Tim Harvey

Beautiful Scandalous

2010-04-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

We sing a song at Bethlehem titled "Beautiful Scandalous Night." The song conveys a paradoxical truth about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Namely, that it was both beautiful and scandalous. It was horrible and wonderful. It was, as John Piper puts it, "history's most spectacular sin," and it was also history's most vivid act of love. It showed both the depths of Man's depravity and the inexhaustible goodness of God. It was an act of justice and mercy. And there, God poured out both wrath and love...wrath upon His only Son and love upon all who would believe upon His name.

Not everything is revealed to us. There are many "hidden things" that belong to God. We will not be able to understand the intricacies of this event until we meet Him face to face. However, that which has been revealed to us through His Word is fascinating enough to challenge our minds and thrill our hearts for a lifetime.

For me, one aspect of the crucifixion that continues to challenge and thrill, is the Biblical truth that the religious leaders carried out their evil will, and God carried out His perfect will, in the same event... Scandalous and Beautiful.

The Bible makes it very clear that the religious leaders sought to kill Jesus. Their hostility toward Him was twofold. First, they believed He was a blasphemer, which was precisely the charge they brought against him that led to His crucifixion. To be fair, the charges were not completely misplaced. His blasphemy was not normal blasphemy. He was not speaking against God. He was not cursing God. Instead, He was saying that He was God. He was claiming to be one with God. Ultimately, He was claiming to be the Christ. Accordingly, if Jesus claimed to be the Christ, and it were not true, then the religious leaders were just in their charges against Him. In their own minds, they were honoring God by doing away with this blasphemer.

The second reason for their hostility toward Him had to do with the Roman threat. We see this vividly in John 11. As the religious leaders gathered to plot against Jesus, it is clear that they feared that Rome might soon come and destroy Israel. These were credible fears. Jesus had had thousands of people listen to Him. There were rumors that He might possibly be the Christ, the long awaited King that would deliver Israel from all her oppressors. And who was the oppressor at this time? Rome. If Rome had sensed a serious rebellion among the people of Israel, they most certainly would have crushed the rebellion by force.

In John 11, as the leaders expressed their concerns about Rome, something very interesting happened. It was scandalous and beautiful. Caiaphas, who was the High Priest, said to them ,"You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." Now here is the most fascinating part. Regarding Caiaphas' statement, John wrote, "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." John makes it very clear that Caiaphas' announcement did not originate from him. He prophesied earlier that year that Jesus would die for Israel. John is showing us that God gave Caiaphas this prophecy. It's tragic that Caiaphas did not understand the prophetic utterances that were coming from his own mouth. He wanted salvation from Rome, but God was delivering salvation from the condemnation of sin.

The way it all played out in the end is mind boggling. Some scholars have questioned the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion because the Gospels claim that the religious leaders went to the Roman Governor to seek capital punishment. These scholars say that Israel retained the right to practice capital punishment on their own. In other words, the Jews did not need Rome's permission to execute stoning. Critical scholars would appeal to the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 as a proof text. Several answers have been given to this critique such as enforcement restrictions due to the Passover festival. Nevertheless, whether the Jews had to seek the permission of the Roman authorities or not, I would like to make a speculation. I would like to speculate that the Jewish leadership particularly wanted Jesus to be crucified upon the cross rather than stoned. The reason for this goes back to a text to which I alluded in an earlier blog; specifically, Deuteronomy 21:22-23. The Jewish people, and especially the religious leaders, knew the law. They knew that Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says that a man who is hanged on a tree is cursed by God. As the Jewish people continually saw criminals hanging on Roman crosses along the sides of their roads, they must have been constantly reminded of these verses. I would like to speculate that Caiaphas and the religious leaders had this text in mind as they sought the crucifixion of Jesus. They could have killed Jesus by stoning him, but crucifying Jesus would prove to even His most trusted followers that He was not chosen by God. His body, hanging on the tree, proved that He was not chosen. Rather, He was cursed. Here we find scandalous and beautiful meeting again. God had given Caiaphas a prophecy that Jesus would die for Israel. Caiaphas thought this prophecy meant salvation from Rome, but God was delivering salvation from Sin. It is clear that God, in His sovereignty, purposed for Jesus to be crucified on the Cross. But I believe it is also very probable that Caiaphas and the religious leaders also purposed for Jesus to be crucified on the Cross. Here, the intricacy continues even further, for it was both God's intent, and the religious leaders' intent, to prove that Jesus was cursed by God. In the case of the religious leaders, their intent was scandalous, but in the case of God's design, His purpose was beautiful. The religious leaders sought God's curse upon Jesus so that He would be utterly despised and rejected by men. But God placed our curse upon Jesus so that all who believe upon His name could be completely and unconditionally welcomed as the children of God (Gal. 3:13). O how scandalous and beautiful!

Chemical, Biological, and Spiritual Warfare

2010-03-17T07:43:00.000-07:00

Propaganda is everywhere; especially right now. There is a propaganda war that is raging, particularly in the Western world, because the West (especially the United States) is ruled by two strikingly different sets of principles, simultaneously. On the one hand, we are a highly spiritual people, at least in terms of personal profession of belief in God or a higher power. In June 2008, the Washington Post claimed that 92 percent of Americans claimed to believe in God or a higher spiritual being, and 50 percent claimed to pray daily. On the other hand, however, we are developing an increasingly naturalistic mindset. The naturalistic mindset says that everything can be explained in terms of biology, chemistry, and physics. Even aspects of the human experience that have traditionally been explained in metaphysical terms are now being reduced to chemical and biological brain impulses. Ideologies such as justice, freedom, love, and even faith are explained in terms of a collective chemical impulse in societies in order to sustain human survival. The naturalist says that there is nothing outside of us that defines justice, freedom, love, and faith. These things are not transcendent. They do not come from God. Instead, they come from brain neurons firing in particular patterns. The pervasiveness of this mindset in our culture is obvious when one watches the television, reads the text book, or even goes to the doctor. On the TV, numerous scientific and historical documentaries pound the idea of naturalism into the mind of the one watching. The language may even be subtle, but it is constantly there. The text book is the same; assuming that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for our existence. Even the doctor believes now that the pill is the cure for various mental and emotional ailments. After all, every mental and emotional ailment is physical at the core, because it happens in the brain. Do not misunderstand me. This is not an indictment upon Prozac. It is an indictment upon the mental shift in our culture claiming that what was once primarily spiritual and in the realm of the divine is now physical and in the realm of the brain. This is naturalism, and it is becoming the heartbeat of American culture. The reason that we have two contrasting worldviews simultaneously in the U.S. is because we have two contrasting philosophies concerning the origin of our existence. Worldviews always stem from philosophy of origin. So we have one worldview that believes that God created human beings, and we have another worldview that believes that human beings evolved from a lower life form. The one worldview believes that there once was nothing, God spoke, and then there was something. The other worldview believes that matter has always existed in some form. The one worldview believes that, since God created, He defines and gives meaning. The other worldview believes that only the elements define, and any discussion of meaning is ultimately meaningless. Make no mistake. The naturalistic mindset cannot be reconciled with the spiritual mindset, at least not the Biblical one. The Biblical God cannot be explained in terms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and the like. The elements do not define God. God defines the elements. So we are in the middle of a war of ideas. I am curious to see how this war will unfold in the coming years. The book of Judges teaches a truth that is like a horrific resounding gong. That truth is that we are always just one generation from total apostasy. Naturalism will send the United States into total apostasy if God does not do a mighty work among us. May God work in our culture through the Church, through His Word, by His Spirit, to open the eyes of men and women to the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Secret Sin

2010-02-17T06:59:00.000-08:00

Isn't it fascinating that our (mankind's) first response to sin is the same now as it was in the beginning? After all of the thousands of years that sin has been with humanity, it seems that we would have come up with a different way to react to it. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and then were confronted with God Himself, their reflex was to hide (Gen. 3). Today, our reflex is the same. This is what shame does to us. It is easier and more natural for us to attempt to hide our sin and hide from God than to confront our sin and confess to God. And we have made an art of hiding. We are so good at it that we've even invented ways of hiding our sin from ourselves. We keep secrets, we lie, we deny, we wear masks, we blame others, we redefine our actions so as to make them seem not so terrible, we become religiously dutiful, we compare ourselves to others, etc, etc, etc,...

