1000

Manliness - What I Will Teach My Son

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:45:00 +0000

Tomorrow, February 7th if everything goes as planned, Jessi will give birth to a baby boy. Though I am excited to have a boy, I’m also afraid. Now I have a man to raise. It’s not as if raising a girl to be a good woman is any easier, but it’s different and there are certain challenges I would probably have been able to avoid.

But I can’t avoid my fears now. I will have a boy and I will try to teach him how to be a man. What does that even mean? I mean, what does he really need to know, what does he need to be like to be called a man? What is the essence of a man? And, what can I actually do to teach my boy to be manly? If you’ve read my last post you’ll know that I took exception to how Francis Chan and Mark Driscoll went about telling men to act like men. It’s not that I’m against teaching boys and men how to act like a man. I just think we should know what that really means, and we should use methods that actually work.

How does a man act like a man?

There are certain skills that a man should have. A man should know how to: use tools, cut wood, build a fire, throw a ball, handle a gun, organize his life, diagnose problems, solve problems, navigate unknown territories, climb a mountain, take care of a garden, cook, pack a trunk, defend himself, dress well, construct things, be respectful of others, have good manners, drive a stick shift, work hard, tie a couple good knots, think rationally, express his opinion in a civil manner, not need someone else to take care of him. I could go on, but that’s a pretty good list to start with; if a man could do those things he would certainly be manly. Yet, everything I’ve listed is either culturally conditioned and/or in no way exclusive to men. As I look at my list I see that the real core skill I want my son to have is the ability to learn whatever skills he needs to take care of himself wherever he finds himself. I want him to be able to handle his business. I want him to be able to take responsibility for his own survival (which does not mean he can’t rely upon others to help him). But wait a second – don’t I plan on teaching my daughter the exact same thing?

Yes I’m going to raise my daughter to take care of herself – not to sit around and wait for a man to take care of her. Now, she might meet a man and get married and decide to be a stay-at-home-mom and that’s fine with me if she chooses that. I’ve got no problem with stay-at-home moms; they (and stay-at-home-dads) perform a very important and honorable job. My wife wants to be a stay-at-home-mom and I’m doing everything I can to make that happen. But, I will not raise my daughter in a way in which that becomes her only option and if she doesn’t find a man to serve she won’t have any purpose, or identity. I won’t raise her to be a woman who can’t take care of herself and her kids if something happens to her husband. That means I need to teach her all those things that are culturally considered man-skills.

Maybe she’ll decide that she can better serve God by remaining single (as both Jesus and Paul teach those who are able to do). Either way, I want my daughter to be the most skillful and talented woman she can be so that no matter what she chooses to do she can take care of herself and be of the greatest benefit to the friends, family and community around her. I don’t want her to be someone who is only fit to be a house servant, and certainly not someone who will be a drag upon those around her.

So, though there are particular skills which I hope to teach my son, and some skills I hope to learn myself in the process, these skills will not make him a man. Though many of these skills are what we think of when we think of manly skills, we must admit that they are simply cultural and not actually the measure of a man. The one general skill which I have so far identified that transcends our culture, self sufficiency, cannot really be identified as distinctively male. It is a skill to be taught to women as well. There is no reason our women need to be helpless victims in need of rescue in order for men to be men.

The relationship between men and women

The Bible tells us,

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it . . . . (Gen 1:26-28)

Now I believe that God’s creation glorifies God’s nature. This means that the nature of God – who God is, what God is like – is revealed through what God has created. In this way the unseen, infinite, indescribable God can be known; God is manifested through the tangible world. In Genesis we see that in the creation of humans God’s image is revealed in a special way. So, let’s think about the different ways in which humans reveal what God is like and how that might relate to what the essence of a man’s identity is.

Humans, not man or woman as individuals, but humans – man and woman together – bear the special image of God. God did not create the man in his image and then create the woman as an add-on. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”, so, “in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”. The Trinitarian God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the “Us” in the verse created a species with a special capacity for a love relationship with God and each other. I believe it is this love relationship which is the primary way in which humans are image bearers. A man does not bear God’s image in and of himself, nor does a woman. Men and women in community, in union with God are the image of God, and at the present time this image is primarily seen in the Church, not marriage. Sex is a physical image of the spiritual oneness of a husband and wife – the non-physical manifested in the physical. This spiritual oneness can be seen as an image of God’s Trinitarian oneness, but certainly not the primary image, nor the primary way in which humans reveal God’s oneness. Neither can sex or marriage be the primary essence of a man, or woman’s, identity.

Animals are male and female; they have sex. Certainly we can’t say that something animals do is the special thing humans do which make them God’s image bearers, because it’s not special. Animals, like all of creation, glorify God – who they are and what they do reveal God’s being. Since animals and humans have much in common (I would say humans are physically animals), we glorify God in some of the same ways; procreation is one of these ways. However, procreation is not what makes humans special image bearers.

Procreation is not the essence of a man; if it was then a boy could not be called a man until he became a father. But, if this were true than Jesus, who never married and had no children (unless you believe Dan Brown), was not a man. Despite all that he did he never achieved completion as a man; he never fulfilled the purpose of his masculinity. I do not believe such nonsense. So, I must conclude that marriage, sex, and procreation are not essential components of manliness (though they are potential side-effects).

Marriage and sex are not essential to our nature as men and women. In Matt 22:23-33 Jesus tells the Pharisees, who try to trick him with a question about marriage, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (vv 29-30). Jesus taught that our earthly marriages will be made void, human marriage will no longer exist, and I take this to mean we will no longer have sex in the new creation. Yet, the key to understanding this verse is Jesus’ statement about understanding the power of God. The state of our existence after the resurrection will be greater than, not less than, the state of our existence now. I take this to mean that the union which marriage and sex make possible on this earth is less than the spiritual union which will exist between all people and God in the new creation. Truly then the image of God will be manifest in his people – men and women still being men and women, not neutered beings – men and women together bearing the image of the Trinitarian God. If marriage and sex were somehow essential to our nature as men and women then we would lose our identities in such a new world.

Is God masculine?

Just recently John Piper made the claim that God gave Christianity a “masculine feel” (LINK). God reveals himself as Father and Son and all the priests and church leaders in the Bible were male (Piper claims), therefore Christianity is masculine. To Piper this means,

When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here's what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

It's the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ-exalting initiatives and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work

This gets to the heart of what I’m talking about. Piper thinks God and Christianity are masculine, and he thinks masculinity is leadership, strength, courage, risk taking decisiveness, sacrifice, protecting and providing. He thinks femininity is support and helpfulness. But, let’s look at how God reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit and determine if Piper’s assertion is true.

God does reveal himself as Father, but what does that mean? It primarily refers to God as creator, progenerator. As I said, fatherhood is a possible side-effect of being a man. And the essence of being a father is certainly being the one who plants the seed, so to speak, and generates life. It is true that the male gender reveals something about God’s nature through the act of procreation. But, as I’ve said this is hardly unique to humans, nor is it the essence of masculinity. God is in is essence creator, but does that really mean he is masculine, but not feminine? Was there a father god and mother earth? Though God has chosen to call himself Father, does this mean mothers do not reveal an important aspect of who God is as well? Does God not have both masculinity and femininity in himself? We rightly call God Father, because that is the name God has chosen for himself, but it is wrong to conclude that God is therefore only masculine. Remember male and female are created in God’s image.

In Genesis chapter two we are told a more detailed story concerning the creation of man and woman. In Genesis 2:18 God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” The word helper used here is primarily also used in reference to God. And as Andrew Perriman points out in a blog post (LINK) “The “helper” is “an independent person who makes up a significant deficiency or helplessness in the other”. The word says “more about the unsatisfactory condition of the man than the status of the woman.”

In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is called the Paraclete. Also, Jesus is identified as a Paraclete in John 14:16 and 1 John 2:1. A paraclete is “one who consoles or comforts, one who encourages or uplifts; hence refreshes, and/or one who intercedes on our behalf as an advocate in court". The word for "Paraclete" is passive in form, and etymologically (originally) signified "called to one's side" (Wikipedia). So, God is a helper, comforter and supporter. If these are feminine attributes as Piper seems to think, then he must conclude that God is equally feminine and masculine.

