A resolution kept

The other day I was thinking about changes that need to be made in my life. In other words I was thinking about resolutions. To be honest, I am not overly attracted to the New Year’s resolution thing. It’s not that I’m against such things, per se. It’s just that I think it is silly to wait until January 1 to begin. Of course it can also be argued that any “excuse” for positive change is a good one. So be it.

Of course there is a much bigger problem when it comes to resolutions, which is that I seem so unwilling/unable to follow through with them. Thus, the other day as I walked around thinking about changes that I should make, it dawned on me (for about the millionth time!) that I keep on hoping for the same things . . . and I keep on failing. I even said to myself, “What makes this promise any different than any of the others?” You know how that feels, don’t you? You say to yourself that this time will be different. This time you will be more sincere or determined or whatever. Yeah, right.

Okay, so I am spiritually inept. This might explain why I sometimes find myself saying things like, “Man, I am an idiot. Will I ever change? Lord, I promise that this time I will ___________.” Yeah, right. Of course we shouldn’t minimize these promises, these determinations of ours. Indeed, who knows, perhaps we are making progress, albeit very slowly. So, I guess we should continue with our resolutions. But–and this is essential–there is also something else to consider.

While I was feeling sorry for myself and going back and forth between frustration and determination, it dawned on me that one thing hasn’t changed. One resolution has been kept. One person has not gone back on his promise. God was still there with/for me! Amazingly, he was still there to hear my complaints, my poor excuses for repentance, my pitiful confessions, my not-so-sincere determinations to change. He was still there to listen to me, forgive me, absorb my wrongs, and walk by my side.

None of this should surprise me, of course. After all, he did say that he would love me with an everlasting love, that he would be with me until the end of the age. How incredibly thankful I (we) should be that he does not forsake me (us)! How immensely grateful I (we) should be that his love is a gracious and merciful determination and not one that dependents on my (our) faulty resolutions!

Who knows, if I were to think more often of his indestructible commitment to me, if I were to contemplate more regularly how infinite his love is, even my defective promises might be slightly more efficacious. Perhaps, this is what is intended when we read that “we love because he first loved us.” Yeah, his love undergirds and guides and sustains our efforts. Indeed, as weak as our resolutions may be, his are firm, certain, and driven by immutable love. What do you know–a resolution that is kept!

rather arbitrary (and incoherent?) thoughts on knowledge and salvation

These are certain questions that deserve on-going consideration. For instance what exactly is the Christian message? And, what does it mean for Christians to share this message?

On the surface, of course, these are easily answered inquiries. As an evangelical, it is clear enough that the Christian message is the good news of Jesus–that he lived, died, and was raised on our behalf, and that we can find life in him. Our duty, therefore, is relatively easy to understand; we are to tell others about this good news. So far, so good.

But, things are not always as easy as they first appear. For instance what exactly must a person believe about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in order to truly know him? Indeed, what identity must we ascribe to him, what must we believe about him, in order to say that we truly know him? These are difficult questions, and–in my opinion, at least–a distinction must be made between a number of things:

1. First, there is what we might call propositional knowledge.

These are not mere addendums to our faith, irrelevant labels that we attach to the object of faith. Rather, they are divinely given insights into the nature and purposes of the one in whom we are to place our trust. Of course knowing facts about a person is not the same as actually knowing that individual. However, proper knowledge about a person can (and should) facilitate a better relationship with him or her. Any time you get to know anyone, it helps to know things about that person. What is so-and-so like, and what makes him/her tick? Does he/she have any ethical standards? These and related issues are important. Indeed, having prior knowledge of these matters can greatly aid us in choosing our friends. While facts can be abused, and though they are never enough, they are still necessary. At some point, we simply have to know something about the people with whom we want to have a relationship. When it comes to a relationship with God, we will want to understand at least some things about him.

2. Next, there is what might be termed personal knowledge.

In many ways, this is the type of knowledge that matters most. When we get to know others, we also learn about them, their hobbies, likes, dislikes, etc. Often, though, it is simply by spending time with others that we acquire knowledge of them. So it is with God.

Let’s be clear. We are clearly responsible for laying the groundwork for a relationship with God. This includes informing others of God’s requirements, character, and promises (# 1 above). At the same time, we must never forget that God is a person and not a mere concept. Just like in other relationships, therefore, it is certainly the case that we can know him truly without knowing very much about him. This is not to minimize the helpfulness of information, especially when that information is disclosed by God in Scripture. Still, we cannot reduce God to our best doctrinal articulations of him. Indeed, “the doctrine that is according to godliness,” which is one way that Paul terms it, is that teaching that draws us not to formulations or statements of faith, per se, but to a Person.

The point here, then, is that we must treat God as the ever-present person that he is. In the final analysis, our hope is that people, ourselves included, are connected to him.

3. Another type of knowledge, which in many ways creates the context for other knowledge claims, involves narrative.

While propositions provide facts about a given topic, stories provide the narrative framework by which we understand and interpret those propositions. As postmoderns have reminded us, a good deal of what we believe and how we think and live is related to the stories we accept. Today, there has been an increased appreciation for stories–both ours and those of others.

Too often in the past, the church has specialized in abstract ideas about God; these were often separated from the stories from which they were originally embedded. As a result, many believers tended to emphasize a formulaic brand of Christianity, a bunch of memorized theories about God that we were supposed to memorize, meditate upon, and share with others.

But, even a cursory look at Scripture reveals that much of it is narrative in focus. From old testament accounts of the nation of Israel to the story of Jesus and the early church, the bible is very much oriented to the story. Thus, the biblical documents are intended to convey not only thoughts about God (facts about him) but the stories within which these facts take shape and make sense. Of course stories contain facts, too. But, they also convey the flow of historical situations in which God and his people relate. As such, they provide the context for knowledge. They reveal to us the real-life historical situations within which we can connect with our Maker. It is in this sense that narrative is a type of knowledge. In any case the notion of story is an important aspect of what it means to know in general and to know God in particular.

4. While facts matters, it is difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain exactly how facts are translated into relationship.

Facts can be, and often are, pathways into a relationship with God. We know something about him, and so we go to him in faith. Still, there are many things we don’t completely understand. For instance how much knowledge is enough to constitute saving faith? How much error can be mixed in with our faith and yet that faith remain true? What happens when we doubt or when we aren’t sure about certain tenets of the faith? To these and other issues, there are no simple answers. No one has complete knowledge of God. Everyone’s belief system contains some measure of error. And many good people are plagued with doubt. At the same time, there is clearly a distinction in Scripture between the true God and false gods, between genuine knowledge of God (which leads to life) and error (which leads to death).

What this means, practically, is that it is important for us to do what we can to know what we can about God so that we can accurately communicate knowledge of him to one another and to others. On the other hand, it is equally relevant that we don’t assume that we know the hearts of individuals, for only God can see the heart. Thus, while we don’t want to be naive in our assumptions about the spiritual status of others, we can (and should, in my view) retain hope that a merciful God is able to access and rejuvenate the hearts and lives of individuals who possess less-than-ideal knowledge about him. Hmm, I wonder if we ever fall into that category.

5. True faith produces fruit, but we need to be very cautious about the judgments we make about others.

You can tell a tree by its fruit. In fact this fruit is delineated for us in Scripture and includes such virtues as faith, hope, and love. But, and this is important, it can be difficult to measure what these and other traits should actually look like. Don’t believe me? Just read the Gospels, for there you will observe the very epitome of faith, hope, and love being consistently misunderstood and misrepresented. Be careful, therefore. While we must not reduce holiness to a gushy feeling or some sentimental nonsense, we also be cautious about the judgments we make about people. Indeed, I have sometimes noticed that certain people who don’t look “Christian” by certain “church” standards (they curse, drink, smoke, or whatever) are the ones who must often give expression to traits that matter most (love, joy, peace). We must be humble, hopeful, and wise about these matters.

Concluding Thoughts

It is important to treat others with generosity and grace, hoping for the best, expecting and searching for signs of the Spirit, and acting in ways that mirror the love of our compassionate Savior. He not only opposed the pride displayed by those in his day who were (supposedly) “in the know,” but he consistently interacted with and shared the surprising grace of God with those whom the religious establishment relegated to a place outside the community of God. May we learn to follow him, always pondering the meaning and application of knowledge and truth, never knowingly compromising what God has evidently revealed, and forever looking with gratefulness and humility to the one who is our life.

Thank God for . . . Christmas

Thank God for . . .

time off from work,

opportunities to be with family,

opportunities to be with friends,

Christmas lights,

good food,

the wonder of Christmas morning,

great holiday shows,

the tremendous themes of one of my favorite movies, It’s a Wonderful Life,

the smiles of beautiful little (and not so little) children,

whatever measure of health we are experiencing,

LOVE,

the God who is love,

that unfathomable demonstration of love that took place when God became a man in order to live, die, and conquer death for us,

Jesus.

