The human body is a stunningly complex and amazing machine (Ps 139:14). It is composed of many members but it operates as a unified whole. When we study the body we break it down into logical systems that we can isolate and observe in depth. Some of those systems are: Muscular, Skeletal, Cardiovascular, Nervous, Digestive, Endocrine, Lymphatic, and Reproductive.
Each of these various systems provides a different function to the body as a whole. For example our musculature allows us to move and do work while our skeleton provides us structural support and so on. All of these systems are necessary for the body to operate at it's peak proficiency, and when even just one of these systems isn't working properly, the body's overall function is in some way impaired. Depending on which system is impaired, the body may not function at all.
I'm not claiming that there exists some kind of scriptural one-to-one relationship between physiological systems of life and spiritual systems of new life, but I do believe that there are similarities between the workings of the body and the operations of the church, each being a complex, multi-faceted system. I also believe that much like a broken body where one or more systems are failing, when not every operation in the church is functional, then that church is broken as well.
Many different facets present themselves to those who are willing to look, yet doctrinal teaching seems to be the one everyone focuses on. Why is is that we place so much importance on doctrine that we are willing to split ourselves up into group which we define solely by their adherence to or agreement with a particular doctrinal bent? Doctrine is only one of these integral Christian systems but it is not the only element nor is it the most important. Prayer, praise, worship, charity, brotherly love and the operation of the Spirit are every part as important as doctrine, if not more so. Just to clarify I do not mean this to be an exclusive list, just a representative one.
What good is it to have a perfect doctrine in our group if our churches aren't reaching out and sharing the Gospel to those who would hear it and benefit by being taught that doctrine? What good is knowledge or understanding when we forget charity or brotherly love? What life is there in doctrine itself? The answer my friends is none. Better a man be saved and his understanding remain imperfect than that same man have all knowledge and yet he is dead. I'm not the first person to make this kind of point either (1 Cor. 13:1-3).
When any of these systems are lacking, so to is our overall Christian being; this new life that we have hasn't been realized in all fullness yet. Don't believe me? Stop praying, break that personal connection to your God and Savior and see if your life doesn't get just slightly dysfunctional (I Thess 5:17). Quit praising God and even if every other system of your Christian life were operating at capacity, what would it say about you when a rock takes your place (Luke 19:40)? We need all these facets of Christianity in order to operate in fullness, and it is my observation that there is a least one system of Christianity that has atrophied almost to the point of non-existence in some areas in our group. That area is reproduction.
When scientists classify life, there are a few standards that are set that must be met, not the least of which is the ability to reproduce. Without that simple ability to produce new life, can anything really be said to be alive itself? Oft times the toughest hardship that a married couple could possibly have to deal with is the inability to have children and yet in the church the lack of growth is swept under the rug and conveniently ignored. If the church is not generating new babes in Christ then that church my friend is barren. It is lacking, missing one of the fundamentals of the faith (Mark 16:15).
Furthermore, there are churches out there who understand this particular system of Christianity even if they are lacking in other facets. It seems to me that perhaps we have just as much of a lesson to learn from them as they have to learn from us. Show me in the scripture that there is a second elite church, one that isn't called to spread the good news. How can we not follow in the footsteps of Jesus in this respect (Matt 9:35)? I think we have woefully misrepresented this aspect of Christianity in our lives (Mark 8:35).
Just a clarification here: A generational church that manages to maintain it's numbers through the begetting of natural children fulfills neither the statement "those who should be added" nor the mandate to spread the good news everywhere (Acts 2:47). Children born into the church are a blessing, but there are fields all around us ready to be harvested so I ask you, why are we content to remain in our own backyards? Are we simply to ignore these fields, that mass of humanity that does not really know Jesus because of a barrier that men have put between themselves and God called religion?
A friend of mine once said something very wise. She said that there are only two kinds of people in this world, children of God and potential children of God. Will we who personally know the lovingkindness of God refuse to reach out and chance to extend hope to a fallen man or woman? We are all tools to be used by God, but is our anthem, "Jesus use me, surely there's a work that I can do," or instead, has it become, "Leave me in the toolbox, I think I kinda like it here"?
Every Christian my friend has a great mandate placed upon their lives to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to this world. I'm not saying it will be easy, in fact I believe that years and in some cases decades of neglect of evangelism will make getting back into this practice hard, but remember Jesus promised to be with you always and to fill your mouth with words when you need them. Be bold, be courageous, for you see, my Friend is building a kingdom and he has called you and me to build it along with Him. Lets get to work.
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctrine. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Standard
In this post I intend to address The Standard, but not only a dress standard. I am capitalizing The Standard for effect, so that I can separate the concept from a dress standard, though I intend to discuss that as well. In a previous post I've stated what I don't believe, but now I am going to state what I do believe. I hope that this post is clear, and that anyone reading this is not confused.
What is a standard? Historically, a standard was a type of military flag that was hoisted up on a pole above the troops that belonged to a particular division. In ancient Rome, the Aquila[1] was the standard that the Roman army flew. This type of standard implied a belonging. The standard was a marker that the soldiers used to keep track of where their division was. A standard also was a means of identification[2], identifying a group or division. So simply put a standard is a method to identify belonging. A standard allows soldiers to be directed as a group.
Incidentally, a standard also functions as a rally cry. A fallen standard bearer can have devastating effect on a regiment. If the standard falls, someone will often rush in and raise the standard, which can have a restorative effect on the regiment. It is important to raise a standard, and an abdication of raising a standard will have a very negative effect on the morale of a church. Let me be very clear, I DO NOT support abolishing standards. On the contrary, I fully support the use of standards.
Before I began writing this post, I read James 4:1-12 and then I reread it several times over. There is no doubt that we are fighting a war against sin and it's workings in us. The cost of abandoning a standard in this war is so staggeringly high that I don't even want to consider it. One part of me feels a heaviness, a burden, a sorrow because we don't fully understand the operation of The Standard. At the same time I also feel a joy because I know that the truth about The Standard can bring a freedom that is not evident right now. We must know how The Standard operates and why we should raise The Standard for it to have it's full import.