The irony and tragedy in all of this is that, although hiding our sin promises some sort of release or protection from shame, it is particularly in hiding our sin that shame becomes our master. The secret sin harbors shame. It is only the confession of sin that kills shame. But Sin messes with our minds. It causes us to turn things on their heads and to think of things in a skewed way. We are convinced that being secretive about our sin will protect us from shame. We are convinced that if we are truthful about our sin, shame will overtake us. In fact, the Bible teaches us that the opposite is true. If we hide our sin, shame will surely overtake us. But if we are willing to confront and confess our sin, the freedom that we will experience will blow our minds.

But there is an even worse ironic tragedy to hiding our sin than being overcome by shame. It has to do with our perception of God's Grace. This is vitally important because our degree of love for God is directly related to how we perceive His Grace. As Jesus Himself said, "...But he who is forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7:47 ESV) Jesus said this in response to dinner hosts who scoffed at His acceptance of a sinful woman who washed His feet with her tears. He said this, not because the hosts needed less forgiveness than the woman needed, but because they needed just as much forgiveness as the woman needed, but they did not realize it. They had hidden their sin from themselves and others by becoming very religious. Therefore, they could not understand God's grace the way the sinful woman understood it. And since they could not understand God's grace, they could not love God. Here is the point, if we hide our sin, especially from ourselves, we will think that God's grace isn't all that great, so we will not love God all that much. Charles Simeon, a 19th century pastor of the same church for 54 years, understood the indispensability of searching the depths of his own sinfulness. Of his own quest to understand his depravity Simeon wrote, "I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost." (The Roots of Endurance, John Piper. pg 107). The greatest tragedy in hiding our sin, especially from ourselves, is that we minimize God's Grace, and as a result, we minimize God's Glory. This is what Simeon understood in a way that we desperately need today. May God grant that we will trust His grace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and may that trust lead us to confront and confess our sin.

The Cursed King

2010-01-25T12:45:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago I started reading through the Old Testament. It's amazing how God's Word seems so fresh and new with every reading. However, it can also be very frustrating, because it's not an easy task to understand the significance of the things we are reading. Sometimes when we read the Old Testament law, the chronologies, or the specifications for building buildings and furniture, it's hard to understand how our lives should be changed by it. So we struggle and work, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to understand the meaning of the text and its implications. It's both exciting and frustrating to know that this is a life-long pursuit. We will continually have more questions answered, but more answers will lead to more questions. So the journey will continue until the day that He returns and we see Him as He is.

But until that day we will continue the struggle, and the excitement of having those "lightbulb" moments will continually draw us back. As our eyes are opened more fully to see what's in front of us, we will grow to love it more and more.

For me, one of those moments came when I read Deuteronomy 22:22-23. At first glance, this passage looks like a simple law placed in the middle of a bunch of other simple laws. Moses has been dealing with a wide range of things from murder to inheritance rights to rebellious children. Then, there is this passage, "And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance." (Deut. 22:22-23 ESV). As I was thinking about this verse, I began to think about the Jewish mindest during Jesus' day. Jesus was a man who stirred up great controversy. He could do things that no one else could do. The people watched in great wonder as he healed the blind, commanded the elements, and even raised people from death to life. But it wasn't mainly what He did that caused the religious leaders to hate Him; it was what He said. Jesus claimed to be the annointed One of God. He claimed to be the Christ, the Messiah, the long awaited King that would sit on the throne of David forever. This is what it meant to be the Son of God. The Christ had to be chosen by God Himself. He could not be a self appointed king. This is what the religious leaders hated so much. They could not accept that God had appointed Him to be their Christ.

But what does this have to do with Deut. 22:22-23? The religious leaders in Jesus' day would have known this law very well. How fitting, that the Jews were under the authority of the Roman government, whose favorite form of execution was crucifixion. I wonder how this played into the minds of those who hated Him. If only He could be charged with blasphemy, then He could be hanged on the Roman cross, and it would be proven once and for all that this man is not the Christ of God. After all, how can someone be chosen by God and cursed by God at the same time?

God's plan is so amazing! It blows my mind. The Chosen One would become the Cursed One for our salvation and for His glory. The religious leaders were right. Hanging on the Roman Cross did prove that Jesus was cursed of God. But they did not know that it was God's plan for Jesus to become the curse in our place (Gal. 3:13-14). Because of His obedience even to death on the Cross, the cursed King was given the Name above all names. He is the Christ!

Presumption and Sovereignty

2010-01-15T08:55:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post, I made an attempt at addressing the difference between having faith in the grace of God and presuming upon the grace of God. Looking at Romans 2:4, I tried to demonstrate that trusting in the grace of God leads to repentance, but presuming upon God's grace leads to more sin. It is important to distinguish between the two because presumption pretends to be faith, yet as faith leads to life, presumption leads to wrath. It is fearful to think that someone could have confidence that they have Biblical faith, when all they truly have is presumption. But the evidence of true faith is repentance, and it is only in having a repentant heart that we can be confident that our faith is real.

I began to think about this a little further, and I began to question how presumption might take the place of faith in other areas. When presuming upon God's grace, presumption leads to more sin. But what about presuming upon God's sovereignty? I do believe there is a difference (one that should be noted) between trusting in the sovereign hand of God and presuming upon His sovereignty. I began to ask this question particularly as I was having a conversation with my Pastor about evangelism. I've found that every time the topic of evangelism and God's sovereignty comes up, the same questions are asked. How should we understand God's sovereignty in evangelism? How should we understand our own role in evangelism? Do what I say and do even matter? Is God going to save who He is going to save no matter what? These are legitimate questions, especially for someone who believes that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. I won't attempt to answer them here. What I am more concerned about is the state of mind, or condition of heart that we have when we consider God's sovereignty. If we consider that God is sovereign over all things, is it presumption, or is it true faith? The distinction between presumption and faith is difficult here for the same reason that it was difficult in the previous discussion. Just as presumption upon the grace of God pretends to be faith in the grace of God, so presumption upon the sovereignty of God pretends to be faith in the sovereignty of God. And here too, presumption looks like faith on the exterior. The reason for this is that presumption can easily be mistaken as trust, and trust is a vital part of faith.

As I was thinking through this, I realized that the answer to this question is the same as the answer to the earlier question. We found earlier that faith in the grace of God leads to repentance, but presumption upon the grace of God leads to more sin. There is a contrast in the evidence concerning God's sovereignty as well. For faith in the sovereignty of God empowers one to obedience, but presumption upon the sovereignty of God leads one to be idle. In other words, the person who truly trusts that God is sovereign over all things, has no need to fear when sharing the Gospel. He is empowered to be obedient in evangelism, knowing that God is the Author and Finisher of faith. He does not need to worry that he might stumble and say the wrong thing, or be too ignorant to share with someone else and so condemn them to eternal Hell. He only has to trust that God has commissioned him to make disciples, and God is sovereign over it. But the person who presumes upon God's sovereignty is idle. He is empowered to laziness, for he says in his heart, "God is going to save who He is going to save, and what I do doesn't matter." This is the heart of presumption, not of faith.

Who's the Man?

2009-12-15T07:04:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be a human being? What does it mean to be a man or a woman? How do we define ourselves? And who has the authority to give the definition?

