I finished my undergraduate studies this past Saturday, December 11. Now that I have room to breathe, I'm reading a number of good books, including Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. A close friend gave me the book as a Christmas present, and it has been amazing--(an adjective which applies to my friend, as well). Reading about Bonhoeffer's life is an inspiration and encouragement to me, even if I do find his intellect intimidating. At any rate, if you're looking for a book to read over Christmas break, this one would be a good choice.
I'm hoping to get myself back on a less sporadic blogging schedule soon.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Undergrad? Done.
Dear friends,
I ought to explain why I suddenly dropped off the blogosphere radar after my last post. My excuse is a single word: college. I am happy, however, to share that it is also my last undergraduate semester and ends in a mere 11 days. If idleness is the devil's workshop, let me assure you that this semester has been a veritable factory of righteousness. I limited myself to 16 credit hours this semester because I wanted to enjoy a bit of free time; I was tired of working so hard. Well, those 16 hours have turned out to be a very large 16 hours, and left me with no free time at all. At any rate, I'll be back very soon.
I ought to explain why I suddenly dropped off the blogosphere radar after my last post. My excuse is a single word: college. I am happy, however, to share that it is also my last undergraduate semester and ends in a mere 11 days. If idleness is the devil's workshop, let me assure you that this semester has been a veritable factory of righteousness. I limited myself to 16 credit hours this semester because I wanted to enjoy a bit of free time; I was tired of working so hard. Well, those 16 hours have turned out to be a very large 16 hours, and left me with no free time at all. At any rate, I'll be back very soon.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Power-Grabbing, Are We?
As we know, whoever controls the definitions controls the debate. For instance, all that is necessary to institutionalize perfectly sane persons is to redefine madness. A government unhappy with dissent need only redefine madness in terms of political disapproval, and--abracadabra--half of society is mad. Thus, any time a government introduces new definitions or euphemisms, we ought to be wary.
It turns out the White House wants you to start calling it "global climate disruption" rather than "global warming." Why? Because "global climate disruption" is vaguer, and because it is vaguer, it means that laws giving the government the ability to shove 'greenness' down your throat will suddenly be able to apply more broadly.
Having bonfires in your backyard leads to global warming. No more s'mores, kids. But what about cutting down that tree that leans precariously over your child's bedroom? Sorry, climate disruption. It'll have to stay. Move your kid. Thinking about buying a dog? Sorry, climate disruption. Your backyard will never be the same. Want to fertilize your asthmatic lawn? Isn't that climate disruption, too?
My point is this. Your environment is whatever surrounds you. Environmentalism might as well be called 'Everythingism.' And the moment our surroundings become more important than the persons who inhabit them, we haven't become 'environmentally conscious;' we've become anti-human. Even most murderers aren't anti-human. They just hold a grudge against a single person, or a single group of a people. But to be anti-human is a much bigger thing. Any racist is more humane than a person who despises the existence of more than six billion humans.
And don't give me the "Environmentalism means to save the planet to save humanity--you have it backwards" line. If it was about humanity, the emphasis would be on greater production and freedom, not limiting production and limiting freedom. The question ought to be "how can we meet the needs of the peoples of the world?" rather than "how can we keep folks from killing the planet?" If you meet the world's needs, the planet will take care of itself*. If you try to save the planet, you'll destroy humanity.
*(Do you think the folks cutting down rain forests do it because its fun? Or because they need money? Notice that only wealthy countries can afford to preserve their land. And my pet peeve: as long as the UN keeps cheap power out of Africa, nobody in Africa will care about anything but their immediate needs. Environmental policies that prevent development kill poor people.)
Rant over. Peace.
It turns out the White House wants you to start calling it "global climate disruption" rather than "global warming." Why? Because "global climate disruption" is vaguer, and because it is vaguer, it means that laws giving the government the ability to shove 'greenness' down your throat will suddenly be able to apply more broadly.
