Now Taking Questions...

Last Wednesday our QAF Sessions focused on gathering questions from participants, to be used in future QAFs. Here is the list I took down. If you are plan to participate in the QAF Sessions in the near future, please add a question to the comments. If you can't join us, feel free to add a question anyway, but I will probably be quicker to use questions from participants than non-participants.

I am not a Bible Answer Guru, and I don't know any. So conclusions and right answers are not really the point here, so please don't try to answer them in the comments. The point is that we are able to ask these questions, and able to discuss them openly, with no fear of dirty looks for being honest. So here are the questions that were asked Wednesday night.

• Is there a feminine or female side of God? Does God have a gender at all?
• The Bible seems to imply that we are judged by what we do. How does salvation by grace fit into that?
• Is it wrong to be so content with life that you don't care what happens to you after you die?
• How reliable is Scripture? Have human hands compromised it in the inscription or translation process? How perfect can our translations possibly be?
• Why does Biblical history seem absent from academic history books?
• Is it wrong to focus your education on attaining job security?
• Is it a sin to do what you want if you don't know what God wants you to do?
• Do we have to suffer in order to serve God?
• What is the point of suffering?
• Does God cause disaster, as it seems to say in Isaiah 45:7?
• How do we reckon with some of the disturbing character traits of God?
• How can we say God is good when he instigates massacres like the flood?
• How literally should we read the Bible (i.e. "Bind these words upon your head...)

+

Missio Dei

Lately my conversations have been peppered largely with talk about mission... God's mission, our mission... and the Latin phrase Missio Dei, which means "Mission of God".
I love that this phrase has become so popular, because it reminds us that, although we do have a mission, it doesn't actually belong to us. We so often act like it does. We say things like, "You're not evangelized until we evangelize you," and pretend that God has retained no authority over the growth of his Kingdom, content to simply sit back to consult and assist.

I've enjoyed thinking a lot lately about the way God calls us, instead, to assist him. Here is how I described it in a July 2007 post entitled "So Here I Am":

It's as if [God] were the captain of a pick-up basketball team, and he picks all the short heavy kids, just to prove that he can beat the other team all by himself. But then he manages to win the game as a team, just to prove he's not a ball-hog.

And here is the same point, illuminated through a cute personal story by Doug Peters in a comment on Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed.

In the autumn that my son was five, he came outside with his plastic rake to “help” me rake the leaves. I was extremely proud of him as he kept at it for almost two hours. Toward the end of that time, his elder sister came to the door to remonstrate with Nathanael.

“You’re doing it wrong!” she shouted.

And, indeed, he was: he was holding the rake “incorrectly”; he was often raking the leaves at cross-purposes to his father; he wasn’t particularly efficient in his coverage. In fact, it is quite possible that I could have completed the task more quickly without his help.

But that wasn’t the point. A father and his child were working together. Love was being developed. Great enjoyment was being had on both sides. And this father was particularly pleased with his son, “doing it wrong” and all.

“Oh!” squealed Nathanael’s sister, “It is cold out here.” And she slammed the door, and went back to watching television.

Folks who would rather call out those “doing it wrong” than actually do the work deserve to be warned, and deserve to be challenged (as Jay Kelly suggests above) to “bless the world”.

When we came in, Nathanael happily announced to his mother that “we” had raked the leaves. Indeed. I gave him all the credit he deserved. And perhaps a bit more than that…

Authority, Homosexuality, and a Piss-Poor Epistemology

Over the next few weeks (and months) I'm going to be thinking (and talking) a lot about Scripture, personal conviction, and the teaching work of the Holy Spirit. What I have to say today may seem dis-jointed, but only because it's intended to lead into other things.

Before reading on, you may want to download a PDF of a transcription of theologian N.T. Wright's lecture on Biblical Authority. Although it's 19 pages long, and scholarly in nature, it's quite down-to-earth.

As I was reading this document, I began to think about how each of us arrives at our convictions. And I realized that no one really believes something just because someone told them it was true. The exception to this is the groundwork for worship. Sound confusing? Keep reading.

Little kids tend to believe everything their parents say because they worship their parents. And when you're little, that's not a bad thing. But have you ever heard someone say, "That's what I believe because my pastor said so."? It's getting less and less common, for sure, but it reveals an attitude of worship toward one's pastor. The word for the way people know and understand things is called epistemology, and this is one example (pardon the phrase) of piss-poor epistemology.

Obviously, we are called to worship God. And therefore, whatever he speaks directly to us is something we should believe wholeheartedly. And you may infer from this that I'm going to say something about literal belief in the words of the Bible, but don't make any more assumptions... and keep reading.