Merry Christmas!

Incarnation--Special Mystery

In a very real sense, God has always been with us. He is, after all, the Maker of all that is, the omnipresent Creator. Thus, people have always been able to call on his name and request his assistance.

But something special happened that first Christmas. The God who had always been present actually took a giant step closer to us. Instead of simply being “in the neighborhood,” rather than merely peeking into our world, God became one of us. Indeed, he not only stooped to become a human being but he forever united himself with humanity. The Lord from heaven, without losing his magnificent divinity, permanently took on the nature of his creatures.

What sort of strange metaphysical accomplishment is this? How can the infinite be joined to the finite? What exactly is the formula for incarnation? These and many other questions remain basically unanswered. Sure, we can (and must) do our best to make sure that we stay within orthodox parameters, stating and thinking about the hypostatic union in ways that are consistent with Scripture. Still, at the end of the day, we are always faced with immense mystery.

God becomes a human and reunites fallen humanity with its holy maker. God becomes a man in order to reconnect heaven and earth. God becomes a man to rescue you and me from our rebellion, our stupidity, our selves. God becomes one of us in order to show us love and, in the process, to rejuvenate and reshape our hearts and lives. God becomes a member of the human race, and in doing so shows us our truest purpose.

Christmas is many thing to many people. But, above all, it is about the miracle of incarnation and the fruit–especially that which came via his eventual death and resurrection–it would yield. The Lord of all is now a human being, the Son of God is a man, and he did it all . . . for us! As we sing: “Pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus our Immanuel.” Wow! Thank God for such an incentive to joyful living. Thank God for this genuine hope, this reason to sing!

screwed up, sorry . . . and forgiven

Let’s face it. We are often blind to our own weaknesses and conveniently forgetful when it comes to our own inadequacies. Far too often, we don’t see things the way they really are, which is a shame.

This is all the more reason to think, speak, and act properly when we do come to our senses and becomes cognizant of our foolish ways. With these things in mind, I’d like to apologize to everyone for all too often being so inept.

I can’t keep track of (and don’t want to) the times I’ve said stupid things to people I love. I am sorry.

It would be impossible to tabulate the number of temper tantrums I average each day. I am sorry.

Only God knows how many idiotic thoughts have passed through my empty head and how many good things I’ve allowed to escape my heart. I am sorry.

It scares me to think of the number of times I’ve done the “right” thing with wrong motives. I am sorry.

On and on I could go, listing the errors, the goofy choices, the sins that I’ve committed. A super computer couldn't possibly keep up with them. Again, I am sorry.

Why, you ask, am I saying these things? Well, to be honest, I have no reason in particular. Indeed, I suspect that my “I’m sorry’s” are themselves weak, incomplete, and hypocritical. I just think it is good to acknowledge these things once in a while. That’s all.

This all brings me back to my need for forgiveness and grace, and that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Yeah, I’m a goof, but God is good anyway! Sure, I am incredibly inconsistent when it comes to doing good, but God is forgiving. Yeah, my behavior seldom matches up to my grandiose claims, but the Lord is gracious.

I suppose God’s grace should undergird everything about us. When we’re doing okay (at least when we think we are), it can be traced back to our good Creator. On the other hand, when we’re not doing so well, it is God who receives us back so freely.

Why is that I am not more astounded by his love, stunned by his acts of forgiveness, blown away by his incomprehensible mercy, astonished by his countless provisions? Even here, I have to own up to my ignorance. One again, I am sorry.

Thankfully, though, no matter how many times I mess up, the One who is goodness and love is there to meet me, to greet me, to embrace me, to love me. Though my expressions of regret are often lacking, while my best acts repentance are inadequate, though my admissions of guilt are laced with imperfection, he loves me still. I guess that’s what everlasting love is all about, huh? Sorry, but I usually miss that.

So, what are going to do with such a dense guy? Forgive him? Yeah, I like that, and that’s something about which I am not in the least sorry! :-)

Humility and Life Perspective: Applying Postmodern “Skepticism”

The world is not what it used to be. With the profound impact of technology, especially the worldwide web, we now have access to people and to information that was once unavailable. It is truly the case that we are a part of a community that spans the world. As a result, there is an increased need to counter misunderstanding and somehow learn how to co-exist, that is, to get-along-with one another.

Sometimes, however, the attempt to respect all opinions has led to a type of relativism, which the Christian church has rightly resisted. Not only is it impossible to live with outright skepticism, but the very idea that truth cannot be determined is a self-contradiction. To say with certainty that one cannot be certain is double-talk. At any rate, extreme versions of postmodern skepticism do not bode well with a Christian worldview.

This being said, some have gone too far in their efforts to resist postmodern influences and, as a result, have neglected certain beneficial postmodern features. Indeed, I would argue that today’s cultural influences ought to coax us back to the Bible, where we find truths that have too long been hidden or treated lightly. One of these truths is humility.

While the Bible is teeming with exhortations to avoid pride, many of us have ignored these biblical injunctions. Though we talk a good game, too often we fail to apply humility when it comes to our theological, evangelistic, and ecclesiastical views.

But postmodernism at its best is consistent with Scripture’s own portrayal, which encourages us to espouse, embrace, and embody a view of knowledge, life, and ourselves that is a bit more modest than that often found among certain overly zealous believers. With these things in mind, here are a number of ways in which this might work its way out in our lives and ministries. Each of these deserves further elaboration, but for now I simply list a number of ideas.

1. We can understand truth but never perfectly.

2. We can know God truly and sufficiently but not exhaustively.

3. Our evangelism ought to be confident but never arrogant.

4. Our views of those outside of the faith should (when appropriate) be rightly critical but not overly judgmental.

5. Controversy can often be settled but not always.

Lest I be misunderstood, it is very, very important to understand that none of this is intended to be an excuse for exegetical laziness or theological sloth. Neither does it is any way eliminate the appropriate place for dogmatism about many things. Indeed, I think it can be argued that those who most consistently exude humility are the very ones whose dogmatic claims are most easily received. That is, when a humble person speaks with passion, that person must, given his/he general demeanor, have good reason for being so forthright. Thus, true humility paves the way for appropriate measure of boldness and straightforwardness .

An acknowledgment of partial knowledge, an awareness of our less-than perfect perception, and a realization of God’s transcendent greatness ought to lead us in a much more biblical direction. Coming to grips with our limitations leads to humility. And humility, of course, is the proper stance of people toward God. What’s more, an awareness of the incompleteness of current understanding is not a cause for a “wimpy” or “wishy washy” theology but rather is an incentive to increased study and research. Those who know that they haven’t "arrived" are more apt to openly and honestly pursue the truth vigorously. Along the way, and in keeping with Scriptural directives, they are more apt to encounter the One who is truth incarnate. He himself says it this way: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

random thoughts on evangelism in a postmodern world

For many non-Christians, just the thought of encountering a Christian "evangelist" is likely to incite discomfort, if not anger. One reason for this is that the church’s attempts to "preach the gospel" have all too often come across as arrogant, overly intrusive, condescending, high pressured, and, well, just plain irrelevant. Indeed, too often our ecclesiastical traditions work against even our best motives, and we end up hindering the progress of the gospel, unnecessarily offending those who most need help.

It seems that in our desire to share the truth, we have somehow forgotten that, among other things, we are to share it "in love," that is, in a way that is personal, easy to hear, and applicable to the particular situation we are addressing. Likewise, we have become overly content with our own brands of ministry, even to the point of being critical of anything that disrupts "the way we’ve always done things around here."

Unfortunately, much of the church has failed to come to grips with the many societal shifts that have taken place over the past few decades. In short, we’ve been unable (and, often, unwilling) to approach postmodernism in an evenhanded fashion. Concomitantly, we have simpy assumed that our beliefs, strategies, and expressions of faith are unquestionably best and right.

Among the worst features of "modern" Christianity, that is, a Christianity that is intertwined with the rules and assumptions of the modern era, is the tendency to engage in manipulative techniques, to force-feed Bible verses, and to offer simplistic solutions to life’s dilemmas. Many postmoderns have rightly rejected such practices, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, however, many of these same people have come to equate Christianity with its worst adherents and its most unbiblical routines. As a result, many turn a deaf ear to the Christian gospel, or at least to the modernistic formulation of it. To be honest, I have often found myself agreeing with this assessment.

How, then, should we respond to this situation? In what way can we reach today’s world with the good news of Jesus? While many have opted for "the old time (but seemingly worn out) religion," and though others only pay attention to the worst elements of recent cultural change, surely there must be a better way.

What we need, I think, is a serious (yet careful) rethinking of the biblical data, an honest appraisal of the best (and not just the worst elements) of postmodernism, and a fresh application of ancient truths to today’s situation. Rather than defending the status quo, we are in desperate need of believers who are willing to be trailblazers, people who take seriously both God's word and his world.