Jesus is the Son, and he took on human form as a man. But, does this really mean Christianity has a “masculine feel”? What does Jesus’ work as redeemer really reveal about us as humans? With God we are the responders, not the initiators, we are the wooed, the loved, the pursued. Though I enjoyed John Eldridge’s book Wild at Heart and agree that men should be leaders, risk takers, warriors etc., Jesus is the knight in shining armor and we are the rescued. We don’t pursue God, without first being pursued by him. The Church is in fact the Bride of Christ. Paul even tells us that the union between a man and woman in marriage is a picture of the Church’s union with Jesus (Eph 5:31-32). If anything the Church has a “feminine feel”. Furthermore, if there are men who think they have been called to stand in God’s place as the “masculine leaders” of the Church they risk putting themselves in the place of Christ and thus making themselves anti-Christs.

Does this mean men can’t be “masculine” in church? Are we not men, in our relationship with God? Certainly this is not the case. But, we do not have to be the initiator, leader, and decision-maker to be men. This means these tasks are not essential to acting like a man. A man can be a follower who submits to the initiative and decisions of another and still be masculine. No church can call itself a church which worships Jesus Christ if in an effort to be “masculine”, it teaches its men to rely upon their own self-generated manly virtues and allows them to remain proud.

What is a man?

There are the most obvious physical differences between men and women. Some people think these are the only real differences and all other differences are cultural. However, these physical differences alone actually result in men and women having different capabilities (on average), which results in men and women generally being better suited to different tasks, roles and social functions, and thus they affect the way we think about the nature of man and woman.

Men, on average, are physically stronger than women. They also tend to be more ambitious and eager to take risks – which is fine because they are more expendable than women. Men are physically capable of having more children than women, meaning each individual male is not as precious to a society as each individual female, because we really don’t need as many of them around. Plus it’s actually better for a society if only the best males reproduce. Men need to prove their worth. As a result humans have traditionally used the males of their tribe to do those tasks which are often risky and require physical strength – warriors, hunters, and farmers. This is a good way to weed out the inferior males. (But should Christians think like this?)

There are some people who think the essence of a man is his warrior role. The regrettable existence of war in our society does reveal good qualities which we are right to praise – courage, resourcefulness, camaraderie, strength, self-sacrifice. As I’ve said, God’s creation glorifies him, but so does the presence of sin which corrupts his creation. Because of sin’s presence there are certain qualities in God’s nature which are highlighted in contrast to sin and others qualities which we would never even see if it were not for sin. For example, God’s mercy and forgiveness could not have been revealed if there were no sins to forgive.

If there was no sin in the world God’s warrior nature would not be revealed. But, Exodus 15:3 declares that “the LORD is a warrior”. His warrior nature is manifest throughout the Bible. What does this mean? It is not that God enjoys pain and suffering, but he is loyal, he is courageous, he is powerful, and he is self-sacrificing. And ultimately he has promised to avenge the innocent and defeat the wicked in order to establish justice in this world when he finally reclaims it and redeems it establishing his Kingdom once more on this earth as it was in the beginning. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, will not be so gentle in his return. Again, it is not that God enjoys destruction – but he will not abandon his creation, or allow his people to be trampled by the wicked. He is able to use our sin to glorify himself. God does not desire that humans sin – right now he holds out forgiveness and he desires for all of us to repent and be saved. Yet, because there is sin and rebellion in this world we have seen and will see again the warrior qualities in God.

These warrior qualities which are to be found in the nature of God have traditionally been manifested by men through their role as warrior. And, because of their physical strengths men also fulfilled the roles of hunter and farmer. Since men performed these tasks they were of course responsible for the protection and provision of their families; all simply because they are physically stronger. Therefore the qualities of leadership, strength, courage, risk taking decisiveness, sacrifice, protecting and providing all become synonymous with masculinity. But are these really distinct qualities of masculinity, are they the essence of a man, but not a woman?

Technology and our changing culture have pretty much negated such a distinction. Technology has made it so that fewer and fewer men are needed for the fighting of wars and the producing of food. These days most of our men are not warriors, or food producers. The qualities once demonstrated on the battle field are now mimicked in a small, but rather trivial, way on the sports field. Technology has made physical strength much less important. There are some jobs which still must be performed by strong individuals, but there are other jobs which require skills that are more often found in women – multi-tasking, for example. In fact, more and more jobs in our society value those skills that women excel at. Even a large percentage of our societies’ warriors are now actually women. As a result, women are now just as much warriors, food producers, providers and protectors. We see that they are just as capable as men at demonstrating what we thought were masculine qualities such as inner strength, discipline, courage, valor, loyalty, camaraderie, resourcefulness, leadership, intelligence under pressure, risk-taking decisiveness and self-sacrifice. Once women are given tools which make up for them being less physically strong than men, and which sometime even highlight those natural strengths in which they surpass men, they can be just as much the warriors as men can be.

Furthermore, men are not as expendable as they used to be, because polygamy is no longer an accepted practice. Each male is practically just as important as each female for our species’ reproduction. Even though men are physically capable of having more children than women, our morals negate this physical distinction. This means we no longer have a bunch of excess males to fight wars. We can’t afford our young men getting themselves killed. War is much too devastating. The moral and technological advancement of our society makes the distinctions between women and men’s physical natures, which were very important in the jungle when we lived like animals, practically unimportant.

So, even though warrior, risk taker, aggressor, protector, hunter, farmer, and provider were are roles which reveal something about men’s nature, none of these can be said to be a man’s primary role, nor reveal the essence of his identity as a man. The only attribute which made men most suitable to be the protector and provider was the simple fact that men are, on average, stronger than women. This certainly cannot be of any great significance.

But isn’t the man supposed to be the leader?

I do not believe the Bible actually teaches that men are solely qualified to lead the Church, or that husbands have been placed in authority over their wives. I believe men and women bear equal responsibility and share in the leadership of the Church and the family. I won’t go into all the reasons for why I believe this in this post – (Andrew Perriman does a good job of quickly explaining the view I agree with in another of his posts LINK). But here’s the thing, even if I grant the “complementarians” their position that a man is the head of the household and that women are not allowed to teach men in church or be elders, that doesn’t mean men are always leaders and women followers. Even if God has chosen to put men in charge of these two particular institutions that doesn’t mean men are always in charge, nor does it mean that a woman’s primary role is to support a man. Even if men are the heads of their households, their authority ends in their household and they have no authority over any women outside of their household. Even if men are in charge of their local congregations their authority ends with the congregation in matters of church governance. Men in general do not have some sort of blanket authority over all women in all matters of life. Where can even the complementarian find that in the Bible? Men may be leaders in certain situations, but that doesn’t make leadership the defining essence of masculinity.

As I said before, even if men may fulfill certain roles at certain times that doesn’t mean these roles are the essence of their manhood. A man does not have to be a father, a warrior, a protector, a provider, an initiator, the head of a household or church, or a leader to be a man. Though a man may be these things he can be a man even if he is not these things. A man can even be a helper, an encourager, a support to others, a responder, a follower and still be a man. In fact, if a man is a leader his leadership role makes him a servant. This is the mark of Christian leadership – Jesus himself says,

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-28)

So, what will I teach my son (and my daughter)?

I must conclude that the only real difference between men and women is physical, which does go beyond their physical appearance and results in some big differences. And, our identity and essence cannot actually be separated from our physical being (but that’s another discussion) and therefore it is that we are physically male and female that makes us different. Men and women, on average, have different skills which they excel at. On average men and women relate to others differently. But, these are averages, and they have no moral component of being right or wrong. That means that whoever each individual man and woman is – their personality, their skills – is who they are. There is no sense in admonishing someone to act like a man, if by that what we mean is they should act more like the typical male. Masculinity is simply physically being a male, which in each individual will manifest itself in different ways.

Those virtues we may traditionally identify with masculinity are not in fact masculine. They are just the qualities of a good human. We should admonish all people, men and women, to display these virtues. Be strong and courageous, disciplined, responsible, be able to lead, be able to follow, protect the weak, fight injustice, take risks because you know you can trust in God, sacrifice yourself. Our society is right when it tells our girls to display those qualities traditionally thought to be masculine. And it is right in telling our boys to display those qualities traditionally thought to be feminine. Boys should learn how to be a helper, a servant, an encourager, not self-seeking; they need to learn that the world does not revolve around them and their ambitions. Boys need to learn how to be humble, respectful and teachable, not arrogant and boastful fools who think they know it all. Boys need to learn how to be peacemakers, how to work and cooperate with others. Boys need to learn how to follow. They need to learn how to submit to God, how to properly submit to authority and what it means to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” as Eph 5:21 says. Both men and women need to learn how to be virtuous adults – how to be Christ-like. In Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:26-29).