If we're paying attention, we all get the sense from reading the Bible that God is talking to someone else besides us. In the Old Testament, it's the Israelites. In the New Testament it's a variety of Jews and Christians from the Mediterranean region. You don't have to disrespect the timeless, inspired nature of the Bible to wonder which of these million or so words God has really intended you, personally, to obey.

And even if you've figured that out, what responsibility do you have, if any, to tell other people what they're supposed to do? Has God really called us to make these kinds of determinations on others?

It looks like I'm in danger here of descending into a bog of abstraction, so I'm going to put a face on the question. What should a Christian do when he (or she) meets an actively gay Christian? Let's suppose the two of you have the opportunity to get to know one another, and you develop somewhat of a rapport.

You worry about your friend, and his lifestyle, so you've decided it's time to say something. But what? Here is what I would say, if it were me (and this will probably change, but for the here-and-now I like it.)

I would talk to my friend about his relationship with God. I would ask him about his desire to really obey God and live a life that's pleasing to Him. I would ask him if he is willing to obey God, even if obedience is painful or inconvenient. I would ask him if he believed that God is the creator of sex and sexuality, and if he has the right to guide us in our expressions of it.

You may think, once again, that you know where I'm going with this, but you'd probably be wrong. Most people would have difficulty answering "yes" to every one of these questions. If he says "no" to even one of them, then homosexuality is not the issue. The issue is his orientation towards God... that he has acquired a misunderstanding of God's dominion, or has never acquired a worshipful stance towards God to begin with.

If he does, in fact, answer "yes" to all of them, then I would ask him if he believes that what the Bible (particularly Romans chapter 1) says about homosexuality applies to him. If not, I would ask why not... and I would press him to make sure he's not just skewing the words to his own advantage (after all... he said he was willing to obey God even if it's painful.) But if he has honest doubts about the scripture, or consistent reasons why he doesn't believe he is bound to those words (even if his reasons aren't academically sound) I would simply tell him what I believe and why, and ask if I can pray for him. I would tell him that I worry, not only about his physical and psychological health, but about his spiritual health.

But here's my divergence: After that I would leave it alone. After all, my friend would never believe me just because I said so, unless he worships me. But if I continue to see evidence that my friend really longs to obey God, and makes sacrifices to do so, but does not see the Scriptures about homosexuality in the way that I do, I would respect his spirituality, and continue to pray for him. Because seriously... aren't we all rejecting some facet of Scripture every day, quite intentionally at times? Do you think a man whose children are unruly should be exempt from serving as a pastor? Do you think a woman who sports jewelry and short hair and a loud voice should be ineligible to teach Sunday School? If God, at some point, convicts these two people to make a change, then that's his business, but until then, we can respect their spirituality and their position in the Kingdom of God.

By the way, I'm not trying to equate homosexuals with incompetent parents or short-haired women. But we've got to come to terms with the way we excuse ourselves so often in regards to Scripture, while condemning others. Often we settle in to accomplish whatever scriptural requirements we find personally manageable, and then set about judging everyone else based on that standard.

But the point is... what's in the heart? You can't argue with that. (For man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the... what?) And, in fact, we can have some sense about what's in a person's heart. It just gets frustrating when we realize that God is the only one who really knows.

Communion

If I'm going to write a post about Communion (or the Lord's Supper) I have to start with a confession, and repentance. It has been my responsibility, as a pastor, to make sure that the people who worship with The Core have the regular experience of Communion... the bread and the cup. In The Core's two-year history, however, we have done it only once. At the very absolute minimum, it should be done once per year, at Passover, but I haven't even managed that much. For that I am very sorry, and I now have plans to fix this problem.

Starting on Sunday, September 23, Re:Group will begin taking Communion together, on the Fourth Sunday of each month (the first Sunday after Merge.) We will use grape juice instead of alcoholic wine because minors are likely to be involved from time-to-time, quite often without their parents (think college underclassmen) and because there may be those present struggling with alcoholism currently, or in their past. We will use unleavened matzah bread instead of anything else because leaven, or yeast, is a powerful symbol of sin in the Bible, and therefore the unleavened bread is a powerful symbol of the body of our sinless Savior.

Now I'm going to talk about one of the reasons I was reluctant to start serving Communion on a regular basis. It's not an excuse, just a reason. And that is the open/closed communion controversy. After some discussion, we have made a decision how to handle it.

Since it is not unlikely that there will be unbelievers present when we serve Communion, we have to be very careful that we do not include them in a way that is disrespectful to the commandment to "eat this bread and drink this cup"... "in a worthy manner". Let me make a few points before I share our conclusion.

1) In a small group setting, a non-believer would likely feel very awkward being told not to participate in something that every other person is doing. Feeling excluded and embarrassed, such a person is not likely to come back.

