Always a Kid!

Kids are great! Just today, I was looking out our front door, watching my youngest boy play football with the kids across the street. The energy, the enthusiasm, the zeal, the excitement, the fun–all of these characteristics and more were evident as my eight year old played. My thirteen year-old is the same way. They are both overflowing with exuberance, thrilled at the opportunity to give expression to their inward vitality.

It is often said that we are to retain a certain type of childlikeness. Indeed, some would gladly exclaim, “I’m a kid at heart.” There is, in their view, an “inner child” in each of us. To be honest, I think they are right and that this reflects a truly biblical theme. We are to be like children.

But, wait a minute. What does it mean to be a child? Well, it certainly does not mean that we are to remain utterly naive or ignorant. Lord knows, we have enough of that going around. Also, this childlikeness is not a reference to immaturity or to the all-to-common tendency of young ones to throw temper tantrums. Again, there is already too much of that in all of our lives. What’s more, we’re not talking about a perpetual sense of self-centeredness. Some adults, like children, are self-absorbed.

What I have in mind, instead, is the childlike enthusiasm mentioned above. We are to live our lives, in other words, with enthusiasm and energy. If we are God’s image-bearers, if we live in God’s world, if we are blessed by him in countless ways, if he is truly with us–if these things are true, we ought to be truly engaged in daily affairs. This does not mean, of course, that we make-believe that everything is fine, for sometimes, frankly, it is not. Neither should we wear a false smile, pretending to be perpetually “happy.” Tears are just as valid an expression as are bouts of laughter, and pain is clearly a part of our existence. So, let’s not confuse this childlike spirit with the counterfeit spirituality that results from inauthentic attitudes or behavior.

The childlikeness in view here is simply the inner joy we can experience as we recognize the wonder and beauty of the life God has given. Many of us have countless opportunities to manifest this child within. It can happen when we feel the warmth of the sun, throw a snowball, run across a field, jump up and down at a sporting event, attend a concert, or converse with a close friend. It is perhaps most powerful when we authentically relate to the people God brings our way, be they family, friends, strangers, or even enemies.

“Lord, open our eyes to the wonder and beauty of it all. We know there is a lot of ugly out there. We realize that part of our duty is to weep amid the struggles of everyday existence. But please, Lord, help us not to miss the good stuff–the relationships, the opportunities to interact with other divine image-bearers, the chance to appreciate the demonstrations of your handiwork and love.”

Jesus had something to say about this subject. At one point, in fact, he said that only those who are like children will enter the kingdom of heaven. Pretty heavy stuff! Of course there are a number of ways to interpret Jesus’ words. Some argue that children is a reference to those child-like individuals who are willing to admit that they are needy; just like a child will instinctively cry out for mom or dad, so we should do the same with God. Other interpreters like to point to the basic innocence of children; we, like children, are to be unencumbered by the worries of the world. These and other interpretations are frequently found among interpreters of Jesus’ words, and I think there is much wisdom in what they say. My point in this blog, simply, is that, drawing from the overall emphasis of Scripture, believers should embody this attitide, this perspective, this outlook of child-like wonder!

WFD in a PM World

The following is reproduced from the October 2006 edition of Next Wave.

Christians have long recognized that there is opposition in this life to the ways of God, hindrances to the walk of faith. Typically, these have been delineated as the World, the Flesh, and the Devil (WFD). "The world" is a term used by Jesus and the biblical writers to describe the prevalent anti-God atmosphere that permeates human society (John 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 John 5:4). The trends that mislead, the attitudes that run contrary to divine wisdom, the choices that fly in the face of God’s will, these are said to be of "the world."

Next, there is "the flesh," which refers to the inner human inclinations to violate God’s commands, the tendency within us all to ignore our created purpose. Everything that is wrong about us is a related to our fallen nature and character. This is why Peter, for example, can write of those who "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (2 Peter 2:10).

Finally, there is the devil, who, according to Scripture, is a personal being of rebellion, the ally and instigator of evil. Whatever one’s view of the paranormal, the Bible clearly teaches that nefarious forces, living unseen entities, vie for our attention and seek to lead us astray. In fact the world is said to "lie in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

The World, the Flesh, and Devil. We need not enter into detailed discussion of this three-pronged attack to spiritual well-being. It is enough to acknowledge that people make bad choices, wrong philosophies allure the unsuspecting, deception is an inescapable reality within any age, even a PostModern one.

The purpose here is simply to remind those of us who seek to postmodernize the faith, who desire to be on the cutting edge of what God is doing in our day, that we are not immune from falsehood. Indeed, it is often the case that harmful influences show up at precisely the time when God is most active. We should be aware, therefore, that ungodliness can show up during a revival, and pride is never far from even the humblest servant. But, what about now? Where might the demonic appear today? In what ways is the emerging church particularly prone to the temptations of the WFD?

