of Christ in this chapter, he is doing so on a strictly local level. Strangely enough, all of Paul's epistles seem to be addressed either to a local church or an individual and not to the Body of Christ at large. Why do you think this is?
Let me pose a question. Is it the members that define the Body of Christ or the Body of Christ that define the members? I know that I am getting off into philosophy here, but the issue at hand is fundamental, and a greater understanding must be built upon a firm foundation in order for it to be correct. Let's look at the phrase "building blocks" and consider it's meaning. I think this is a good thought as Jesus is called the stone that has become the head of the corner and Paul refers to himself as a master builder(Luke 20:17, 1 Cor 3:10). How does the progression go? Do I first become a Christian and then a member of the Body of Christ, or do I first become a member of the Body of Christ and then a Christian?
The Body of Christ is made up of individual Christians who gather and worship together in their local assemblies on a regular basis. This is why Paul addressed his epistles to specific churches, and not to the larger organization. I won't deny that our group is a wonderful affiliation, but you must understand that it is made up of local assemblies which in turn are made up of individuals, not the other way around. I believe that "the Body" exists much more at the local level and not so much at a larger corporate level. To believe otherwise puts the Body of Christ back on some pseudo-denominational level.
This stuff is basic and simple, but how you understand the Body of Christ will color what you see happening in our group. You see, someone who sees the Body of Christ as an organizational entity will make sacrifices on an individual level in order to save the whole. Conversely a person who is a member of a functional church that is under the covering of God will see injustice that is happening at a group level and believe that it reflects directly on their local church because they are a part of that group. You must understand that both of these examples are only relevant if you see the Body of Christ as some kind of organization. If however you see the Body of Christ as something that transcends organizations of men, it doesn't matter anymore. You see, while the leadership of an organization might have the authority to remove a person from that organization or even choose to reorganize in whatever way they see fit, no man will ever have any authority when it comes to determining the makeup of the Body of Christ. That will always remain God's prerogative. Additionally, our local churches are not called to be representatives of a larger organization on this Earth, they are called to represent Christ. The only reflection that matters to the true Body of Christ is that of Christ Himself.
Isn't it time that we stopped looking at the Body of Christ as a pseudo-denomination or any affiliation of churches and instead recognize that it is made up of individuals whom God has chosen in order to bring Him glory? Isn't it time that we stopped feigning control over things that we have no right to? Isn't it time that we who adhere to a Christ centered order actually recognize the order that Christ created?
How do you define our group of people? On the whole we call ourselves the Body of Christ. I've said that we use this term much in the way that denominational churches refers to the greater organization of which they are a part, and frankly many of us do. I've also said we are a special group, and I won't rehash this here, but this remains my opinion. But really, how would you define our group?
We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), however it seems that we don't really have much say so in the matter (1 Cor. 12:18). Does it surprise you to think that not only is God in control, but that He takes an active role in the development of the Body of Christ? How much more that it pleases Him to set the members in His order, by His design? Why then would we attempt to dictate what is and what is not the Body of Christ? This exclusivity that some espouse which dictates that this group of people whom Paul calls the Body of Christ must be derived solely from our rank and file is hogwash. I don't doubt that people in our group help comprise the Body of Christ, but to think that no one else who bears the name Christian could ever qualify for that distinction and that instead they partake in some lesser Christianity is nothing other than a superiority complex on our part. This my friends is not only prideful in the extreme, it is also ludicrous.
When did we start subdividing Christianity anyway? When did statements like "It's our group and not some other group that is special" or "This denomination has this doctrine here wrong and that's why the can't be used by God" become part of our lives? The truth is that we are all one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Additionally, this body that we are all a part of is not a homogeneous body (1 Cor. 12:14). Instead it is a varied body, and all parts of it are important and to say that one part is more important than another or that one part of it is not valuable is wrong (1 Cor. 12:20-21). Does this not apply to everyone, or did the translators miss an "if" and some kind of qualifier when they were translating verse 31?