It may not seem apparent at first glance, but these are some of the most important questions we could ever ask. And I believe, of all the times of the year, that Christmas particularly begs us to ask these questions. After all, we are celebrating the incarnation. We are celebrating the Biblical truth that God became a man and dwelt among men. Why did He do this? Was it really necessary? If it was necessary, why?

Let's start with this question first, "Who has the authority to define humanity?" This may seem to be a silly question, but I would say that it is more important and pressing than we might think. We live in a world where people have claimed the authority to define themselves. The debate over "Gay marriage," for example, is a definition debate. The mental consensus used to be that the definition of marriage came from beyond us. There was a higher authority who gave the definition, and our role was to hear it and submit to it. If the Bible is the authority that defines marriage, then the term "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron. It's no different than saying "Married Bachelor." But we are culturally morphing into a people who no longer listens to Biblical definitions, and the only alternative is to define things for ourselves, or beg the State to define things for us. So it is important, first, that we establish who has the authority to define humanity. If we are a people who believe the Bible, then we know that we do not have the authority to define ourselves. Only God has that authority. When God created Adam and Eve, He created them in His own image, and this is where our definition and identity are found.

"But what does all of this have to do with Christmas?" you might ask. Simply put, we celebrate Christmas because Jesus succeeded where we failed. God defined humanity in a certain way, but due to our sin, we did not live up to His definition. We skewed God's image. I would even say that in some ways we became sub-human because of sin (remember who defines humanity). So when we fail, instead of saying, "I'm only human," maybe we should say, "I'm not quite fully human yet." In this sense, Jesus is the only Man that has ever lived up to the real definition of humanity. He is the perfect image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). The incarnation made it possible for humanity to finally be what it was originally intended to be. So, just as in Adam all have sinned, and therefore all die; Jesus has overcome sin for all who are united to Him (Romans 5:12-21). Therefore, they shall live. In His death for our sins and his resurrection to give us life, Jesus became the firstborn of the new humanity. Colossians 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." (ESV)

I hope that in the midst of presents, lights, trees, nativity scenes, carols, and way too much food, we will consider that this baby, born of a virgin, was the perfect Man. He is the true humanity. May we long for the day when we will be like Him. May we long for the day when we will join Him as His brothers and sisters. May we long for the day when we will see Him face to face. Merry Christmas.

Giving Thanks

2009-12-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

"Anything I cannot thank God for for the sake of Christ, I may not thank God for at all; to do so would be sin." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

This past week I was able to spend some needed time with my family. I have always believed that my family is a unique and special blessing from God, but as I have grown older, that belief has become more real to me. So I want to give thanks to God. Every good gift comes from Him. And it is possible for us to receive from His hand because Jesus has made it possible through the work that He accomplished on the Cross.

But as I give thanks, I want to make sure that I do it the right way. Psalm 69:30 says "I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving." (ESV emphasis added) There is a simple truth in this verse that is extremely important and powerful. That truth is, thanksgiving magnifies. Or another way to say it is, thanksgiving glorifies. This is always true. When thanksgiving is offered, the result is magnification, glorification, praise, honor, etc. The question is, "who or what is the recipient?" Bonhoeffer's
statement reminds me that I must be careful to watch my own motives when I pray, because my temptation is to cherish God's gifts in such a way that, even in giving thanks, I magnify the gifts rather than the giver. When I pray, am I simply asking God to take care of the gifts that He has given me? Does my thanksgiving prove that houses, lands, friends, wife, children, career, ministry, security, and reputation are the treasures of my heart? In giving thanks to God, do I really bring Him dishonor? Father, please work in my heart in a way that, whenever I give thanks, it will be to magnify the name of Jesus.

Faith and Presumption: What's the difference?

2009-11-18T09:20:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I started teaching Romans to our youth group. I am going verse by verse through the letter, trying to answer questions, and trying to explain in a way that is true to the text and understandable to teenagers. It's difficult.

I have studied this letter for years, but it is amazing how each time something different will catch my attention and demand special focus. Last week this happened with Romans 2:4. "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (ESV) When I read this, a thought came to my mind, and as it did I became a little nauseous. The thought was, "presumption mascarades as faith." I became sick because I began to sense the weight and horror of this thought. The line between faith and presumption is a line that divides life and death. For those who presume, Paul says, "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:5 ESV) So it is clear. To have faith is to live. To presume is to die. But presumption pretends to be faith. That's what is so scary.

Presumption can mascarade as faith because it talks like faith, it quotes scripture like faith, and it even lives like faith in some ways. After all, faith at it's core is trust. It is a specific kind of trust that believes that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is sufficient to satisfy God's wrath, bring forgiveness, and make possible our adoption as God's sons and daughters. We are called to a total abandonment of our own attempts to please God and to rest in the finished work of Jesus. Paul was so confident in the Grace of God in the Gospel that some even accused him of a kind of presumption (Romans 3:8). So the line between faith and presumption, though it is a line between life and death, is not an easy line to see.

However, there is a simple principle that will help us determine whether we are presuming upon God's grace or we are trusting in God's grace. Another look at verse 4 will be helpful. "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (ESV emphasis added) God's grace given to us in the Gospel is meant to lead us away from our sin. It is not meant to empower us in our sin. In other words, this is a primary difference between faith and presumption: Faith will lead us to repentance. Presumption will lead us to more sin. If I am going to take my faith seriously I must ask myself this question, "When I consider God's kindness toward me in the Gospel, does it lead me to repent of my sin, or does it make me more comfortable with my sin?" If I repent, then I have true faith. But if I become comfortable with sin, I can be sure that what I have is not faith, it is presumption.

Conformed to Christ?

2009-11-11T07:47:00.001-08:00

I have to continue just a little further with the thought on Romans 8:28. Previously, I tried to make the point that it is absolutely crucial that we understand that the "good" to which Paul refers in verse 28 is a specific good. Our own sin-tainted, skewed definition of good for ourselves is not the same good that Paul is talking about. We define "good" for ourselves as more peace, greater contentment, better relationships, more purpose, greater success, etc. But Paul has something else in mind. If the truth of this verse is going to bring us peace in this life, it is necessary that we understand that verse 28 is bound to verse 29. In fact, verse 29 defines the specific good that Paul is speaking of when he says that God causes all things to work together for good. "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:29 ESV. Our greatest good, for which God is working, is that we be conformed to the image of Christ. There is nothing better. There is nothing higher. And there is no greater purpose. This is the greatest act of love that our Father can do in our lives. It is the work that the Cross is accomplishing in us. And until we understand that this alone is the goal, we will continue to live in disappointment as we battle to reconcile the tragedies in our lives with our own definition of "good." This is the love of our Father for us; that He calls us His own children, and in doing so, He molds us into the likeness of His only begotton Son.

But I began to think of what exactly it looks like to be conformed to Christ's image, especially in the context of these two verses. Paul is encouraging us that God especially uses persecution, tragedy, loss, etc. in His good purpose to conform us to Christ. So I began to ask myself, "What specific work does God accomplish in our lives in the midst of our distress that causes us to be more like Jesus?" My mind immediatley went to the place where Jesus Himself was under the most duress. In the garden, before His crucifixion, Jesus prayed in agony because He knew that the cup of God's wrath was about to be poured upon Him. In this moment, the nature of His relationship to the Father is clearly seen. "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." Luke 22:42 ESV. This Christ who was the eternal Word of God, through whom all things were created, and in whom all things find their being, who was literally God in the flesh, submitted to His Father's will. In John 5:19 Jesus told the people that He could do nothing on His own accord, but He could only do what He saw His Father doing. Jesus fully trusted the word of His Father. Because of this complete trust, He lived a life of total surrender to the will of His Father, even in the midst of bearing the wrath that was due to a sinful humanity. What does it look like to be conformed to the image of Jesus? And why does God use tribulation and loss to bring that conformation about in our lives? Because in the midst of tribulation we cannot trust in ourselves. We are stripped of any false idea that we are capable of defining our own purpose and destiny. We are sobored to realize that we are powerless and completely dependent upon the One who we call Father. It is in this dependence, in this submission, in this trust that we are most like Jesus. And in becoming like Jesus, He is immeasurably glorified, because He is the firstborn of many brothers.