2) There is nothing magical (or even miraculous) about the juice, the bread, or the act of consuming it in a certain setting. We do not agree with the Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation, which says that the juice (or wine) literally becomes the blood of Christ, and the bread literally becomes his body. Therefore, a person does not sin by taking Communion in ignorance, or in an unsaved state. It is rather the spiritual leader of the group who sins if he or she does not communicate clearly about it. If it is communicated clearly, then the leader cannot assume responsibility for whether or not each person understand, or complies.

3) The "unworthy manner" that Paul talks about in I Corinthians 11 refers to those who eat and drink without a) showing kindness and consideration to one another in that gathering, b) proclaiming the Lord's death, c) examining one's heart, and d) recognizing the body of the Lord. Letters (b) and (d) can only be done by believers, but (a) and (c) can be done by anyone.

4) Sin can only occur in the context of Communion in two situations: a) if the spiritual leader misleads non-believers into thinking that they are fully included in the Body of Christ by partaking, or that there is real spiritual benefit to the act itself, apart from belief and self-examination. Or, b) if a believer in Christ takes Communion in a way that is rude, selfish, thoughtless and dishonoring to God.

5) Jews practice the drinking of wine and the eating of unleavened bread every year at Passover. When a Jew learns the true significance of this act, and comes to believe in Jesus, her lifelong experience of the bread and the cup serve to enrich her understanding of Communion once she is a believer. Likewise, if an unbeliever eats and drinks with believers at Communion, all the while understanding that this is a time to examine one's heart, but the true meaning of the tradition comes when one's heart is surrendered to Christ, his inclusion can serve as a very positive experience in his journey toward salvation. What better moment to think about Christ, and examine one's attitude toward him than in a setting of loving acceptance and mutual introspection with sincere believers?

What we've concluded then is that the drinking of the cup and the eating of the bread can only be considered "Communion" when accomplished by someone who is a believer. If unbelievers were to join in the eating and drinking, it would simply be eating and drinking, and no harm is done, as long as they are not being led to believe something false by those who are serving.

So when the cup and bread are served, it will be made clear that this experience is designed specifically for believers for reasons stated above. If you are not a believer, you are free to pass on it. However, you are also free to take it, while knowing that it cannot really be understood or experienced as Communion without a heart that is surrendered to Christ. In the meantime, if you take it, please use this moment to examine your heart, and your attitude toward Christ, and see if you sense that he is calling you to himself. Ask him if you have been reluctant to accept something that you know in your heart is right. We hope that, either today or soon, you can find yourself transformed in the presence of Christ. But nevertheless, be aware that you will always be welcome among us, no matter what you believe.

The Agony and the Irony

Quiz time:

Evil and Righteousness have a common root, which is the all-consuming desire for... what?

Add a comment to this post, and make your best guess. Let me know if you need a hint.

God the Father, God the Son

There is a reason why so many preachers focus so heavily on the New Testament. It's the same reason that people publish pocket New Testaments, but decide to throw Psalms and Poverbs in for good measure.

I understand those little things are designed to be compact, but they still bother me a little. Sure, when you're talking about scripture you can pick out whatever verse or chapter suits your topic, without quoting the entire thing. But to print and bind a book called the Bible, while leaving out the "less important" half just seems a little, I don't know... haughty.

But it's not just that it's deemed less important. It's a real stumbling block, both for unbelievers and seasoned Christians... even preachers. And that's why they tend to avoid a lot of it. Sure, it has a lot of great stories, and those are easy to pick out and use at one's convenience, but even then you have to gloss over some gory details. Noah's Ark seems like a happy little story until you realize that it involves the violent destruction of more people (and animals) than all the most gratuitous Hollywood action movies ever made. Read some other examples here.

So it is nothing new to Christianity to have a tenuous relationship with the Old Testament, and to have our doubts about the God presented in it.

The result for many has been to see Jesus as the rebellious hero... a sort of Robin Hood figure. He noticed his dad was behaving pretty harshly, so he snuck out of his room in the middle of the night, climbed down the tree and incarnated himself into a human before papa could notice his absence. Then he systematically revised God's moral code, gave him a P.R. makeover, and died so that people would actually have a shot at appeasing an otherwise impervious deity. In other words, Jesus double-crossed his Father, to our great benefit.

I can understand why people would want to believe this. But it's not hard to see how incompatible it is with the most well-known verse in the Bible: "For GOD so LOVED the WORLD that he GAVE his only-begotten Son..." That doesn't sound like Jesus sneaking out the window to me.

Yesterday was, as you know, Father's Day. And I took the opportunity to think about our relationship to God as our Father, and about some of the words we use to describe that relationship. Fear, for example.