Contrary to overly negative critics, not all contemporary tendencies are harmful–though some are–and certain trends might even be God-given opportunities to engage in a type of ministry that is refreshing and new. If this is so, we surely need to trust God to enable us to see what he is doing around us each day.

Celebrating the good . . . Roll Tide!

I live in a relatively small city that is known for many good things. Recently, however, the emphasis has been on our local high school football team, Pottsville Area, which has qualified for the state championship this coming Friday. For those who don’t know, the Crimson Tide, as we are known, is not your typical team, and the pride and enthusiasm that flow from this community is anything but average. Indeed, over the course of the last month or so, the momentum has gradually increased, and the entire city has fixed its attention on the Tide.

Everywhere in town, there are banners, and everyone seems to be repeating the school’s mantra, Roll Tide. Indeed, Roll Tide signs can be seen in almost every place, from local convenience stores to the windows of countless homes. Literally thousands of fans and supporters have been energized by the accomplishments of these fine young men. (As an aside, these boys truly are fine in every sense of the word. From their intellectual accomplishments in the classroom to the character they exude in their daily lives, they are great kids!)

The high school itself is filled with streamers and numerous illustrations of school pride. We are even conducting a contest in which students adorn their respective homeroom doors in Crimson Tide decor. (I’m a bit bias, but I think my homeroom in the best of the lot!) Earlier today, in fact, there were people from the local newspaper, who were taking pictures and asking about our homeroom. (By the way, I teach at Pottsville High.)

All of the hoopla surrounding the football team has caused me to do a bit of reflecting. It is truly exciting to be in the school. It’s fun, exciting . . . (there must be a better word) . . . it’s electric. The team, the coaches, the student-body, the faculty, the fans–all are bound together by a single purpose, sharing a common experience.

I truly feel blessed to be a part of all this. It is a fantastic time, and every day seems to bring more of the same as we prepare for and anticipate Friday’s game. In fact I just said to my wife that this must be (in some way) what heaven is about; it’s like a perpetual celebration! Numerous times each day I am literally energized by the feeling of being a part of such an experience.

Of course I am not equating football with God. And I am not pretending that everyone involved in these recent events is somehow drawn closer to God. What I am saying, however, is that this situation illustrates what it ought to mean to be connected to God and his ways. To belong to something special, to feel a deep sense of pride and purpose, to experience a sense of unity and unusual camaraderie–these are special things. How incredible it will be to one day experience them in an uninterrupted and limitless fashion. Even now, to the degree that we encounter blessings, we can revel in what they represent. If good comes only from God, then God must be present (at some level, at least) whenever we experience good. Let’s celebrate the good and the One who makes it possible. Roll Tide!

Thoughts on difficulties . . . and faith

The reasons for life’s difficulties are numerous, but obviously they include the basic idea–recorded in Scripture–of the fall. Though it may seem unfair that the choice of another (i.e., Adam) affects all of our lives, it does at least validate the Bible’s trustworthiness; the biblical notion of the fall explains much of what we observe everyday of our lives. And, if we can rely on the basic message of Scripture, it may be that Scripture is right about other things, as well, even when those things are way beyond our grasp. Many who have investigated these matters have said that they can’t ignore the stack of evidence that points to Christ. If that is the case, then we must somehow learn to trust him even when we can’t figure out what he’s doing (or why). He claims that there is life in him, abundant life. If that’s true, we must increasingly learn to access that life through him. Of course some of what he does seems very strange. For such things, I have tentative answers at best.

Perhaps, we are like the disciples, who traveled with Jesus in a boat. There they were, tossing and turning amid the turbulent sea, and Jesus–Can you believe it?–is asleep in the back of the boat! What’s going on? What is he up to? Doesn’t he care? What kind of silly exercise is this? I’m in trouble, and the one who claims to care and who can actually do something about it is sleeping!

But, just when their puzzlement had peaked, just when Jesus’ decision to take a power nap was going to drive them over the edge, Jesus awakens, speaks to the weather, and–believe it or not!– everything is calm. But notice how the disciples reacted. Did they inquire into the “how to’s” of this miracle? No. Did they simply say, “Hey, cool; we can go fishing.”? Of course not. Rather, what they did was more profound than that; they basically stared at Jesus. It was as if they looked through the miracle to the one who performed it. The miracle was incredible, to be sure, but the miracles worker was, well, he was beyond words, or at least beyond adequate words. Maybe, I’m thinking, this a part of the secret.

Bad things happen, and sometimes it seems like Jesus is sleeping on the job. When these things occur, it is difficult, if not impossible, to figure out why. Some questions refuse an answer, and certain dilemma won’t go away. But smack right in the middle of it all is a God who cares, who shows up, who preserves, who provides peace not by producing a systematic list of answers, not by answering all of our inquiries, but by just being himself. Of course part of the mystery here, as his first disciples discovered, is that Jesus seems, at times, like he is sleeping on the job. Still, he is with us, and he is apparently more aware of our circumstances than we realize. Indeed, he will (eventually) calm the storms that come into our lives. Like the disciples of old, we must learn to look through the circumstances, past the miracle, and to the one who transcends both circumstance and miracle.

As a parallel, think of Job. When he was perplexed, he wasn’t merely given answers (although some were and are available). Instead, he was given a glimpse of his Maker. The God of the whirlwind was somehow even greater and more captivating than that which confounded the great sufferer, Job.

To be honest, I don’t think anyone can provide completely satisfactory answers for a Job. But, apparently, that is not what matters most or works best. The point is not to minimize the questions, the heartache, the seeming contradictions of life. Rather, it is to show that somehow, in ways we cannot fully grasp or articulate, God is even bigger than our questions and our struggles. And what is our response to be? The only thing we can do is groan and wonder . . . and (hopefully) believe. Faith, you see, is more than a body of beliefs; it is also an action, an ongoing, up-and-down looking to the only One who truly knows what’s going on. It’s reliance upon another. Valid as our inquiries might be, we require not only answers (of which some, but not as many as we’d like, are available) but the one true Answerer. He calms seas and hearts.

How should we relate to the world? (Gospel-Sharing Approaches)

There are a variety of approaches (or lack thereof) among Christians when it comes to our relationship with those who are not currently following Jesus. Though my list is limited and someone arbitrary, I thought I’d post it anyway.

The Clueless - These live their lives in something of a bubble, seemingly unaware of what is taking place around them. It’s not that they necessarily live as outright separatists. It’s just that they have no sense of how out of touch they can be/appear. Thus, their Christian subculture dominates their interests, likes, and dislikes. While they can certainly be good and helpful people, they stand out as being a little odd to many.

The (Complete) Separatists - These people do not want to “touch the unclean thing.” Thus, they are completely immersed in their own little world, and their attitude toward outsiders–however sincere it may be–is mostly negative. These, too, will appear strange to many.

The Take-a-Stand Types - These are separatist types, but they also recognize the need to take the gospel to others. They are typically the ones who “take a stand,” “fight the good fight,” and “defend the faith” against the onslaughts of the enemy. These can be doctrinally motivated folks, but they sometimes tend to promote an imbalanced theology. Thus, for instance, they are quick to talk about the evils of the world and the depravity of human beings (which are indeed valid biblical truths), yet they neglect (or give mere lip service to) equally valid notions like natural revelation, common grace, and the dignity of all human beings. These people come across as arrogant. Sometimes, the charge is unfair. Other times, however, it surely appears to be the case. In general they turn people off to the truth, which comes across as too negative. While we clearly must be willing to state the bad news, these individuals seem to specialize in it. As a result, the good news is often obscured.

The Copy Cats - These are the (supposedly) cutting edge types, who are willing to do anything that is necessary to win people over. Some of the seeker sensitive movement moves in this direction. Thus, if we change our services, alter our music, wear the garb of today’s culture, we will draw others to the gospel. There is something valid about this perspective, for we are indeed called to be everything to every person. All too often, though, these believers are like bad impressionists, for they seem to pretend to be like others. As a result, those who know them wonder if they have a hidden agenda. In its worst form, this can look quite deceptive. Sometimes, I have thought, this might be the case. At any rate, in the name of mirroring the world, they come across as inauthentic.

The Truly Worldly - These have become immersed in the world and give no real thought to what it means to live like (or for) Jesus. Thus, they take on the harmful attributes of society and seem quite unaware of the fact. While rigid-minded legalists are quick to apply the term “worldly” to just about anyone who doesn’t look exactly like they do, there is such a thing as worldliness (though I would argue that identifying it is often subjective). Whenever things like grace, love, and holiness are minimized or ignored, the spirit of this age has taken hold.

