John 1

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John is writing to Jews and Gentiles alike.  He masterfully uses a term “word” (Gk. “logos”) that held meaning in both cultures.  The Greek word Logos, for the Greek is wisdom, which in Stoic thought logos, wisdom, and reason are synonymous terms for the impersonal, governing entity over the universe.  In Jewish culture logos or wisdom is the Law of Moses, as revealed by God at Mt. Sinai.  John using this term brings the two cultures together in the conversation, and he then takes them to the next level.  The Logos of God is Jesus, the word of God in the flesh.  In this John establishes, for the Jews, that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but that He is God in the flesh.  For the Greek, John establishes that the logos of God came in the flesh, personally, in the person of Jesus.  He takes the application of these two cultural mindsets and joins them in the lineage of the family of God, as “all who receive Him; He gave the right to become the children of God.” (ESV, John 1:12)  In this there are none left out.  There is no ethnic lineage that qualifies one more than the other for the favor of God through the word become flesh.  He is available for all.  And He withholds nothing from those who will believe in His divinity and receive the gift of God, the word in the flesh sent to make the fullness of the grace and love of the Father known to all. (John 1:17, 18)             

The church is a whore!?

"The church is a whore, but she is my mother."  Some say Augustine said this, others say maybe Martin Luther.  Still others say neither, as there is no where found a written reference to either making the statement. 

That being said, I find it interesting that this statement is popularized in our generation.  Many of us have the scars, wounds, and gangrenous hanging limbs that are a result of being hurt by church leaderships, and, at times, the unintended injuries inflicted by the lack of leadership in the church.  It is not difficult to find the flaws in the church, but then again if you put any group of people together the issues and flaws that become evident are in direct proportion to the number of people in the group.  People equal problems.  We all have them, and they usually show up when we are with other people.  My question is what do we do with wounds that have been inflicted by others?

We can model ourselves as victims and bury our head, or we can seek healing, which inevitably will involve other people.  Many will blame God for what has been done in His name, but is that not burying our head?  If our faith in the character, grace, and love of God was contingent on how other Christians, whom God loves, act out of their own wounds, then were we putting our trust in God?  Does God fail when people fail?  And if so, does God fail when we individually fail?  Is it God who fails if I enter into a mid-life crisis and decide that it is time to leave my family to open a bar in Honalulu?  I don't think anyone would try and console me by saying, "It wasn't your fault, it was God's." 

If people's failings are God's fault then the only thing that we can pin on Him is that He didn't make us perfect.  Which, actually, He did, but we failed.  And if that is the case then it is God's fault for giving us the choice, or the ability to choose.  Which He did.  He gave us options, set up an order that holds us responsible for our actions, said I love you, and gave us a way out of the consequence of our bad choices.

At any rate, the church is a conglomeration of people who have been (and are being) made better by the grace of God, and even in the process of being made better we do stupid things to one another, leaving each other hurt and full of questions.  We are all hypocrites and actors on a stage, to one extent or the other.  We are all hiding behind some form of mask.  So, do we hate the church, that technically we are a part of if we confess Jesus, for her hypocrisy, or do we continue to look to be conformed to the image of Christ?  He said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:44-45 ESV) 

I will never forget what Randy Clark said to the student body when I was a student at Elim Bible Institute, "will you love My church even when it hurts you?"  (Randy Clark did say this too, I was there)  Possibly a much better quote than the one attributed to Augustine, but the idea is similar. 

I have scars that have made me who I am today, and I have wounds that I am working through.  By the grace of God those wounds will become scars, and I will be able to helps others who are wounded.  And in the midst of looking to help others I'll inevitably get hurt again and those wounds will need to become scars.  But I commit to love the church anyway.  If not only because He loved me when I was His enemy, then because I will need someone to love me even though I hurt them.  