Think about what a "good father" really is. It's not the same as a "cool dad", is it? Not to say that a good father can't be cool from time to time, but the two concepts are certainly not synonymous. A good father does what is best for his children, whether or not they find it pleasant. And a good father will even, in a way, be feared by his children. He will never inspire terror, but shouldn't a child have to think twice before disobeying out of fear of angering his father? One step further... shouldn't a child possibly even fear that his father will require him to do something unpleasant, or move the family to another city, where their lives will be uprooted?

There is a fine line between healthy and unhealty fear. If the child is afraid to approach his father, or losing sleep worrying about what he will do, that is over the line. The fear should be just enough for the child to realize, "Wow... my dad is in control of my life. He can do whatever he wants with me. But you know... he loves me, and I trust him. Even if he causes me pain, I know it's for my good." (Assuming the child is mature enough to really grasp this. Most adults aren't even there yet.)

Although you can't put a price on a love like this, it is not the fullness of love that we need as humans. We also need tenderness and compassion. We need someone to come alongside us in love, in addition to one who condescends in love. A good father recognizes this, and (using the father-daughter example) will do his best to make sure his daughter marries a good man, who can give her the other half of love, that cannot come from a father. In older cultures, the father would literally give his daughter a husband.

When I started to think this way, it made much more sense to me how God the Father and God the Son truly are compatible. The Father loves us in a fatherly way... a way that can inspire fear, reverence and awe. And the Son, our bridegroom, loves us in a husbandly way... on our own level, having been born as a man, he loves us firmly, yet gently.

And I believe we misunderstand God entirely unless we can see the broad smile and happy tears on his face as walks us down the aisle, and gives us away to his only Son, our bridegroom.

We Worship You... Almighty Book

I love coining new words. Especially when they have some logical familiarity to them.

Today's new word, albeit hyphenated, is "para-biblical", and it arose from the debate between those who believe that all of God's words to us, his children, are found in the Bible, and those who believe that he still speaks specifically and personally, apart from Scripture. Granted, the typical descriptive phrase for the latter, "extra-biblical revelation", is accurate enough. But it seems to imply that God is adding things on top of the Bible that can compete with it for authority. I don't think most Christians believe in this kind of revelation.

A para-church organization is one which comes alongside the Church to complement its ministry. It often does things that the Church, for one reason or another, cannot do. However, if it is contradicting, undercutting, or competing with the Church's mission, it is not para-church; it is really more anti-church.

It is this same semantic logic that brings me to the phrase "para-biblical revelation". God does indeed share his thoughts with us, and quite often they are not verbatim quotes of ancient Scripture. But, if they are God's words, they will most certainly be para-biblical, in that they will come alongside Scripture, supporting it and fleshing it out in our lives.

Here's a good example: Suppose you're reading Jesus' commandment that "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." Then you feel God telling you that you should forget about the $1000 your friend cheated you out of last year, and on top of that you should offer to help him with his current money problems. Well, there's nothing in the Bible about that $1000, is there? But in this situation it would appear that the Holy Spirit is giving you a personal revelation about how specifically to apply Scripture to your life, and if you don't do it, you are guilty of sin. I also believe that para-biblical revelation can occur when you're not actually reading the Bible, and even when you may not know exactly how the Bible supports what you've heard (although it's important to find out.)

We need to get honest with ourselves and admit that the Bible cannot do everything. If anyone says that it can, just go look at their bookshelf, and see if they don't read what other people write about the Bible. Or follow them to church and see if they don't listen to a preacher's interpretations. Why would an author or preacher have anything at all valid to write or proclaim about the Bible, unless they could hear God's voice speaking para-biblical words to them? Even a Bible teacher who says that God doesn't speak to us para-biblically is not teaching authoritatively, because such a claim is not found in the biblical text.

Does that mean there is a single commentary, sermon, or lecture that we should regard as "God-breathed"? Of course not. Although other people's personal revelations can be very helpful to us, they are limited by nature.

But your own personal revelation... ah, this is where you might have to rethink what you've been taught. As important as it is to filter everything you think you hear God telling you through Scripture, how would you even know to do that?

Who convinced you that the Bible is authoritative?

Who do you pray to in order to understand it better?

Who did Jesus send to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)?

The answer is easy: the Holy Spirit. And this brings us to the primary danger of proclaiming the solidarity of the Bible... it supplants the Holy Spirit, and results in pure idolatry.

Many, many Christians are guilty of worshipping the Bible. And much of this is the consequence of fearing the idea of personal revelation. That is one reason why I think a term like para-biblical revelation is so imporant... it is not quite so scary to those (like myself) who have a high view of the authority of Scripture.