So what is The Standard for? Notice I'm not starting with what The Standard is. The Standard declares to the world that I belong to Christ. To what does The Standard apply? Whatever we find to do. In that last sentence, the operative word is do (Col 3:23). From the time you woke up today to the time you go to sleep, you will be doing things. The actions that we take can either draw you closer to Christ or take you further from Him. As I see it, there are two levels to our actions, and the best way to explain this is to address each of these levels separately.
The first level addresses what we do. Some actions are so direct, they either proclaim "I belong to Christ" or "I don't belong to Christ" all by themselves. Some actions are so extreme that you would have to be dense not to see their import. Imagine a man who decides to rob a bank for Jesus. Only a warped individual can legitimize the wrongness of this action in his mind. Imagine another man who donates his Saturday mornings to witness to the lost. I use extreme examples to make a point, but your everyday actions can be as simple as reaching out to someone in need, or holding a grudge in your heart against a brother. The actions you choose to take can either bring reproach to God or bring glory to God.
The second level addresses how we do things. I have seen people who wash dishes in a way that edifies Christ and I've seen people turn reading the Bible into a reproach. How we comport ourselves is just as important as what we are doing. You can do the right thing with the wrong spirit and be wrong. You can do the wrong thing with the right spirit and you are still wrong. Both levels, what we do and how we do it, must line up.
Some activities are either good or bad in and of themselves, some however are not. What color did you paint your walls? Do you drive foreign or domestic? Do your pants/skirts have pleats? Coffee or tea? The list of things that don't matter is endless. There is a place for personal preference in the choices that we make; we are not programmed automatons running through a pre-approved schedule of activities every day. These are the activities that in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Some things really just don't matter all that much and can be left to a matter of personal taste, but religion has a tendency to focus on things that matter very little and ignore what is really important (Matt 23:23). Let me give an example.
In a Sunday morning service in Warren, I noticed that among the congregation, adult men wore the following colors of dress shirt: light gray, dark red, gray-green, pumpkin orange, and three shades of light blue. The rest of the men in the congregation and everyone on the platform were wearing white. Some churches teach a standard that says you must wear white shirts and that wearing colored shirts is a sin. Why is the color of a shirt the definition of what is holy or not? By the way that the Spirit moved in that service, I can't determine any difference based solely on their shirts. Additionally I'm sure that someone out there has found a way to wear a white shirt that is reproachful. Can the color of a shirt really defile a man? Jesus says that evil originates in the heart and it's what comes out of that that defiles a man (Mark 7:12-23).
There is also times when the circumstances play a part in what is right and what is wrong. I'm not talking about situational ethics, instead I'm addressing appropriate timing. We don't teach our children about sex until they are old enough to handle the information for a reason. When it comes to dress, perhaps it can be best explained by what I said about skirts in an earlier post. Sometimes, no matter how long the skirt is, it's not modest. We need to be wise about when, not just how we do things, and merciful in our judgments.
An over regimented dress standard can actually stand as a hindrance when blown out of proportion. Romans 12:1 admonishes us to be transformed, changed from what we were into something else, it is speaking about what conversion is. A convert is someone who has changed and is no longer what they once were, they are not merely an old creature with new rules. The power that changes us is what we need to preach to people who walk into our church doors, not immediately hit them with a statement like, your skirt/pants/sleeves/hair is/are too short. It sounds like I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I'm not; I've seen people approached at the first service they have attended and be badgered because of their clothing by overzealous saints because a dress standard has been taught as a higher priority than loving people. This isn't right. Remember what Christ said to us to: "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt 11:30).
Additionally, some people are just using the dress standard as a disguise. They hide behind the dress standard, playing church while on the inside no change has occurred (Matt 23:25-26). You've heard the story about a tree that is rotting from the inside out. You never know that it is dying inside until it has fallen, never to rise again. The wrong teaching of any standard can and will produce similar effects, but the lives of people are so much more valuable than a tree.
Has dress has become to the Body what circumcision was to the Jews? Has the dress standard been used in a way that denies freedom in Christ much in the same way that following the law was used in the church in Galatia? Galatians 2:4 speaks of regulations that false brothers brought in with them to enslave the Galatians, and he further admonished them not to listen to them in the very next verse (Gal 2:5). How did this happen? Peter was at fault because he was worried about what Jews would think (Gal 2:11). Read the chapter yourself, it is really enlightening. I will leave my questions unanswered so that you can think about it, but I will say this. You aren't justified by what you do, you are justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16).
I'll butcher another old standard to show a point:
Redeemed how I love to proclaim it,
Redeemed by the things that I do.
So here's a list of rules to follow
Do them and you'll be redeemed too.
I've heard statements to the effect that if the people are free to do what they want, they will sin. I know this might be a huge wake up call here, but if people want to sin they will regardless of a dress standard, they just might not be so obvious about it. The same people who say things like this see only two options for how people can live their lives: Strict adherence to man made rules or anarchy. Neither bondage nor rebellion sound particularly appealing to me. There is a third option that it seems to me people either don't know exists, or refuse to acknowledge: responsible freedom. Sure some people define freedom as being able to do whatever they want, but that's not freedom, that's anarchy. Freedom is about being free to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not advocate the abdication of personal responsibility; freedom isn't possible without it.
Am I ignoring obedience here? No, not at all. I am saying is that we need to be obedient to Christ first, then to men. We need to understand why we are doing the things we are doing, and want to do them, that's a part of proper obedience. Submission is also vital to obedience for it to mean anything. What God wants from us is our willing informed consenting obedience, nothing else will do, and I am ready to give him this. Of course I acknowledge the validity of Heb 13:17, but at the same time if I were to do something wrong because I was submitting myself to someone, that would not absolve my guilt in the situation.