All Things? Again

2009-10-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

My last post was called "All Things?" Discussing Romans 8:28, I wanted to show that in the midst of God's sovereignty He has promised His children that He never stops working for them out of love. And nothing is beyond His purpose. We never have to fear that God is smiting us out of judgement or restitution. He does, in fact, discipline the one's He loves. But His discipline is always because of His love. This is because Jesus bore God's wrath on the Cross. Now, for those who are united to Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation, no wrath, no judgement, no vindication. There is only love.

I wanted to talk a little more about this because my pastor (Bro. David) and I have begun to realize that God is experientially walking us through the things that we are teaching. We have taught about being satisfied only in Jesus. We have taught about God's endless and sufficient grace. And we have taught about God's love and discipline (realizing that everything that God does in the lives of His children is out of His love for His children.) In all of these Biblical truths, God will not allow us to simply know them in our minds. He is causing us to experience them. We are being forced to live them out. Sometimes my initial response has been to complain, or to fear, or to feel despair. The path to understanding that Jesus is to be valued more than any earthly possession or relationship can be a path filled with loss and pain. The path to understanding that God's grace in the Cross of Christ is powerful enough to reach to the lowest and most vile sinner can be a path paved with much shame and regret. And the path to understanding that God always works for the good of His children can be a path that demands letting go of dreams, denouncing wrong ideas, and truly trusting God with every breath. I am finding that walking, experiencing, living out these paths, is God's desire for His children. He doesn't want us to simply have a mental understanding of these truths learned from a Sunday School book or a devotional. He wants us to know, truly know. And truly knowing means experiencing. Oh, how deep God's love is for us, that He would guide our every step, through pain, tears, loss, blessing, hope, fulfillment, and joy for the sole GOOD purpose of knowing Him and Jesus Christ whom He sent!

All Things?

2009-10-06T13:15:00.000-07:00

"Don't you Romans 8:28 me!" That was a response that one of my seminary professors said that he gave to a friend who was attempting to console him during a difficult time. He didn't want to hear about God's good purpose in the midst of the loss of his unborn child. He just wanted to grieve. No doubt, there is a time for mourning (Eccl. 3:4). When loss comes it is appropriate to mourn, and we should mourn with others who are mourning (Romans 12:15) so as to aid in their comfort.
However, sometimes I do wonder if we in fact do not allow Paul's words to strengthen us the way he intended for them to strengthen us. "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28 NASB) Do we, who are believers, children of God, truly realize that God is working all things, all things, for our good? Do we realize that nothing is circumstance. Nothing is purposeless. Nothing is meaningless. God is using it all for our benefit. He is always looking upon His children out of love. He is always looking upon His children out of love, and His intentions are always for their good. This is possible because Jesus bore the wrath that was due to us (Romans 3:25). And now, rather than being God's enemies, we are called God's children (Romans 5:8-10 and 1 John 3:1). What a freeing truth! What peace it brings! But we doubt. And our doubt causes us to forfeit the comfort that this beloved text can bring us.

I think there are two specific things that we doubt about this verse. First, we doubt that God's intentions are always out of love. One effect of our sin is that it causes us to see God as one who deals with us as a retributive judge rather than a disciplining father. Rather than reminding ourselves that the Cross is sufficient to cleanse us of all past, present, and future failures, we tend to have the self-righteous mentality that God will have to smite us in some way in order to make it right. Therefore, when hardship comes our way, (for those who believe God is sovereign over all things) the temptation is to believe that God is punishing us in a judiciary way rather than disciplining us in a fatherly way.
The second thing that we doubt is that the end result will be "good." This doubt is probably based more on misconception than anything. We begin with a wrong idea about what is "good" for us. Our idea of "good" is sin-tainted and skewed. But Paul tells us in verse 29 exactly what the "good" is that God is working in our lives. "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29 ESV emphasis added). The greatest good (most loving act) that God can do in our lives is to conform us to the image of Christ. This is what God is always working for in His children. So whether the "circumstance" that we face is good or bad, we have the confidence to know that God's intention is for our good, the good that He works for is for us to be conformed to the image of Christ, and He does not fail at His work. Father, grant that we may see Your loving hand in all things, and grant also that we may agree with You about what is good for us.

The Uzzah Syndrome

2009-09-22T10:17:00.000-07:00

In 2 Samuel 6 we are given the story of King David's first attempt to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem after it had been taken captive by the Philistines. I say first attempt because it was unsuccessful. Something tragic happened on the way. The text says, "But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God." (2 Sam. 6:6-7 NASB).
This passage used to really bother me. Here was Uzzah walking near the Ark as it was on its way to Jerusalem. My guess is that he was probably a very religious man. The reason I say this is because transporting the Ark was a big deal. The Ark of the Covenant signified the very presence of God. I would assume that King David didn't want just anyone to be walking with the Ark. He probably wanted proven men of priestly duty to be the leaders in returning the Ark to the nation of Israel. Now, as they were walking, the oxen that were pulling the Ark stumbled. So Uzzah, it seems out of reflex, put his hand up to stabilize the Ark. This seems like the right thing to do. Here is the Ark of God. It is the most prized possession in all of Israel, and it is about to fall to the ground. Who wouldn't place their hand up to protect this sacred box? But what happens? God's anger burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down.
Some have said that this passage has more to do with David's sin than with Uzzah's. David wasn't transporting the Ark according to the Law. According to the Law the Ark was to be carried by Levites. The Levites were to place poles through the rings attached to the casing of the Ark, and the Levites were to walk carrying the poles on their shoulders. However, David used oxen and a cart. Following this line of thought, some have concluded that the blame is ultimately on David's shoulders rather than Uzzah's.
It is true that David was wrong, and it may be true that this event would have never taken place had David followed the instruction in the Law. However, it is also clear that all of the blame is not on David. The text says that the LORD's anger burned against Uzzah for his irreverence. And I guess this is the part that always bothered me. Why did God become so angry with Uzzah for keeping the Ark from falling to the ground? It seems like it was just a reflex. Had Uzzah had time to really consider things, he might have thought about God's holiness and his own sinfulness. He might have been able to reason with himself that even touching the Ark would mean death for him. But he didn't have the privilege of thinking through the scenario. The ox stumbled, his hand went up, and he died.
But when this passage stopped bothering me so much was when I realized that Uzzah's hand going up was an indicator of the condition of his heart. Had Uzzah recognized God's holiness; had Uzzah truly understood his own sinfulness, then his reflex would have been to jump out of the way rather than to put up his hand. Through most of our lives we are not given the time to consider the theological and spiritual implications of our actions. We simply act. We act based on our hearts. John Piper has said, "If we are going to do what pleases God, most of the time it will be by reflex, not reflection." And I suspect that our reflex choices are more indicative of our belief system than those based on reflection.

Are We Romans 1?

2009-09-09T08:45:00.000-07:00

Bear with me on this one.

