faith thoughts

When are we most prone to believe? What causes faith? Indeed, what exactly does it mean to be a believer in the first place?

In one sense the answer to these questions is simple. To believe is to place our trust in Jesus, the one-and-only adequate Savior. To believe is to look outside of ourselves to another, One wearing sandals and declaring, “I am the way.” To have faith is to find our starting point in a transcendent reality which, according to Christian tradition, has become one of us.

To back up a little, the Bible tells us what, in our most honest moments, we already know about ourselves, that we have somehow violated our created purpose. When we speak of sin, therefore, we’re talking about being out of sorts spiritually, missing the goals set by our Creator, falling short of our true potential, being disconnected from the One who made us and desires our friendship. Indeed, so screwed are we that we actually delight in rejecting that which is best for us. In other words we rebel.

It is from this vantage point that human beings, needing rescue, sensing a greater purpose, and recognizing their personal incompleteness, foolishness, and inadequacy, turn to the living One. This movement is faith. Of course knowing exactly when faith is present and what elements of truth must be embraced in order to possess genuine faith is, well, it’s often a mystery. Let’s face it, we all stumble regularly. Even on our best days, our faith is fickle and inconsistent. Thus, whatever faith is, it had better include a incredible measure of grace. But isn’t that what it’s all about, grace?

We aren’t rescued by simply memorizing some formula (though some formulas may be useful). God does not save us by virtue of our well-constructed belief systems (though some of these are quite helpful). We don’t come into a relationship with our Maker through the display of an unwavering faith that is impervious to doubt and stupidity. No, as long as we live in this imperfect state, we’ll be drawn to folly and attracted to that which is contrary to our best interests.

So, what can and should we do? Well, faith says, “look outside of yourself. Cast your weaknesses on the One who is strong.” Faith, then, involves regularly admitting that you can’t make it on our own. Why is this okay? Because the One in whose image you were formed made you in such a way that you work best when you are connected to him. This, at least in part, is what it means to believe.

Of course Christians have long maintained that this faith is not merely belief in whatever tickles your fancy. Rather, it is genuine faith to the degree that it finds its resting place in the genuine object of faith. This “object” is in fact a person, and he has already lived and died among us. Indeed, he did this and more when he conquered death on our behalf. I freely admit that I’m not entirely sure what you need to know in order to know him, that is, to know Jesus. He is, after all, with us, and he promises to draw near to any who draw near to him. This, I assume, means that we have to be willing to say that we have a far from complete understanding of who’s "in" or who’s "out" when it comes to the issue of faith. Humility, in other words, along with a deep sense of hope in our gracious God, compels us to be careful in our assessments. That said, though, and as Christians who have at least a small measure of truth available to them, we should remain true to the traditions that have been passed down to us, which are preserved in Scripture.

Where should people turn for purpose and help and rescue and deliverance and healing and whatever else? Not to some guru, not to complicated religious strategies, not to some system of self salvation, not to idols, not to a “god” we make in our image, and certainly not to ourselves . . . but to Jesus, the compassionate and powerful, the lowly (yet) great One, the just-like-us and just-like-God Savior. If we do that, I’m sure that he can and will work out all of the details. “Come to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.”

modernist bashing?

There is a whole lot that I love about the postmodern moment in which we find ourselves. I love the openness of it all, and the prominence given to various important but sometimes neglected themes, things like community, mystery, and (theoretically, at least) a humbler stance on faith. But I can't help but notice that there is this ongoing tendency among postmodern types to go too far in the other direction and to become, well, predictable. I understand that there is a reactionary phase to anything new, a tendency to overstate matters because they are fresh and have been too long neglected; this is normal. I also realize that there are exceptions to everything; thus, a number of people do not quite match what I am going to say here. Still, that said, there is this postmodern trend (and, by the way, a trend among all people, including your truly) to overstate a case. Here are a handful of examples:

✓ Ironically, some postmoderns are stuck in the past.