 

Why we worship, 1 Peter 2

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

For the ancients, it was more often, less of an issue the character of the deity that they worship, but the important thing ,in the Greco-Roman world, was what the deity had accomplished that directly benefited those who worshiped.  Peter draws on this in 1 Peter 2 as he cites Isaiah 43:20-21, “The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches, for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people, the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise” and Exodus 19:4-6, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”  While Peter is speaking to Gentile Christians he refers to them in the same way that God referred to Israel while in the wilderness.  Peter recognizes just as Paul did when he said, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in Galatians 3:28 that there are not two separate nations established under their own covenants with God but one.  They have not replaced the Jewish nation, but we have joined them in the promise. 

During the Passover feast, it is celebrated the time when God brought the Jews out of slavery in Egypt into covenant with Himself, “from darkness into great light.”  In this same way the Gentiles have been included into the benefits of the covenant, and Peter ties the Gentile Christians in with the promised restoration, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people” citing Hosea 1:10. In addition when Peter says, “once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” he is citing the promise to Israel in Hosea 2:23, which now includes all those who believe in Christ by faith unto salvation.

As a result of the accomplishment of the one true God we are compelled to worship, setting aside “all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1) and Peter calls us to as “sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.” (1 Peter 2:11)  All this so that God will be glorified through us.  He is glorified through us as we “present your (our) bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your (our) spiritual worship.” (Romans 12:1)  We are compelled to worship because of what He has done.  We pursue purity in our lives so that those in society that wish to condemn us may be given reason to glorify God by our lives. 

Is Intelligent Design Compatible with Christianity?

            A discussion about the origins of the universe and life can be a deeply contentions conversation, even within the Christian community.  It is a discussion that tickles deeply held beliefs and is nuanced by unshakable convictions, but for many Christians the question remains, and for some is already answered, is Intelligent Design compatible with Christianity? 

Intelligent Design (ID) is compatible, and in fact fits quite well with Christianity.  It provides a Christian with a scientific platform to speak about the biological origins of life, makes no stand in any way that contradicts the Bible or Christian metaphysics, and is perfectly compatible with a God Who is involved in the history of the universe and life on Earth.

            ID is a scientific pursuit to find where the origins of biologic life give evidence of being designed, as opposed to the idea that the origins of biologic life came about by chance through natural processes.  William Dembski says it like this, “Intelligent Design merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.” 

As it is true that there is no claim that the Christian God specifically was the “designer” or that He is directly involved in every aspect of biological processes; it does not deny that it was God.  The assertion, of some Creationists, that since Intelligent Design does not make a claim that it is God Who is the “designer” makes, in itself, ID incompatible with Christianity is an all or nothing argument that does not stand to reason.  Although ID does not claim to be a Christian position this, in itself, does not make it incompatible with Christianity.

Christianity makes the claim, based on the Bible, that God Himself is responsible for the origins of life, and that God inserts Himself as responsible for the direction and order of the systems that are in place and observed in nature.  Without making a claim that it was the Christian God specifically, ID is in full agreement with this position. 

            ID begins its argument from a scientific platform.  It looks through the lens of the scientific process to find where “design” is apparent.  “Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.”  Creation Science, then, begins with belief systems that are interpreted from the Bible, and it looks to insert scientific discovery into this belief.  This historically has created problems for many Christians who wish to enter into the scientific conversation, as the Creation system begins with religious belief rather than scientific study.  This, in itself, is not wrong.  The Bible is the book that Christian belief is based upon, and if it is necessary for a Christian, based upon their conscience, to engage all aspects of interaction through the filter of what they glean from its teaching, then so be it.  But it is not necessarily the case. 