Of course, from the perspective of the emerging church, it is precisely the traditionalists who went astray, having been duped by the WFD (though they might not state it exactly this way). Having succumbed to some of the more questionable presuppositions of the enlightenment, modern Christianity confused cultural ideals with biblical ones. Indeed, the emergence of an alternative (postmodern) view is due, in great part, to an increased perception of (and frustration over) these faulty ways. Postmoderns, in other words, are of the opinion that the traditional church has, on many points, been misled.

But how ironic it would be if, in criticizing others, we failed to see our own shortcomings. For this reason, it is all the more important for postmoderns to be cognizant of their own negative tendencies. What follows is a short list of ways in which the emerging church opens itself up to imbalance and, worse, deception.

When modern hubris is (rightly) condemned but is done so in a condescending way, something is amiss. Pride is something that no age can completely avoid.

Similarly, when dogmatism is opposed dogmatically, we are clearly off target. Sometimes, as mentioned above, this is evidence that we postmoderns cannot escape our worst qualities. Other times, it simply demonstrates that a certain kind of dogmatism still has a place in the emerging church.

Likewise, when postmodern humility (a potentially wonderful commodity) starts to sound like naivete, it’s time to reevaluate. We need more caution and discernment, but foolishness and an unwillingness to stand for the ways of God is never good.

When reason is minimized through the use of reasoned argumentation, perhaps we have "thrown out the baby with the bath water." Reason as the sole arbiter of truth is a modern myth, but reason as one facet of the image of God is an unavoidable (and potentially healthy) thing.

When the significance of narrative is stated in propositional form ("Thou shalt preach the narrative portions of Scripture"), one wonders how postmoderns miss the fact that, as meaningful as the stories of Scripture are, propositions deserve more than lip service (after all, Jesus is lord). Stories must be returned to their proper place in the life of the church, but propositions (especially when tied to these stories!) mustn’t be forgotten.

When community (a much needed emphasis) becomes so nebulous that it actually interferes with the needs of the individual, it might be time to take a closer look at what we are promoting. While there is something special and refreshing about community, the noble effort to embody this corporate concept must never interfere with personal accountability and the life of each individual believer.

When the quest for an experiential faith doesn’t recognize that experience should be fostered through truth ("sound doctrine"), perhaps we have failed to provide the proper (biblically oriented) contexts for these experiences.

When the written word is treated as passe through the medium of print, one wonders if some postmoderns even notice the inconsistency. The emerging church can still learn via books.

When image is emphasized with hardly a thought about the possibility of idolatry (visible or conceptual), it may be time to sit up and take notice.

Please don’t misunderstand. The purpose of these illustrations is not to "throw a wet blanket" on the postmodern motifs mentioned above, and I am certainly not advocating a "three steps forward, two steps back" approach. Indeed, it is my contention that we must consciously highlight such notions as community, mystery, humility, experience, and creativity. God, keep us from getting in the way of the wonderful things God is doing in this postmodern era.

At the same time, though, it is good to occasionally pause and look at ourselves. In our quest to catch the wave of God’s new dealings, amid the rejuvenated feeling of being in on something that is truly grand and wonderful, let us never think that we have arrived. Though God is providing a renewal of church, our hearts are still deceitful. While the Lord of history is actively leading us to embrace certain cultural trends, the world is still a dangerous place. Though our hearts resonate with Spirit-driven topics, the heart can still be a factory of idols, the inner chamber where half-truths sap the very life out of us.

WFD–the world, the flesh, and the devil–they still compete for our attention, seeking to take God’s people captive through the misuse of opportunities, and by means of the simplistic belief that these nemeses of the faith have little impact in today’s world. May the Lord preserve us from error, and may we learn to journey together through this world, excited by what God is doing but also cognizant that, in the end, what will matter most is not our ability to postmodernize the faith but that we faithfully serve the Rock of (all) ages, postmodern and beyond.

Bad Religion vs. the Truth ( another response to a skeptic)

At one point, my conversation partner briefly mentioned how Christians have used their belief structures to justify some pretty horrible behavior (prejudice, close-mindedness, meanness, etc.). Here’s my response:

It is true that many seek to prove their own belief structure. This, by itself, is understandable, for it is comfortable. Still, this does not rule out the possibility that God can choose to reveal himself to whomever he pleased. The Jews, for instance, are an interesting choice for God's revelatory work. In one place, in fact, Scripture records God's saying that he has chosen the Jews not because they were bigger or better, for they were the contrary at the time. Rather, he chose them because he chose them. In other words, God has reasons that he has chosen not to disclose, or perhaps we can't comprehend them at this time. In this case, ironically, God's revelation entails the reality that there are some things that he hasn't revealed. Weird stuff!