Some of you might have problems with me using 1 Cor. 12 to address denominational divisions because Paul is obviously dealing with the church in Corinth and not the greater amalgamation of churches that comprised Christianity in the first century. Although I think that not only this chapter but also 1 Cor. 3:4-6,9,11 can apply, I agree that 1 Cor. 12 is not addressing large organizational divisions like those that are present in contemporary Christianity. I recognize that 1 Corinthians was addressed to a local church quite clearly and this is in fact one of the points I so very much want to bring out. Although Paul is addressing the Body of Christ in this chapter, he is doing so on a strictly local level. Strangely enough, all of Paul's epistles seem to be addressed either to a local church or an individual and not to the Body of Christ at large. Why do you think this is?
Let me pose a question. Is it the members that define the Body of Christ or the Body of Christ that define the members? I know that I am getting off into philosophy here, but the issue at hand is fundamental, and a greater understanding must be built upon a firm foundation in order for it to be correct. Let's look at the phrase "building blocks" and consider it's meaning. I think this is a good thought as Jesus is called the stone that has become the head of the corner and Paul refers to himself as a master builder(Luke 20:17, 1 Cor 3:10). How does the progression go? Do I first become a Christian and then a member of the Body of Christ, or do I first become a member of the Body of Christ and then a Christian?
The Body of Christ is made up of individual Christians who gather and worship together in their local assemblies on a regular basis. This is why Paul addressed his epistles to specific churches, and not to the larger organization. I won't deny that our group is a wonderful affiliation, but you must understand that it is made up of local assemblies which in turn are made up of individuals, not the other way around. I believe that "the Body" exists much more at the local level and not so much at a larger corporate level. To believe otherwise puts the Body of Christ back on some pseudo-denominational level.
This stuff is basic and simple, but how you understand the Body of Christ will color what you see happening in our group. You see, someone who sees the Body of Christ as an organizational entity will make sacrifices on an individual level in order to save the whole. Conversely a person who is a member of a functional church that is under the covering of God will see injustice that is happening at a group level and believe that it reflects directly on their local church because they are a part of that group. You must understand that both of these examples are only relevant if you see the Body of Christ as some kind of organization. If however you see the Body of Christ as something that transcends organizations of men, it doesn't matter anymore. You see, while the leadership of an organization might have the authority to remove a person from that organization or even choose to reorganize in whatever way they see fit, no man will ever have any authority when it comes to determining the makeup of the Body of Christ. That will always remain God's prerogative. Additionally, our local churches are not called to be representatives of a larger organization on this Earth, they are called to represent Christ. The only reflection that matters to the true Body of Christ is that of Christ Himself.
Isn't it time that we stopped looking at the Body of Christ as a pseudo-denomination or any affiliation of churches and instead recognize that it is made up of individuals whom God has chosen in order to bring Him glory? Isn't it time that we stopped feigning control over things that we have no right to? Isn't it time that we who adhere to a Christ centered order actually recognize the order that Christ created?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
"Follow Me"
This subject has been on my heart for quite a while, but I've found it exceedingly difficult to put it to words. I've seen people struggling with this very issue over the last few months and as I've studied the ramifications of our actions more and more, it's left me disturbed.
You see what I'm writing today is basic, remedial Christianity. In the past I've tried to keep a merciful outlook on anyone who professes Christ (Luke 9:50), however there comes a time to speak out boldly for the cause of Christ (Matt 5:16), not in defense of Christianity but instead in condemnation of heresy.
The foundational moment of our Christian walk began the same way it began for those who came before us two thousand years ago (Matt 9:9, John 1:43). One day, we each heard the call "Follow Me" and it changed who we were. I'm not talking only about our salvation experience in this post though; I'm also referring to the primary instruction that we are given as Christians on how to be this new creature that we have become. This directive to follow Christ applied when we first started our journey and it still applies today. When we were saved, we were forgiven of sin and covered by the blood of Jesus; of that there can be no dispute. Still, it seems to me that how we actually comport ourselves makes a difference and is important.
We as Christians have been constantly besieged with definitions of what it is to be a Christian and instructions on how we must live our lives in order to be in God's will. However well intentioned these directions may be, they have at their heart a carnal element that will usurp the roll of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As Christianity gets redefined along denominational lines, what has been said about Jesus becomes more important that what was said by Jesus, man's doctrines become more important than what is written in the Bible and dedication to the church becomes more important than faith in God. Herein lies a trap and it's name is religion. If we walk down this path we will find that we ourselves become the focus of our faith and not God. However if you discard the irrelevancies and background noise of the religion we call "Modern Christianity" and return to a personal salvation, what we are left is a very simple choice: Will you follow Jesus?