Paul's primary purpose in his letter to the Roman church is to demonstrate to them that righteousness, salvation, right standing before God, is a gift and cannot be earned. But before he can present this gift (righteousness that comes from faith in Jesus Christ) he has to convince his readers that they are lacking and in need. So in the first portion of the letter, Paul makes the case that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory. To introduce his case, Paul tells the church to simply open their eyes and see that God's wrath is being executed. Paul says that God's wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The creation itself testifies not only to God's existence, but also to His character and nature (vs. 20). However, the result of unrighteousness is the supression of the truth. So we see that Atheism is not an intellectual problem. It is a moral problem.
To me, the most interesting and horrific thing about this passage is how Paul defines the wrath of God..."Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them."(Romans 1:24 NASB). So God's wrath in Romans 1 is a giving over. It seems that God's wrath is God giving people over to sin. I don't believe that Paul is telling us that this is the totality of God's wrath. We are given some very graphic imagery in Revelation of the culmination of God's wrath. However, I do think Paul is telling us that this is how we see God's wrath being displayed in this present age.
Now, what is even more interesting is exactly how this "giving over" plays out. In verses 26-28 Paul tells us that the result of God's giving them over is homosexuality. Why is homosexuality the specific sin that is manifested when God gives them over? I think the answer is in verse 28..."And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,". It seems that there is a link (I would say culturally) between the spiritual sin of denying God and the physical manifestation of homosexuality. This makes sense because God sees Himself as a groom, and He sees His people as His Bride. My thought is this: Since marriage was created to be a physical picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church, maybe homosexuality is the physical picture of a people, who were created to love and honor God, turning away from God and worhsipping themselves. In other words, it seems that God's wrath toward idolatry is giving people over to their own depravity, resulting in homosexuality.
This has also made me wonder if God's wrath also has other physical manifestations to correlate to different spiritual sins. I know this might sound a little crazy, and I'm not claiming that it is Truth. It's just something that I have wondered about. Please let me know your thoughts.

Why Can't We Call it What it Is?...Killing Babies

2009-09-02T10:22:00.000-07:00

My heart has been especially troubled lately that we kill babies in our country. I have heard that the number is close to 1 million per year. We kill 1 million babies every year. We are not forced to do it. It is our "choice." And I have been guilty, along with the rest of the Church, of being disturbingly silent. In our hearts we feel sorrow. The Spirit of God testifies to our spirit that a great injustice is being done. We know, regardless of what anyone else says, that this is a valuable little child created in the image of God. Yet we still remain silent. We probably think to ourselves, "That's just the way it is." Our culture becomes increasingly confused by words that are designed to mask the truth rather than to reveal it. "Medical procedure," "abortion," "terminating the pregnancy," "sexual privacy," and "civil rights," are a few. Why can't we just call it what it is?...killing babies.
There have been other injustices in our nation's history; things that, looking back, seem absurd. About 150 years ago white American people owned African people as slaves. I'm sure there was some sort of logical argument behind it. I'm sure there was language that made it seem just and right to the culture. Maybe some argued that the slaves weren't really people. Others probably focused on the rights and freedom of the slave owner. I'm sure some argued that it would be too expensive to the nation to allow all of these people to live free lives. And I wonder if some even argued that it would be cruel to let the slaves go free. After all, life as a slave is all they knew. They couldn't possibly make it in a world so difficult.
In the midst of all of the debate and rhetoric, I wonder if there were Christians who looked at slavery with discontent, yet remained silent. Perhaps they read their Bibles and recognized that there was a great injustice taking place. But maybe they said to themselves, "That's just the way it is." Maybe they even talked to each other about how horrible slavery was. And maybe it eased their conscience a little to tell someone, who already agreed with them, that slavery was bad.
But there were other Christians who were bold enough to call slavery what it was to people who needed to hear the truth. They penetrated through the rhetoric and revealed the injustice. They did not let their own comforts and fears render them impotent. Rather, they realized that God had commissioned them to glorify Him by fighting for justice. It was a passion for the Glory of God as displayed in the Justice of God that finally abolished slavery (if not clearly in the U.S. then clearly in Great Britain of whom the U.S. followed suit).
I want to be a disciple of Christ that is not content with saying, "That's just the way it is." I don't want to be ruled by my comforts or fears. I don't want to ease my conscience by just talking about the injustice of abortion to people who already agree with me. And I want to be a believer who will be bold enough to call it what it is...killing babies.

What is Righteousness?

2009-08-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

Read Romans 3:21-28 when you have the time.

Most of the time when we think of the Gospel we think of God's love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Indeed, the scriptures continually remind us that the Gospel demonstrates a love that is higher, deeper, and wider than any love we could fathom. However, in Romans 3 Paul emphasizes a different word..."righteousness." Paul says that the reason Jesus died on the Cross "...was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who as faith in Jesus." So it is not only because God is love that Jesus died on the Cross, but it is also because God is righteous.
My question is, "What does it mean to be righteous?" or "What is righteousness?" In the previous verse we are given a clue. Paul says that God wanted to display his righteousness"...so that he might be just and the justifier..." So righteousness and justice are closely linked. However, it doesn't seem that they are the same thing. From what Paul says, it seems that it is only in the display of His righteousness that He is called just and the justifier. So I would say that justice is the display, outworking, or execution of righteousness. Righteousness is a state of being, and justice is its visible manifestation. Or another way to say it is that justice is the fruit that grows on the tree of righteousness. God didn't just want to be righteous in His own being. He wanted to display His righteousness and share His righteousness so that He would be called the justifier of the ungodly and He would receive glory. And Paul says that this is the reason that Jesus died on the Cross.
So righteousness is a state of being or a quality of God that only God has (Is. 64:6). And His righteousness is displayed through the Cross so that He is called just and the justifier of the ungodly.
Now, we are getting closer, but we still haven't answered the question, "What is righteousness?" John Piper's definition might be the best I've heard. He says, "God is supremely and unimpeachably righteous because He never shrinks back from a right assessment of His ultimate value, a just regard for His infinite worth, or an unswerving commitment to honor and display His glory in everything He does." ("Brother's We Are Not Professionals" pg. 14). In other words, righteousness is a state of being that honors God as the supreme value. To not honor God as the supreme value is to be unrighteous. Now the Bible says that there are no righteous people and that all have sinned (Ecc. 7:20). So because of the Fall there is not a single man or woman who values God supremely. We are all unrighteous.
Now, here is where the Gospel (Good News) shines brightly for us. The Bible says that there has only been one righteous man. There has only been one man who honored God as the supreme value. And it pleased God that the punishment that was due to the unrighteous would rest on the shoulders of the Righteous, so that the unrighteous could have new eyes to see God's worth and now be called righteous. Jesus died on the Cross so that we could have new hearts, new lives, new eyes to see the infinite value of God...so that we could be called righteous. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21 ESV) Praise the Lord!

All for His Glory

2009-08-21T08:52:00.000-07:00

"For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another." (Isaiah 48:11 ESV)

"God loves His glory more than He loves us, and this is the foundation of His love for us." John Piper

Sometimes I think about American Christianity. If the Biblical saints could see our worship, our fellowship, our evangelism, and our theology, I wonder if they would recognize the faith that they bled and died for. We seem to have so many "Christians" who sing the song, hear the message, possibly even pay the tithe, but as Jonathan Edwards said a few hundred years ago, "they first rejoice . . . that they are made so much of by God; and then on that ground, he seems in a sort, lovely to them." The Religious Affections, ed. by John Smith, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), pp.250. Edwards was describing church goers who seemed to do and say all of the right things. But there was a problem with their faith. The problem was that their foundational delight was in themselves. When they looked at the Gospel it seemed to them that God had made much of them. So their attraction to God was rooted in their own self-centeredness. They had transformed the Gospel into a formula for supporting their own self-esteem. Obviously they must be important if God would send Jesus to die for them. God was not glorious to them simply because of His own worth. He was glorious to them, in a sense, because they believed that God was centered on them rather than centered on Himself. Edwards had a name for these people. He called them hypocrites. And for Edwards a hypocrite was not a straying believer; a hypocrite was no true believer at all.
When I first read Edwards' quote, it horrifically reminded me of American Christianity. We need to be reminded in America that God is God-centered. We tend to ignore passages like Isaiah 48:9-11, where God explicitly tells His own people Israel that He is showing patience to them for His own name's sake. In Ezekiel 36:22 God even goes further by saying bluntly that "...It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came." How many times have we presented the Gospel as a means to make much of ourselves, rather than making much of Jesus? How many times have we attended a worship service with our own benefit in mind rather than the Glory of God? Yes, the Gospel demonstrates God's love for us (Romans 5:8), and yes we do benefit greatly from it (John 3:16), but the primary goal of the Gospel is for God to be glorified. In Ephesians 1 Paul recounts the blessings of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. With each proclamation Paul gives the purpose for God's blessing toward us..."to the praise of his glorious grace..." God is God-centered. He acts and works for His own name's sake. And His name is praised supremely through the redemption of sinners by the blood of His own Son. Let us not be hypocrites. Let us not think God is lovely, in a sort, because we believe that He makes much of us. Let us not do Christian things for our own benefit. Instead, let our goal in all of our Christian activity be the same as God's goal...for His name to be glorified.