Often times the passage in 2 Peter 1:3 is used to give the scripture a foundation for our faith in God.  The passage, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,” (ESV) is used in such a way as if it were speaking directly of the scripture, but it is not.  Specifically, it is speaking of the “knowledge of Him,” of which, the Bible is an authority, but the Bible itself says that this knowledge is not gained specifically through the words on the page.  The “knowledge of Him” is gained through His Spirit.  For instance take Ephesians 1:17, “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,” and, in addition, John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (ESV)  It is the Holy Spirit Who inspired the writing of the scripture, and, according to reason, the authority of the Holy Spirit supersedes the authority of the scripture in establishing that knowledge within the conscience and imagination of an individual.  This is not a discussion on the proper view of the authority of scripture or that a specific doctrine of the authority of scripture is a prerequisite to being a Christian, but the point is that the Bible does not need to be viewed as the only avenue in which to see the evidence and work of God in creation.

Romans 1:19 and 20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For 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. So they are without excuse.”  This passage gives Biblical president for coming to the “knowledge of Him,” through the power of the Holy Spirit, from a scientific perspective like ID, as this is the assertion of Intelligent Design, from a Christian perspective, that design is evident in nature and observable through the scientific process that ID employs.

ID makes no stand in any way that contradicts the Bible or Christian metaphysics.  Christian metaphysics can be clearly drawn out of 2 Corinthians 5:19b, “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.”  God, being the “I AM,” is as He is, God, Who through Christ engaged in a creative work of reconciliation, and, in that creative work, returning a fallen world back to Himself.  Therefore, reconciliation implies that creation finds ownership in God.  God created it, but then creation was subject to corruption due to man’s decision to attempt to be god in himself.  God then, through Christ, engages in returning creation to Himself.  Man finds purpose in the recognition of God as “I AM,” and as a result is compelled to worship.  ID does not deny this as the truth; it simple does not engage to this depth in the Biblical doctrine.

What ID does is very much in support of Christian metaphysical belief, by implication.  Dembski says that, in response to Darwinian religious belief, “By showing that design is indispensable to the scientific understanding of the natural world, intelligent design is reinvigorating the design argument and at the same time overturning the widespread misconception that the only tenable form of religious belief is one that treats purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as byproducts of unintelligent material processes.”  This presses the reality of the fact that within creation there is observable evidence of design by intelligence beyond blind chance through natural process alone. 

Even in an apologetic argument the first step in convincing a skeptic of the existence of God is to establish the possibility of life being the result of a “creator,” and from there to establish that the “creator” is in fact God.  So, in this way, Intelligent Design is an avenue to the spreading of the Gospel, especially when, in many cases, the skeptic has no respect whatsoever for the authority of scripture.  It is then rational to approach the conversation first from the same playing field. 

When Behe speaks of “irreducible complexity” he is in full support of Christian belief.  He says, “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”  This idea of observable systems, that with any single part within the system itself being out of adjustment or somehow missing becomes inoperable, provides powerful credence to the creative engineering of God.  By showing through scientific process that not only is it possible that “intelligence” is behind the biological systems that are studied, but that it is probable, Christian metaphysical belief is supported.  And in the same way, the false idea that the naturalistic perspective is the only reasonable position in which to approach scientific understanding of life is called into question.  This only supports our cause and it in no way stands in the way of people coming to the right understanding of God being sovereign over His creation.

Intelligent Design is perfectly compatible with a God who is involved in the history of the universe and life on Earth.  One of the issues that some Creationists have with the theory is that it makes no definite claims about God’s specific intentions, for what He designed, in the past.  “However, because the intelligent design took place in the past, ID theorists can only detect the design in the biological realm after it has happened.  They cannot know the specification, or desired target before the design occurs.  However, Dembski does note that, "a pattern corresponding to a possibility, though formulated after the possibility has been actualized, can constitute a specification."  In other words, by observing things in the present, we can deduce the specified target of the designer in the past.”  As it is true that ID takes no clear position on God’s purpose in history; it in no way takes away or contradicts the Christian belief of what God’s purpose was in creating life and man.  This is outside of the scope and conceivable limitations of scientific study.  For ID to make an assertion on the purpose of the “designer” in what He “designed” the theory would have to claim that there was evidence of an observable interaction with the “designer.”  This is not possible through the scientific process, but the point remains that Intelligent Design makes no claims in objection to there being purpose in the “design.”  ID affirms the presence of purpose without presuming to establish what it is empirically.