Because the goal, we must not forget, is God. Everything we do and say in relationship to the Bible must be done with our eyes on him, remembering that HE is the only ultimate authority, and knowing the Bible is useless if it does not lead to knowing HIM.

A few Sundays ago I led a discussion about Doctrine, and how we arrive at it. I defined Doctrine simply as our connection to God by way of his truth, and I mapped out the way I believe mature Christ-followers should come to their conclusions. Namely, that our Divine Encounters, Wise Counsel, and Prayers should submit to Scripture, which the Holy Spirit reveals to us through Personal Revelation in order to form our Doctrine. We are also influenced by the World through Culture, Observation, Experience and Logic, which we should then be careful to submit to the Holy Spirit's influence before making our doctrinal conclusions.

I have arranged these influencing factors from top to bottom in order of reliability and authority. Although this is the order I believe they should have for a mature believer, I recognize that they cannot operate in this order for a newish believer, since their skill with Scripture and Prayer have not yet developed (just like how the list on the right tends to be upside-down for children, and ideally will turn right-side-up as they grow.) But I think the following diagram should represent the goal for us as we develop in our walk with Christ, and our connection with the Holy Spirit.

What the Hell?

1. “You’re doing a hell of a job.”
2. “I had a hell of a day.”
3. “It’s cold as hell in here.”
4. “It’s hot as hell in here.”
5. “I’ve just been through hell and back.”
6. “See you in hell!”

One of the beautiful things about the English language is that we have a way of coming up with words (most of which contain exactly four letters) that can mean just about anything you want. Their only real purpose anymore is to add a hard edge to what you’re trying to say. In the six sentences above, the word “hell” means something different each time:

1. great
2. terrible
3. the coldest place you can think of
4. the hottest place you can think of
5. someplace that makes you wish you were dead
6. someplace that makes you wish you weren’t dead

As it were, whenever a word can mean anything, it essentially means nothing. And it’s just as well, because nobody really believes in hell anymore, right? I mean… how old-fashioned is that?

This is where all the self-proclaimed Post-Moderns should sit straight up and take notice. What are the two main reasons people give for not believing in hell? 1) Because a loving God would never send people to a place of torture, and 2) Because the idea of hell is so old-fashioned.

To deal with those in backwards order, the concept of disbelieving an idea just because it’s old is one of the most ridiculous things that Modernism has handed down to us. So if Post-Modernism is going to do us any good, it needs to start by putting all the old ideas back out on the table for reconsideration. “New” does not equal “better” and “old” does not equal obsolete. Just look what that concept has done to our historical buildings and, conversely, to our great-outdoors-come-suburban-sprawl.

Now to take a look at number one. If you believe in a loving God, but have never wondered how he could banish anyone to eternal torture, then I say the hell with you. The rest of us have all lost at least a little sleep over it, and no matter how much we rebuke our doubting spirit, the question remains.

But before we can even go there, we ought to take a look at why we believe the things we do. When somebody says, “The whole situation in Iraq is a disaster”, do you believe it because you tend to identify with Democrats, or because President Bush really annoys you, or because you trust the mainstream media’s reporting? Or maybe you disbelieve it because you tend to identify with Republicans, or because you have a loved one in Iraq and you’re hoping for the best, or because you think God wouldn’t let America make a mistake this big?

Are any of these good reasons for believing anything? The fact is, we believe what we want to believe. That’s why most Americans believe in Heaven, but not in hell. It just isn’t pleasant to think about people going there, so by ignoring it, perhaps it will go away.

I’m not here to whip out the Big Book and change anybody’s theology. Mostly, I just want everyone to take a little harder look at themselves, and whether they’re really prepared to accept whatever God has to say about things.

Because wishful thinking is a hell of a way to search for the truth.

HIS STORY

Note: I know most of you have heard this one before. But it's pretty brief, so I encourage you to read it through. And if you take the links you'll discover the underlying purpose of writing such a blog.

HIS STORY

Before the beginning of time, and apart from all time, there is God. God exists in the eternal community of three co-equal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Although each person is distinct, they are the essence of unity for all time. They are a tri-unity, or Trinity, and can be known simply as “God.”

At one point in the distant past, God created angels to serve him and worship him. However, he gave them a choice to be loyal to him, or to rebel. One angel, named Lucifer, was unmatched among his peers in beauty and power. He chose to incite a coup against the throne of God, and one-third of all the angels joined his uprising. However, they were quickly vanquished, and God exiled Lucifer and all his followers to a pit of fire, forever to become the enemies of God. The fallen angels became known as demons, and Lucifer as Satan, the father of lies and the hater of everything loved by God.