I plan on teaching my daughter and my son the same skills for life regardless of whether or not our culture thinks those skills are masculine, or feminine. There will be a few lessons which will be slightly different because of their genders, and they will certainly have different levels of competency depending on the task, but I want them both to learn how to take care of themselves. The moral lessons I teach them will be identical. I want them both to be strong courageous warriors and humble helpful servants who consider the needs of others before their own. They may face different temptations. Their sin may manifest itself in different ways, but really what great difference does that make.

I will teach them both that they are incapable of being good and virtuous without first recognizing the sin which has corrupted them and placed them in need of a redeemer. I will teach them both that Jesus is their redeemer who has saved them from their sins and reconciled them to God. I will teach them both that only by abiding in Christ and allowing his Spirit to work through them can they bear the fruit of righteousness. I will not bother with telling my son to act like a man, or my daughter to act like a woman. I will tell them to act like Christ. And, I will teach them that when they fail, they have a gracious and loving Father God who searches for them and welcomes them back with open arms; they have a righteous brother who clothes them with his righteousness and who presents them to the Father as pleasing and good. They have nothing to fear if they are in union with Jesus. I will teach them grace; I will teach them the Gospel over and over and over again. I will tell them to focus upon God and the love he has showered upon them, not their own performance. Always focus on God, not yourselves, not your virtue, not your femininity or masculinity; to focus upon such things will only lead to self-righteousness which is the last thing I want to see in my children.

Mark Driscoll is a Joke, and So am I

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:30:00 +0000

This post is a follow up to my last two posts.

I just happened to see this clip on youtube of Francis Chan admonishing men to act like men, which got me thinking. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAe5ULE8n_4

Then I saw this clip of Mark Driscoll yelling at the men in his congregation to act like men and it really made me angry. Actually first it made me laugh, because I could scarcely take in the absurdity of it. Then as I thought about it I got angry. After seeing this video I conclude that Driscoll does not understand the the extent of his own depravity, or the breadth of God’s love. Quite plainly I don’t think Mark Driscoll understands the Gospel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8

I had to write something, not only in response to these videos, but to other comments made by Driscoll.

Now, I understand what Chan is trying to get at, and I agree that we as Christians, both men and women, need to take responsibility for our actions and yes, we serve a strong God and we can trust in him. However, it is in no way helpful to tell men to just “act like a man”. I can’t, Chan can’t, no one can simply choose to make themselves act like a man. Shaming men may produce some results, but not a real change of heart. Only the Spirit can produce real fruit, and we will certainly fail if the Spirit does not only just help us, but does not actually work through us.

The Christian life has nothing to do with the kind of manliness our culture glories in and which, unfortunately, so many pastors seem to confuse with what it means to be a real man of God. Real men are not boastful and arrogant; they do not lord it over others; they are not self-seeking; they are not quick to anger; they are in fact submissive; and they do not have to be able to beat anyone up, be a good athlete, or be capable of becoming an Airborne Ranger. Being a man has nothing to do with our cultural stereotypes about what is manly and what is “effeminate”. When we insist upon such things we reinforce these stereotypes which alienate and shame men just because they don’t fit into our narrow little definition of what a real man is. So, first off let’s stop trying to make Christianity “macho”. Which is not the same as saying let’s make Christianity “effeminate”. If we make our church into a place in which proud men are allowed to remain proud, we may have a big congregation, but we don’t necessarily have a church which belongs to Jesus.

And now I come to my main point, and my main objection to both Chan and Driscoll. We men are incapable of fashioning ourselves into real men of God. We are incapable of being manly enough, even if we are the manliest men around. No matter how hard we try, no matter how much we berate ourselves, no matter how much someone else shames us, we cannot make ourselves men of God. And doing our best impression of a man, acting like one, may win other men’s approval, but it cannot win God’s.

I would like to know which men Chan is referring to in the Bible that he would like to be like. I can only think of a handful who did not display major faults and have major failures. The majority of them were cowards, liars, fools, cheats, adulterers, murderers – all sinners like their father Adam. What would Driscoll have to say to King David? He was a man who was a great warrior, but also a murderer, adulterer and in general, not a very good father. Would he scream at David for abusing Bathsheba? What did David say once he recognized his sin?

Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; . . . For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge. (Psalm 51:1,3-4)

It is against God we have sinned and to him we must give account. And what has he done? He sent his Son Jesus, who willingly undertook the task set before him, to save us from our sins by taking the punishment for them upon himself, so that we may be reconciled to God, set free from the power of sin and death and ultimately made completely whole. In union with Jesus we are declared good children of God.

I will admit that I am a coward, a fool. I am like my father Adam, and though I’d like to be like God I am not. I am not impressive, responsible, noble, or respectable – certainly not in any regard. I’m not successful. I have no dignity, nor masculinity – I certainly have no excuse for my sin. Spiritually I am a little boy and I can’t “man up” no matter how hard I try. That’s why I needed to be rescued by the God of the universe. That is why I go to a church where we confess our sin to the Most Merciful God every week. Amongst other things we say,

We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved You with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us . . . .

Following this confession each week the pastor then declares,

Hear the voice from heaven: “You are My own, My beloved.” God gives power to the weary and strengthen the powerless. Be cleansed, be healed, for in the name of + Jesus Christ, I declare to you the forgiveness of your sins and the revealing of God’s reign.

Each Sunday I go to a church where I can receive the body of my savior broken for me, and I drink his blood poured out for my sins. Yet, just like the disciples, who took that first communion and then failed their Lord, I too fail and require restoration. I am a failure. Thankfully, “we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2).

I am a joke and so are you, Mark Driscoll. We are all jokes, and, there is only one Man who picked up our mess.

Living in Light of the Gospel

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:55:00 +0000

This is a follow up to my previous post Church/Law/Religion?

How are we supposed to live the Christian life? Do we just get to keep on sinning since God’s grace will cover it all? Or, are we actually supposed to do that which Jesus commands? If so, how? How do those who have already believed the Gospel live in light of it?

The process of sanctification is a long one for most of us, and I certainly have not reached some higher plane of perfection, but I have learned a few things and I’ll try to explain those few things.

The very first thing we need to do is recognize that God’s ability to use us to glorify himself is not dependent upon our obedience to his moral will. God shapes all things to his purposes and is so incredible that he is able to take our sin and even work that for his glory. If we had never sinned we would have never known of God’s amazing mercy and grace. A quick survey of the Old Testament will reveal many people who God used to accomplish his purposes, despite the fact that they were exceedingly unfaithful. To name but a few examples: Jacob, Joseph’s brothers, Pharaoh, Balaam, Samson, Gideon, Saul, The Assyrians, The Babylonians (particularly Nebuchadnezzar) and Satan. God uses sinners. I make this point, because some people may feel like they can’t be of service to God if they struggle with habitual or reoccurring sins. Some pastors will teach that the Spirit wants to work through you, but he just can’t if you’ve got sin in your life. This just isn’t true.

“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” Paul asks (Rom 6:1-2). Unfortunately, though we are indeed free from the power of sin we are like prison inmates who have spent our lives locked up and when we get out we don’t know how to live as free people. We are institutionalized. It’s not our bodies that are imprisoned, but our minds (thoughts, emotions, habits, desires) which still think we are under the control of sin. Which is why we are admonished by Paul not to “conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2). But, how?

One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned in life is that I’m a person who sins a lot. Now really, according to the standards of this world I’m a pretty moral human and I have been most of my life. I could list a few of my accomplishments, but I really have no desire to boast and even this hint at its possibility is sick, because really I have nothing to boast about. Despite my record of appearing to be a star Christian, I have done many things that I am ashamed of. And, now I thank God for those things (though I still regret them), but I thank God that he allowed me to struggle with particular habitual sins, because those sins kept me from being engulfed by my self-righteousness. They kept me from becoming like the Pharisees whom Jesus berated for being “white washed tombs” (Matt 23:27) – looking good on the outside but rotten on the inside. If God had allowed me to overcome my more obvious sin when I was younger it would have only feed my more (at least to me) less obvious sin. I need to learn that all my sins are wretched, not just the ones I don’t like.