Every action we take can either bind us to or separate us from Jesus. This way is not easy, but it is worth it. We have a promise that if we want to be bound to Him and seek that out, nothing can separate us from the His love (Rom 8:35-39) or maybe a better way to understand this last phrase is nothing can separate His love from us. A person to whom Jesus is bound in this way does not need a list of rules so that he will walk a narrow way, he is walking a narrow way. We have the wrong focus of what Christianity is if we think it has anything to do with what we do anyway. We are vessels of his goodness, not our goodness, that is the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. Christianity is ultimately about what Christ did and does for us. That's what separates it from man-made religion.
So is The Standard important? Yes. Is it more important than what Christ does in us? No. Remember, we are all mirrors, reflecting the wonderful grace of Christ by the operation of His grace in us. Certainly we want to keep our mirrors clean so that when people see us they see Jesus, but the truth of the matter is that our primary task is to make sure our mirrors, our lives point to Christ. What use is a mirror, no matter how clean, if it reflects us instead of Christ?
In closing, I want to address teaching The Standard to our children as this is something that concerns every parent and that I have often heard question. Actually not much needs to be said, merely this: Teach your children to really love Jesus and that He really loves them, and they will love The Standard. Teach them that loving Jesus is following a dress standard, and they will resent that standard.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_standard
What is a standard? Historically, a standard was a type of military flag that was hoisted up on a pole above the troops that belonged to a particular division. In ancient Rome, the Aquila[1] was the standard that the Roman army flew. This type of standard implied a belonging. The standard was a marker that the soldiers used to keep track of where their division was. A standard also was a means of identification[2], identifying a group or division. So simply put a standard is a method to identify belonging. A standard allows soldiers to be directed as a group.
Incidentally, a standard also functions as a rally cry. A fallen standard bearer can have devastating effect on a regiment. If the standard falls, someone will often rush in and raise the standard, which can have a restorative effect on the regiment. It is important to raise a standard, and an abdication of raising a standard will have a very negative effect on the morale of a church. Let me be very clear, I DO NOT support abolishing standards. On the contrary, I fully support the use of standards.
Before I began writing this post, I read James 4:1-12 and then I reread it several times over. There is no doubt that we are fighting a war against sin and it's workings in us. The cost of abandoning a standard in this war is so staggeringly high that I don't even want to consider it. One part of me feels a heaviness, a burden, a sorrow because we don't fully understand the operation of The Standard. At the same time I also feel a joy because I know that the truth about The Standard can bring a freedom that is not evident right now. We must know how The Standard operates and why we should raise The Standard for it to have it's full import.
So what is The Standard for? Notice I'm not starting with what The Standard is. The Standard declares to the world that I belong to Christ. To what does The Standard apply? Whatever we find to do. In that last sentence, the operative word is do (Col 3:23). From the time you woke up today to the time you go to sleep, you will be doing things. The actions that we take can either draw you closer to Christ or take you further from Him. As I see it, there are two levels to our actions, and the best way to explain this is to address each of these levels separately.
The first level addresses what we do. Some actions are so direct, they either proclaim "I belong to Christ" or "I don't belong to Christ" all by themselves. Some actions are so extreme that you would have to be dense not to see their import. Imagine a man who decides to rob a bank for Jesus. Only a warped individual can legitimize the wrongness of this action in his mind. Imagine another man who donates his Saturday mornings to witness to the lost. I use extreme examples to make a point, but your everyday actions can be as simple as reaching out to someone in need, or holding a grudge in your heart against a brother. The actions you choose to take can either bring reproach to God or bring glory to God.
The second level addresses how we do things. I have seen people who wash dishes in a way that edifies Christ and I've seen people turn reading the Bible into a reproach. How we comport ourselves is just as important as what we are doing. You can do the right thing with the wrong spirit and be wrong. You can do the wrong thing with the right spirit and you are still wrong. Both levels, what we do and how we do it, must line up.
Some activities are either good or bad in and of themselves, some however are not. What color did you paint your walls? Do you drive foreign or domestic? Do your pants/skirts have pleats? Coffee or tea? The list of things that don't matter is endless. There is a place for personal preference in the choices that we make; we are not programmed automatons running through a pre-approved schedule of activities every day. These are the activities that in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Some things really just don't matter all that much and can be left to a matter of personal taste, but religion has a tendency to focus on things that matter very little and ignore what is really important (Matt 23:23). Let me give an example.
In a Sunday morning service in Warren, I noticed that among the congregation, adult men wore the following colors of dress shirt: light gray, dark red, gray-green, pumpkin orange, and three shades of light blue. The rest of the men in the congregation and everyone on the platform were wearing white. Some churches teach a standard that says you must wear white shirts and that wearing colored shirts is a sin. Why is the color of a shirt the definition of what is holy or not? By the way that the Spirit moved in that service, I can't determine any difference based solely on their shirts. Additionally I'm sure that someone out there has found a way to wear a white shirt that is reproachful. Can the color of a shirt really defile a man? Jesus says that evil originates in the heart and it's what comes out of that that defiles a man (Mark 7:12-23).
There is also times when the circumstances play a part in what is right and what is wrong. I'm not talking about situational ethics, instead I'm addressing appropriate timing. We don't teach our children about sex until they are old enough to handle the information for a reason. When it comes to dress, perhaps it can be best explained by what I said about skirts in an earlier post. Sometimes, no matter how long the skirt is, it's not modest. We need to be wise about when, not just how we do things, and merciful in our judgments.
An over regimented dress standard can actually stand as a hindrance when blown out of proportion. Romans 12:1 admonishes us to be transformed, changed from what we were into something else, it is speaking about what conversion is. A convert is someone who has changed and is no longer what they once were, they are not merely an old creature with new rules. The power that changes us is what we need to preach to people who walk into our church doors, not immediately hit them with a statement like, your skirt/pants/sleeves/hair is/are too short. It sounds like I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I'm not; I've seen people approached at the first service they have attended and be badgered because of their clothing by overzealous saints because a dress standard has been taught as a higher priority than loving people. This isn't right. Remember what Christ said to us to: "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt 11:30).