Some time later, God created our universe. He created the earth, the sun, the moon, and all the heavenly bodies. He created the oceans, the continents, the plants, and every animal according to its species. Then, as the crown of his creation, he formed a man from the dust of the earth, and breathed his own breath into his nostrils. He named the man Adam. For a period of time, Adam worked in the Garden of Eden, named the animals, and enjoyed the completeness of his friendship with God. But he noticed that, although every animal had a mate of its own species, Adam was the only one of his kind. So God created a woman as a companion and complement to him. Adam named her Eve, and they were designed perfectly to live and work together, love each other, and populate the entire earth. So God loved everything He created, especially the humans.

Naturally, Satan hated Adam and Eve. He noticed that God gave them a choice to love him, or rebel against him, much like the choice he had given the angels. Adam and Eve could literally do no wrong, except for one thing: they were not allowed to eat the fruit of the tree right in the center of the garden. God warned them that if they did not obey, they would die. This sounded like a wonderful outcome to Satan, so he set out to deceive the humans into eating from the forbidden tree. He took the form of a serpent, and hid in the tree until Eve walked by. When she did, he called out to her, and caused her to doubt the warning God had given. He convinced her to eat the fruit, and then give some to Adam, who also ate it. This became known as the first Sin. From that point on, humankind was a sinful race. Every baby is now born with sinfulness in its nature, and every thinking person chooses to rebel against God in some form or another.

After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God introduced death into the world, as he had warned. The humans’ friendship with God was now severed, the earth was now a dangerous place, and Satan was cursed to one day be crushed by a descendant of the couple, although his kingdom of destruction would claim many people before it was all over. Now Adam and Eve, like every human since, began to die a little each day, but this did not stop them from having children, and populating the earth. Sadly, each new human that was created was forced to struggle through life in some fashion, longing for the completeness that comes with a closeness to God, but never being able to achieve it, or even recognize their need for what it is.

Over the next several millenia, God made himself known in small ways to those who expressed their love and loyalty to him. One example is Abraham, whom God promised would be the father of many nations. One of those nations, known as Israel, was God’s chosen people to spread his light to the entire world. They accomplished this, in part, by producing the first portion of the Bible, what we call the Old Testament. These writings tell the first half of the story of God, and do it perfectly, because God inspired and guided each writer throughout the process. They recount the story of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, and many other significant people. They also describe the work of God in the nation of Israel, and about that nation’s successes, and much more numerous failures. Although they were God’s chosen people, they were still people, which means they were sinful and imperfect like everyone else.

There is one other way that Israel helped to spread God’s light to a dark world. About 2,000 years ago, a baby boy was given to a God-loving Israeli couple named Mary and Joseph. But this was not a normal pregnancy, because God produced a fetus in Mary’s womb without the help of a man. Therefore the baby was the son of Mary, but more importantly, he was the Son of God. This miracle was called the Virgin Birth, and the boy’s name was Jesus, which means “salvation.”

Jesus, being completely God and completely human, went on to live the kind of life that Adam and Eve had before they sinned. He had a perfect friendship with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who were still in heaven, and never did anything to rebel against them. He far exceeded any human in his love for all people. He met their most dire needs through miraculous healings, and freeing people who had been spiritually enslaved by demons. He chose twelve people to be his close friends and students, otherwise known as the Twelve Disciples. He taught them, along with thousands of others, how to maximize their friendship with God, and with other people.

Jesus spent a few years being wildly popular among commoners, and unpopular among the ruling classes, who saw him as a threat to their power. Eventually, they were able to capture him and put him on trial. They manipulated the people who had loved Jesus into believing that he should be executed for claiming to be God. He was convicted, and sent to his death. He was tortured mercilessly, ridiculed, and nailed up to a Roman cross, the most brutal form of execution known in history. A crown of thorns was jammed onto his head, to mock his claim to an eternal throne. Slowly and agonizingly, Jesus died.

During the next three days, however, Jesus did not rest in peace. His spirit did battle with the forces of Satan, and dealt the fatal blow to Satan’s kingdom. Jesus proved himself to be the descendant of Eve promised by God to crush the head of the serpent. When he was finished, his earthly body came back to life, and he revealed himself to his disciples, as well as many other people, proving that he had come back from the dead. He also taught them that, in his death, he took the punishment of all people onto himself. That means that all people who believe in what Jesus did, and follow him with their lives, can be restored to a perfect friendship with God and live forever with him after they die.