We are called to follow Him, and for some of us that's too simple of a commandment to accept. Albert Einstein once said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Have we become "intelligent fools" by taking the commandment "follow me" and making it bigger and more complex? Doesn't this definition describing exactly what the religious leaders in Israel had been doing for centuries by the time that Jesus arrived? Doesn't this definition describe exactly what religious leaders have been doing in more recent times as well?
I guess I can understand why people would struggle so much to understand everything about their faith; it is a very human tendency to want to analyze and categorize anything and everything and I can't see why this tendency wouldn't apply to faith as well. It seems logical to want to delve into the depths of everything and understand everything, but the truth is that this is not only not necessary, when it comes to following Jesus, it can also be detrimental if it leads us into a spirit of superiority (Prov 16:25). Having a perfect understanding just isn't a requirement of salvation (I Cor 13: 9-10). Still it seems that Christianity is not free from this natural tendency to understand and explain everything.
The real problem with advanced scholasticism when it comes to the faith is that if you are wrong on even a very small part of your doctrine, your error can skew everything else your faith is built on and who among us has perfect doctrine? A misunderstanding in one area will branch out into others and cause you be misled. This becomes extremely hazardous if you build your confidence on your understanding (Prov 3:5-6). This my friends is not how we are called to live our life even though it seems right to us. I'm reminded of the song "He Will Pilot Me", but isn't this reliance on our own understanding tantamount to saying, "Move over Jesus, I've got this"?
The very name Christian identifies us as followers of Christ or at least it should. It links us directly to Christ the same way that a surname links us to a family lineage. The scriptures talk of our adoption through Christ and how we have become sons and heirs of God (Gal 4:4-7). Christian is the only moniker I bear in regards to my faith; preference of any other descriptor in my opinion creates a subtle diminishing of what the title Christian implies.
Following Christ is our source of assurance, and our faith in this gives us hope for tomorrow. We are limited creatures who do not have the capacity to see into the future; we can only perceive our past. However we can trust in God when it comes to what our future holds. I'm reminded of financial investments that state "past performance is no guarantee of future results". In essence this says that you can't be assured of anything when getting involved with these products. When you get involved with Jesus however, the results are guaranteed and will not change (Heb 13:8, James 1:17).
It's one thing to say that you are a follower of Christ, but it is a very different thing to actually follow Him, and herein lies the choice. You see, Jesus called us to follow Him, but he gave us what amount to clear directions on how to do this if we are willing to actually see them (Matt 16:24). When Jesus said "let him deny himself", doesn't this imply that to follow Jesus means that you give up any agenda of your own and submit yourself to Christ's agenda for you? Jesus answered this in the preceding verse when He told Peter that he was focused on human interests instead of Godly things (Matt 16:23). I find it very instructive to delve into this a little deeper because what Peter wanted from Christ was for Him to set up an Earthly kingdom. This must be a common human fault because Paul also admonishes us to have our interests sorted out correctly (Col 3:1-2).
Unfortunately there are some that will not chose to follow Jesus. Some will come this way looking for what it offers them (Luke 9:57-58). Others will come, but make excuses that keep them from ever beginning their Christian walk (Luke 9:59-60). There will even be some that cannot stay dedicated to Christ (Luke 9:61-62). I am also reminded that not everyone will see Christianity to it's ultimate conclusion (Matt 20:16). It's a high calling indeed to be selected out as on of God's chosen ones, and it seems to me that if the called and yet not chosen are those who choose to not follow Jesus, then the chosen ones must be comprised of people who do choose to follow Him.
Perhaps it's harsh to call these people washouts, but the term fits. John records a mass of disciples that left Jesus because they had difficulty accepting the act of Communion (John 6:60-69). Interesting that we in our group also have some among us who have issues with this as well. Still, these men turned away from Jesus because they didn't believe. I want to reiterate this to make sure my point is coming across. These men's unbelief resulted in them not following Christ. If unbelief is endemic of turning away, then we see that belief is an integral component of following Him. Today, my prayer for all of us is that we have some of what the father of the son with the dumb spirit had when he asked Jesus to strengthen his belief (Mark 9:24).