Additionally, some people are just using the dress standard as a disguise. They hide behind the dress standard, playing church while on the inside no change has occurred (Matt 23:25-26). You've heard the story about a tree that is rotting from the inside out. You never know that it is dying inside until it has fallen, never to rise again. The wrong teaching of any standard can and will produce similar effects, but the lives of people are so much more valuable than a tree.
Has dress has become to the Body what circumcision was to the Jews? Has the dress standard been used in a way that denies freedom in Christ much in the same way that following the law was used in the church in Galatia? Galatians 2:4 speaks of regulations that false brothers brought in with them to enslave the Galatians, and he further admonished them not to listen to them in the very next verse (Gal 2:5). How did this happen? Peter was at fault because he was worried about what Jews would think (Gal 2:11). Read the chapter yourself, it is really enlightening. I will leave my questions unanswered so that you can think about it, but I will say this. You aren't justified by what you do, you are justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16).
I'll butcher another old standard to show a point:
Redeemed how I love to proclaim it,
Redeemed by the things that I do.
So here's a list of rules to follow
Do them and you'll be redeemed too.
I've heard statements to the effect that if the people are free to do what they want, they will sin. I know this might be a huge wake up call here, but if people want to sin they will regardless of a dress standard, they just might not be so obvious about it. The same people who say things like this see only two options for how people can live their lives: Strict adherence to man made rules or anarchy. Neither bondage nor rebellion sound particularly appealing to me. There is a third option that it seems to me people either don't know exists, or refuse to acknowledge: responsible freedom. Sure some people define freedom as being able to do whatever they want, but that's not freedom, that's anarchy. Freedom is about being free to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not advocate the abdication of personal responsibility; freedom isn't possible without it.
Am I ignoring obedience here? No, not at all. I am saying is that we need to be obedient to Christ first, then to men. We need to understand why we are doing the things we are doing, and want to do them, that's a part of proper obedience. Submission is also vital to obedience for it to mean anything. What God wants from us is our willing informed consenting obedience, nothing else will do, and I am ready to give him this. Of course I acknowledge the validity of Heb 13:17, but at the same time if I were to do something wrong because I was submitting myself to someone, that would not absolve my guilt in the situation.
Every action we take can either bind us to or separate us from Jesus. This way is not easy, but it is worth it. We have a promise that if we want to be bound to Him and seek that out, nothing can separate us from the His love (Rom 8:35-39) or maybe a better way to understand this last phrase is nothing can separate His love from us. A person to whom Jesus is bound in this way does not need a list of rules so that he will walk a narrow way, he is walking a narrow way. We have the wrong focus of what Christianity is if we think it has anything to do with what we do anyway. We are vessels of his goodness, not our goodness, that is the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. Christianity is ultimately about what Christ did and does for us. That's what separates it from man-made religion.
So is The Standard important? Yes. Is it more important than what Christ does in us? No. Remember, we are all mirrors, reflecting the wonderful grace of Christ by the operation of His grace in us. Certainly we want to keep our mirrors clean so that when people see us they see Jesus, but the truth of the matter is that our primary task is to make sure our mirrors, our lives point to Christ. What use is a mirror, no matter how clean, if it reflects us instead of Christ?
In closing, I want to address teaching The Standard to our children as this is something that concerns every parent and that I have often heard question. Actually not much needs to be said, merely this: Teach your children to really love Jesus and that He really loves them, and they will love The Standard. Teach them that loving Jesus is following a dress standard, and they will resent that standard.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_standard
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Being Proud vs. Being Prideful
There is a common misunderstanding about the sin of pride. This is due to an inadequacy in the modern English language and changes that have happened with the meaning of the word pride over the centuries.
Being proud of someone because of an action that they have accomplished is not sinful. If your child wins a race or has a perfect score on their math test, you should be a proud parent. If they make wise decisions and perform good actions, you should be proud of them. We all know this, it's natural for a parent. You can apply this to yourself as well. If you have done something praiseworthy why couldn't you feel proud of yourself for that? Why would this be sinful?
Would it surprise you to know that our Heavenly Father is proud of us? Jesus tells a story of what Heaven is like in Mat 25:14-46. When in Mat 25:21, the lord says "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." can't you hear the pride that a master has in his good servant? It's as if he said I am so proud of what you've done. Imagine yourself being judged and God were to say to you "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." or if He were to say to you "I am so proud of you" what would be the difference in how you felt?
The sin of pride can better be stated in Modern English as the sin of superiority. The sin of superiority is merely feeling that you are better than someone else because of something. I'm better than my wife because I am the man and the head of my household. I'm better than Bro. so-and-so because they sin. I'm better because I have the truth when it comes to doctrine. It doesn't matter why you feel better than someone else, the fact that you do is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because you attribute the gifts of God to yourself and not to God.
Jesus says something about having to high a regard of yourself (Matt 6:27). In Job 38, the Lord takes Job down a peg and pretty much asks the question "Who do you think you are?" Prov 8:13 lumps pride and arrogance together. It is arrogance and a feeling of superiority that we need to be wary of. This is the sin of pride.
The problem is that I have heard people talk about someone whom they are proud of, say a good thing that they have done and even say that they are proud, then say that they know being proud is a sin. Is this what we are being taught pride is? If so, and I think this is the case, are we ignoring the true issue here? At least in one instance I believe so.
I've also heard some of the same people as I mentioned above state that they are part of "The Body" as if they are better than any other Christian not a part of our group. The arrogance inherent in this is awful. It is human nature for you to think that a movement you belong to is the best because you are involved in it. I believe our group is special because God has laid his hand on us, nothing more. I believe that if God moved his hand away, we would cease to have that special covering. This is one of the reasons that when I am writing I prefer not to use the term "The Body" and instead use the phrase "our group" because of the tendency of some in our group to focus on The Body instead of The Head.