After a few weeks, Jesus ascended back into heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit to come take his place. Unlike Jesus, the Holy Spirit did not take on a human body, and thus was able to inhabit and empower every one of Jesus’ followers. During this time, his following exploded, and those who believed in Jesus began to spread across the known world. The Holy Spirit also inspired and guided the original disciples to write the second half of God’s story, the New Testament, much like He inspired and guided the writers of the Old. Taken together, these 66 books are known as the Bible, or the Word of God, and are completely trustworthy to convey God’s message to all humans. The New Testament tells the story of Jesus, and what his followers did and said for the first fifty years after his ascension. The last book, called Revelation, was written by John, Jesus’ favorite disciple, to tell us how Jesus is going to come back again at the end of time to overthrow the world, punish those who have continued in their rebellion against him, and take his rightful place at the throne of all nations.

In the meantime, we who follow him have a responsibility to obey his instructions to us, to love him with all our hearts, and love other people like he did. We are to tell the world about what he did to rescue us from our rebellion. We are to never lose hope in his plan and provision for us, and trust him to guide every aspect of our lives. And as we all work together to live in this way, we are known as the Church, the universal body of all Christ-followers, and the hands and feet of Jesus in a fallen world. Every one of us is vital to the plans of God for our time. Now he needs you to come and take your place in His Story.

Beauty & Mystery

Soon we at The Core are looking forward to unveiling a brand new website. But we're not just looking for a new look, we have been busy putting into words the convictions God has been giving us over the past year-plus. Some of it is a re-working of the perspectives we held when we first announced our presence on the web, and some of it is brand new material.

Two topics of conversation that I believe to be painfully absent from the Church at large are Beauty and Mystery. Is it any wonder that Christianity has become a formulaic, money-driven institution when we've lost our beautiful, mysterious moorings? Following are the "blurbs" for each, which we intend to include on the new website. What's your perspective?

Beauty. God is beauty. It is not enough to say that God is beautiful, because He Himself is the standard, the essence, and the source of all that is beautiful. As a broken race, we humans have corrupted the standard of beauty. We try to make the world more attractive by replacing God’s creation with ours. We release movies and publish magazines to normalize an impossible standard of physical charm. As in all other sins, we have displaced God, and we must repent. First, we must commit to honoring all God’s beauty. We must remember that “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.” And though this is true, it is no doubt that God sees physical beauty in every human, something we cannot fail to recognize. Second, we must honor God with our own creative gifts, not settling for that which is utilitarian, but striving for gracefulness, intrigue, authenticity and wonder in all that we do. In the process, may we worship Him by fitting our expressions into His, and never exalting the works of our own hands. (I Samuel 16:7, Psalm 27:4, Ecclesiastes 2:11, 9:10)

Mystery. One of the definiting characteristics of Western Culture is the compulsion to “figure it all out,” and the word Mystery has come to describe nothing more than a genre of “whodunit” literature. While the quest for Truth is a noble one, it is foolish, arrogant and sad when a society settles for nothing less than a thorough, systematic comprehension of all it surveys. And when this approach is applied to the study of God it becomes sinful and idolatrous as well, because it presumes that we, as humans, can rise to achieve God-like understanding. God’s ways are higher than man’s ways, and we embrace His mystery when we revel in that, when we accept diversity in the secondary doctrines, when we celebrate the variety of His creation, and when we worship God, not only because we know Him to be good, but because He is a being far beyond our full knowledge. (Isaiah 40:13-14, 55:8, Romans 11:33-36, I Timothy 3:16)

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

Posted here is an essay I wrote about a year ago. You can agree or disagree with my line of logic, but don't miss the message in the last two paragraphs. The conclusion therein was really groundbreaking for me.

If we are striving to live a Christ-like life, then our desire is to respond as Christ responded to both sinners, and to their sins. The worn-out phrase, which is not found in the Bible, is, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Simple enough. But is this what Christ did? And if so, how and why?

Very few Christians will argue that God hates unregenerate sinners. (Except for this guy.) However, the orthodox view, and the one that is supported by the preponderance of Biblical evidence, is that everyone is a sinner, God loves everyone, therefore, God loves sinners. Why does he love sinners? Because He created us in His image to love us, and our sins (though they have ruined many things) have not thwarted His love for us. This is known because “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

So we, too, should love the sinner. We should strive to love saved sinners and unsaved sinners, just as Christ does. But does God hate our sins? It is pretty clear that He does, but why? The answer to that may be different depending on whose sins are in question: the believer’s, or the unbeliever’s?

First, why does God hate the sins of the believer? Two reasons: 1) They injure people. It is dangerous and can cause harm both to the guilty and the innocent. They distance the believer from God and threatens to strip him or her of heavenly reward, and 2) They injure God. They are what nailed Jesus to the cross, and separated Him from the Father. They do real damage to God’s glory on earth, and to the reputation of His Name.