Belief may seem like such a small thing and a simple directive to follow Jesus may seem almost wishy-washy, but I reckon that this seeming insignificance is our source of strength. I don't know why it is that it pleases God to use such weak vessels such as ourselves, but I know that He does. His strength can be our strength is we will rely upon Him (2 Cor 12:9,10). He will use us as He sees fit (Phil 2:13). And it's when we believe that all things become possible (Mark 9:23).
So as I come to the end, I have a question for you. Do you believe enough to let go of your own understanding? Do you believe enough to forgo your own abilities and strengths? Do you believe enough to set aside your own agenda and self-interests? Do you believe enough to dedicate your life to Him? Do you believe enough to follow Him?
Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow all the way,
Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow Jesus every day.
You see what I'm writing today is basic, remedial Christianity. In the past I've tried to keep a merciful outlook on anyone who professes Christ (Luke 9:50), however there comes a time to speak out boldly for the cause of Christ (Matt 5:16), not in defense of Christianity but instead in condemnation of heresy.
The foundational moment of our Christian walk began the same way it began for those who came before us two thousand years ago (Matt 9:9, John 1:43). One day, we each heard the call "Follow Me" and it changed who we were. I'm not talking only about our salvation experience in this post though; I'm also referring to the primary instruction that we are given as Christians on how to be this new creature that we have become. This directive to follow Christ applied when we first started our journey and it still applies today. When we were saved, we were forgiven of sin and covered by the blood of Jesus; of that there can be no dispute. Still, it seems to me that how we actually comport ourselves makes a difference and is important.
We as Christians have been constantly besieged with definitions of what it is to be a Christian and instructions on how we must live our lives in order to be in God's will. However well intentioned these directions may be, they have at their heart a carnal element that will usurp the roll of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As Christianity gets redefined along denominational lines, what has been said about Jesus becomes more important that what was said by Jesus, man's doctrines become more important than what is written in the Bible and dedication to the church becomes more important than faith in God. Herein lies a trap and it's name is religion. If we walk down this path we will find that we ourselves become the focus of our faith and not God. However if you discard the irrelevancies and background noise of the religion we call "Modern Christianity" and return to a personal salvation, what we are left is a very simple choice: Will you follow Jesus?
We are called to follow Him, and for some of us that's too simple of a commandment to accept. Albert Einstein once said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Have we become "intelligent fools" by taking the commandment "follow me" and making it bigger and more complex? Doesn't this definition describing exactly what the religious leaders in Israel had been doing for centuries by the time that Jesus arrived? Doesn't this definition describe exactly what religious leaders have been doing in more recent times as well?
I guess I can understand why people would struggle so much to understand everything about their faith; it is a very human tendency to want to analyze and categorize anything and everything and I can't see why this tendency wouldn't apply to faith as well. It seems logical to want to delve into the depths of everything and understand everything, but the truth is that this is not only not necessary, when it comes to following Jesus, it can also be detrimental if it leads us into a spirit of superiority (Prov 16:25). Having a perfect understanding just isn't a requirement of salvation (I Cor 13: 9-10). Still it seems that Christianity is not free from this natural tendency to understand and explain everything.
The real problem with advanced scholasticism when it comes to the faith is that if you are wrong on even a very small part of your doctrine, your error can skew everything else your faith is built on and who among us has perfect doctrine? A misunderstanding in one area will branch out into others and cause you be misled. This becomes extremely hazardous if you build your confidence on your understanding (Prov 3:5-6). This my friends is not how we are called to live our life even though it seems right to us. I'm reminded of the song "He Will Pilot Me", but isn't this reliance on our own understanding tantamount to saying, "Move over Jesus, I've got this"?
The very name Christian identifies us as followers of Christ or at least it should. It links us directly to Christ the same way that a surname links us to a family lineage. The scriptures talk of our adoption through Christ and how we have become sons and heirs of God (Gal 4:4-7). Christian is the only moniker I bear in regards to my faith; preference of any other descriptor in my opinion creates a subtle diminishing of what the title Christian implies.