I agree that prejudices can be fostered when each group thinks it has a perfect grip on the truth. On the other hand, there are probably times when “prejudices” are good. I am prejudice when it comes to the safety of my family. I am certainly in favor of opposing mass murder. I have a prejudice against those who steal, and against those who seek to do harm to others. Etc.

Now, having said all of this, that God chose to reveal himself to the nation of Israel, this does not at all minimize the fact that he has also chosen to reveal himself to all people, albeit in somewhat different ways. God speaks to all people through nature, the human spirit (since we are made in his image, this makes sense), and to all who will look to Jesus. In fact I feel comfortable saying that God can speak through various religions; I say this because the people who comprise these groups are divine image-bearers. Thus, it makes sense that the image of God would seep through in most of them.

I believe that the ultimate truth is a person, and Jesus said as much (John 14:6). God is the truth. However, this God of truth is certainly capable of displaying various facets of his truth to those, as Scripture puts it, “who have ears to hear.” In other words, if anyone has been given access to the voice of God, he/she ought to pay attention to that voice. Again, this voice can be heard in various places, from philosophies and poetry to sacred texts and movies. It is embedded, as it were, in God's creation. From a Christian reading, however, this revelation becomes clearest in and through the person of Jesus. He is the apex of God's revelation, the embodiment of the God of truth, the expression of divine love in human form.

There is a wealth of evidence to support the Christian contention that Jesus existed, made unique claims, died via Roman execution, and then was seen alive from the dead. Interestingly, Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, recently changed his view on God's existence. While he is by no stretch a Christian, he did say that “the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity . . . .” This is quite an admission from someone who has spent his life denying such matters. The point, of course, is not that we have a film clip of Jesus walking out of the tomb. In fact even if we did it might be interpreted as a clever technological hoax. The real point is that the resurrection of Jesus is no fairy tale, created long after the fact. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was raised, and there is solid historical support (not proof, per se) for that contention. The changed lives of millions are merely a fruit of this divine act. Of course I'm getting a bit off track. Sorry.

All I'm saying is that there is nothing anti-human, immoral, arrogant, suppressing, or unbelievable about the fact that God can choose to reveal himself as he deems fit. In fact for me to say that he cannot do such things is tantamount to saying that I have access to information that others don't. After all, who am I to pretend to speak for God or to tell him what he can or cannot do? The truly Christian view is that God reaches down to us feeble creatures, thus unveiling facets of his being. These are the things about which we can speak with a measure of confidence.

If Jesus is truly God’s unique Son, if he actually conquered the grave, then–whatever else is true about others–he, Jesus, is certainly in a class by himself. This isn’t always a case of Jesus being good and all others being bad (though this certainly is true at certain points) but rather that Jesus alone is equipped to, as it were, “carry us to heaven.” Others may instruct, guide, give advice, etc., and much of it may be wonderful. But, if only Jesus is “genetically related” to God, then he would be special. I feel confident that, however goofy we Christians can tend to be, that Christ himself is such a person. Historically, philosophically, archeologically, “religiously,” he is unique. There might be, to use an illustration, many people who would be willing to speak or act in my name, but only my kids are genetically related to me and have the same DNA. Jesus has “God's DNA,” at least that’s what we claim. It is unfortunate when well-meaning Christians take this clearly biblical claim and stretch it to mean that everything else is evil. This negative approach has harmed the church’s cause for many years.

Is there such a thing as truth? (response to a skeptic)

Over the years, I've had some rich correspondence with many people. Some of these have been skeptics, those who resist anything that looks or sounds too orthodox. To one such friend–an agnostic type who is keenly aware of the dark side of religious conviction–I wrote the following:

I agree that religion can be a real pain in the ____, if you know what I mean! And people often try to justify all kinds of stuff.

Jesus, interestingly enough, didn't go this route, and much more often than not he attacked the religious people of his day.

Of course a lot of this also depends on how one defines religion. One definition (among others) says that it entails man’s efforts to reach God, or some such thing. In one sense, this can only lead to belief systems that are, at best, human! On the other hand, since we are all human, it is impossible to escape our humanity. Thus, in this sense, we are all inescapably religious.