The Rightly "Worldly" - Finally, we come to what I have called the rightly worldly. So much in evangelistic and apologetic circles seems to miss this point. The clueless, separatistic, hypercritical, or worldly models simply will not do. But–and I think this is important–neither will the copy-cat versions of outreach. If we truly want to live out the truth, if we desire to share the love of God with others, if we actually care about the truth and about people, it is never enough to spend time on the outskirts of society. We simply cannot fake being like the people who live all around us. As far as I’m concerned, this is a subtle form of hypocrisy and an easy way out. Often, in fact, I think believers are simply afraid that our faith can’t make it in the real world. Thus, we construct make-believe realities in order to escape the dangers of real living. But, back to the point, we mustn’t think that we are so different than others, for indeed we are very much like them (in both good and bad ways). What I’m arguing for, then, is a type of holy worldliness. In other words, we should be like the world, our world, in every way that is biblically feasible and spiritually allowable. Is this a dangerous way to live? Absolutely! Will we sometimes compromise? Undoubtedly! Indeed, this is precisely why we need each other as believers, so that we can navigate this exciting yet dangerous world in a relatively healthy manner. In case you haven’t noticed, you have a whole lot in common with those non-followers of Jesus that you live next to and work with. Indeed, given that we are all divine image-bearers, this makes a lot of sense. Our concerns and fears and joys overlap those of all people, inside or outside of the faith. Along the way, of course, you will sometimes falter and question yourself, and at times you will find yourself in potentially harmful situations. But this is the only way to truly live, the dangerous way, the way which intersects with the world God created and the people he loves. Our job–as those bathed in truth and connected with God and others who are likeminded–is to be worldly. Of course if you do this, many will object, and the strongest protests will come from within the church itself. Sounds like someone else we know, doesn’t it? :-)

What if we were to start all over again?

What would it be like if we could start all over? No, I’m talking about actually beginning in the womb and doing life all over again. My reference, rather, is to the way that we do spirituality, theology, philosophy, and similar matters.

As Christians we can’t help but grow accustomed to doing things a certain way. We assume, every day, that a certain belief or behavior is wrong and another belief or behavior is correct. In other words we have presuppositions, which are based on our previous thoughts and experiences. Thus, we have expectations that are not normally challenged but are simply assumed to be correct. From what God is like and what salvation entails to our tastes in churches and our standards of morality–there are countless things that we take for granted.

Now, please don’t think that I believe that all of this is inappropriate. Indeed, the fact that we live by presuppositions is part of what it means to be human. We simply cannot avoid the idea of preconceived notions. Of course whether or not our presuppositions are true and valid is another issue, but that is the subject of a different discussion. It is enough to say, for now, that we simply cannot perpetually challenge every assumption. We are built to believe.

That being said, I still wonder what our beliefs and practices would look like if we could erase some of our most ingrained assumptions. Christians often assume that they know what a Christian is to look and act like. Okay, I’ll buy that to some degree. But why is it, then, that we often become either rigid legalistic types or loose amoral types? Somewhere along the line, we have–for many reasons, I am sure–absorbed ideas and expectations that are invalid. But, since we have for so long assumed these ideas and expectations, we automatically think our way of doing things is correct. Thus, we “know” what political stance is proper. We “know” how a Christian is supposed to dress. We “know” what kinds of people to hang out with. We “know” what a church service ought to look like. We “know” what evangelism entails. We “know” how real Christians are to behave. We “know” which beliefs are accurate and which ones are dangerous or even heretical. We “know” a lot of things.

Again, please don’t think that I am questioning every Christian belief or tradition. Certainly, there are many things that we believe and do that are unquestionably good, healthy, and accurate. This simply has to be the case, given that one of our chief presuppositions is that God has promised to accompany us through life. So, don’t lose any sleep over my “start over” suggestion.

What I am concerned about, however, is that we learn to challenge the things that we assume. If they are indeed true, they will survive our inquiries and our hard questions. This, I would suggest, is what true orthodoxy does; it hits ground in the real world of today and not only survives but actually shows us the way ahead. Indeed, it is the “once for all” nature of the faith that must be given expression in each generation. Somehow, truth survives! But, I wonder, how many of our assumptions need to be tweaked or supplemented? Indeed, how many of them should be jettisoned completely?

What would happen if we were to start all over, if we could wipe away many of things that we have assumed for years? If we started over, what would shape would doctrinal statements take? How would we “do” church? What form of evangelism and apologetics would we implement? In what ways would we conduct our lives? What kind of political agenda would we apply? How would we relate to others?

Perhaps, it should be an ongoing practice (another assumption? :-) ) of believers to wonder what it would all look like if we were to start over again. Hopefully, as we do our wondering and ask our questions, the truth that never changes–the truth that is God and comes from God–will hold increasing sway in our lives.

Evangelistic Responsibilities and Expectations

I would call myself something of an exclusive-inclusivist or, perhaps, an inclusive-exclusivist. :-) I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, that only He can reconcile to God, that only He has the unique credentials for doing so, etc.

At the same time, I also am something of an accessibilist, believing that all people have some access to God that may, in His grace, lead them to a saving knowledge of Him. Obviously, traditional evangelicals have long believed in natural revelation; this allows for certain limited knowledge of God. But accessibilism goes a bit beyond this, saying that at some level God could theoretically be accessed in a saving (or, at least, an “on-the-way-to-saving” way). I'm not saying that I have some percentage in mind as to how many who don’t hear (or simply don't understand) the gospel are actually redeemed. It might be a small number or a large one. Nor am I saying that people are saved by works, inaccurate religious beliefs, etc. I’m simply saying that the One who is indeed Savior, that is, Jesus, can (and perhaps does) reveal Himself to people who have little access to traditional Christian beliefs. Sometimes, perhaps, a strand of truth within an otherwise “false religion” might be utilized to, as it were, “bring them in.” Other times, God may simply link up with the human heart to show a person that he/she is lost, requires rescue, and must rely upon (believe, trust in) the God who is, shall we say, standing right in front of us all (whatever our current knowledge base or limitations). Does this make any sense?

I guess what I'm saying is that the verbal proclamation of the Gospel paradigm is still normative for those of us who already have it. We are accountable for our faithfulness in word and (especially!) life.

At the same time, God is alive and well and able to access the hearts of people who have incomplete perceptions of Him (which, I suppose, if we pushed it, would include all of us!).

While we cannot presume upon God’s activity to save those who are somewhat (or greatly) lacking in evangelistic formulas, we should assume that He is indeed present among people, desires their rescue, actively pursues whomever He wants, and typically (and I think this is important) is a God of amazing surprises. (That sounds rather strange doesn't it? — “Typical surprises!” Hmm.) Think, for instance, of how He turned the world upside down when He confronted the Pharisees of His day. They were the conservatives of the time, the upholders of truth, etc. While they certainly believed many correct things, they could not bring themselves to imagine that God might rescue those outside of their prescribed religious circles. Yet, Jesus didn’t care and did not allow their theological box (helpful as it may have been in many ways) to limit His saving agenda. So, He walked in among a group of basic ignoramuses, people who surely did not possess much systematic knowledge of God, and He boldly declared that “salvation has come to this house!” Wow, how can you do that Jesus? After all, these people don’t have all their “t’s” crossed and their “i’s” dotted! My only point is that we should almost expect that God does similar things today and in every era.

So, for me, it is not too difficult to imagine that God could be at work in the hearts of some member of even a false religion. Should we still point out inaccuracies and errors? Of course! Should we warn people when it is appropriate? Definitely! Certainly, we don't want to be naive about these matters. At the same time, however, God is much bigger than our models of Him. Are all (or even most) members of false religions saved? I doubt it! Do we have the duty to set them straight and point them in the right direction? Yes! But we can also look to see what work God is already doing among such people. Sometimes, that work is substantial. Other times, it is not. We can’t judge the heart either way. But we can approach these matters with much more humility and graciousness and, perhaps, expectation . . . that God is already involved with some of these people. (As an aside, I sometimes wonder if God is most absent from the current “possessors” of truth.)

There is still truth and error and, as far as we can tell, a normative pattern: Go to others and lead them to Jesus via His gospel, for there is no salvation apart from faith in God’s Son. However, I think we should also be open to the possibility that there may be more going on than we normally realize. Sometimes (not always) the God of expectations is an imaginary one, who gets in the way of the true God of unexpected grace and amazing surprises. I hope this doesn't sound too “wishy-washy.” There is no thought here of denying the essential views of orthodoxy. Rather, there is a desire to compliment these views with other truths drawn from Scripture. More so, I hope to reflect the basic attitude promoted in Scripture in which we humbly seek, discover, embrace, and share the whole of what God has revealed. Ultimately, this entails a seeking, discovery, embrace, and sharing of Him!

The Journeying Paradigm

In a very real sense, we are all sojourners, traveling across the landscape of space and time. Whether we recognize it or not, we are all moving from where we once were through today and into whatever it is that tomorrow brings. Of course some of us travel quickly and, too often, haphazardly, while others are more cautious and tentative in their movements. Still, for all of the differences, we are all in motion.