Render to Caesar

2009-08-05T08:20:00.000-07:00

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. (Mark 12:13-17 ESV)

I have heard many sermons and read many commentaries that approach this passage with "paying taxes" in mind. Many people read it as if "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" is the emphasis of the passage. No doubt, Jesus acknowledged the earthly authorities that were established by His Father in Heaven. And no doubt, in this sentence He affirmed that taxes should be paid. But this is not the emphasis of Jesus' teaching. Consider for a moment the last sentence in this text. "And they marveled at him." Why did they marvel? Was it simply because Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"? No, anyone could have said that. They marveled because he said, "...and to God the things that are God's." Now why was this a statement that deserved awe from Jesus' hearers? It goes back to the question He asked them,"Whose likeness and inscription is this?" Caesar's image was on the coin, and this was reason Jesus told the people that they should render the coin to Caesar. In other words, Caesar had placed his image on the coin to signify that it came from him and ultimately belonged to him. Then, Jesus tied this line of thinking to the second part of His sentence, "...and to God the things that are God's." Caesar's image was the proof that the coin ultimately belonged to him. So Jesus beckoned the crowd to ask a question: where has God stamped His own image? Because just as Caesar owns the coin that bears his image, so God owns whatever bears His image. Let us render to God the things that are God's.

God is Dead and so is His Image

2009-07-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

Nietzsche's phrase, "God is dead" is a phase that has either impacted or reflected our society for the past several decades. The rise of outspoken atheism in American culture is an indicator of our spiritual temperature. And it is clear that we have reached a place and time where many people are comfortable or even delighted to say with conviction..."God is dead."

But with God's burial we must admit that humanity has changed. Some would say this change is for the better. Others would disagree. From a Biblical perspective we find that Man's being is wrapped up in God's being. Man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:27). And although many would disagree about exactly what it means to be created in God's image, all would recognize that if God is dead, then His image is also dead. What I am saying is this: If we remove a most basic belief in God, then we also remove the foundational principle that allows us to say that Man is different from other creatures. Scripturally, the lives of human beings are specially protected from harm due to this doctrine that Man is created in God's image. According to Genesis 9:6 it is the reason that murder deserves capital punishment. So it seems that an assault on God's image is equated with an assault on God himself.

But if God is dead then His image is also dead. So now we find that we are confused about how we are supposed to view ourselves. Are we just an advanced species? If we are just a product of evolution can we really say that our lives are more important than other species? What right do I have to say that my life is more important than my dog's? The reason we have to ask these questions is because degree of importance is rooted in purpose. But if we exist only because of chance then there can be no purpose, and if there is no purpose there can be no importance. And if there is no importance then it is absurd to talk about degrees of importance.

So we find ourselves in a society where a group of people are outraged that the president swatted a housefly, yet they do not give a second thought to the the destruction of hundreds of thousands of unborn human babies. If God is dead, in what principle can human rights be rooted? If God is dead, you are no different than your dog, your house plant, or President Obama's dead fly.

Bread of Life: How Does It Taste?

2009-07-15T10:06:00.000-07:00

Suppose you are delivering a meal to a man who hasn't eaten in three days. When you go to the Chef to pick up the meal he has it in a special container and asks you not to open it. He tells you that this is the best meal he has ever prepared, and it is designed perfectly to satisfy the taste and hunger of the starving man. Now you know the Chef personally and trust him with your life, so you agree to deliver the unseen meal to the starving man. How do you suppose that you should convince the starving man to eat the meal once you reach him? To some this may seem like a strange question. The man will not have to be convinced. Obviously the aroma of the meal will cause him to go into a frenzy and tackle you in order to get to the food. However, as you are on your way you realize that you don't even notice the aroma of the meal. Perhaps the container is blocking the smell. Or maybe on your journey you have just become used to the aroma and do not notice it anymore. In any case, you begin to ask yourself some questions. Surely the Chef wouldn't mislead you, but what if the meal isn't as great as it's supposed to be? What if the starving man isn't as impressed with the Chef's cooking as you are? You look down and notice that you have a Snickers bar setting in the cup holder of your vehicle. So you begin to reason with yourself. You think, "This meal may not be very appealing to the starving man, so I will offer him this Snickers bar and tell him that he can have the Snickers bar if he will just take the meal."

This seems like a crazy scenario, and granted that no metaphor is perfect, but does it not sound familiar to you? Jesus said, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."(John 5:35 ESV) I don't think it is by accident that Jesus associates Himself with a substance that we not only need to survive, but we also have a deep longing for. It is true that if we do not eat and drink we will die. But no one eats and drinks because he thinks, "If I don't eat and drink I will die of starvation." Instead, when we eat and drink we do so because we are hungry and we are thirsty. We eat and drink not just because we need to do so to survive. We eat and drink because we want to. So it is with the Bread of Life. We shouldn't partake of this Bread just because we think to ourselves, "If I don't eat I will die." Rather, we should partake because we are hungry and we want to eat.

But so often, like the previous story, when we are hungry we fear that the meal that has been prepared perfectly to satisfy our hunger and sustain our life will not really do what it has been promised to do. So we begin to look elsewhere thinking that something else might satisfy our hunger. And the things we choose to fill ourselves with, though they seem admirable, noble, and even religious, are like eating garbage compared to the Bread that is offered to us. And now, since we are full, when the Bread is brought to us we don't desire it as we were meant to desire it. I wonder how many times I have opened the Word of God with apathy. And I wonder how many times my ears have heard the Gospel and I have not savored it because I was already full on admirable, noble, religious garbage. It baffles me that Paul could say "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21) and "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18). I think Paul was able to say this because he hungered for the Bread, he feasted on the Bread. It fulfilled him, and it tasted good.

The Already/Not Yet Kingdom of Christ

2009-07-08T14:57:00.000-07:00

When John came to prepare the way for the Christ, his message was, "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In other words, John told the people that the kingdom of God was about to crash down into their world with the appearing of the Christ and they needed to be prepared. And when the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come He said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, 'Look here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." So it seems that the Kingdom of Heaven came to earth with Jesus. Still, there are other passages that suggest that the kingdom will come sometime in the future such as Luke 22:18 when Jesus says, "For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Furthermore, the Kingdom of God is typically associated with the end times. It is when everyone and everything will fully submit to the rule of God as King. So we have two ideas presented. The Kingdom of God has come to the earth with the coming of Christ. And the Kingdom of God is a government that will come in the future.

With the arrival of the textual criticism of the Bible, some tried to use this tension as a means to undermine the authority of Scripture. Some even said that Jesus changed His mind about the Kingdom of God. They said that apparently Jesus believed at the beginning of His ministry that God had brought the Kingdom through Him, but when the Jewish people rejected Him as their King, He began to view the coming of the Kingdom as a future event.
But in 1974 George Eldon Ladd articulated in his book "The Presence of the Future" what I believe the majority of the church had believed all along. He submitted that the Kingdom of God either coming with the incarnation or being a future event is not really an either/or discussion at all. Rather, it is a both/and discussion. Yes, the Kingdom of God was initiated on the earth with the coming of the Messiah, but it is not fully consummated until the King returns to rule. So in one sense the Kingdom of God has already come, but in another sense the Kingdom of God is something that we are still waiting for.