By this, I mean that they spend an inordinate amount of time reflecting on the bad things that occurred during the modern era (or in previous church situations). While it will always be necessary to provide critique on that which is prominent in a given culture, it is also important to blaze a new trails ahead. Okay, now that we have identified some of the weaknesses of a modern brand of faith, what do we offer in its place? Unquestionably, some people have done just that. Then again, I have noticed a tendency to use modern illustrations (caricatures?) as a launching pad for postmodern exploration. Some of this is, I think, both good and unavoidable. Some of it borders on one-sided, exaggerated bias.

✓ There is a tendency to be especially critical of conservative proponents of faith.

At least in our day, the trend is to attack the conservative branch of evangelicalism. Certainly, some of this is necessary. However, there seems to be a bit too much of an anti-conservative agenda. This looks suspicious, at least to me, and it makes me wonder what other motives are lurking in the hearts of certain postmoderns. Some seem to enjoy condemning–to the point of persecution?–those who are more modern in orientation.

✓ Related to the previous point, some of the lambasting against the traditional church is a bit over the top.

While I have personally observed a lot of wrong ideas and practices among moderns, some attacks on the traditional church are overstated. Indeed, one gets the impression that most all traditionalists are arrogant, hypocritical fundamentalist types who hate women and gays and only wish to promulgate a rigid control over everything spiritual. The only thing they are good for is to provide examples of what we don’t want to be. Clearly, some of these depictions are all too accurate, and I have encountered quite a bit of this myself. However, if we are to be fair, we had better be careful that we don’t end up becoming that which we decry in others. Have certain traditionalists been the victims of intolerance at the hands of some postmoderns? Hmm . . . I do wonder.

✓ Certain postmodern appear overly “wishing washy” on many things.

Another thing is in vogue among postmoderns is a movement to the liberal side of things. They may say that we should remain open and teachable, but many of them actually look like liberals in religious garb (I know, some will think that’s just fine, but the theological liberalism of history is one which basically denies the essential elements of the faith . . . but that’s another story). Of course each person must decide his or her own political preferences, which is absolutely fine. The problem is when this appears so one-sided. The moderns are bad guys for being too predictably conservative. Our response? Become predictably liberal? Perhaps, this is merely something that I have observed, and I realize that there are many exceptions. Indeed, I’m not even talking about the declared statements of postmoderns so much as I am referring to the predictable agenda. Again, just an observation.

✓ Some are overly legislative in focus, joining those who believe that change comes about in great measure through government involvement.

In keeping with the previous point, there is this legislative mentality among some. Let’s get the government to do our bidding. Let’s promote a moral government. Whenever I hear such things I cringe. Of course we should want morality in government. The leaders should be upstanding and righteous, etc. But I think a good point can be made that it is not government’s role to strengthen its grip on society and to be the providers of everything good. To be honest, I think that too much government involvement might actually lead to immorality, for that’s not what the government is for (in my humble opinion). While I do think that government has roles to play, and though we certainly want government to operate by principles that are consistent with God’s revealed will, it is not axiomatic that government ought to be doing more and more to facilitate right living. A better way, I think, is to have a solid but limited government, which guards our freedoms. This, in the long run, might be what best facilitates the spread of righteousness in every arena. Again, while we certainly should discuss the role and limits of government, we should not automatically assume–as some apparently have–that government intrusion is the best way to encourage positive change.

✓ Many are excessively pluralistic in focus.

We live in a pluralistic world, which challenges us to think through the content and practices of faith. Potentially, this can lead us to a better and more balanced perspective on world religions and the like. On the other hand, we do not have to make quick and unwise concessions to views that might prove incompatible with a Christian worldview. Of course we must exude love and a right-minded and right-hearted tolerance, but we must (as best we can) simultaneously live within the framework of truth. In a pluralistic world there is always the danger of succumbing to error and ending up with a syncretistic version of faith. I have no idea where the lines are drawn here (if we can even speak in such terms), but I do know that some things and ideas and beliefs are right, while others are wrong. In our efforts to truly understand, relate to, and benefit from a pluralistic world, we should not be so naive as to assume that all paths are equal (or, in some cases, even valid at all).