Think about it. Are you exactly the same as you were in, say, grade school? Have you made any changes since your high school days? With whom do you spend time now, and what "makes you tick" today? How do your current interests differ from those of days gone by? Some things and certain relationships endure the passing of time, but other things and relationships, for whatever reason, fade away. In other words, we retain certain features of our past, and we (by choice or due to circumstances) alter other features. Indeed, even the lasting relationships, interests, and concerns are probably different (and hopefully more wisely approached) than they once were. We all journey.

If this is true, then perhaps this journeying paradigm should more obviously influence the way we think and live our lives as believers. Too often, or so it seems, we exude a static view of life. We know what we believe and how we should live, and so we exist in a kind of spiritual bubble, unchanged by anything within or around us. I wonder, however, if this is an ideal situation. After all, we are called to follow Jesus, which implies movement, a journey of sorts. And we are to grow in grace and knowledge, which obviously involves a measure of change. Could it be that we have been fallen prey to a stagnant outlook? Is our mind-set one which is overly confident, impersonal, irrelevant, and just plain boring? Far too often, I think this is the case.

As an alternative, it might be better and wiser to apply this journeying paradigm to the way we live and think. How would we approach theology, apologetics, epistemology, and a host of other issues if we better learned to travel, to think with God as we follow him through life? In what ways would our beliefs and attitudes be bolstered, tweaked, or even altered if we treated thinking and doing not as static and immovable but as something we journey towards?

Though a lot more might be added, the following seem to be consistent with this journeying paradigm.

1. Acknowledgment of weakness and ignorance - When we journey, we acknowledge that we don’t have all of the answers. This is what one would expect given Scripture's portrayal of humanity as fallen and prone to error. Even those renewed by the Spirit of God are in constant need of guidance and restoration. By the nature of the case, the imperfect among us (that’s everyone!) simply must journey if we hope to please God.

2. Keener awareness of God’s greatness - When we journey, it is at least possible to recognize that God is indeed far greater than our best conceptions of him. If he is as amazing as Scripture declares, if many of his ways truly transcend our most treasured formulations, we would do well to realize that this is simply the way things are with the true God. Our hope and prayer is that our journey will take us nearer to him.

3. Eschatological twist - When we journey, we allow our spiritual pilgrimage to take on a telos or purpose. According to Scripture, life has a goal, for there will come a time when God himself takes center stage and all of his purposes coalesce. Our journeying, therefore, at least to the degree that it is faithful journeying, has an eschatological tone to it.

4. Dependence on the ever-present One - When we journey, we implicitly acknowledge that we need something greater than we are. Ultimately, we need our Creator. If we require answers, if we have a difficult time overcoming our own foolish tendencies, if don't quite know the way–we are compelled to look outside of ourselves to the One who is with us still. To journey is to look to and rest in another. Thus, our journey, rightly understood, is the very essence and expression of faith.

Lest I be misunderstood, none of this is intended to sound relativistic. It is not that everything is “up for grabs.” Far from it. As believers we operate under certain assumptions, presuppositions that set the parameters for and the direction of our journey. Thus, we operate within the sphere of Scripture, and we seek to follow the living Son of God (as historical orthodoxy has always maintained). But we also add this personal element: We are journeying with our Lord through life. Therefore, all that we do and think and envision is a part of this process, this effort to heed Jesus’ call. He said it plainly: “Follow Me.”

The Man in White

You’re trapped in a building that is engulfed in flames. The windows are barred, and the exits are blocked by raging fire. You run to the upper floors, but all access to the outside world is denied. You find one window to the outside, but the floor around it is caving in. What’s more, it is five flights up; thus, even if you could jump from that window, you would almost certainly perish.

As you run back and forth, looking for an escape, a man dressed in white steps forward and offers to help. He is calm and confident as he reaches out and tells you to follow him. At first, you’re not quite sure what to do. But, his response is reassuring. “This way,” he says. “Follow me to the only exit.”

At that point, someone objects, confronting the man accusingly: “Who put you in charge?” he asks. “How do you know there is only one way out of the building?” Then, a slightly more composed man chimes in: “Relax,” he says, trying to calm the gathering crowd. “After all,” he continues, “this man in white might be an okay guy. He might even know a way out. But let’s also respect the fact that there are surely other equally valid escape routes.”

As time passes, people are running to and fro. Some are afraid, but most are fairly confident that they’ll find a way out. Indeed, many “experts” offer their advice, assuring everyone that there are numerous avenues out of the burning building.

Though you are somewhat hesitant, you decide to follow the man in white. As a result, you discover that there really is a way to safety. Indeed, as you approach the only sure exit, you invite others to accompany you. Thankfully, some do. But others are too stubborn to even allow for the possibility that one man dressed in white is the only sure guide.

When all is said and done, a good number of people escape the building. Beyond that, a small number actually make it to that fifth story window and jump to safety; amazingly, fire fighters there are able to catch them. Surprisingly, some others escape through a side wall that collapses due to the intensity of the fire. Many others, however, are trapped and unwilling to follow the man who offers a way out of the blaze.

All of this reminds me of the issues related to human salvation and the exclusive claims of Jesus. He himself said it: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus, in other words, is stating that he is the only Savior. Of course his words are more than a claim to exclusivity, for they also contain the promise of rescue and an invitation to hope. In other words, Jesus makes his claims not simply to brag about his superiority but to offer his assistance. Jesus isn’t so much trying to outmatch his competitors (though he could) as he is offering his help. Jesus as the only way to God is not intended to be an arrogant assumption foisted on people in order to lock them out of the kingdom and (proudly?) “show them” them how right we are. Rather, it is a sincere and valid assertion that there truly is hope for any and all who will embrace him.

In a world of many false options, there is a true one. Amid a plethora of dark alleyways, there is a bright path. Among countless pretenders, there is “the real deal.” In the world there are many well-meaning people, who proffer their services, and some of these are helpful. But there is only one perfect servant of God, who has the credentials and the authority to get things done.

In our pluralistic world, many are curious about the destiny of those who have never heard the gospel or who are members of non-Christian religions. Like we observed in the story above, it may be that God allows certain walls to crumble in order to provide a way of escape for some. Likewise, a gracious God just might allow some to jump from the fifth floor into a safety net. Personally, I hope and pray this is the case. Indeed, I would love to find out that many have escaped through a passage in the basement or by some back door. I hope, in other words, that God rescues many who never heard his name pronounced or who are entangled in various unhealthy belief systems. If that occurs–and I have a measure of optimism that it does!–all we need to realize is that the man in white is the one ultimately responsible for anyone’s rescue. He is the one holding the safety net, even if those who jump into it are unaware of the fact. Furthermore, he is the one who knocks down walls to provide a way of escape, even when no one notices that he is the hero in the story.

Still, for all of our hope in these potentially alternate routes, what we do know is that the man dressed in white offers a sure way out. He is the only Savior and our best friend.

Who knows what God might be up to in this strange and complicated world? After all, many things defy our comprehension, and countless questions remain. But, as we ask our questions and wonder how it all works out, we can at least grasp one thing confidently. The man dressed in white is compassionately and sincerely leading us to safety. The man in white knows the way. Indeed, he is the way. We’d be wise to follow.

Pimp My Life!

One of MTV’s most creative and popular attractions is the show called Pimp My Ride. It’s a strange name, to be sure, but it isn’t what you might think. Pimp, you see, is a slang term for beautify or revamp. Ride, on the other hand, is a roundabout way of describing an automobile. To Pimp someone’s Ride, therefore, amounts to a total recreation of his or her car. Catchy title, huh?

To give you some idea of how this works, people who own broken-down forms of transportation contact the show. Then, when a dilapidated, ready-for-the-junk-yard car is accepted, it is taken to a shop where major repairs and cosmetic surgery are performed.

Once the car is completed and returned to its owner, the responses are usually quite dramatic. The reason for this, of course, is that the changes to the automobile are drastic. Indeed, some of the cars are so altered that it is difficult to remember their former appearance. The transformation from ugly to classy, from dull to brightly colored, from tattered to renewed is akin to an automotive conversion.

Something similar takes place in the lives of those who look outside of themselves to their Creator. Let’s be honest; we can all be pretty shabby looking. Our “Rides” may be functioning, but they are certainly not what we want them to be. Our shine has faded, and our overall appeal is lacking. Though we have a ton of potential, it often goes unrealized. In a word, we need to get fixed, that is, “Pimped.”

This is precisely what Jesus came to do. He saw us as master creations, who had lost their luster, divine image-bearers whose image-bearing capacity was marred, creatures of God requiring an overhaul. While the modifications God makes are gradual and lifelong (and though we often get in the way) change is indeed his speciality.

Is the paint in your life cracking and the interior of your life torn and unsightly? If so, perhaps you need to find someone who is able to repair the damage and gradually restore you to your original purpose. Maybe, you need to present yourself to the One who changes hearts and alters perceptions, the One who performs his wonders on the soul.

Those who desire spiritual restoration will not be turned away, for our Maker honors all who are willing to declare their need of him. If you are so inclined, look to the One who repairs broken “Rides” and say something like, “Lord, Pimp My . . . Life!”