Having bonfires in your backyard leads to global warming. No more s'mores, kids. But what about cutting down that tree that leans precariously over your child's bedroom? Sorry, climate disruption. It'll have to stay. Move your kid. Thinking about buying a dog? Sorry, climate disruption. Your backyard will never be the same. Want to fertilize your asthmatic lawn? Isn't that climate disruption, too?
My point is this. Your environment is whatever surrounds you. Environmentalism might as well be called 'Everythingism.' And the moment our surroundings become more important than the persons who inhabit them, we haven't become 'environmentally conscious;' we've become anti-human. Even most murderers aren't anti-human. They just hold a grudge against a single person, or a single group of a people. But to be anti-human is a much bigger thing. Any racist is more humane than a person who despises the existence of more than six billion humans.
And don't give me the "Environmentalism means to save the planet to save humanity--you have it backwards" line. If it was about humanity, the emphasis would be on greater production and freedom, not limiting production and limiting freedom. The question ought to be "how can we meet the needs of the peoples of the world?" rather than "how can we keep folks from killing the planet?" If you meet the world's needs, the planet will take care of itself*. If you try to save the planet, you'll destroy humanity.
*(Do you think the folks cutting down rain forests do it because its fun? Or because they need money? Notice that only wealthy countries can afford to preserve their land. And my pet peeve: as long as the UN keeps cheap power out of Africa, nobody in Africa will care about anything but their immediate needs. Environmental policies that prevent development kill poor people.)
Rant over. Peace.
Monday, 6 September 2010
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 3 - A Relationship, Not a Religion
Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship. This is, perhaps, the most common naïve Christian slogan. I consider it naïve for two reasons. First, because it is not true, and second, because while it is used to counter one valid problem, it implies a view of the Church which is just as large of a problem.
When Christians claim that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, they intend to distance it from cold ritualism. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Performing a service for the mere sake of performing a service, or saying a prayer merely for sake of saying a prayer are both wrong and ought to be avoided. Worse yet is for a man to perform a service or say prayer for the sake of convincing himself that he is not a bad man, or for assuming that these acts prove his goodness and allow him to stand before God. The purpose of our services and our prayers is to both worship God and be edified in our pursuit of Him; our righteousness before God is Christ alone, not anything of ourselves.
The trouble, then, is not the sentiment of the statement. The trouble is the statement. My copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion in the following words.
Religion: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Clearly, the dictionary entry contained more than those first two definitions, but none of the other definitions could be construed in any way that would disqualify Christianity as a religion. Christianity is and always will be a religion. Why am I making such a big deal out of definitions? As somebody wise once said, “When words lose their meanings, people lose their lives.” In this case, no one is dying, but a proper understanding of the Christian life is at stake; spiritual lives are at stake.
When we say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, we implicitly reject both the communal aspects of religion as well as its formal aspects. Christianity becomes entirely personalized, and the Church as an institution diminishes in importance, or disappears altogether. But the visible Church exists both for God’s glory and our benefit.
Here are three ways we benefit.
1) A healthy church keeps us from great hypocrisies by exercising church discipline. As my pastor often says, “Don’t join a church that won’t kick you out.” Excommunication is more like chemotherapy than an execution. Church discipline is reserved for members who refuse to repent of their sins. And the point is not to abandon them out of spite, but rather to withhold certain blessings that they might realize the severity of their sins and repent and return. It is also an excellent deterrent; I have no wish to be confronted by the elders of my church.
The cruelest thing that a church can do is ignore great sins in its members; to ignore a sick soul is not love – it is apathy. And not to point out the obvious, but the refusal of churches to exercise church discipline is the reason that churches are allegedly filled with hypocrites. Turning a blind eye to sin is turning blind to sin.
2) Regularly attending church keeps us from spiritual lethargy by virtue of being regular, by providing us with Christian fellowship, and by administering the means of Grace (the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Word, baptism, etc.). At least, that is how it ought to be.
But why not have ‘church’ at home? Why can I not be a congregation of one? The church was always meant to be a community of believers. If we read our Bibles at all, we recognize that we are God’s people, and not just God’s person. Also, I suspect that Christians who reject ‘organized religion’ for ‘personal religion’ have far less personal religion than those Christians in established churches. With no accountability and no schedule, it is far too easy not to pray, not to read one’s bible, not to sing praises to God, and not to maintain a daily attitude of worship.