Finally, ID is compatible with Christianity and stands in support of it, although, at times, unwittingly or unintentionally, as some ID scientists are not professing Christians.  Rationally speaking, you do not have to be a Christian to prove its beliefs to be true.  Furthermore, ID is pressing hard against the naturalistic worldview of Darwinist with empirical evidence that has them scrambling to discredit it as unscientific.  This only supports the sad reality of Romans 1:19 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (ESV)  By proving empirically that design and therefore purpose in what is created is not only possible but probable, Intelligent Design is supporting the spread of the Gospel, and the Darwinists, if they choose to ignore the evidence, are left to “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” 

Belief...

What you believe becomes who you are.

Even if what you believe is a lie.

 

 “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
(John 8:31-32 ESV)

Experiential Jesus, 2

Often times we go to church in search of and hoping for an “encounter.”  Many churches spend a lot of resources trying to create an atmosphere conducive to the desired experience.  As a result, we look to the worship leader to “bring us into His presence.”  This may be through a lively music set or through passionate preaching, and I am not saying that we should not have either of these.  I wonder though, should these be necessary for us to recognize “the presence.”  Do we value our corporate worship services based on our emotional reaction to the events? (i.e. music, preaching)  Does the emotional reaction validate the authenticity of the worship service?  Is Jesus more present when we feel the butterflies in our stomachs, shake, laugh, or cry?  These experiences may be valuable, but do they make Jesus real?  Or are we only responding to Experiential Jesus?

I asked before if Paul’s experience on the Damascus road made “truth” (Jesus) real.  I also related the ten who Jesus healed to the question of experiences making truth real, as only one returned to Jesus after.  Let’s take a quick look at Elijah.  You can read the story in 1 Kings 18.  With everything that happened on Mt. Carmel, the next generation was just as wicked as the previous (Ahaziah, Ahab’s son became king after him, 1 Kings 22:51).  It seems that if the experience made it real to those that were present at Mt. Carmel that YHWH is the one true God, then it was not quite real enough to raise their children in this understanding.  With the ten lepers who Jesus healed (Luke 17:11-18), they were healed, but they were not confronted with the undeniable truth that Jesus is the Christ.  This undeniable truth, Peter knew (Matt. 16:16), had to be revealed.  For Paul, I don’t think that the fact that he was knocked off his horse and then spoke to the risen Lord changed him, but more a series of events, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit that created cognitive dissonance for him, that brought him to the place of receiving the truth.  By receiving the truth, he was changed.  (Acts 9) 

Cognitive dissonance is the internal discomfort that arises when you hold a belief as truth and then are faced with new information that challenges or conflicts with your belief.  The choice is whether you will integrate the new information and change your belief or ignore the information and hold on to your old belief, therefore rejecting the dissonance.  For three days Paul prayed after being blinded by light.  In this time, I believe, Paul was working through this dissonance.  When Ananias entered the room that Paul was in, Paul could have commanded him to be taken to prison, but he didn’t.  Paul had been blinded and forced to take the new information seriously, and in the course of three days Paul had made the decision to receive Jesus as Messiah.  We can infer from scripture that this time was necessary for Paul to work through the information, as both Paul and Ananias were in Damascus and it would not have taken him three days to travel across town to Straight Street.  The experience provided Paul with a frame of reference, but it was not what changed him.  Three days in prayer and the truth revealed changed him.