A Postmodern Ping-Pong Ball

The following was written some time ago, during a time when I was beginning to grapple with the implications of a postmodern-influenced theology. While I might alter or add to what it said here, these words still capture some thoughts I have about life in today's postmodern world.

Have you ever felt like a ping-pong ball? You know what I mean. You consider one side of an idea or an issue, and it seems right. Then, you are exposed to the other side, and that seems right too. Perhaps, you are debating a political position. Maybe, you are simply uncertain about whether it makes more sense to take the bus to work or to use your own car. In any case, many things in life vie for our attention, and we can feel like we are being pulled in opposite directions. Sometimes, postmodernism makes me feel this way. Let me explain.

Some people are clearly opposed to postmodernism. For them, it is at best a passing fad. Indeed, it might even be the slippery slope of our age, a sure path to heresy. These individuals believe postmodernism should be criticized, or at least ignored.

On the other hand, other people are of a much more postmodern bent. These tend to see the positive features of today’s cultural milieu. In fact those who are not postmodern, those “stuck in the mud” modernists, are like theological ostriches whose heads are firmly imbedded in modern sand.

Among the dangers resulting from such disagreement is the tendency for traditionalists, i.e., modernists, and postmodernists to isolate themselves and to minimize the contributions made by those made on the other side. Anything that doesn’t fit one’s current paradigm is simply not taken seriously.

But I would submit that there are positive and negative aspects to both modernism and postmodernism. Furthermore, while I believe we ought to take a more postmodern approach, the best kind of postmodern influence is that which interacts with the best and worst of that which preceded it, that is, with modernism.

For example many traditionalists are rightly committed to the authority of Scripture and quite capable when it comes to exegesis and theology. Modern Christians are convinced that God really has spoken and that we can know with some measure of confidence what He has said. I sometimes wish that certain postmodern Christians would show a greater reverence for the Bible and a thus expend more energy unfolding its texts and truths. Like a wise young athlete learns from his predecessors, postmoderns can learn a lot from those who, for all their weaknesses, have something to teach us all.

Then again, postmoderns also have a lot going for them, including an openness to the new things God is doing in our day. Those of this mind-set are less likely to get stuck in Ecclesiastical mud (outdated traditions) and more apt to desire more than mere theological facts. Postmoderns, for all their extremes, want to experience God. Moderns can learn a lot from these daring, tradition-breaking postmodern explorers (and of course some already have).

Often, both moderns and postmoderns fail to recognize their own weaknesses. For instance, some moderns have been overly dogmatic, closed-minded, and rigid in their views. In general, the modern world was far too individualistic and not nearly humble enough. Then again, postmoderns have often been guilty, in my opinion, of exegetical sloppiness and theological laziness. At times, in fact, they seem so concerned about being on the “inside” of the postmodern movement that they exude a kind of politically correct attitude.

Both moderns and postmoderns must learn the lessons of history, and of their own hearts. At this stage of the game, it makes much sense to pursue a more postmodern-oriented brand of Christianity. The insights of postmodernism not only enable us to promote the gospel in a more effective manner, but they actually expose us to segments of God’s revealed will that were not prominent during the modern era.

Still, the way to be the best kind of postmodern is not by remaining ignorant of the past. Neither will we be all we can be apart from a humble recognition of what our more modern predecessors passed on to us. And, of course, we will only honor God if our greatest hope is to be neither modern nor postmodern but Christian. As we seek to do ministry in this age of transition, we must avoid errors wherever they originate, and we must embrace and embody anything (be it, premodern, modern, postmodern, or anything else) that accurately represents the faith once for all delivered to the saints, that is, anything that is genuinely from (and actually leads to) the true God.

The Liberal-Conservative Debate

It seems impossible to avoid the labels of liberal or conservative. Whether we are discussing politics, theology, or life-philosophy, it appears that nearly everyone aligns him/herself with one or the other of these groups. Of course some prefer the term moderate or independent as a way of describing themselves, thinking they can avoid some of the stigma associated with either of the traditional depictions. While I can appreciate the mentality that often motivates this moderate/independent approach, it still seems that the liberal-conservative concepts are difficult to avoid. After all, we all spend a lot of time mainting certain things and altering other things. That is, we tend to defend (or at least assume) some beliefs, while simultaneously caring little about (even rejecting) other beliefs. This "take it" and "leave it" idea is a part of the fabric of human experience.

What few seem willing to do, however, is take a closer look at what produces our liberal or conservative stances in the first place. To put it plainly, why do some prefer conservativism and others liberalism? What factors lead us to our respective views?

Though I do not want to decry the use or usefulness of labels, I do think it is important to take a step back and ask some important questions. What is it, exactly, that we want to conserve, and why? Likewise, what positions should be held more loosely, and why?

My suggestions, therefore, would be the following:

+ Why should we believe anything at all? This is one of those deeply philosophical questions that we must all ask ourselves. What is the goal (or telos) of human existence? What is our purpose?

+ As a Christian, our answer must include a belief that there is a God, that He has revealed Himself to human beings in various ways, and that we–His creatures–have at least some capacity to understand the truth. To the degree that we can discern the truth, we must learn to embody and share it with others.

+ Furthermore, we maintain that God’s inscripturated will is located in the book known as the Bible. While there has been plenty of disagreement over (and sometime misuse of) the meaning of various biblical passages, the main thrust of Scripture is identifiable.

+ Another significant factor for consideration is human impropriety. In biblical lingo, we are sinners, which means that we are prone to selfishness and pride. Surely, this affects our ability to discern. At the very least, this should prompt a greater measure of humility in all of us.

+ All these things being said (and there are other things, as well), we must ask ourselves what needs to be conserved and what should be “up for grabs.” Of course there will be many things about which we won’t be certain, and so a certain degree of tentativeness will often mark our lives. Still, the whole conservative-liberal debate must take into account these basic questions: What should we be liberal about? What should be conserved?

+ The labels of conservative and liberal are still useful, of course, and it is often practical and helpful to retain them. But our ultimate criteria are more profound than political parties or even theological positions. Approaching politics, theology, and life from the vantage point suggested here might help us to continually focus on the underlying issues of our lives. Likewise, it would hopefully enable us to remain open to improvement and change.

+ So, for what it’s worth, these are some thoughts I’ve had about liberalism and conservatism. Some things should be vigorously conserved. Other things should be held loosely. Still other things are difficult to categorize.

+ We’re on a journey. Along the way we hold onto truth to the best of our (collective) ability, refusing to confuse non-essentials with essentials and determined (with equal passion and conviction) to both defend the truth and remain open to new discoveries. A sandal-wearing wise-man once said that “the truth shall set you free.” We’d all be better off if we would learn to heed His words and follow this One whom many believe to be the embodiment of truth. I can’t think of a better path to travel or a better person to accompany us as we sift through the complex liberal/conservative/moderate issues of life.

To be honest, I'm not sure if my above words make any sense. Oh well, perhaps I'll take a closer look at them later. Tired . . .

Science . . . and Other Avenues

The other day, I was listening to a man who was commenting on some political issue. In defense of his views, he claimed to be a scientist. He was implying, I suppose, that his views were more liable to accuracy than, say, a non-scientist. I suppose we were supposed to believe that His rationalistic approach, his “just the facts, Mam” way of looking at things carried more weight than other approaches.

Science, of course, can be a wonderful thing. Who can count the many improvements that have come about through scientific research? We reap the benefits each day. It is obvious, in other words, that science is a potentially wonderful tool. When we use the minds that God gave us, we are much, much better off than when we fail to use them; that much is abundantly clear.

What struck me about what this man’s claims, however, was the naive way he expected his hearers to respond to him. Perhaps, he himself is naive, simply assuming the superiority of his own views. Or, it may be that he has taken a reductionistic approach, squeezing everything into his personal paradigm, even when his views are inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it could be that he doesn’t recognize his own biases, failing to understand that not all claims to being “scientific” are equally valid. At any rate, it’s stuff like this that frustrates me.+

To begin with, it is important to admit that the assertions of scientists are not of equal value. In fact some assumptions, though based on the best reading of the data available at a given time, must be altered or even abandoned. I think the best scientists already know this, for they are not out to wave a flag so much as they are on an on-going mission to uncover and make best sense of what is available to them. Theories, hypotheses, hunches–even the best of them–must take a back seat to truth.