I think one of the healthier trends among certain postmoderns is to turn our attention to ourselves. Instead of spending all of our time looking for the bad guys “out there” (i.e., in the world) it is time that we start looking at what’s bad “in here” (i.e., in the church). This is clearly biblical and healthy. Then again, I also think we need to be careful that we don’t bounce too far in the opposite direction. I hear and read lots of things about how we should remain humble, oppose dogmaticism, protect the disenfranchised, embrace the worst elements of society. This is, I would argue, the way it should be . . . always! However, this does not mean that we should come to the place where we are afraid to be bold, where we fear opposing moral evil (and perhaps being labeled unloving), where we are unable to let the whole truth have its sway in our lives. “Lord, enable us to balance and embrace all of the key elements of genuine spirituality. Let all of your wisdom seep into our souls.”

yeah . . . i'm FICKLE

You know what? I often find myself quite fickle in the way I perceive life. Sometimes, I am of the “defend and declare the truth” mentality, doing my best to stress the need for confidence in a world of uncertainty, determined to maintain what I believe is right in a society that is all too often relativistic. Other times, I am of the opinion that the dogmatists of the world are missing something and that they need to “chill out” and exude much greater humility about many things.

It’s strange how this works in my life. I’ll observe some spiritual wimp, a self-proclaimed do-gooder, who appears never to have lived life in the real world, a person who would try to negotiate with a terrorist or fail to punch out someone who was intent on doing harm to his family, and I’ll revolt against such philosophical perversion and BS. Or, on the other hand, I’ll see some spiritually audacious individual, someone who speaks with too much confidence and acts like all things are easy to understand, and I’ll want to throw up.

So, what’s my problem? Well, without denying the obvious–that I am often an idiot–I think that it comes down to a type of tension that must be sustained in our lives. There are some things within the tradition of the church, some beliefs, practices, whatever, that have to be maintained, upheld, and defended; when these things are violated, we have to stand up and be counted. Then again, there are many things that are labeled “Christian” that are, in my opinion, faulty and contrary to true and healthy spirituality; this stuff must be rejected or, at the very least, reconsidered. Again, there is this tension between the idea that I must actually believe something if I am indeed a believer (After all, I believe something, right?) and the idea that as a believer I must be ever humble and open to change, correction, and new insights (After all, if “Jesus is Lord” means anything, he is likely to teach me some things, right?).

The problem I have is that I haven’t come close to perfecting or living with this tension. You see, in an ideal world, or if I were an ideal person, I’d be able to see all of the truth and allow every aspect of it to have its sway in my life. I’d be able to see the big picture, rightly rejecting error while retaining truth. In fact I’d be dogmatically opposed to that which is wrong and just as dogmatically in favor of that which honors God and helps people. In real life, however, I find myself swinging back and forth. On some occasions I’m drawn to a place where I must–to the best of my ability–stand up against stupidity and foolish thinking. While I know that I know nothing perfectly, I also know that I must contend for that which I know sufficiently. Likewise, while I know I cannot succumb to a relativistic spirit, I also know that it is ludicrous for me not to admit that I have so much to learn. Still, with all of this theory in place, I find it difficult actually maintaining this balance. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why I am more conservative at certain times and more liberal at other times. In other words, I am fickle!