So how is this played out in our lives as Christians. First, Jesus did establish His Kingdom and it was established through the Church. When believers embrace the grace of God in Jesus Christ and then willingly submit their lives to Him we see a glimpse of God's Kingdom. As we have already noted, this Kingdom is not fully established on the earth, but it will be with the return of the King. So we have "already" and "not yet" aspects of God's Kingdom working within the Church. In fact, I would say that most things that we celebrate as believers are both "already" and "not yet" because God's established Kingdom is both "already" and "not yet." So when we place our faith in Jesus Christ we are saved from God's wrath. But we are not fully saved until the final day when we are numbered with the saints. We have been freed from slavery to sin, but we are not fully free from sin until we walk with Him in eternity. We live a new life, but our life is not completely new until the Resurrection. We have been born again, but our new birth is not complete until we are glorified in the new creation. We have been reconciled, but one day we will see Him face to face. We are called God's children, but one day we will share in the inheritance. We are the Bride of Christ, but one day we will celebrate the marriage supper. We see dimly now, but one day we will see fully.

How should we respond to this? Let us surrender to the authority of Christ as people who believe that though we may taste His goodness now, later we will feast.

What does Capitalism have to do with Christianity?

2009-06-30T09:30:00.000-07:00

First of all, let me admit that much of what I'm about to write is purely opinion. Second, let me admit that I am no expert, and I am no politician. Having said that, I want to take a quick look at what I believe to be an important question: What does Capitalism have to do with Christianity?

The connection between faith and moral conservatism is clear enough. Christians believe that the Bible teaches specifically about some of the great moral issues of our day such as gender, homosexuality, abortion, marriage, pornography, capital punishment, etc. However, I think it's a little less clear why the majority of moral conservatives are also staunch Capitalists. Many people would agree that our nation is continually becoming more Socialistic, but it also seems that those who are pushing a socialistic agenda are moral liberals. So why this polarization? Why are moral conservatives speaking out for capitalism, and why are moral liberals pushing more socialism?

I'm not really sure how to introduce my theory on this, so I'll just throw it out there and hopefully you'll give me some feedback. I think this divide has to do with our understanding of people and whether they are inherently good or evil. Christianity teaches that people are naturally sinful and rebellious against God. This means that all people are naturally self-centered, greedy, prideful, etc. All of this is due to the Fall in Genesis 3. In this view corruption exists in every facet of life and in every level of leadership. It has a more skeptical view of government because power doesn't necessarily corrupt; it just reveals the corruption that is already there. In Capitalism the financial power lies in the hands of the people. And yes, corruption will exist in this realm. But my theory is that whether we hash all of this out or not, moral conservatives are more comfortable with a corrupt business lead economy than a corrupt socialistic government. Moral liberals, on the other hand, usually have no basis for morality. Either good and evil do not really exist, or they are defined in terms of a humanistic framework. So it may not be evil to kill an unborn baby, but it may be evil to let rich people be rich and poor people be poor. Joined with this is a positive view on humanity. Either due to the Enlightenment or the view that the species is evolving to something better due to Darwinism, moral liberals usually believe that people are basically good. Therefore, there is a optimistic view of government. If we just have the right policies, then the government can make sure that our future will be bright.

I'm not saying that our current polarization is reduced to one's perspective on the morality of mankind. Events in history and media bias are definitely important factors. Nevertheless, I think the divide is clear, and I do think that our view of humanity, good, and evil will greatly influence our view of government and the amount of power we believe government should have.

Hearing is Seeing, and Seeing is Becoming

2009-06-25T10:10:00.000-07:00

Most of what I'm about to write is heavily influenced by John Piper's book "When I Don't Desire God." If you're interested in going deeper into this discussion I would encourage you to read it.

There are two kinds of seeing. That's why God laments in several places in scripture that "seeing they do not see." (Deut. 29:4, Ezekiel 12:2, Jer. 5:21, Matt. 13:13). But what exactly does it mean to say "seeing they do not see"? It means that we have both physical eyes and spiritual eyes. Almost everyone can see with physical eyes, but no one can see with spiritual eyes, because we are all blind when it comes to seeing spiritually. The reason we are all blind is because we all have the same cause of blindness....unrighteousness. That's why Paul says in Romans 1 that "...what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (ESV) However, Paul tells us that we suppress what is seen in unrighteousness, hence we have become blind. That's why millions of people can look at God's creation and give glory to chance and evolution rather than giving glory to God. Seeing they do not see. This isn't primarily an intellectual problem. It's a moral problem.
Why is it important that we see? I think there are two reasons. First, it is in seeing the majesty of Christ that we have ultimate joy and God is ultimately Glorified. This is why Paul says in 2 Cor. 4 that Satan works to blind the eyes of those who do not believe. And he is seeking to blind their eyes from something specific..."the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Satan's primary desire is that God not be glorified, and Satan knows that God is glorified the most when people truly see the majesty of Jesus Christ. When our eyes become truly opened to see Jesus the result is that our hearts delight in Him and He is glorified in our joy.
The second reason that we need to see is that in order to be with Christ we have to become like Christ, and we become like Christ by seeing Christ. It is a perpetual plunging in the grace of the Gospel of Christ that conforms us to His image. We do not move beyond the Cross in order to grow in His likeness. On the contrary, it is in diving deeper into the grace and mercy that is revealed in the Cross that we grow in His likeness. So the way that we see spiritually in this lifetime is by hearing the Word of God. When our ears are opened to hear the Gospel, our eyes are opened to see the majesty of Jesus. And this process continues throughout life. We hear more fully and deeply, and the result is that we see more clearly. And the result of seeing more clearly is that we have greater joy and give God greater glory. Yet we will never fully be like him this side of eternity because we will never fully see this side of eternity(1 Cor. 13:12). However, John tells us that a day is coming when we will see Him as he is, and the result is that we will be like Him. (1 John 3:2) So the process of hearing the Gospel in order to see the majesty of Christ, in order to delight in Him, in order to bring Him glory will be culminated on the day that He returns and we see Him perfectly both spiritually and physically. On that day, we will have ultimate joy, He will have ultimate Glory, and we shall be like Him. May God grant that we will be people who truly see the majesty of Christ. May He not say of us, "Seeing they do not see."

Is Jesus the Only way to Heaven?

2009-06-17T12:03:00.000-07:00

I was getting my taxes done last year and a lady at the tax office asked me what I did. At the time I was a youth pastor, so I explained a little about what it involved. I told her that I got paid to have fun with teenagers and teach the Bible. She seemed pretty intrigued and told me that she went to church. She proceeded to tell me something to the effect that church was important to her, but it aggravated her when people where close-minded. When I probed a little about what she was referring to she said that she just didn't think that anyone could say that they had the only answer when it comes to faith. She said that maybe God dealt with different people groups in different ways, and maybe He revealed Himself to one group of people in the form of Jesus and revealed Himself to another people group in the form of Ali, or Buddha etc. I probably didn't respond in the best way possible, but since she claimed to be a Christian I asked her what sin she thought seemed to anger God the most in the Bible. She said she wasn't sure, so I said, "What about Idolatry?"
I tell this story because it is disturbingly common for professed Christians to think that Jesus is simply one of many ways and not THE ONLY way. In fact, one of the leading "Evangelicals" of our day commented on Larry King Live that he just couldn't say that people of other faiths won't be in Heaven. What's wrong with this picture? Are we really being closed minded, fundamentalist, haters if we say that Jesus is the only way of salvation and all people are condemned without Him? Well, that depends on what the truth is. If it's not true that Jesus is the only way, then yes...we are being closed minded, fundamentalist, haters to say that He is the only way. But if Jesus is in fact the only way, then we are doing the most open minded, loving thing to tell the world this truth.
So the question is: Is it true that Jesus is the Only way to Heaven? The Bible clearly leaves no room for discussion on this issue. Verse after verse declare that confession and belief in Jesus Christ are necessary for forgiveness and redemption.
But the question I want to ask is: Why? Why does the Bible say that Jesus is the only way, and why should people who claim to be Christians be absolutely unswayed when defending this truth? I believe the answer is very simple, but Americanized Christianity has left us with a distorted understanding of Salvation and Jesus. Regular church attenders have been conditioned to see Jesus as a ticket to get to the destination (Heaven). Since Heaven is the destination and Jesus has been taught primarily as a means to get there, many "Christians" have begun to allow for other possible "tickets." But this way of thinking is completely wrong. What we need to see is that Jesus IS the DESTINATION, not merely a means to get there. Heaven is Heaven because Jesus is there. Yes, He is the means, but He is also the end, the goal, the prize, the treasure. We need to let that soak in. If Jesus really is the destination, does it even make sense to claim that there could be another way?