Of course it is here that scientists, like all people, are just as liable to bias and susceptible to error. Science, in other words, is not some pristine field with no skeletons in its closet. Scientists easily confuse theories with facts or laws. Likewise, they can sometimes go about their research with mixed motives. Does the funding one receives for a given project ever hinge on the manner in which a scientist reports the facts? Does the prestige one might receive for a scientific breakthrough ever influence the way one conducts research? Hmm, I wonder. :-)

But there is something just as sinister here, which is the tendency for people to assume that science is the only valid (or at least the best) way to gain understanding. Thus, scientific proof is the only sure thing. Indeed, if it’s not observable or repeatable, we should always view it–whatever it is–with suspicion. The implication is that the (so-called) rationalistic use of our brains is the only pathway to truth. But, is it? I wonder if the scientist mentioned above does research before choosing an outfit to wear. Does he conduct research on the medicine he takes when he is ill, or does he trust on the research of others? Does he fail to express his love for his wife and children because he cannot prove that love scientifically? I hope not! The point is that science is not the only valid path to knowing, and everyday we give expression to this reality.

Please, don’t label me anti-scientific, for nothing could be more untrue. The bad scientists are all out to corrupt us and lead us astray mentality is something I truly despise. Indeed, it is often the religionists who are much more adept at deception. It’s just that we need to understand that we operate every day in spheres other than the scientific. Much of every day life is based on things like experience, faith, personal preference, intuition, cultural mores, practicality, what feels right, and a whole host of other things that are never–and indeed shouldn't/couldn't be–sifted through a scientific paradigm. That does not depreciate science. Not at all. But it should convince us that we all need to operate with more humility.

So, let’s keep up the scientific research. By all means, we must make use of science and remain leery of that which flies in the face of current findings. But, along side of science, we should remain alert to other factors, other avenues, other ways of coming to understand and properly interpret reality. Let the truth reign in any field. And let us make use of any legitimate pathways to understanding. Indeed, why not let various realities– scientific, intuitive, experiential, etc.–flow freely together? Why not allow truth in any given domain inform the other domains? What, you might ask, keeps them all together? What is the impetus behind our searching, thinking, and wondering? What is the all-permeating environment and the chief (spoken or unspoken) motivation in our efforts? A good starting point, I think, is faith. We operate in all of these realms by faith–informed or uninformed, demonstrated or mysterious–faith in some grandeur purpose. Christians merely locate this, ultimately, in a person, who is the object of faith and the embodiment of truth. In fact He is the way, the truth, and the life; we’d be wise, in all of our pursuits, to follow him.

+ This is why some make a distinction between science and scientism. Science investigates and seeks answers, while scientism exaggerates its claims and often imposes its presuppositions (which, by the way, are often philosophical in nature) on everyone else.

Wisdom and Human Sexuality

Recently, there has been a lot of talk in my town about a proposal to open up a strip club. Hopefully, this request will be turned down. Time will tell. In the meantime, I just today wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Instead of going on a tirade against the club (perhaps that will come later :-) ), I decided to address the subject of human sexually generally. Whether or not it is published, here it is.

Let’s be clear: Sex is a good thing, the body can be beautiful, and human sexuality should be embraced as a part of what it means to be a member of the human family. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes appears like we are offered only extreme versions of the way to approach such topics.

Some are afraid to broach the subject and leave the impression, intentionally or not, that sex really is a dirty thing. While many of these people are well-meaning, upstanding individuals, their rants are often interpreted, accurately or not, as the outdated opinions of a bygone era.

Then again, others move in the opposite direction, treating sexuality as a game and offering up young women as objects of meaningless attention. These promoters of sexual liberation consider sex something to be exploited, and ironically produce a kind of enslavement to otherwise natural desires.

Recently, there has been much talk of opening a strip club in town. While I do not know the man who hopes to operate this establishment, I suspect that he is merely one of many who capitalize on the human tendency to pervert that which is good. Though there is certainly a place for legal actions (and something should be done to forestall this recent "business" proposal), the greatest way to put a halt to such activities, the best way to insulate ourselves from the misuse of good things, is to operate–individually, as families, among friends, and as a community–in ways that both promote the goodness of human sexuality and recognize the parameters for its healthy use. Much of our moral confusion would disappear if we were to consistently practice and give approval to such long held ideals as marriage, unconditional love, and fidelity.

Human sexuality is obviously a matter of impulse; this impulse is normal and certainly ought not be treated as an embarrassment to civility. Human sexuality also requires knowledge, which allows us to understand the mechanics of the sexual act, the consequences of our decisions, and the best and most healthy ways to give expression to our God-given inclinations. But, human sexuality really ought to involve more than urges and facts. If we truly want to facilitate healthy relationships, prepare our children for the real world, and guard ourselves from inappropriate choices, we also need to be wise.

Sexual desire is normal, so let’s not stigmatize its proper use. Knowledge is valuable, so let’s not underestimate the need for accurate information and education. But it is our wisdom, or lack thereof, that will ultimately determine the appropriateness of the choices we make. An old sage once wrote, "God gives out wisdom for free." We could all use a healthy dose of that wisdom.

Non-Traditional Education (Some Personal Reflections)

I earned my M.Div. (Apologetics) and DTS (Doctor of Theological Studies) degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES). CES is a non-traditional, long distance school, offering course work through mentorship study. The school follows something of a British educational model, for students work with scholars to construct their academic programs. As with traditional education, there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to the non-traditional scheme, and each person must decide for him/herself which avenue is best. The important thing to remember–as some traditional schools are only now beginning to recognize–is that the non-traditional, long distance paradigm is a legitimate alternative to the conventional model. Well, some time ago, a man wrote to me, inquiring about the benefits of CES. What follows are my off-the-cuff remarks.

The benefits are numerous. Besides acquiring a degree from home at a reasonable cost, the following factors were central in my thinking:

(1) Personally Relevant - I had taken classes through secular and Christian schools, and all too often the requirements and courses were overly predictable. Sometimes, the material was not as personally significant as I had hoped. Other times, the course work was, frankly, less than demanding. I cannot speak for others, of course, and I have taken a few courses that were both difficult and relevant. Most often, however, these ideals were not central. With CES, on the other hand, I was allowed to work with my mentor/advisor to craft as program that was important to me. There are, of course, limits on these matters, which is part of the reason mentors are involved in the first place. But generally, I was able to work under the guidance of a scholar to craft courses that I cared about. By the time I had heard of CES, I had a BS from Penn State, had taught in a public school for 14 years, had pastored for a decade or so, and had done course work through both secular and religious institutions. By that time, I was not interested in some prefab, predictable degree. I wanted to plunge into work that mattered to me. CES provided the opportunity to do just that.

(2) Academically Challenging - As mentioned above, I have done work through various schools. Generally speaking, these courses were not all that difficult, and the demands were not that great. I had written numerous papers and easily coasted through the various courses. Under the tutelage of Dr. Walston, however, I quickly found myself challenged. The writing requirements were comparable (and beyond) to traditional school, but it was the practical demands that made this process immensely helpful, though sometimes, frankly, frustrating. The reason for this occasional frustration, of course, is that it can be difficult being academically stretched. I can assure you, however, that it was well worth the effort. Again, I can't speak for everyone's experience, but with Rick Walston I was always challenged to think and write in a consistent, proper, and coherent way. (Aside: I have been writing for years, but I have to say that my skills were honed through CES. Thus, in part due to my experience with CES, I published Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith, and just recently I had another manuscript accepted for publication [Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil]. Both works are published with Wipf & Stock publishers. )

On top of these benefits, and perhaps outweighing all of them, my friendship with my mentor/advisor was immensely helpful. Occasionally, we would disagree, but most often we were on the same page and after the same goals. At least in my case, I actually had a much closer relationship with Rick than I have with any other teacher. This resulted in a constant give-and-take, a camaraderie, a friendship that has only deepened over the years.

There are, of course, some "negative" features to this type of program. You aren't actually sitting in a classroom, which some people enjoy. Also, you are perhaps somewhat limited by the fact that you normally work with a single scholar (or two) instead of with the myriad of instructors offered through a traditional program. That being said, I don't think these are necessarily that significant. In my view, non-traditional education is not better or worse than traditional education; rather, it is simply different. In some ways it excels (at least it did for me), while in other ways it may lack some of the benefits of the typical classroom. All said and done, however, I honestly don't feel that long distance programs are a Plan B alternative to traditional schemes. Rather, I see them as different ways of achieving desired academic goals. I think a lot of traditional schools are just beginning to catch on and see the benefits of long distance education. There may be a tendency, however, to minimize these for obvious financial reasons. I'm not saying that secular schools are only "in it for the money," for there are clearly many fine traditional institutions. I'm merely pointing out the financial constraints/pressures of any school that wishes to continue offering its programs. At any rate, CES was a wonderful experience for me. There are still some, unfortunately, who would frown on the lack of accreditation. But, I think at least some people are beginning to see that the ultimate value of an educational model is not the size of the library or the beauty of the campus, as good as these might be, but the actual education that it provides.

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Please feel free to write back.

Passages in Romans and Divine Sovereignty (Part 2 of an Email Discussion)

In this email, I was seeking to respond to some (not all) of the issues raised when reading portions of Romans 9 and 11.

The Romans texts are not the only passages to consider, but they are important ones.