Also, we use the term Babylon much too frequently and too loosely. Within it's meaning it contains an implication that the Christians we are referring to are not as good as we are. There is very little humility in this name, for even though I believe it is accurate that we have been called out of for a purpose, it was not we who did the calling out, it was God. Is arrogance rearing it's ugly head again?
I would like to apply Luke 18:10-14 to our situation: Two men went up into the church to pray; the one was from a Body church, and the other was from the church world. The Body saint stood and prayed thus with himself, God, "I thank thee, that I am not as other Christians are, organized, mired in false doctrine, carnally minded, or even as this Babylonian. I go to church four times a week, I speak in tongues so I have the Holy Ghost. And the Babylonian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The term Babylon is used exactly twelve times in eleven scriptures in the New Testament, six times in Revelation and six times in other books. Every place other than Revelation, it is used to refer to the ancient kingdom that the children of Israel were carried away to; it is merely reference to a historical city. In Revelation it depends on your understanding of eschatology(the study of the end times) whether you see Babylon in Revelation as false religion or a natural kingdom, I've heard both taught but I don't want to get into that right here. Either way I see that Babylon as not having come to completion as of yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to say that beginnings of that Babylon are evident today but that Babylon hasn't come to fruition in it's final state.
Whether it's Biblical to use the term Babylon to refer to all of Christendom I question, but I understand that we are using it to describe false religion. Actually, I'm alright with that description, however we apply it on a personal level and that is just plain wrong. Remember
Rev 18:4 infers that even within the false religion Babylon dwell some of God's people. God calls them out of that right then and there, so I submit that instead of looking at Christians as those who have been called out and those who haven't, we should should be looking at Christians as those who have been called out already, and those who have yet to be called out. To do otherwise is to let our arrogance do harm to these people of God who are not of our group and wound our own reputation in the process. We don't make the call who is and who is not a child of God, to think otherwise is the height of arrogance, a spiritual superiority complex, or translated back in the KJV, pride.
All of God's People are God's People. It doesn't matter from which church they originate, if God claims them they are my brother and sister. What an opportunity we have to share with others something special God has put in our lives when we do this. Why wouldn't we want to do this? Isn't this pride and maybe jealousy? Do we want to hold on to our specialness so fiercely that we are willing to cut others off to hold onto it? How sad. This is what Paul addressed in 1 Cor 1:12-13, just in another form. Paul states the truth of the matter in 1 Cor 3:6 and in 1 Cor 3:9 where he tells once again who is really in control, God. God gave the increase and we are His husbandry, His building, not the product of a man or a movement, even when a man or a movement has been given a special dispensation. See, a man or a movement can never be more than a temporary thing, but Christ is from eternal to eternal. Put your trust and your focus on Jesus and take it off of a man or movement and this pride will just fall away (Matt 16:33).
Now I know that some or most of what I've said here will most likely be twisted so that it seems that I am attacking our group of people. This is categorically not true. I believe we as a group have been called out, and are a special people. I am not denouncing the body of Christ, far from it. It's the arrogance that casts aside the work of Christ in anyone not of our group that I am denouncing. To say or infer otherwise is no more than an outright falsehood. What will eventually happen to those who spread falsehoods this way is that they will become what they fear (Jer 13:24-25).
References:
Babylon in the NT: Mat 1:11, Mat1:12, Matt 1:17, Acts7:43, 1 Pet 5:13, Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21.
Being proud of someone because of an action that they have accomplished is not sinful. If your child wins a race or has a perfect score on their math test, you should be a proud parent. If they make wise decisions and perform good actions, you should be proud of them. We all know this, it's natural for a parent. You can apply this to yourself as well. If you have done something praiseworthy why couldn't you feel proud of yourself for that? Why would this be sinful?
Would it surprise you to know that our Heavenly Father is proud of us? Jesus tells a story of what Heaven is like in Mat 25:14-46. When in Mat 25:21, the lord says "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." can't you hear the pride that a master has in his good servant? It's as if he said I am so proud of what you've done. Imagine yourself being judged and God were to say to you "Well done thou good and faithful servant..." or if He were to say to you "I am so proud of you" what would be the difference in how you felt?
The sin of pride can better be stated in Modern English as the sin of superiority. The sin of superiority is merely feeling that you are better than someone else because of something. I'm better than my wife because I am the man and the head of my household. I'm better than Bro. so-and-so because they sin. I'm better because I have the truth when it comes to doctrine. It doesn't matter why you feel better than someone else, the fact that you do is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because you attribute the gifts of God to yourself and not to God.
Jesus says something about having to high a regard of yourself (Matt 6:27). In Job 38, the Lord takes Job down a peg and pretty much asks the question "Who do you think you are?" Prov 8:13 lumps pride and arrogance together. It is arrogance and a feeling of superiority that we need to be wary of. This is the sin of pride.
The problem is that I have heard people talk about someone whom they are proud of, say a good thing that they have done and even say that they are proud, then say that they know being proud is a sin. Is this what we are being taught pride is? If so, and I think this is the case, are we ignoring the true issue here? At least in one instance I believe so.
I've also heard some of the same people as I mentioned above state that they are part of "The Body" as if they are better than any other Christian not a part of our group. The arrogance inherent in this is awful. It is human nature for you to think that a movement you belong to is the best because you are involved in it. I believe our group is special because God has laid his hand on us, nothing more. I believe that if God moved his hand away, we would cease to have that special covering. This is one of the reasons that when I am writing I prefer not to use the term "The Body" and instead use the phrase "our group" because of the tendency of some in our group to focus on The Body instead of The Head.
Also, we use the term Babylon much too frequently and too loosely. Within it's meaning it contains an implication that the Christians we are referring to are not as good as we are. There is very little humility in this name, for even though I believe it is accurate that we have been called out of for a purpose, it was not we who did the calling out, it was God. Is arrogance rearing it's ugly head again?