How Heavy Is A Cross?

2009-06-10T10:22:00.000-07:00

1) "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
2) "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and
follow Me." (emphasis added).

These two statements came from the same man. Jesus said both that the yoke he would place around our necks is an easy yoke and that if we want to be His disciples we have a cross to carry.
In saying that His yoke is easy Jesus is essentially saying that His yoke is not like the yoke of the Pharisees. It's not a yoke bound up in following a code in a legalistic way without any understanding of grace. His yoke is not burdensome like the yoke of the Pharisees. His yoke is easy.
Then, in another place we find out exactly what Jesus' yoke is. Jesus' yoke is a cross (Remember that a student is not above his teacher). But how exactly is a cross a light thing to carry? Jesus is not speaking in puns or playing with words. He makes it clear that following Him means that we must truly deny ourselves...even die daily. So how can he say that this is an easy thing? How is it easy to deny one's own passions, plans, preferences, goals, ambitions, etc.? How is it easy to consider one's own life as being nothing, meaningless, even dead?
I think the best answer comes from the Apostle Paul. Paul had been beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, and nearly killed for the sake of the Gospel. When reflecting on all of his suffering Paul said "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (Rom 8:18). The key word here is "compared." Paul says that whatever suffering we may endure for the sake of the Gospel is not even worthy to be placed on the same set of scales as the glory that will be revealed to us in Christ Jesus. Compared to the glory of Christ Paul testifies that his suffering (his cross) is light. And this is also what it means for our cross to be light. It is a comparison game. In view of the Beauty that is Jesus Christ...in view of the weight of His glory, our cross is light. It is only when our eyes are fixed on the world that daily death is a hard thing. But when our eyes are fixed on Jesus we can say with Paul that the weight of this cross is not even worth comparing to His Glory.

The Pursuit of Happiness

2009-06-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

I think it's a given that everybody wants to be happy. We might disagree on what a happy life looks like, but we all want to have joy, be satisfied, fulfilled, deeply content. So, excluding those who have given up on finding it, it is a natural thing for people to search for joy or happiness. I think it's the drive that brings us from one day to the next. We are either strengthened by the joy that we are experiencing now, or we are strengthened by the hope that joy will come in the future.
The question of the day is: how do we catch the joy that we are chasing? I would say that the first principle we have to understand is that joy is not an object to be obtained. Instead, joy is the effect of obtaining something else. In other words, joy is an abstract idea that cannot be sought after. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is a misnomer because it is not really happiness that we are pursuing. Instead we are pursuing things that we perceive will bring us happiness. So someone might say, "If I could just get this job, then I will be happy." or "If I could just get married and start a family, then I will be happy." Even though happiness is desired, an object must be obtained in order to gain that happiness. So here is the question I ask myself, "What object am I pursuing?" "What do I chase because I believe it will give me joy?" As I have been thinking about this I have come to an important realization. Since joy is an effect, it only lasts as long as its cause lasts. And it is only as solid as it's cause is solid. If the cause of my joy is money, then I will only have joy as long as I have money. If the cause of my joy is a relationship, then I will only have joy as long as that relationship is strong. I began to think about the kind of joy that I want to have. I don't want temporal, weak joy. I want unshakable, eternal, immeasurable joy. Therefore, the object that I am chasing must be unshakable, eternal, and immeasurable. This is what it means to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Sometimes my heart is fixed on temporal things. So my joy either doesn't come at all, or it is short lived. But when Jesus is the One my heart pursues I find myself in this strange paradox of receiving Him and yet longing for more. So I have joy because I have found the object of my desire, yet I know that deeper joy is in store for me. And I know that since He is eternal, unchangable, immeasurable, and perfect, so my joy will be also.

Darwin, Dawkins, and Deep Space

2009-05-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

Sorry, I haven't had coffee today, so I decided to write about Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, and E.T. in one setting. The connection between Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins is clear enough (Dawkins being a famous atheist of our time, and Darwin providing the framework for a scientific worldview that can support intellectual atheism). But you may wonder how E.T. fits into the picture. E.T. is one of my favorite sci-fi characters. He's just a little wrinkly alien trying to find his way home and eating a few Reece's Pieces along the way. So what does E.T. have to do with Atheism?
I asked myself that question when I realized one day that atheistic propaganda is saturated with alien talk. I thought to myself, "Here are people who insist that we can only believe what we can prove scientifically, yet they are obsessed with aliens." So why are intellectual atheists or naturalists obsessed with aliens?
Here's the problem: the more advanced science has become, the more we have realized that the universe is absolutely enourmous (seemingly infinite). Our planet is a microscopic spec in comparison to some stars, and the number of stars and planets in the universe is innumerable. So why is this a problem? It's a problem because as far as we know (have evidence), life exists only on planet earth. If aliens do not exist, then we have to be alarmed at the uniqueness of our world. If aliens do not exist then atheists must admit that the bang that produced millions of stars and planets only produced one spec of a planet that was suitable for evolution to work its magic and produce life. The probability is so small that it is mind boggling. This is the reason that naturalists are passionate about aliens. In essence, if aliens do not exists, then the sheer uniqueness of our planet is evidence for a creator. So atheists embrace the existence of aliens in faith. Some even believe that aliens are the creators of our world (the latest Indiana Jones). So I guess we could say that E.T. is becoming the new religion. A group of people that cannot have faith in a spiritual God will have faith in a natural god.

2009-05-20T12:38:00.001-07:00

This is my first attempt at blogging, so bear with me. Just wanted to share some thoughts I had this morning while getting ready:
I was thinking about God and my relationship with Him. I became kind of intrigued that God would command me to love Him (Luke 10:27). The reason this intrigued me is that it seems a little ridiculous from a purely human standpoint. What father actually commands his child to love him? It seems like the command itself would nulify the love because from our perspective love is not forced but is from a willing heart. Still, the command is there, and according to Jesus it's the greatest commandment of all. So I thought, maybe the command to love God has more to do with God Himself than it has to do with me, or my ability, or my want to. Maybe Biblical commands have to do with worthiness, and maybe the command to love God has little to do with my ability or desire to do so and has more to do with His worthiness of my love. Maybe I'm commanded to love God simply because He is Good.
But then I thought, how does this translate into my everyday life? What about the times that I don't have a desire to love God, but I know I am still commanded to do so? Then it hit me that maybe this progress is exactly what we are longing for in our walk with Christ. Probably for many or most of us the beginning of our understanding of our relationship with God was rooted in duty. We wanted to know the do's and dont's of Christianity. But as we grow, we begin to seek God for another reason. Our motivation for coming to God is no longer duty. Instead, we begin to come to God out of delight or joy. So maybe our growing in the faith (Sanctification) is when we more and more come to God out of a sense of delight rather than "ought to." We come to our Father not merely because He has commanded us to do so, but also because we long for Him.