Following Christ is our source of assurance, and our faith in this gives us hope for tomorrow. We are limited creatures who do not have the capacity to see into the future; we can only perceive our past. However we can trust in God when it comes to what our future holds. I'm reminded of financial investments that state "past performance is no guarantee of future results". In essence this says that you can't be assured of anything when getting involved with these products. When you get involved with Jesus however, the results are guaranteed and will not change (Heb 13:8, James 1:17).
It's one thing to say that you are a follower of Christ, but it is a very different thing to actually follow Him, and herein lies the choice. You see, Jesus called us to follow Him, but he gave us what amount to clear directions on how to do this if we are willing to actually see them (Matt 16:24). When Jesus said "let him deny himself", doesn't this imply that to follow Jesus means that you give up any agenda of your own and submit yourself to Christ's agenda for you? Jesus answered this in the preceding verse when He told Peter that he was focused on human interests instead of Godly things (Matt 16:23). I find it very instructive to delve into this a little deeper because what Peter wanted from Christ was for Him to set up an Earthly kingdom. This must be a common human fault because Paul also admonishes us to have our interests sorted out correctly (Col 3:1-2).
Unfortunately there are some that will not chose to follow Jesus. Some will come this way looking for what it offers them (Luke 9:57-58). Others will come, but make excuses that keep them from ever beginning their Christian walk (Luke 9:59-60). There will even be some that cannot stay dedicated to Christ (Luke 9:61-62). I am also reminded that not everyone will see Christianity to it's ultimate conclusion (Matt 20:16). It's a high calling indeed to be selected out as on of God's chosen ones, and it seems to me that if the called and yet not chosen are those who choose to not follow Jesus, then the chosen ones must be comprised of people who do choose to follow Him.
Perhaps it's harsh to call these people washouts, but the term fits. John records a mass of disciples that left Jesus because they had difficulty accepting the act of Communion (John 6:60-69). Interesting that we in our group also have some among us who have issues with this as well. Still, these men turned away from Jesus because they didn't believe. I want to reiterate this to make sure my point is coming across. These men's unbelief resulted in them not following Christ. If unbelief is endemic of turning away, then we see that belief is an integral component of following Him. Today, my prayer for all of us is that we have some of what the father of the son with the dumb spirit had when he asked Jesus to strengthen his belief (Mark 9:24).
Belief may seem like such a small thing and a simple directive to follow Jesus may seem almost wishy-washy, but I reckon that this seeming insignificance is our source of strength. I don't know why it is that it pleases God to use such weak vessels such as ourselves, but I know that He does. His strength can be our strength is we will rely upon Him (2 Cor 12:9,10). He will use us as He sees fit (Phil 2:13). And it's when we believe that all things become possible (Mark 9:23).
So as I come to the end, I have a question for you. Do you believe enough to let go of your own understanding? Do you believe enough to forgo your own abilities and strengths? Do you believe enough to set aside your own agenda and self-interests? Do you believe enough to dedicate your life to Him? Do you believe enough to follow Him?
Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow all the way,
Where He leads I'll follow,
Follow Jesus every day.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Busy March
Well, March is over and the Regional Meeting in Warren, MI is now exactly five weeks away. I hope that April will turn out to be a quiet month for me, but I'm guessing instead that I will spend a considerable portion of my free time (what little there is of that) preparing for the meeting both at home and at church. BTW, I'm inviting you all to come and attend our meeting if you can. There's more information in the link above.
I intentionally packed March with postings because I might have a bit of a dry spell. I posted every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday in March which is a total of 13 posts (most posts yet in a month). I'm guessing, though I cannot be sure yet, that April and May will not be this busy. So I'm just posting this blurb to let you know. I'm still going to try to keep up every Tuesday and if I have something small, I'll throw it in on Sunday or Thursday. After that, we will see.
I intentionally packed March with postings because I might have a bit of a dry spell. I posted every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday in March which is a total of 13 posts (most posts yet in a month). I'm guessing, though I cannot be sure yet, that April and May will not be this busy. So I'm just posting this blurb to let you know. I'm still going to try to keep up every Tuesday and if I have something small, I'll throw it in on Sunday or Thursday. After that, we will see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