I would like to apply Luke 18:10-14 to our situation: Two men went up into the church to pray; the one was from a Body church, and the other was from the church world. The Body saint stood and prayed thus with himself, God, "I thank thee, that I am not as other Christians are, organized, mired in false doctrine, carnally minded, or even as this Babylonian. I go to church four times a week, I speak in tongues so I have the Holy Ghost. And the Babylonian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The term Babylon is used exactly twelve times in eleven scriptures in the New Testament, six times in Revelation and six times in other books. Every place other than Revelation, it is used to refer to the ancient kingdom that the children of Israel were carried away to; it is merely reference to a historical city. In Revelation it depends on your understanding of eschatology(the study of the end times) whether you see Babylon in Revelation as false religion or a natural kingdom, I've heard both taught but I don't want to get into that right here. Either way I see that Babylon as not having come to completion as of yet. I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to say that beginnings of that Babylon are evident today but that Babylon hasn't come to fruition in it's final state.
Whether it's Biblical to use the term Babylon to refer to all of Christendom I question, but I understand that we are using it to describe false religion. Actually, I'm alright with that description, however we apply it on a personal level and that is just plain wrong. Remember
Rev 18:4 infers that even within the false religion Babylon dwell some of God's people. God calls them out of that right then and there, so I submit that instead of looking at Christians as those who have been called out and those who haven't, we should should be looking at Christians as those who have been called out already, and those who have yet to be called out. To do otherwise is to let our arrogance do harm to these people of God who are not of our group and wound our own reputation in the process. We don't make the call who is and who is not a child of God, to think otherwise is the height of arrogance, a spiritual superiority complex, or translated back in the KJV, pride.
All of God's People are God's People. It doesn't matter from which church they originate, if God claims them they are my brother and sister. What an opportunity we have to share with others something special God has put in our lives when we do this. Why wouldn't we want to do this? Isn't this pride and maybe jealousy? Do we want to hold on to our specialness so fiercely that we are willing to cut others off to hold onto it? How sad. This is what Paul addressed in 1 Cor 1:12-13, just in another form. Paul states the truth of the matter in 1 Cor 3:6 and in 1 Cor 3:9 where he tells once again who is really in control, God. God gave the increase and we are His husbandry, His building, not the product of a man or a movement, even when a man or a movement has been given a special dispensation. See, a man or a movement can never be more than a temporary thing, but Christ is from eternal to eternal. Put your trust and your focus on Jesus and take it off of a man or movement and this pride will just fall away (Matt 16:33).
Now I know that some or most of what I've said here will most likely be twisted so that it seems that I am attacking our group of people. This is categorically not true. I believe we as a group have been called out, and are a special people. I am not denouncing the body of Christ, far from it. It's the arrogance that casts aside the work of Christ in anyone not of our group that I am denouncing. To say or infer otherwise is no more than an outright falsehood. What will eventually happen to those who spread falsehoods this way is that they will become what they fear (Jer 13:24-25).
References:
Babylon in the NT: Mat 1:11, Mat1:12, Matt 1:17, Acts7:43, 1 Pet 5:13, Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Undoctrine
I use a bold title to emphasize a simple concept. I realize that my understanding is far from perfect. I came to this conclusion a long time ago that some part of my doctrinal stance is wrong. There is no possible way that I could have 100% of the truth 100% of the time. Because of this, I want to learn everything I can so that the things I have wrong I can correct, but I also do not suffer under the delusion that while in this mortal coil I can have all of the truth. Even the Apostle Paul didn't claim to have all of the truth (1 Cor 13:9,12).
The thing is, I don't know what doctrines I have wrong. I do want to understand every good thing I can about God, but at the same time, I don't expect to ever have an answer to every question, I'm not even looking for that. It takes a pressure off knowing that I don't have to understand everything in order to be saved. Instead we see that the saved eventually will know even as we are known (1 Cor 13:10).
Expanding on this idea, what applies to me applies to everyone. I realize that there is no one in my church, the pastor included, that possesses all of the truth. My church has some doctrines that they hold to and teach that are wrong, how could they not? There is a flip side to this too though. There are those in my church that understand things that I don't, so in the church there is opportunity to grow in knowledge (2 Pet 3:18).
Expanding again, what applies to me and to my church applies to our group of people. There is no way that our group could possess all of the truth. The ministry in our group are divided on doctrine. What use is the threshing floor if everyone agreed on everything? Additionally, if there is a disagreement on a doctrine, can you honestly say that at least one of the parties disagreeing aren't in the wrong? Even if the ministry was in complete agreement on everything, that would be no assurance of accuracy, merely of being wrong (1 Cor 8:2).
Am I trying to destroy and lay waste to our heritage? No, instead you should be asking yourself what my intent is. Merely this: Humility. "God keep me humble" is a truly precarious prayer indeed; He's just might do it. It takes a truly humble person to stand up and say the words "I am wrong". This is the difference between someone who is searching for truth and someone who is defending their position.
Do we lose anything by admitting that we are wrong? I ask you this, if a father wrongs his children or a husband wrongs his wife, does he lose their respect by apologizing to them? No, the opposite is true. By admitting our faults instead of pretending we don't have any, we stay humble, teachable, open to the moving of God. The alternative is to be mired in arrogance and self-righteousness (1 Cor 8:1).
I learned early in my Christian walk that knowledge and understanding can be a trap. Someone who is knowledgeable can be easily tempted to rely on that understanding. We've been admonished not to do this though (Prov 3:5-7). We need to acknowledge and rely upon God; He will direct our paths. I'm so thankful that as a schoolchild I was made to memorize that passage, it's never left me. When I rely solely on myself, I am building on sand, and when the trials of this life surround me, what I've built will collapse because it has no foundation (Matt 7:24-25).
So do we throw away everything that we are and everything that we have? Of course not. We are built together upon truth with Jesus as our cornerstone and what kind of fool would I be to ever suggest throwing that away (Eph 2:20-22)? Instead I want to have a proper focus. I want to be Christ centered. Where our focus should be is on the Love of God and not on our own understanding.