3) Attending church also keeps us from pride by reminding us that we are dependent on Christ and dependent on each other. We are neither the masters of our fate, nor are we spiritual giants ready to battle demons in the desert (like vain medieval hermits).
Christianity is both a religion and a relationship; the two are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually dependent. The church is the bride of Christ. If I reject the bride, how can I expect a good relationship with the groom? The application is this: attend a church that preaches the gospel. We are the bride. Let us not forget our Groom.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
When Christians claim that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, they intend to distance it from cold ritualism. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Performing a service for the mere sake of performing a service, or saying a prayer merely for sake of saying a prayer are both wrong and ought to be avoided. Worse yet is for a man to perform a service or say prayer for the sake of convincing himself that he is not a bad man, or for assuming that these acts prove his goodness and allow him to stand before God. The purpose of our services and our prayers is to both worship God and be edified in our pursuit of Him; our righteousness before God is Christ alone, not anything of ourselves.
The trouble, then, is not the sentiment of the statement. The trouble is the statement. My copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion in the following words.
Religion: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Clearly, the dictionary entry contained more than those first two definitions, but none of the other definitions could be construed in any way that would disqualify Christianity as a religion. Christianity is and always will be a religion. Why am I making such a big deal out of definitions? As somebody wise once said, “When words lose their meanings, people lose their lives.” In this case, no one is dying, but a proper understanding of the Christian life is at stake; spiritual lives are at stake.
When we say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, we implicitly reject both the communal aspects of religion as well as its formal aspects. Christianity becomes entirely personalized, and the Church as an institution diminishes in importance, or disappears altogether. But the visible Church exists both for God’s glory and our benefit.
Here are three ways we benefit.
1) A healthy church keeps us from great hypocrisies by exercising church discipline. As my pastor often says, “Don’t join a church that won’t kick you out.” Excommunication is more like chemotherapy than an execution. Church discipline is reserved for members who refuse to repent of their sins. And the point is not to abandon them out of spite, but rather to withhold certain blessings that they might realize the severity of their sins and repent and return. It is also an excellent deterrent; I have no wish to be confronted by the elders of my church.
The cruelest thing that a church can do is ignore great sins in its members; to ignore a sick soul is not love – it is apathy. And not to point out the obvious, but the refusal of churches to exercise church discipline is the reason that churches are allegedly filled with hypocrites. Turning a blind eye to sin is turning blind to sin.
2) Regularly attending church keeps us from spiritual lethargy by virtue of being regular, by providing us with Christian fellowship, and by administering the means of Grace (the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Word, baptism, etc.). At least, that is how it ought to be.
But why not have ‘church’ at home? Why can I not be a congregation of one? The church was always meant to be a community of believers. If we read our Bibles at all, we recognize that we are God’s people, and not just God’s person. Also, I suspect that Christians who reject ‘organized religion’ for ‘personal religion’ have far less personal religion than those Christians in established churches. With no accountability and no schedule, it is far too easy not to pray, not to read one’s bible, not to sing praises to God, and not to maintain a daily attitude of worship.
3) Attending church also keeps us from pride by reminding us that we are dependent on Christ and dependent on each other. We are neither the masters of our fate, nor are we spiritual giants ready to battle demons in the desert (like vain medieval hermits).
Christianity is both a religion and a relationship; the two are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually dependent. The church is the bride of Christ. If I reject the bride, how can I expect a good relationship with the groom? The application is this: attend a church that preaches the gospel. We are the bride. Let us not forget our Groom.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 2 - Don't Judge!
Don’t judge or you’ll be judged! This phrase appears as a naïve Christian slogan when its scriptural meaning and context is ignored. In my experience, “Don’t judge!” is tossed into discussions like a smoke bomb to prevent persons from making moral evaluations. It usually means this: Hey, you can’t pass any judgments because it’s not your place to judge; it’s God’s. So leave me alone, jerk.
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)