My hope, I suppose, is that the real God will continue to bear with my inconsistencies and fluctuations, and that he will help me to somehow recognize and live consistent with the tensions that he has apparently built into the world.

the MUSIC is playing

Rocky sits in the hospital next to his comatose wife, Adrian. When she finally wakes up, she tells Rocky to come a little closer. Then, she whispers, “I want you to do one thing.” After a short hesitation, she completes her thought, uttering the word that propels Rocky to new heights. “Win,” she says! At that, Mickey, Rocky’s trainer, adds his own words: “What are we waiting for?” From that moment, we see a rejuvenated Rocky. He works hard and is determined. And many of us want live vicariously through him. Indeed, I recall one late evening, years ago, when, after seeing Rocky III, a friend of mine and I went out for a 3 mile jog . . . in about a foot of freshly fallen snow! Rocky does that for you, or at least for me. But, what is it that highlights the touching moments? What draws out the emotion in us? What makes us want to embody the best features of the movies we watch? Well, I would suggest that it’s MUSIC.

Immediately after Adrian gives her okay to Rocky, right after Mickey’s “What are we waiting for?” the music begins, building from moment to moment, carrying us with it, highlighting the emotional features of the scene. It’s the music that turns a nice story into a truly inspiring tale. Indeed, it’s the same in most every movie. What would Jaws be like without the Dun Dun? Sure, we’d have a large shark, lurking in the waters nearby, but it wouldn’t be the same without the music. The same is true for, say, Forest Gump, Titanic, Casablanca, Brian’s Song, and a host of movies/T.V. shows. The music is like an emotional magnifying glass, which brings out the truth and significance of any important scene.

Now, some would argue that this is what makes movies magical or make-believe. The director gets to dub in music at appropriate points. Thus, or so we are told, real life differs from movies. In real life there are no emotion-laden soundtracks . . . or are there? Indeed, I just saw a t-shirt which read: The problem with life is that it lacks the background music. In my opinion, the t-shirt is wrong!

You see, my contention is that there is indeed a type of music that is playing all around us. That’s why, at least on occasion, certain moments in our lives are filled with motivation and zeal. Sometimes, the things we encounter and the people to whom we relate bring out deep feelings and powerful emotions. Though we may go lengthy periods of time in a rather perfunctory fashion, every once in a while ardor fills our souls. At those times, we become much more sensitive to the truly profound nature of life and of the people we encounter in life. Empathy begins to flow, and we see things the way, well, the way they really are. In other words we actually “hear the music.”

My view, therefore, is not that life copies movies so much as movies mirror the best aspects of life. The music is playing every day, and when we hear it, it is difficult to contain our emotions. People truly matter. Relationships matter. Truth matters. Love matters. A lot of things are important; they matter, but–as fallen and imperfect creatures in a fallen and imperfect world–we often fail to recognize this fact. Sometimes, the music is crowded out by the sheer craziness of our schedules or by foolish choices. But, and this is what we must remember, the music is playing. Indeed, the music maker is divine. “Lord, let the music play, and enable us to hear what you are playing each day in our lives.”

if he's alive

If he’s not alive . . .

○ We are just playing games when it comes to Christianity.

○ Any spiritual ideas that we might propose are clearly something other than what we find in Scripture.

○ The grave is the final victor.

○ God is lacking in power.

○ Hope is out the window.

○ The central character of human history is something less than his followers have always claimed.

○ There is no purpose or meaning to anything.

○ And we might as well celebrate . . . for nothing else really matters!

BUT . . . if he IS alive . . .

○ Life has meaning.

○ From him flow the power, motivation, and truth we need to navigate this world.

○ There is a basis for our faith.

○ Death has met its match.

○ Hope lives.

○ God has visited our world.

○ The central character of human history is actually whom he claimed to be, the unique Son of God.

○ And we might as well celebrate . . . for everything really matters!

My hope, and the hope of countless others, is that Jesus did what no onew else has, that he overcame our worst enemy for us. “He’s not here . . . he has risen as he said!” With hope and resurrection love, have a wonderful Easter.

truth--maintained and pursued

For what it’s worth, it seems to me that we all find it difficult knowing where to come down on a myriad of issues. Some liberal types expend great amounts of energy standing for, well, nothing . . . except for “everyone’s right to an opinion.” To be honest, they come across as spineless individuals, who lack conviction and spend a lot of time advocating that everyone else follow suit. Often (though not always) they are proponents of “political correctness,” though they would, no doubt, deny the accusation. Whatever the “talking heads” proclaim, whatever is the “acceptable” thing to do, that’s where their monies and mouths are. They are opposed to anything that sound too much like universal truth, and they seem too often to come down on the opposite side of common sense. When you spend an inordinate amount of time defending the rights of potential terrorists and opposing the freedoms of seemingly good people, something is amiss. These “do-gooders” are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, who fear that too much of the Christian God is a bad thing for everyone. These liberal types are opposed to dogmatism . . . unless of course it relates to their pseudo-intellectual and elitist agendas.