The third verse of the old hymn The Love of God is such a beautiful thing, I've included it here in its entirety:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
With a love like that, how can we refrain from talking about it every chance that we get? That should always have top billing over any doctrine or man's understanding. For you see, the love of God fills the gaps of my understanding and I become known of him (1 Cor 8:3). I'd rather be known than know anyday, that is my undoctrine.
The thing is, I don't know what doctrines I have wrong. I do want to understand every good thing I can about God, but at the same time, I don't expect to ever have an answer to every question, I'm not even looking for that. It takes a pressure off knowing that I don't have to understand everything in order to be saved. Instead we see that the saved eventually will know even as we are known (1 Cor 13:10).
Expanding on this idea, what applies to me applies to everyone. I realize that there is no one in my church, the pastor included, that possesses all of the truth. My church has some doctrines that they hold to and teach that are wrong, how could they not? There is a flip side to this too though. There are those in my church that understand things that I don't, so in the church there is opportunity to grow in knowledge (2 Pet 3:18).
Expanding again, what applies to me and to my church applies to our group of people. There is no way that our group could possess all of the truth. The ministry in our group are divided on doctrine. What use is the threshing floor if everyone agreed on everything? Additionally, if there is a disagreement on a doctrine, can you honestly say that at least one of the parties disagreeing aren't in the wrong? Even if the ministry was in complete agreement on everything, that would be no assurance of accuracy, merely of being wrong (1 Cor 8:2).
Am I trying to destroy and lay waste to our heritage? No, instead you should be asking yourself what my intent is. Merely this: Humility. "God keep me humble" is a truly precarious prayer indeed; He's just might do it. It takes a truly humble person to stand up and say the words "I am wrong". This is the difference between someone who is searching for truth and someone who is defending their position.
Do we lose anything by admitting that we are wrong? I ask you this, if a father wrongs his children or a husband wrongs his wife, does he lose their respect by apologizing to them? No, the opposite is true. By admitting our faults instead of pretending we don't have any, we stay humble, teachable, open to the moving of God. The alternative is to be mired in arrogance and self-righteousness (1 Cor 8:1).
I learned early in my Christian walk that knowledge and understanding can be a trap. Someone who is knowledgeable can be easily tempted to rely on that understanding. We've been admonished not to do this though (Prov 3:5-7). We need to acknowledge and rely upon God; He will direct our paths. I'm so thankful that as a schoolchild I was made to memorize that passage, it's never left me. When I rely solely on myself, I am building on sand, and when the trials of this life surround me, what I've built will collapse because it has no foundation (Matt 7:24-25).
So do we throw away everything that we are and everything that we have? Of course not. We are built together upon truth with Jesus as our cornerstone and what kind of fool would I be to ever suggest throwing that away (Eph 2:20-22)? Instead I want to have a proper focus. I want to be Christ centered. Where our focus should be is on the Love of God and not on our own understanding.
The third verse of the old hymn The Love of God is such a beautiful thing, I've included it here in its entirety:
Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
With a love like that, how can we refrain from talking about it every chance that we get? That should always have top billing over any doctrine or man's understanding. For you see, the love of God fills the gaps of my understanding and I become known of him (1 Cor 8:3). I'd rather be known than know anyday, that is my undoctrine.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Overcoming
This is one of my favorite subject to talk about, as it really inspires me. I once had a teacher who made the excellent point that what wasn't explained in history was the information that everyone knew, the information that everyone took for granted. To me, overcoming, especially in our group fits this bill and can be a source of confusion to the younger generation. It is just so easy to assume that everyone knows what it is to be an overcomer, that the word overcoming almost becomes a platitude or colloquialism. In this post I just want to give an applicative definition of what it means to overcome.
I've heard taught that being an overcomer means that you have reached a point at which you can no longer be tempted. Each of the synoptic Gospels give an account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Hebrews also states that Jesus was tempted just like we are (Heb 4:15). I have trouble reconciling us attaining a state where we could not be tempted with the scriptural account of Jesus being tempted. Romans does not support this description of overcoming (Rom 3:10). As a matter of fact, James says something very strange about temptation (James 1:2). Who was he talking to? Obviously not "overcomers".
We do not ever reach a incorruptible state. Looking at this logically, if we did somehow manage to reach what would be a sinless state, we would no longer need a savior. If we attained this point of perfection, we would no longer need to worry about how we handled ourselves. What I find though is that the people who espouse this doctrine of overcoming are very worried about committing sin, and don't have much assurance. Without being overt about it, they seem to believe a salvation of grace up to a point. Somewhere in their Christian walk they switch over from believing in grace to believing in works, or at least denial of the works of the flesh. I once asked a wonderful elderly lady who had been about our way for almost all of her life whether she knew that she would go to heaven, and she began telling me about how she always tried to do good and at least she tried not to sin, but she was just never sure that it was enough so she just kept trying. Eph 2:8-9 directly addresses this denial of the gift of God which is the product of teaching overcoming this way. We cannot ever save ourselves.
So what is overcoming? I'd like to use an example to illustrate my point because it will be more poignant. Consider if you will a man who is an alcoholic. He attends AA and turns his life around. He may never lose the desire to drink for the rest of his life, but every time he denies that desire and refuses to take a drink, he is an overcomer.
Overcoming is an action verb, not a state of being. We are admonished to put off the old man and put on the new man (Col 3:9-10) but no where in that admonition are we led to believe that we will reach a level eventually where that is automatic. Your Christian walk does not have an autopilot.
Personalizing this, every time I am tempted and make a choice not to sin and follow through with it, I am an overcomer. It's that easy. Anyone can do it, there is no mystery involved. In a way, it's much like breathing; doing it regularly is very good for you. There is a constant aspect of our walk described by Luke (Luke 9:23). We will all struggle with sin until the day that we die, it is our nature. We will not obtain an incorruptible nature until we have gone out of this existence (1 Cor 15:52, 1 Pet 1:4). So until we do die, the old saying "Keep on keeping on" applies.