One of the biggest processes of Sanctification involves God showing us that we have deep-rooted and culturally acceptable sins that we are blind to. God refuses to be a tool which we can use just to modify our behavior so that we can feel good about ourselves and remain in our own smug self-righteousness. His main concern is not our outward appearance. He promises to change our heart, and he will let us struggle with sin until we learn that we can’t be good in ourselves and that “apart from [Jesus we] can do nothing” (John 15:5). God doesn’t need us to reach some particular level of goodness, before he can take over and finish the job. He doesn’t need our works. And he is not impressed by self-righteousness, or moralism. I can’t say that enough. God doesn’t care what we do if it is not done in faith. So the proud, boastful, self-righteous pastor is sinning just as much as the guy who’s sleeping with his girlfriend. In fact the guy sleeping with his girlfriend may be closer to where God wants him to be, because he is more likely to actually recognize that he has a problem. There is a reason why Jesus attracted prostitutes, party monsters, and tax collectors (who were considered traitors), but the religious leaders rejected him.

I don’t mean to say that our actions don’t have consequences. They hurt us, they hurt others, they hurt God’s creation and they grieve God. And, it’s pretty hard for a person to have a healthy relationship with God when that person is consciously disobeying God by doing something they know is sin. Some of the damage and destruction some people do is more obvious than others. Yet, I’m sure we can all agree that self-righteous religious people have done possibly as much damage as the “godless heathens”.

Our actions have temporal effects. However, God does not judge us based upon our actions, or their effects, he judges us based upon our loves. Do we love him, do we love others, do we love ourselves, do we love false gods? Another way to say this is that he judges us based upon our motivations and desires. And this is the really important bit: those who are covered by the righteousness of Jesus are ultimately judged based upon his righteousness not their own. God sees none of their failings; he only sees the goodness of his son which covers our shame. More than that – not just in the end, but today – those who are in union with Jesus are declared righteous and good. Though on this temporal plain we have a ways to go to reach maturity, God never loses sight of the work he has already completed.

A good way to think of this comes from a writer named George MacDonald (I don’t know the exact reference, or quote so I will paraphrase) – God is a Father who is not satisfied, but always pleased. This means that God will not be satisfied until he has completed our full and total redemption and glorification (glorification is the future and final work of God upon Christians, where he transforms our mortal physical bodies to the eternal physical bodies in which we will dwell forever), but he is always pleased with us in whatever phase of the process we are in. Just like a father is overwhelmingly pleased with his little baby, but will not be satisfied until that baby grows into full maturity. I love to hear my little Cosette talk in her little toddler voice (usually through a pacifier), but I would not be satisfied if she never progressed past this particular stage in her development. And what about those children who will never progress into normal adulthood, because of a disability, does a good parent love them less? Certainly not, they bear with their child’s weakness, because they love them. How much more does our Father God bear our weakness? This is how we should think of God; a father who delights in those who are his children.

Our sins can’t stop God from loving us. We don’t have to do any sort of penance to win his approval again after we have sinned. There’s no requisite time period in which we must prove our obedience to him, before he decides he’s pleased with us again and starts to bless us once more. He is like the father of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-31) who at the moment he sees us returning runs to greet us with open arms. More than that, he comes to look for us and draws us back. God disciplines his children (Heb 12), because he loves us and wants to shape us into children who are perfect reflections of his goodness. The biggest task he undertakes to ensure such a result is the task of changing our heart; changing our actions is a side effect.

God is not interested in behavior modification unless it is the result of a heart change. And that’s what he has accomplished through Jesus. We have died to sin and we are now made alive in Jesus. We are new creations. Our identities have been changed. We have been transplanted – being cut off from roots which can only bear bad fruit and being attached to Jesus who produces good fruit through us (John 15). The only way to abide in Jesus, which means to rely upon him, is to stop relying upon one’s self; stop relying upon rules, or guidelines; stop relying upon a system; stop trying to use God as a tool; instead start relying upon the person of Jesus letting his Spirit flow through you to produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). We are promised that when we “walk by the Spirit, [we] will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5:16). So how do we do this?

First we stop focusing on ourselves, our achievements, our performance. We stop focusing upon our fulfillment of the law. Instead we focus upon God and his love for us. We stop reading the Bible to find tips and tricks for better living. We study the Bible to find God and know his story. When we truly begin to understand how great and good God’s love for us is we will start to truly love God. When we become enthralled by the love God has given us we will desire God – “we love, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). It is only when we stop focusing upon our performance, which is intrinsically self-centered, and instead turn our focus upon God that we can walk by the Spirit.

If we are in union with Jesus then God has declared that we are righteous. He has clothed us with righteousness and he sees us as good because he sees Jesus when he looks at us. We have been credited with Jesus’ perfect record of obedience to God’s standard of goodness. We do not have to do anything more; it is finished. When we realize this we will obey God’s commands – not because we are working really hard at it, not because we have a good accountability partner, not because of self-will, not because we’ve disciplined ourselves (that’s all outward focused) – but because we love God and we are no longer operating out of self-centered idolatrous self-righteous self-love. We will obey God, because we actually love him (1 John 5:2). As we rely upon the Spirit our desires will change, we will no longer even need the Law to guide us (Gal 3:19-29, 5:18), because we will love God and will fulfill the law of love as a natural side effect of who God has made us.

Too often when I sin I feel bad, not because I have hurt the one I love, but because I have hurt my own sense of pride. I have acted in a way contrary to my high opinion of my own goodness. This is plain self-righteousness. Too often when I sin I feel bad, because I think now I won’t earn the earthly blessing I was hoping to manipulate God into giving me based upon some works righteousness contract I think I have with him. It’s only after I overcome all the sins I’m concerned with that God will finally give me my very own megachurch. Of course this just isn’t true and anyone who thinks the success (measured in worldly terms) of their work, or ministry is based upon their own obedience to God’s Law is deluded. I can’t obey God as long as I’m still operating under such delusions.

So, if we want to know what we must do to please God, we are asking the wrong question. The right question is, “how do I throw myself into the love of God”? We need to get our eyes off ourselves and our own performance and get them on God and his performance. We need to stop trying to make ourselves love God and learn how he loved us (past tense as in it’s already been done). We need to stop trying to use God as a tool to make ourselves a person we are proud of and look at what Jesus our savior has done for us. This is not a one-time act; it is the pursuance of a relationship. It is active and regular, sometimes requiring a moment to moment conscious effort. This may sound simple, but it is not necessarily easy, because it does require activity. But, our activity is to rest in God’s love. We need to hear the Gospel every time we gather with our church. We need to hear that we are loved and forgiven, hear that we are children who please God because we have received Jesus record of pleasing God. We need to tell ourselves the Gospel every day, especially when we sin. Repent (which means to change your mind about what you did and agree with God that it is sin), but then leave that sin behind, don’t dwell on it, don’t identify yourself with it, throw yourself into the loving arms of your Father God. Trust in “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (John 2:1-2).

This is what we do. This is how we live in light of the Gospel. We stop trying to live under the law. As we come to understand God’s love for us we will seek to serve him, not out of obligation (Jesus fulfilled the obligations of the law), not to seek rewards, or approval (these have already been given) but out of gratitude and love.

We can never hope to love God, or our neighbors out of a sense of guilt, shame, anger, or pride. Don’t go to a church, or submit to a pastor who tries to make you do so. Seek out a church which upholds God’s standard of goodness and the holiness of God, and therefore recognizes their inability in themselves to attain such a standard, but instead fully relies upon the work of Jesus and the Spirit to save, sanctify, and glorify them. And who, as a result, regularly proclaims how Jesus has loved us; a loving Father God who pours out love, forgiveness, and grace upon his enemies, reconciling them through his Son and making them his children; a Spirit who transforms us from the inside and will not fail to complete our redemption despite what we may look like on the outside.

Church/Law/Religion?

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:10:00 +0000

Recently I was thinking about the fact that many people feel that they’ve been hurt by religion. They feel like they’ve been judged by religious people. Many people raised in the Church, don’t go to a church anymore because they were made to feel bad when they did. This isn’t all bad though – it’s good to feel bad. Now, before you conclude that I’m just another horrible religious person hear me out.

The Bible reveals to us God’s standard of goodness, and it is a standard which none of us live up to. The Bible presents to us God’s Law, which if obeyed leads to life. Unfortunately, not one of us has obeyed. Now, if we think that Jesus somehow lets us off the hook; if we think he doesn’t really care if we obey God’s law we are mistaken. When we actually read the teachings of Jesus found in the Bible, we see that he not only upheld the Law (Matt 5:17), he made good and sure we understood how strict the standard actually was. It’s not enough that we don’t murder, or commit adultery; if we so much as hate our brother, or lust after a woman we are guilty of breaking God’s standard of goodness (Matt 5:21-30). Jesus proclaimed Law and warned of the coming judgment more than anything else. Thus, the Church has a responsibility to proclaim God’s Law. And, the Law is meant to convict us; to make us feel bad; to make us realize how not good we are – how terrible, sick and bent we are. The Law is meant to crush us.