I said that I would talk about Romans 10:17, but let’s start with verse 21.  But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”  In context, Paul is making the assertion that God has not given up on the Israelites, but they have not received.  Paul cites, just prior, Old Testament passages that show that they have had ample opportunity to receive what was revealed.  And not only that, but the Old Testament is full of various experiences that Israel witnessed.  But they didn’t receive by faith.  So, Paul says that faith comes by hearing (Literally: faith comes from an act of hearing), and hearing by the word of Christ. (Literally: the report by the Word of Christ)  So, faith (or belief/reality) comes from an active listening, not an emotional experience, although, an emotional experience can be a result of listening.  So, why do we chase after an experience, when hearing is the issue, and more than that the Word of Christ?  The value in our worship services is not the emotions that are produced, but the Word spoken (in music or preaching) that is heard (heard with a response).  Emotions are good, but they are not a prerequisite for an authentic Christianity, the Word of Christ is.  What it produces is beyond how we feel about it.  It is even more than what we think.  It is what we feel and think should be guided by.

What is it that we hear?  What is the Word of Christ that is heard and produces faith?  “I will never leave you or forsake you.” (Deut. 31:6; Heb. 13:5; Matt. 28:20)  “I will not leave you orphaned… I will send the Comforter (Holy Spirit).” (John 14:18-31)  “Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there I am.” (Matt. 18:20)  That is the faith that we enter worship holding to.  The “encounter” is present, He never left.  He entered the room with us, and he will leave with us.  That is why we worship, not because of how an “experience” may feel.    

Experiential Jesus, 1

I was praying today, not in my morning ritual that many of us Christians call quiet time, but I was driving.  And as is often the case, I was alone while driving.  It is my thinking that, if I am driving with no one else to talk to, why not talk to the God Who has captivated me in such a way that before I make most, should be all, of my decisions, I talk to Him first.  

So, I was praying and what I found myself repeating was, “I want more of You than experiential Jesus.”  I am sure many of you know the Jesus that I am talking about.  He is a fun Jesus.  He lifts me up, and brings me down, when I see myself for who I am.  But, as those of you who know me, this single line of prayer kick started a waterfall of thoughts that I was compelled to meditate upon. 

I have, in the past, been quickly categorized as Neo-orthodox or even a Christian existentialist, and while I don’t reject these categories entirely it is important to note that I don’t hold to all of what those generalizations mean.  Neo-orthodoxy, for one has been described as holding a limited perspective on the authority of scripture, as they may say that the scripture “becomes” inspired when the Holy Spirit breaths upon the pages while they are being read.  Like when a scriptural critic reads the Bible to find the different inconsistencies in its message.  Neo-orthodoxy would say that when reading the Bible like this, it is not inspired.  And it stands to reason, as there is no belief that it is, that for that individual it is not.  The criticism of this statement is that scripture says of itself that it is (2 Tim. 3:16), and it goes around and around.  This leads to Christian existentialism, which upon hearing the word “existentialism” we immediately think of “relative truth.”  For the Christian existentialist “truth,” itself, is not relative.  As truth is wholly other than and cannot be subject to any individual.  That being said, truth is only truth to an individual who accepts it.  In the biblical sense “truth” become judgment, at its worst, and “conviction,” at its best, for the unbeliever.  “Conviction” is best, as it can lead to receiving the truth. 

So, I am going to limit this conversation to semantics.  Depending on your perspective, “truth” for you, may not be truth for me, based on belief, but belief, whether received or not, does not change what or Who is truth.  Truth is wholly other than, and is beyond what any one individual can fully know in its entirety.   Or, if we could grasp “all truth,” it would then become subject to our understanding and interpretation.

So, getting back to Experiential Jesus, Christian existentialism says that truth, or reality, becomes truth when it is experienced by the power of the Holy Spirit.  So, here is my question.  If Experiential Jesus becomes real when I experience Him, and then, based on the experience, I believe, then what is to stop me from denying the experience?  (Think of the one out of ten who returned to thank Jesus for healing) How does this bring us to the point where we confess, as Paul did, I am a slave to the cross?  Paul was captivated or taken hold of, this gives the impression of slavery or that it was beyond his choice to receive or not.  For Paul, did truth become real as a result of his interrupted trip to Damascus?  Or was it something else? 

Bear with me as the waterfall of thoughts splashes against the rocks and churns in the multiple opposing currents below.  Next: Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (ESV)