This being said, this is NOT an admonition to no longer try to be an overcomer. Humanity tends to vacillate from one extreme to another. I am not saying that anything goes or that we should just keep sinning because of the grace of God (Rom 6:1-2, Rom 6:12-15). Please don't read anything into this post that I'm not saying.
I want to bring in a concept of worldliness into the discussion here because it fits. The world is full of sin and corruption, but we've been called out of the world (John 15:19). But still we are surrounded by the world we are called out of. It's like being in the middle of a river and not getting wet. This is impossible, but I believe that my God doesn't know the meaning of that word. As a matter of fact, he allowed the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan on dry ground. We can only be called out through a closeness with Jesus Christ, no other way! That make us of God, his children, because of Jesus dwelling within us (1 John 4:4). In Him and in Him only do I dwell.
I'm going to raise the stakes here a bit and state that Jesus was an overcomer. What? Did I hear me right? I want to say it again, Jesus was an overcomer; he overcame sin (John 16:33). How did he do this? One temptation at a time. You see, temptation only becomes sin when we give in. When you don't overcome, you sin. When you don't sin, you overcome. Jesus did not sin, he overcame sin. As a matter of fact if Jesus hadn't overcome, we wouldn't be able to.
There is so much scripture regarding this I hardly know where to start, but don't know if any other scripture lays this out better than 1 Cor 15:57. We have our victory through Christ! Go back a bit you will see that we have yet to be completely changed, and we will put on incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:52-53). I do not separate the physical from the spiritual in this scripture as some are wont to do. Both physical and spiritual are the creation of God, and both are damned without Him.
I want to close this post by quoting 1 John 2:1-2 because it is a passage so full of hope for us, so full of meaning, and so necessary in these times. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
I've heard taught that being an overcomer means that you have reached a point at which you can no longer be tempted. Each of the synoptic Gospels give an account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Hebrews also states that Jesus was tempted just like we are (Heb 4:15). I have trouble reconciling us attaining a state where we could not be tempted with the scriptural account of Jesus being tempted. Romans does not support this description of overcoming (Rom 3:10). As a matter of fact, James says something very strange about temptation (James 1:2). Who was he talking to? Obviously not "overcomers".
We do not ever reach a incorruptible state. Looking at this logically, if we did somehow manage to reach what would be a sinless state, we would no longer need a savior. If we attained this point of perfection, we would no longer need to worry about how we handled ourselves. What I find though is that the people who espouse this doctrine of overcoming are very worried about committing sin, and don't have much assurance. Without being overt about it, they seem to believe a salvation of grace up to a point. Somewhere in their Christian walk they switch over from believing in grace to believing in works, or at least denial of the works of the flesh. I once asked a wonderful elderly lady who had been about our way for almost all of her life whether she knew that she would go to heaven, and she began telling me about how she always tried to do good and at least she tried not to sin, but she was just never sure that it was enough so she just kept trying. Eph 2:8-9 directly addresses this denial of the gift of God which is the product of teaching overcoming this way. We cannot ever save ourselves.
So what is overcoming? I'd like to use an example to illustrate my point because it will be more poignant. Consider if you will a man who is an alcoholic. He attends AA and turns his life around. He may never lose the desire to drink for the rest of his life, but every time he denies that desire and refuses to take a drink, he is an overcomer.
Overcoming is an action verb, not a state of being. We are admonished to put off the old man and put on the new man (Col 3:9-10) but no where in that admonition are we led to believe that we will reach a level eventually where that is automatic. Your Christian walk does not have an autopilot.
Personalizing this, every time I am tempted and make a choice not to sin and follow through with it, I am an overcomer. It's that easy. Anyone can do it, there is no mystery involved. In a way, it's much like breathing; doing it regularly is very good for you. There is a constant aspect of our walk described by Luke (Luke 9:23). We will all struggle with sin until the day that we die, it is our nature. We will not obtain an incorruptible nature until we have gone out of this existence (1 Cor 15:52, 1 Pet 1:4). So until we do die, the old saying "Keep on keeping on" applies.
This being said, this is NOT an admonition to no longer try to be an overcomer. Humanity tends to vacillate from one extreme to another. I am not saying that anything goes or that we should just keep sinning because of the grace of God (Rom 6:1-2, Rom 6:12-15). Please don't read anything into this post that I'm not saying.
I want to bring in a concept of worldliness into the discussion here because it fits. The world is full of sin and corruption, but we've been called out of the world (John 15:19). But still we are surrounded by the world we are called out of. It's like being in the middle of a river and not getting wet. This is impossible, but I believe that my God doesn't know the meaning of that word. As a matter of fact, he allowed the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea and the Jordan on dry ground. We can only be called out through a closeness with Jesus Christ, no other way! That make us of God, his children, because of Jesus dwelling within us (1 John 4:4). In Him and in Him only do I dwell.
I'm going to raise the stakes here a bit and state that Jesus was an overcomer. What? Did I hear me right? I want to say it again, Jesus was an overcomer; he overcame sin (John 16:33). How did he do this? One temptation at a time. You see, temptation only becomes sin when we give in. When you don't overcome, you sin. When you don't sin, you overcome. Jesus did not sin, he overcame sin. As a matter of fact if Jesus hadn't overcome, we wouldn't be able to.
There is so much scripture regarding this I hardly know where to start, but don't know if any other scripture lays this out better than 1 Cor 15:57. We have our victory through Christ! Go back a bit you will see that we have yet to be completely changed, and we will put on incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:52-53). I do not separate the physical from the spiritual in this scripture as some are wont to do. Both physical and spiritual are the creation of God, and both are damned without Him.
I want to close this post by quoting 1 John 2:1-2 because it is a passage so full of hope for us, so full of meaning, and so necessary in these times. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