Why would God want to crush us? Doesn’t he love us? Yes he loves us and that’s why he must show us how sinful we are. Many years ago, Adam and Eve (representatives of us) decided they didn’t need God to be good. The Serpent convinced them that they could be self-righteous, equal to God; that they in their own ‘goodness’ could stand in the presence of the Holy God. God needed to show them, he needs to show us that we can’t. Apart from God we are not good. In our autonomous self we are not good; only in union with God can we be called good. We need to know that; so we must come up against God’s standard and we must see ourselves for what we truly are, so that we may be reconciled and redeemed. We must learn that we are sick before we will ever seek a cure. And this is the primary purpose of the Law. It is because God loves us, that he exposes our wretchedness with the light of his goodness, because only then can we be restored to union with God through the savior Jesus Christ who enables us to stand in the presence of the Holy God without dying.

Therefore, we sinners should feel guilty when we are exposed to God’s standard of goodness, and the Church should be proclaiming that standard. However, problems arise when a church doesn’t also proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. Problems arise when a church starts to think they are actually living up to that standard through their own goodness, and are somehow not as in need of Jesus as other people. When a church starts to think that Christianity is about climbing a ladder of self-righteousness up to God and they are higher up the ladder than the non-Christians below them. When we think we can please God through our own righteousness, and we no longer need the righteousness of Jesus. We produce the fruit of goodness, not the Spirit working through us. Then we have replaced The Way of Jesus with a way of death and we are even more lost than the prostitutes, drug dealers, and adulterers, because we don’t think we need our savior anymore.

There are many churches who think Christianity is about learning how to be a moral person, so they focus on teaching the Law. They make sure people who aren’t moral know they aren’t. They try in every way they know how to try and get these immoral people to act right. Grace doesn’t have much place in a church like this, because grace offers forgiveness for sins, and these people just want compliance. Two commonly employed tactics used to ensure compliance are shame and exclusion. These work pretty well in a small community where people need the acceptance of the community in order to survive. But, these tactics don’t work well in places where you can just leave and find another community that will accept you as you are. These days it’s very easy to find a church that will accept you no matter what you do, or at least one that’s big enough where it’s easy to hide.

Many people who have received a healthy dose of conviction as a result of hearing God’s standard of goodness either don’t also receive the wonderful Gospel message which should always accompany the proclamation of the Law, or they just don’t want to repent – but they still want to feel good about themselves. Often these people can eventually find a church which is a lot more lenient and they feel loved and accepted for who they are. The problem is that their sin hasn’t really been dealt with and they haven’t been reconciled with God. Furthermore, many of these churches, which seem so loving, are actually just as legalistic – just in a different way. There still is a standard to which you are supposed to live up to in order to consider yourself good; it’s still up to you to win God’s approval through your own self-righteousness. Often these types of churches don’t care much about what may be called personal righteousness and instead focus upon social justice and activism. However, this burden can still be incredibly difficult to bear leading to burn out, hypocrisy, condemnation, self-righteousness, and despair. And, this is because even if we aren’t too concerned about say our sexual purity, if we’re trying to do justice we’re still going to come up against God’s standard of goodness and we’re going to be found wanting. For the person who truly desires not just to transform themselves, but also transform the world, and who recognizes their complicity in the injustice and hatred which plagues our world, this can be overwhelming.

Now if we refuse to acknowledge our sin – our failure to be the person God created us to be – our failure to be good apart from God – then the Law is exactly what we need to hear. If we think we can stand before the Holy God in and of our own goodness – if we think we deserve to go to heaven just because we aren’t as bad as Hitler – then we need to know what God actually requires of us. Because, it’s only after we learn that we are dead in our sin and in need of a redeemer that we will care to hear the news about Jesus. It is only after we learn that we are enemies of God in need of reconciliation that we will accept our need for a mediator. When we look at what Jesus actually taught, he had no problem preaching the Law to, and being harsh with, those who refused to recognize their need for a savior.

The Church has a responsibility to proclaim God’s Law – his standard of what it means to be good. The Church has a responsibility to tell the world that God is Holy and if we hope to stand in his presence without wanting to die we must be Holy as he is. This is exactly why we also cannot fail to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus, because he is our only hope for being reconciled with God, forgiven of our sins and redeemed from death. He is the only Way in which we can boldly enter into the throne room of God.

Many, hopefully most, churches proclaim the Gospel and they teach our need for God’s grace in relation to our need for salvation. Unfortunately they do not proclaim the Gospel and our need for grace in relation to our sanctification (sanctification being the process by which we learn to obey Jesus’ commands). Too many of us are taught that we are saved by grace, but after that it’s really up to us. Sure we ask God for help, but when we fail it’s because we didn’t work hard enough. This leads right back to the problem of people being hurt by religion. Some Christians who are good at not committing obvious sins, or at least those sins which are culturally unacceptable think they get to attack those Christians who aren’t so fortunate. Some of us forget that apart from God we can do nothing. We forget that ‘good’ works motivated by self-righteousness are just as displeasing to God as those more obvious sins. Too many Christians who say they know we are saved by grace are still trying to live as if our goodness is based upon our ability to fulfill God’s Law. Then we start thinking we’re better than others; that God loves us more; and that God has to bless us because we ‘obey’ him. Or, we are crushed by our failure. This is how even churches that proclaim the Gospel can still end up trying to live according to a covenant of works righteousness; a covenant God never made with them.

Then how are we supposed to live the Christian life? Do we just get to keep on sinning since God’s grace will cover it all? Or, are we supposed to do that which Jesus commands? If so, how? How do those who have already believed the Gospel live in light of it? I’ll answer those questions in my next post.

The Effect of Over-Recording Ourselves

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:50:00 +0000

My acceptance of Facebook’s new timeline format has prompted me to write about something I’ve been thinking about for years; that is the effect that recording ourselves has upon us and our society.

We may think of technology as things such as computers, smartphones, digital cameras and maybe we even think of things such as phonographs. Yet, we probably don’t think of written language, or pen, ink and paper as technology, but even these are technologies that have enabled humans to record information about themselves. Now that I think about it even such things as architecture and sculpture are technologies that enable humans to record their accomplishments. But, that sort of thing was usually reserved for the likes of kings and pharaohs. The written word allowed more men to leave their mark on history, but history makers were still usually kings, generals, prophets and philosophers. The printing press, which drastically reduced the cost of writing and producing books, made it possible for more people to have their names, thoughts and deeds recorded. What did these technologies do to our society? They enabled men to “leave their mark” on history. How different would men act if their actions could not be recorded in history books, or exhibited by a monument? We can’t know, but I know that I am personally driven by an ambition to make some sort of impact upon this world. My faith tells me that those things I do which have an eternal impact are what really matters, but I can’t help but desire temporal fame.

Cameras are another technology that have certainly had a huge impact upon our society for good and bad. One positive impact cameras have had on our society is that they have helped raise our awareness of what is going on in the world outside of our daily experience. This has made us more sensitive to problems in our world, and has helped move people to act. A negative impact cameras have had on our society is that they have at times made us more concerned with how things appear rather than how they actually are. Take weddings, for example. It is obvious that many, if not most people are more concerned with their wedding looking good, rather than actually being a wonderful day that was enjoyable. If there were no pictures, but only memories, what would we no longer care about?

What impact has the recording of music had on our culture? Our folk culture has been nearly destroyed, replaced by a pop-culture. It used to be if you wanted to listen to music, you or someone you knew had to make it. Local musicians would regularly perform at barn dances and such. These gatherings had a significant impact upon the community. Even rich people, who had the luxury of going to professional music performances, still regularly learned to play music and sing so that they could entertain themselves at home. It is true that over the last couple of decades alternative music cultures have created an environment where more and more young people are learning how to play instruments and there is a lot of live music to experience in bigger cities. And, there are more people these days who are not content to sit back and watch a show, but long and push for greater participation in their experience of the arts. But, the damage is done, though I don’t think it is irreparable.

Audio-visual recording has in general created a culture in which the entertainment industry, in which I include such things as sports, has grown into one of the biggest industries in the western world. And, artist and producers are some of the highest paid people in our society. This has strengthened the consumer nature of our society, as opposed to a creative and participating society. It has also made us a people who expect everything to be entertaining and easy to consume. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with enjoying some entertainment, but is to say it is having some negative effects.