Second, why does God hate the sins of the unbeliever? (By the word “sins” I do not include the sin of rejecting Jesus.) Certainly they are equally injurious in an earthly sense as the sins of the believer, and God hates to see the people that he loves being hurt, and hurting others. But what about #2 above? Do the sins of the unbeliever injure God? I believe the answer is no, because, although Jesus died for all mankind, His death ultimately covers only the sins of those who accept His atonement. Therefore, the unbeliever’s sins are not responsible for Jesus’ death (since no transaction occurs.) And since unbelievers do not carry His name, they do no damage to His reputation or His earthly glory when they sin.

Therefore, God hates the particular sins of unbelievers only because of the damage being done to them. And it is precisely because God loves them that He hates to see such things happen to them.

Do you think the world has noticed that we, the Church, hate their sins? Probably. We are often quite vocal about it. We make a point out of being shocked, offended or repulsed by the things unbelievers do. But if we are going to hate their sins the way God does, then we must recognize that we hate their sins not for His sake, or for our sake, but for the world’s sake. We hate their sins because we love the sinners, and we can see what their sins are doing to them. We therefore have no reason to show the world our disgust, only that we love them and we are driven to save them from the impending consequences of their sins.

If the world does not see our love for them, they will be certain that our hate for their sins is perfect evidence of our own self-righteousness. And they will be right.

Rounds 2 & 3: Law vs. Love and Head vs. Heart

I'm going to take a break from the current series to continue the celebrity death match I began with my original post.

This post was inspired by two things: a thread from The Reach, (primarily comment #75, by Jody Bilyeu) and a book called "This Little Church Went to Market," by Gary Gilley.

When a member of our species is passionate about anything, he or she tends to want to turn it into some sort of battle. It's not good enough to be crazy about what I like, I also have to try my best to defy whatever is the opposite.

But to say "Love trumps Law," (as Jody Bilyeu did) or to claim like Gary Gilley that God designed Christianity to be a Thinking Faith, not a Feeling Faith, is like arguing about who's going to win the Super Bowl, the Cubs or the Canucks.

Granted, I don't accuse Jody of hating the Law, or denying its importance. But the battle between love and law only exists in people's heads.

And contrary to Jody's perception, even Jesus never actually broke the law. If Jesus' love was stronger than His law, all He had to do was say in a big voice so the whole world could hear "YOU'RE ALL FORGIVEN!" But what did He really do? He spent His ministry helping people understand what the law really means, before dying for all of us to fulfill the law. A sacrifice was required, and His great love and His perfect righteousness were the only powers strong enough to give us grace within the confines of His law. The fact is, it doesn't make any sense to pit Jesus' law against His love, because neither can be broken by the other.

What does that mean for us? It means that grace is not cheap, and showing God's love for people doesn't consist of standing in the midst of sin and shouting "I'm OK, You're OK!" Never once in scripture does God instruct us to ignore sin, either in ourselves or in others. There are plenty of times He expects us to mind our own business, but we are also called at times to rebuke and reproof. These times must be chosen carefully, however, and must be done with the utmost love. The lifestyle of leaving others' sin between themselves and God, yet lovingly holding them accountable when it's appropriate is a perfect example of Law and Love in concert.

In other words, if your obedience to the Law and to Love is turning into a boxing match, then you're failing at one or both.

Now to Round 3: "Head vs. Heart."

I don't recommend the book, "This Little Church Went to Market." Gary Gilley is a pastor that obviously has an ax to grind, and apparently believes that the church was okey-dokey 100 years ago, before the entertainment industry's hostile takeover.

It is true that the Church has digressed from a thinking institution to a feeling instutution. I won't go into all this, it would take 20 pages. (Even though it only took Gilley 115.) But I think most of us could look around and see that this is generally true.

And as the giant pendulum ceaselessly swings from one irrelevant extreme to the other, there are plenty of those who believe that a return to the glorious intellectualism of yore would take care of the now rampant experientialism. To keep a long story short: It is true that emotion does not lead us a true relationship with God. But neither does the intellect.

100 & 200 years ago the Church was competing with, and is a product of, a worldly paradigm, just as it is today. The 1700s and 1800s was the Age of Reason. Naturally then, the Church would try to be the Church of Reason. Were a lot of thoughtful commentaries written? Sure. Were a lot of great Thinker's Hymns composed? You bet. Did people understand the Bible better and have a firmer grasp on Christian apologetics? Probably. Are these all things we should strive for today? Absolutely.

But did all these things actually result in real faith, in surrendered lives? No. I am so bold because I believe firmly that it is that third component of our selves, apart from head and heart, that brings us to the cross: our Will. Each of us must willingly empty ourselves of all our IQ and EQ in order to be filled with the realness of God. Then he invariably proceeds to use our heads and our hearts for his glory.

And once again, to find that the great thoughts of the Faith and the great experiences of the Faith are colliding in battle, is to discover that we are failing at one or both.