At the very beginning of Romans 9, Paul shows his intense concern for his people, even willing to be "cut off" for the sake of those he loves. Whatever Paul’s version of divine sovereignty, it included a healthy dose of compassion (1-5).

Then, of course, Paul writes about the difference between a work of God on the heart and a merely outward profession. Privileges are fine; in fact they’re gifts from God. But they, by themselves, are not the center issue (6ff); God’s love governed promise is.

Next, of course, we come to the difficult verses (14ff), where it seems that God’s choice is the issue. Whatever the order of these things, however, note the way Paul describes it. These are not merely theoretical moves on God’s part. No, they are acts of mercy and compassion. So, whatever God’s sovereignty entails, it is a merciful and compassionate sovereignty.

I take the hardening process (18) to be God’s way of saying, "Hey, if you don’t want me, then you can have your way." It’s kind of like his giving people what they want.

Verse 19 picks up on the implications of such a divine choice. There are a few things to consider here:

(1) The imaginary objector is apparently getting cocky with God, being arrogant and basically accusatory. There are times in Scripture when questioning and complaining are valid expressions of an honest faith. Here, obviously, that’s not the case. Therefore, the questions are of a rebellious sort.

(2) The response that Paul provides is aimed, I think, at showing the imaginary objector (and any who would accuse God) that His ways are far above our own. Who are we, mere creatures, to question the Creator? Can a house complain against the one who built the house? Of course not. The point here is that God is, ultimately, a different category of being, and the objector here has failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in an almost escalating argument, Paul basically confronts God’s imaginary accuser with an "in the face" challenge. God is God, is He not? If so, He can do whatever He wants, and He doesn’t have to first gain permission from His creatures.

(3) The Romans 11 passage is another tough one. Calvin seems to take the entire passage in a rather positive way. If God has had mercy on us, then He is just as likely to have mercy on others. We all require mercy because we’re all disobedient, Jews and Gentile alike. "Paul makes the Jews equal in guilt to the Gentiles, in order that both may understand that access to salvation lies open to others as much as to themselves" (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Romans, 258). If Calvin is correct, the purpose of this passage is to state emphatically that all are shown to be disobedient and in need of rescue. That way, they are all forced to partake of the offer provided by the only Savior. The context that follows also seems to fit this interpretation. God has shown that we are all disobedient, but He has done so in order to provide the only path of salvation. If this is true, it makes sense that Paul would cry out, "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God" (33)!

(4) All that being said, there are still some very hard passages and some difficult to swallow truths. What can any of us say? God is truly sovereign. He calls the shots and runs the show. At the same time, we are still responsible for our choices. The best way to handle these matters, I think, is to do our best to retain this tension. We might think that human responsibility contradicts any notion of divine control. Then again, we might be led to believe that divine sovereignty utterly destroys any sense of human freedom and divine fairness. Somehow, and I’m not sure how, both of these truths are compatible. The temptation is to allow one of these ideas to suck the meaning out of the other. A better, more biblical, yet clearly very puzzling alternative is to seek to allow both text types to have their sway in our lives and our theology. Easier said than done! :-)

The Fall of Adam and the Problem of Evil (Part 1 of an Email Discussion)

Recently, I received an email from a man who was asking questions about the problem of evil. Among other things, he inquired about God's purpose in creating Adam, knowing that he would sin. Did God want what happened to happen? Is there another way to enter into a relationship with creatures other than creating a race that would fall? These are good (though difficult to answer) questions. In part, I offered the following:

My perspective says that God did in fact know all that would happen in creating Adam and permitting him to sin. Theologians sometimes make a distinction between the descriptive and the decretive wills of God. In one sense, God describes what he wants for human beings, that they should be holy, etc. In another sense, however, he allows his creatures to choose what they want, including both our prope and imporper choices. God in His wisdom decrees that good and bad, righteousness and rebellion, will be permitted as a part of His overall scheme.

To repeat, the descriptive will of God is what God, in keeping with His own character, commands us to be and do, while the decretive will is what actually takes place, the beauty and ugliness of it, in human history. God's descriptive will says, "Do what is right, and follow Me?" God's decretive will is what you see every day and read in the newspaper; it is what God actually allows to take place.

In answer to your question of did God want Adam to sin, I think–to be fair to all of the biblical data–we have to answer "yes" and "no." As far as His own righteous standards are concerned, God certainly wanted Adam to be righteous and not to rebel. Then again, as far as His overall plan, including the plan to rescue sinners, God "wanted" or permitted the fall in order to accomplish other things.

Of course these terms merely highlight what is occurring biblically. They do not answer every question for us. Indeed, they often raise more questions than they answer! This is why the bad we observe is often referred to as the problem of evil. God is sovereign and good, yet bad things take place all of the time. How do we account for these things in God's world?

I honestly believe there are partial answers to the questions you raise, and categories such as "the greater-good" and "free will" are helpful. That is, God accomplishes at least some measure of greater good by allowing for evil. For instance the presence of evil allowed God the opportunity to display the supreme measure of love in sending His Son to rescue us. Likewise, a good amount of the evil we encounter is explainable in terms of human rebellion; if we choose that which is wrong, we may have to pay the consequences for it.

Still, also to be honest, I think we can only scratch the surface on these matters. I do not believe that a flawless theodicy is available to us at this time. In fact I'm not certain that we'll ever grasp these difficult matters comprehensively, though I'm confident that we'll know a lot more than we do now. I'm also confident that, eventually, these matters won't bother us.

When Job experienced his various troubles, the "solution" to his problem was related primarily to God, shall we say, showing up. When God appears in a whirlwind, questioning Job about what he truly knows, Job is somehow satisfied. It seems, then, that evil is an amazingly large problem, but God is an even larger Solution.

When we approach Scripture, we have to recognize that there is a "knowing/not knowing" tension within much of what we discover (see Deut 29:29). We know things about God and His ways; this provides a basis for our identifying Him, etc. On the other hand, there are many things about God that defy our ability to grasp. He is, after all, God!

If we possessed no access to the things of God, we'd be taking a blind leap in the dark, and our faith would be irrational at best. But if we possessed all knowledge of God, if we pretty much had him figured out, He would hardly inspire awe and worship. So–and this is an important point–the fact that we don't have all of the answers is–how shall I say it?–an intentional and necessary part of our relationship with our Maker. The point is not that there are no answers to these baffling questions but that God has chosen not to reveal all of them to us. Amazingly, He does have answers to questions we cannot begin to fathom. Thus, there are times when what God does or allows surely seems impossible to make sense of. The key term here is seems, for God actually does have answers to these dilemmas but hasn't given us all of them. We are left to trust and to marvel that these insuperable problems actually make sense to a good and wise God.

If you were to read my manuscript, you'd discover that one of my chief strategies, if you can call it that, is to allow ample room for mystery. I'm not saying that we have nothing to say about these strange subjects, for we do. But, and this is very relevant, our best approach is to recognize up front that we are talking about an all-powerful deity, a being who created out of nothing, a God who is both imminent (with us and responding to us) and transcendent (above us and governing our lives). So, we seek whatever answers we can locate, but we do so with faith (however weak) and humility (however inconsistent).

By the way, lest you think that God doesn't have solutions to the problem of evil, remember for a moment what God did at the cross. God was (and is) holy; thus, no amount of un holiness could remain in His presence. At the same time, God is also loving, desiring to befriend His creatures. But, and here's the rub, how can a holy God allow unholy people into fellowship? If He just allows is into heaven and ignores our rebellion, God compromises His own purity. To take this route would strip God of His very character, His very "Godness." So, how can the unrighteous have a relationship with the Righteous One? How can purity embrace impurity? In what way is it possible for a flawless God to befriend the very flawed? Answer: Jesus. In Jesus, sin is absorbed and its penalty swallowed. Thus, as Scripture teaches, God is "just and the justifier" of the one who believes in Jesus." We aren't good enough to access our Creator. Indeed, we are worthy of judgment. But God's Son is good enough, and He's taken our wrongs and made a way for us. So far as our discussion is concerned, here's the point: God was able to solve this amazing dilemma, although no one would have guessed that He would have taken this route. Thus, iff He was able to provide an answer to such puzzling issues then, we can and must trust that He can do the same with our questions and doubts now.

Okay, I'm getting a bit tired–its 2 am here; I was out at a friend's house until a short while ago. Thus, my comments might not be entirely coherent. I do hope, though, that they help point you in a good direction.

Could God have done things differently? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing He could have. What we must grapple with, however, is that this is the world He's given to us, and in this world there are many difficulties and questions. My suggestion, Jeremy, is that you keep on asking them, and that you do not fear taking even your hardest questions and doubts to God. Complain, if you want, but take your complaints to the One who is not only truly mysterious but also completely good.

Here are a few suggestions for reading:

Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981.

________. How Long, O Lord?-Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990.

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1994.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Publishers, 1962.

Plantinga, Cornelius. Not The Way It's Supposed To Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Stackhouse, John G. Jr. Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Tiessen, Terrance. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.