And now we live in a world where we westerners can practically record every moment and every thought we have. With Facebook timeline each of us can be our own personal historian. We can write the book on our own life, recording a level of detail that may be a little too much. What’s this going to do to us? In Cosette’s two short years Jessi and I have taken a couple thousand pictures of her. We risk being overwhelmed by information. The result of a glut of information is the same as a lack of information.

Observations on Tim Tebow and 'Tebowing'

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:10:00 +0000

Tim Tebow is Weird

As I said in my last post on Tim Tebow I really think that the reason that many people have a problem with him is that he is too positive, enthusiastic and transparent for our cynical and guarded society. He was born to missionary parents in a foreign country and was homeschooled and those kinds of experiences are going to result in a person who is probably going to not quite fit in to the dominant culture.

When you listen to Tebow talk (listen to this interview Tim Tebow Responds to Remarks) it’s obvious that he was raised with values which are different from our society. It’s small things like calling the interviewer Mr. Bayless instead of Skip, and more significant things like his refusal to attack the many people Bayless tries to bait Tebow into criticizing. Instead he remains positive even thanks people who have criticized him. Tim Tebow just doesn’t act in a way that most of us are comfortable with. When people get uncomfortable they lash out.

He Does Talk About God A Lot

Some people just don’t like the fact that Tebow is very vocal about his faith. When I listen to Tebow talk, he doesn’t sound like someone who is trying to force his beliefs on others, or that he’s driven by some sense of guilt, self-righteousness, duty, or an agenda to ‘save’ people, just so he can feel good about himself. He talks like a guy who actually just believes what he says. He seems to not be able to stop himself from thanking God; he really seems to actually believe in God and just be a thankful guy. Yeah he talks about God a lot, he thanks God a lot (he thanks everyone a lot – is anyone complaining about that), and he talks about his faith a lot, but I haven’t heard him do it in a way that tears others down, so what’s the problem. People want him to not talk about Jesus so much. I don’t think Tebow can help it. To give a bit of a silly example it’s like when someone gets a new kitten – you may not want, or care to hear about their kitten, but they are going to talk about it, because it is so darn cute. Or that I’m now writing my second post on Tim Tebow, because I’m really impressed with him.

It seems to me that Tebow’s outspokenness is a genuine expression of how he sees the world. When I played football in high school I thought about making some sign of thanks to God when I scored, but whenever I did score I never did anything, because I didn’t think about it in the moment. Now that doesn’t mean I wasn’t thankful, but it wasn’t my first reaction to express that thanks. So, I have some appreciation that it seems the way Tebow acts is a natural expression of who he is, not pretense.

‘Tebowing’ – Praying in Public

In my last post concerning Tebow a reader raised a couple of good questions. To summarize: first should a person be so vocal about their faith in the workplace, and doesn’t Jesus admonishment against praying in public mean Tebow shouldn’t pray in such a public way?

I would agree that how a person acts in their workplace is going to be a bit different than the way they act in other areas of life. This doesn’t mean we can’t be ourselves, or even that we can’t share our faith. Our worldview, our beliefs, and certainly our values will be demonstrated in the way we act, and speak at work. There is room for faith in the public square, and as long as we are courteous and unaggressive in the sharing of our beliefs most people won’t get upset with us. There is a general animosity some people have to any discussion of faith and the more we meet this animosity with courtesy, respect, and rational and reasonable apologetics we will win space for ourselves in the public square.

More specifically, how we each act at work depends on the culture of our individual workplace. We should always act in such a way that God is glorified, no matter where we are. So, applying these ideas to Tebow, I would say that how he acts is acceptable for his job. It is expected that an athlete be a personality; they are entertainers. Tebow uses the stage he has been given to be a positive role model and that includes sharing his faith and giving thanks to God. As he says in the interview I referenced earlier, being a positive role model who brings “faith, hope and love to those needing a brighter day in their darkest hour of need”, is even more important to him than winning games. Tebow has a very unique job, where he is actually allowed to pursue a mission other than his job, as long as he does his job, which is to entertain people.

But, what about visibly praying in public? Jesus said:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matt 6:5-8)

Is Tim Tebow disobeying the teaching of Jesus when he grabs a knee on the side line to pray, or when he points to the sky after scoring a touchdown? I don’t think so, because I think what Jesus is really talking about is not exactly the physical act of how we pray, but our attitudes and motivations for praying. He’s telling us not to pray in order to be seen so that people will think we are really spiritual (especially when we’re actually hypocrites). Also Jesus tells us that when we pray to talk to God, we can trust that he loves us and hears us, there’s no special formula, magic, or minimum number of words that we have to say for him to give us what we want. Jesus is not telling us that we literally can only pray in closets, or that we can only pray the ‘Lord’s Prayer’, the ‘Our Father’ (which immediately follows the above quoted verses) which is prefaced by Jesus saying, “[t]his, then, is how you should pray” (v 9). Yet, we don’t just pray the ‘Lord’s Prayer’. This demonstrates that we understand Jesus was not trying to establish a rule to be slavishly followed, but rather a principle which concerns our motivations, not just our visible actions.

I don’t know what Tebow is thinking when he ‘Tebows’. Being a former football player myself I know that in football practice the coaches routinely tell their players to grab a knee when they want to talk to them, so that everyone can see the coach – the players at the back of the group were allowed to stand. I didn’t like having to kneel, because I found it uncomfortable so I stood at the back. Maybe after all these years in football Tebow just finds it comfortable to kneel on the sideline, similar to the way so many Asians like to squat. Maybe he’s just trying to be polite to those standing behind him. While he’s down there he puts in a little praying, nothing really wrong with that. Now if he’s actually doing all his praying in public so that people will notice and think he’s a great and righteous guy, then I’d say he is doing the very thing Jesus told us not to do. But, if he just prays wherever he finds himself and doesn’t really even think about what’s going on around him, I’d say that’s just fine. This means that many people who are copying him and ‘Tebowing’ to draw attention to themselves praying probably should stop.

No Prosperity Gospel Here

What I really like about Tim Tebow is that he has a good perspective on football, and what effect God plays in his performance. First he realizes that football is just a job, one he loves, and winning football games is not anywhere near the most important thing in the world, even though Tebow certainly likes to win and has an uncanny ability to do so. Second he doesn’t think he wins because God adjusts reality for him. He does think that his faith helps him perform better, but there’s no magic, or miracles happening on his behalf.

When I was in high school I thought that if I was good, I’d win. I thought that if God was pleased with me things would go my way, but if I’d sinned recently I’d lose. I still remember a teacher asking me what if there’s a Christian on the other team, doesn’t God like them too, what if God wants them to win? That just blew my mind; I was very egocentric in those days (I still am, but not as much – I hope). Now I don’t play organized sports much anymore, but it’s easy for the attitude that God rewards people who please him with winning games can easily spread into other areas of life.

I do think the Bible, in such places as Proverbs, teaches us how to act wisely in life – though this is not the main purpose of the Bible. I do think my faith has helped me become a better person, and that helps me in my work – though this is certainly not the reason I have faith. I am also thankful for all the gifts God has given me – genetic gifts, my upbringing, being born in a prosperous country. However, I do not believe there is some sort of magical way to get God to shape the world to my whims. Nor do I believe the blessings I have received from God are a result of my worthiness. That’s why I’m thankful; I didn’t earn the gifts I’ve received. I don’t think there is anything I can do that will guarantee my success in business. Even if, or when, God intervenes he may often intervene to make us fail at something, because it might be better for our development as his disciples. I’ve read quotes from other Christian athletes who think they win because they tithe the prescribed amount. I’m glad Tebow does not seem to be that kind of Christian. Or the kind of Christian who says, ‘Hey look at me I’m cool, I’m a winner. don’t you want to be like me and be a Christian too?’ Tebow’s witness is not based on his performance as an athlete, though this helps gain him a hearing, he points us to Jesus. In this way he is being a good role model for me.

Jesus' Birth - A Time for Peace

Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:35:00 +0000

. . . [T]here were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

This is the good news, what we call the Gospel, and this is why we celebrate Christmas. This is the announcement Christians should be making concerning Christmas; let’s stop the culture war. Let’s meet any animosity we may encounter with the same gentleness God demonstrated. He put aside his position of power and glory to take on the form of a human – not showing up as a powerful warrior, or well positioned politician, but a helpless baby born to two seemingly insignificant Jewish peasants. He did not demand that the world even take notice of his birth, but instead entered this world practically unnoticed. Apparently the angels could not contain themselves and they had to tell someone.