Then, there are the conservatives. Many of them are convinced, or so it seems, that everything is “black and white” and that they are the final arbiters as to which is which. Conservatives want to conserve, and so they often do so in every moral, spiritual, and cultural way imaginable. Likewise, they approach much of life in a defensive manner, perceiving that nearly everything is a battle to be won. Just the other day, I was observing a conservative commentator who was interviewing a liberal about his (the liberal’s) book. The conservative said that he admired the man’s ability to work through hard times to accomplish many things. But–and this irritated me–he had to state, to clarify for everyone, that he, the conservative, disagreed with the liberal man on almost everything. The conservative said (at least two times) something like this: “Though I disagree with you on just about everything, one thing I do like about your book is that it gives people hope.” It was like the conservative couldn’t just pay the man a compliment. It was his duty, or so he thought, to make sure everyone was clear that he was not about to compromise his conservative principles. Apart from the fact that no semi-normal person would need such clarification, it came across as mean . . . or at least forced and, I guess, weird. You should know, as well, that this man is a conservative host with whom I very often agree, a good man who does a lot of good things. Still, I could not believe that he couldn’t simply say a few nice things about his counterpart without also waving the conservative flag. At any rate, this man portrayed what I sometimes see among conservatives, an agenda of we have it right and we are going to defend it to the end.

Is there a way ahead? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is necessarily in a “middle-of-the-road” agenda, a supposedly unbiased and independent philosophy. While we must be aware of biases, none of us can escape them completely, and while we should have an independent attitude, this does not mean that, at the end of the day, we should avoid everything conservative (or liberal). Indeed, I think one way to look at these matters is to recognize that we would be fools to suppress our intuitive (God given) sense that truth is accessible at some level. That is, there are some things that we simply should believe and defend. Our list may change or may need to be tweaked from time to time, but there is, I think, an inner impulse in human beings, a yearning for some measure of stability and certainty. While we can know nothing perfectly, we can know some things adequately. To the degree that we locate these, we should (humbly!) conserve them. Then again, there are many things about which people disagree. Some of these are philosophical and others practical or even stylistic. At the very least, I think we must be willing to admit that there is a lot that we could know better than we do. Ignorance and partial knowledge are a part of the human fabric. Thus, we simply need to remain open in our quest to understand.

Here, then, are my tentative suggestions. Some things really ought to be protected and conserved, while other things are either debatable or matters of personal preference. So, in any society, there will always be a conservative and a liberal component. The key, however, is to recognize that we have been endowed by our God with a capacity for both knowing and learning, both defending the truth and searching for it, both standing for what is right and yet remaining open to new insights, both resting in what God has spoken and following the One who speaks.

who's a fool? - - - - i am!

Yesterday was April Fools Day, that is, my day! Why is it my day? Because I am all too often just that, a fool! How often have I been blind to the blessings that are right in front of me? How consistently have I spurned God’s good gifts and by-passed opportunities? How inconsistent, indeed hypocritical, have I been? I am truly an unbelievably goofy individual, a fool!

My hope, though, is that God is merciful to fools, that he is patient with my consistent demonstrations of spiritual stupidity. Yes, I am a fool . . . and I’m not merely saying that, I am truly a fool. But he is a fool finder and–most importantly–a fool rescuer. “Lord, rescue this fool, and help me to so perceive your grace that it begins to shape me into a non-fool.” Any other fools out there?