Now, shepherds are generally not considered to be particularly important, or savory, people. Yet, I can’t help but think they have a special place in the heart of God. The patriarchs were nomadic herdsmen. Moses was a shepherd of sheep for forty years, and a shepherd of Israel for forty more. King David, the great messiah of the Old Testament, was a shepherd as well. And, the shepherd metaphor is used extensively by God to describe himself; it tells us much about his nature. He is the good shepherd. And, here we see that these seemingly unimportant people are the ones to whom the angels made their announcement of good news. Today the Messiah (the anointed one) – the promised King of Israel – has been born and he will save the world from sin, death and destruction. This is good news, which causes great joy for all people. This is the news Christians have been entrusted with, the news we are to tell the world.

The Theology of Christmas Carols

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:05:00 +0000

There are many wonderful hymns which are filled with an incredible depth of revelation. It’s a shame that the church in America these days has for the most part neglected the hymns, because they can educate us while we worship. They engage the intellect as well as the emotions. The Christmas carols are no exception, and fortunately we return to them at least once a year. Last Sunday we were singing Joy to the World and I was struck by the words of the song. Its message may be missed, or not understood. So, I thought I’d write a blog post which highlighted some of the, to me, more interesting verses and phrases of a few of the common Christmas carols we sing and a little of the background stories behind the writing of a few of them.

Joy to the World

As a writer of worship music Isaac Watts sought to re-write the psalms interpreting them from the perspective of the New Testament—in other words, what he thought David might have written if he had a more complete knowledge of God’s revelation. Joy to the World is Watt’s interpretation of psalm 98, which in part says,

Let the sea resound, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy; let them sing before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity. (vv 7-9)

For Watt’s re-interpretation of these verses we can look at verse 2 of his song: “Joy to the world! The Savior reigns; let men their songs employ, while fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains repeat the sounding joy . . . .”

I particularly like verse three: “No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow, far as the curse is found . . . .” This is actually a reference to the curse found in Genesis 3 and the redemption which was promised at that same time; “And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (v 15).” This is a reference to the redeemer overcoming and defeating Satan the serpent.

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing

“Hark! the herald angels sing, ‘Glory to the newborn King; Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!’ . . .” I’ve never noticed before that this line is telling us what the herald (messenger) angels are singing – it’s a quote. And, what is their message? The King is born! He has come to bring peace by reconciling himself (God) with his enemies (which would be us sinners); which means healing our damaged relationship.

Let’s look at a couple more lines. “. . . Veiled in flesh, the Godhead see, Hail the incarnate Deity! Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel” (verse 2); “. . . Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die . . .” (verse 3). These lines describe the incredible and ineffable incarnation of God in Jesus. God lays his glory/splendor aside and takes on human flesh, glad to dwell with us humans as a human himself – to be our Emmanuel/God-with-us. Why does he do this? To save us from the power of death.

O Come All Ye Faithful

This theology of the incarnation described in Hark! the Herald Angels Sing is also mentioned in O Come, All Ye Faithful. In the 3 verse there is this line: “Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing”. This is a reference to John 1, which says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (vv 1-5, 14)

Once in Royal David’s City

This is yet another carol which illuminates the doctrine of the incarnation. This carol was written by an Irish woman named Cecil Frances Humphreys in the 1800’s. It was her desire to help children better understand and remember the Apostles’ Creed, by writing a series of Hymns which focused on particular parts of the creed. She wrote this song to teach children about Jesus Christ, who as the creed says “was conceived of the Holy Spirit, [and] born of the Virgin Mary”.

Verse 2 states, “He came down to earth from heaven, Who is God and Lord of all . . . . Verse 3 ends with the line “. . . Christian children all should be, Mild, obedient, good as He.” Verse 4 continues the idea,

“For He is our child-hood's pattern, Day by day like us He grew, He was little, weak, and helpless, Tears and smiles like us He knew, And He feels for our sadness, And He shares in our gladness.”

Verse 5 completes the thought,

“And our eyes at last shall see Him, Through His own redeeming love; For that child so dear and gentle, Is our Lord in heaven above, And He leads His children on, To the place where He is gone. Not in that poor lowly stable, With the oxen standing by, We shall see Him, but in heaven, Set at God's right hand on high; When like stars His children crowned, All in white shall be around."

I especially like how this song teaches us, and remember it’s directed towards children, that Jesus was a little child and went through the same things we went through as children – “tears and smiles”. And, I like how this Christmas carol tells us how we will one day see him, but not in the “lowly stable”, but in his glory, where he will lead us as he has opened up the doorway.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

With this one I’m going to include the entire hymn, because it is just so great. This hymn seems to mix a mournful plea and joyful expectation. It is helpful to remember that Advent meanings “coming”, and during Advent we not only look back at the first coming of Jesus, his birth, but look forward to the second coming of Jesus, his triumphal return. I think that while this song is recalling that God has started his redeeming work, it is a longing cry for Christ’s second coming when he will complete that work.

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

Refrain
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
Who orderest all things mightily;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And teach us in her ways to go.
Refrain

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.
Refrain

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.
Refrain

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.
Refrain

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times once gave the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.
Refrain

O come, Thou Root of Jesse’s tree,
An ensign of Thy people be;
Before Thee rulers silent fall;
All peoples on Thy mercy call.
Refrain

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

This song references many prophetic themes. The call and the assurance that Emmanuel (God with us) is coming – Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” The “Rod of Jesse” refers to Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse”; Jesse was the father of the great king David. In 2 Sam 7:12-13 God promises David,

The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

“Day-Spring” refers to the statement made by Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, in Luke 1:78: “The dayspring from on high has visited us.” “Thou Key of David” comes from Isaiah 22:22: “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder,” which in turn refers to Isaiah 9:6 “The government shall be upon His shoulder.”

Jesus is referred to in this song as a ransom; Jesus said, referring to himself, in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” He is a ransom which saves Israel, but not just that, he is the “desire of nations”, because his Kingdom rule will bring salvation, peace, justice and prosperity for us all, not just Israel.

O Little Town of Bethlehem

Another hymn written for children to sing – things used to be so different. I’m going to just highlight parts of the carol.

“The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight” (verse 1). This is one of my favorite lines in any hymn. It highlights the importance of Jesus’ birth; everything culminates in him.

Verse 3 declares, “How silently, how silently, the wondrous Gift is giv’n; So God imparts to human hearts, the blessings of His Heav’n. No ear may hear His coming, but in this world of sin; Where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in.” Jesus and with him the Kingdom of God slipped into this world in an astonishingly inauspicious way, born to a couple of peasants in a barn. In the same manner God’s Kingdom is expanding in this world today; quietly taking up residence in our hearts. Most may never even notice that the Spirit of Jesus is present in this world. But, still he walks in this world of sin, and condescends to enter into the lives of humble broken people.

The oft’ neglected fourth verse; I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen this before, so I’m putting it in here just to give it some attention. Verse five follows it.

Where children pure and happy pray to the blessèd Child,
Where misery cries out to Thee, Son of the mother mild;
Where charity stands watching and faith holds wide the door,
The dark night wakes, the glory breaks, and Christmas comes once more.

O holy Child of Bethlehem, descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in, be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us, our Lord Emmanuel!

I like the idea expressed here that celebrating Christmas is not just about remembering the birth of Jesus. The fourth verse tells us that where there is love and faith, the darkness is once again broken and Christmas comes again. This theme is strengthened in the final verse, where we ask Jesus to descend to us again, to defeat sin, and enter into our hearts, to be born in us today (and this was before the whole ‘born again’ Christian thing was such a polarizing issue). The last line asks Jesus to be our “God-with-us” today, as he was 2,000 years ago.

O Holy Night

“. . . It is the night of our dear Savior’s birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining, Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope, the weary soul rejoices, For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. . . .” For thousands of years we humans have longed for a better world, but our “sin and error” continuously leads us to destroy ourselves and our neighbors. Are we doomed? No, in a seemingly insignificant event – the birth of a Jewish child – the process of our redemption was begun. This brings hope to those broken down by the cares of this world, because a “new and glorious” age is upon us.

The final verse says, “Truly He taught us to love one another; His law is love and His Gospel is peace. Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother, And in His Name all oppression shall cease. This section of the hymn declares some of the results of the coming of Jesus’ Kingdom. This verse reminds me of Luke 4:16-21, where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1-4,

[Jesus] stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Is Tebow Too Enthusiastic

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:35:00 +0000

This morning I read two stories concerning Tim Tebow which described two very different responses to a controversy related to Tebow.

The first was a story (LINK) about a couple of high school boys who were suspended for “tebowing” (praying) in the halls between classes. I’m not one who thinks we should be fighting for any form of official school prayer, but I do believe kids should be able to pray in school when they want to as an expression of free speech. So, my first reaction to this story was disgust. If I was one of those boys I would have certainly wanted to fight the administration. But, then I got to the end of the article where Tebow himself was quoted. He told the media "You have to respect the position of authority and people that God's put as authority over you. So that's part of it, and just finding the right place and the right time to do things is part of it, too." What an unusual response for an American Evangelical – I was impressed.

The second story (LINK) was about how Pat Robertson and others are outraged because of a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Jesus appears to Tebow and the Broncos and tells them that he is the reason they’ve been winning, but they need to help him out a little bit. Pat Robertson said the sketch was "anti-Christrian bigotry that's just disgusting." Adding, "If this had been a Muslim country and they had done that, and had Muhammad doing that stuff, you would have found bombs being thrown off, and bodies on the street!” What if find most disturbing about Robertson’s response is that it almost seems as if he wishes he could throw some bombs.

I saw the skit. I didn’t think it was particularly offensive, or done in a mean-spirited way. Some of the jokes were actually pretty funny and some of the points that the sketch made were valid. (Now hopefully Tebow doesn’t make some statement after I post this which totally negates my point here, but so far it appears that he hasn’t made any comment concerning the sketch.) The difference between Tebow’s and Robertson’s responses is rather interesting. This really makes me respect Tebow, it’s nice to see an outspoken Christian who just wants to share his faith and doesn’t seem to have any desire to get caught up in the culture war. He seems to be a very positive person.

And, this leads me to one observation I have concerning the SNL sketch, and this is also I think at least partly why so many people have a problem with Tebow. It’s not that he prays; many pro athletes pray, or make some other sign of thanks to God after scoring. Many celebrities give thanks to God. And, the practice of giving ‘props’ to God has resulted in comedians poking fun before Tebow came along. What makes Tebow different? I think the SNL sketch reveals the answer – it’s his enthusiasm. The guy is just so positive. In our cynical, ‘irony’ loving society, where most of us are afraid to show our excitement for fear of being seen as un-cool, or naïve, we just don’t know how to respond to someone who is so transparent. Tone it down, Tebow, you’re making us uncomfortable.

Church 2.0, A Response in time for Advent

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:55:00 +0000

In an article in the Washington Post entitled Christianity 2.0, the church consultant and Episcopal priest Tim Erich answers the question – “What will a fresh Christianity look like in America?” Now, I don’t disagree with all that he says – I in fact would welcome many of the changes he envisions. I do however take exception with a series of statements Erich makes. He not only identifies, but praises a trend that has been sweeping through the Church for years; that is the abandonment of the Church’s shared history – commonly called tradition – and the neglecting of the communion of the saints. I figured that this time of Advent was an ideal time to discuss tradition.

Erich says:

Yes, we will see Sunday worship, with people sitting in pews facing a preacher and singing hymns. But that Sunday paradigm will cease to draw the big numbers . . . . Traditional resources like prayer books and hymnals will give way to local idioms and creative resources. . . . Leaders will be locals . . . . not beholden to the traditions of national denominations. . . . There will be less focus on uniformity and consistency, and more freedom to see what emerges from the stewpot. . . . Look for less focus on familiar forms of authority like the Bible and ecclesiastical tradition. . . . Such a fresh Christianity will be far more rewarding than the fear-driven, change-resistant, inward-looking institutions we have now. . . . In other words, I think we are nearing the end of a bleak and self-destructive period that we will wonder why we endured for so long.

(I’ve culled a number of statements from throughout the article to focus upon a particular issue. I don’t feel I’ve misrepresented Erich on this point, but please read the article.)

Erich wants us to dismiss tradition, especially the structures and institutions which have carried these traditions through hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. He even accuses these institutions of putting us into a “bleak and self-destructive period”. He says that we must reject tradition and embrace our own “local idioms and creative resources” in order to escape this dark period, allowing a new church to emerge. I share a desire to see some of the same things emerge which Erich desires. I however do not agree with his remedy. Many of the things he feels will be solutions I think are actually some of the reasons the church in the U.S. is sick. I in fact believe a return to our traditions and learning from the institutions which have faithfully passed down these traditions will actually help a more healthy church emerge.

What is tradition? It is the culmination of that which those before us thought most important. No one says it better than G.K. Chesterton:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. (Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, Image, New York, edition published 1990, 47-48)

It seems Erich would not only have us “submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about”, but the even more narrowly those who merely happen to be walking about in our local community. For at least the last 100 years the church in the U.S. has become less and less interested in the historical confessional denominations. We’ve abandoned traditional resources and traditional corporate worship; instead making our worship services more and more idiosyncratic and individualistic. We’ve shunned “experts”, “intellectuals” and trained leaders, instead preferring “assertive and visionary leaders”, “gifted in personal suasion”. We’ve rebelled against the long established institutions. What has been the result?

What Erich and so many other church leaders who want to lead us into a brave new world seem to not realize is that the place they are leading us is not new. The North American church has long been a church which is anti-tradition, anti-intellectual, and anti-institutional. As a result we have only built a more divided, individualistic, shallow, human-centric, fractured and lonely church, which worships celebrity pastors who build their own institutions and hand out jobs to their often unqualified “local” buddies. But, dang do we have some kickin’ worship bands.

How do we actually get to where Erich and others want to lead us? This destructive period. By mining the riches of our shared history, our tradition which will bring us into a fuller communion with all our brothers and sisters in Christ, including those who no longer happen to be walking around right now.

We must firmly root ourselves in the Bible – which tells us about our leader and his first followers the early church – so that whatever “emerges from the stewpot” may actually be Christian. Our tradition, specifically our creeds and confessions can help us identify those things which are essential to our vitality – the foundation upon which we must continue to build (I would refer anyone interested to my master’s thesis “I Believe, The Apostles’ Creed for the Emerging Church” for a further development of this idea).

In addition, does anyone actually think that what Americans need is anyone encouraging us to do something that will makes us even more self-focused? That’s what Erich is doing when he basically says we should throw off tradition and its influence and instead pursue our own idiosyncratic methods of doing ‘church’. In this post-modern era with its multitude of ‘tribes’ we need to help break down the walls between the members of our ever-splintering society, not build them up. “For [we] are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For [we] are all one in Christ Jesus.” The Church in the U.S., in these last few decades at least, has pursued a policy of segregating its members into ever increasing factions. We need to reverse this trend. Getting in touch with our forbearers through the traditions which have been passed down to us will help us in this process for the very reason that we must first acknowledge that other people other than ourselves have something valuable to say. Embracing our shared history will not divide us, but will unite us in truly meaningful ecumenical cooperation.

To illustrate the value of tradition let’s take a look at Advent. I grew up being a part of a very good church community. I am very grateful for my experience. However, though we were in touch with at least a bit of tradition, there was much we lacked. One thing I think we lacked was the observance of Advent. Of course we sang traditional Christmas carols in preparation for Christmas, and we had a candle light Christmas Eve service, but Advent was never mentioned.

In the last couple of years as I’ve gotten in touch with a liturgical form of worship and have begun to follow the traditional church calendar I have learned about Advent – which is a time where we look back at the first coming and look forward to the second coming of our King Jesus. This has made my Christmas season so much richer and more meaningful. So many Christians have to try and enjoy the holy-days, trying not to become overwhelmed by the secular commercialism of the season, without hardly any understanding of what it is we are actually celebrating. Possibly because our ‘Christianity’ has become so much about our own personal moral transformation and/or physical health and prosperity that it’s hard for us to get excited about our dear savior’s birth. For me it was the simple act of engaging my Church’s shared history that enabled me to discover this incredible treasure of Advent and helped me gain a fuller communion with my God and my eternal family.

Now, do I think all traditions are good? No. Nor are all traditions of equal weight and value. We should give precedence to those traditions which are most the commonly held, and the least idiosyncratic. I’m not saying nothing can progress or change. We alive today have our part to contribute and in the end no tradition has a final authority over us. Yet, we must respect and we must listen to our elders. We may find that we have much to learn.