A lot of this is also derived from one’s presuppositions (and we can’t escape these). Is it possible that God could have revealed himself to human beings? Is there reasonable evidence that he has? Is life interpretable in the first place, or are we all so trapped by our own biases that we cannot speak with any measure of confidence about much of anything? Many moderns (those impacted by the worldview of the enlightenment, those who think that life is easy and who believe that human reason can provide most any answer) have sometimes treated this whole issue in simplistic ways. But life isn’t always easy, and we all have biases, etc. On the other hand, postmoderns (of which I would call myself one, generally speaking) can sometimes go too far the other way. Life can still be deciphered. Many things can be known with a good sense of reasonable certainty. We know that 2 + 2 = 4 (and even if we object on some theoretical grounds, we act like this is a universal mathematical fact). We intuitively react against rape or the pillage of our property. We typically defend our loved ones. We search, in one way or another, for the transcendent. We at least act like communication is possible (This doesn't mean it is always easy; it doesn't mean that misunderstanding never occurs, for it often does. Yet, at the end of the day, we expect to be able to come to reasonable conclusions about various matters). Also, we tend to argue our points (loudly or softly), which points to the intuitive sense that there must be some universal “standard” (known or not) to which we appeal in the first place. If I say something, and you think that my views are in need of improvement, the assumption is that you might be interpreting reality better than I am, at least in your own opinion. I think this is an appeal, though most often hidden and unspoken, to something transcendent.

We can’t escape who we are, but this might simply be another way of saying that we can’t escape what God has made us to be. Also, we can’t avoid his world and the way he has constructed it. The fact that people will argue, get upset with whatever, put forward different views, cry out against things that they believe to be wrong, etc. all points to some universal factor. The fact that children are generally treated as precious, and that those who harm them are considered immoral, is an indication that there is this transcendent impulse in us all.

We can, of course, act like differences of opinion indicates that no one opinion can possibly be universally right. But this is an assumption, not an overarching and unavoidable conclusion. In fact if this conclusion is correct–if it is true that there is no universal view–then it is self-contradictory. Indeed, the only way that this relativistic view could be correct would be if one universal maxim is smuggled into the argument, namely, that there is no universal view. :-)

What is amazing to me is the fact that those who decry absolutes cannot escape them. What has happened, I think, is that many people have rightly reacted against the hubris of modern Christianity. In the process, however, it is all too tempting to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”After all, if nothing is universally true, if no one has the right to say that their view is applicable to others, if our imperfections and wrong interpretations indicate that no opinion or interpretation can ever possibly be right or better than someone else’s, then one is left in the uncomfortable place of maintaining these things and yet somehow assuming that we–those of us who are offended by the universal claims of others–must somehow have escaped the problems faced by others. After all, we believe that these universal claims and those who advocate them are wrong (or not as good as ours). But how can we maintain this opinion if our opinion itself is self-defeating?

In other words, if my opinion is that it is wrong to believe in truth, and if it rubs me the wrong way to hear those who make such claims, what has rendered me exempt from the failures I observe in others? If my opinion is that there is no universally applicable truth, either: (1) I am wrong and universal truth can be located, or (2) Truth cannot be located. If it cannot, then I have to admit that, in my opinion, there is no universal truth except one, which is that there is no universal truth. This, I maintain, leaves me with a self-contradicting opinion, an opinion that, even if it is correct, is also wrong, for it sneaks in one absolute truth. Of course if it is possible that there is indeed one absolute truth, then there might be others. Christians, among others, maintain that this inclination is a part of the divine image in human beings. Okay, I’m rambling!

When it comes to differences of opinion, there is another option. These differences might tell us at least the following:

(1) Not everything is clear. Many Christians don’t get this!

(2) We ought to be humble and careful in making universalistic claims. Again, many good people miss this point!

(3) But the impulse to make such claims might be an indication that God has in fact put it in us the desire to search for and, at some level at least, discover truth. This might take some effort, though, and a delineation ought to be made between the really important stuff and lesser things. Some confuse these two.

(4) We have been built with a sense–an imperfect sense, a handicapped sense, a humanly flawed sense–that there exists truth, the transcendent . . . the true God. Even when we deny this, we affirm it in every day life.

(5) The true God is able to get through our biases and shortcomings and enable us to grasp at least the essentials, the big-picture, of what he wants us to embrace. This is what we’re looking for, and what believers presuppose (on solid grounds, I think).

(6) We are intended to follow the truth where it leads. Again, we need humility but also a willingness to receive the truth as it comes to us.

(7) God never planned that we would know the truth flawlessly, perhaps because to do so would put us in a place where we might imagine that we no longer need him! We can know the truth sufficiently, but the imperfections of our current views aren’t intended to yield outright skepticism but rather a personal dependance on the personal being who created us. In other words we can know the truth, but we will know it best when we connect with God himself, seeking to build a relationship with him. We look for the truth and for the one who is the Truth!

A Christian worldview maintains these things, even if Christians sometimes don’t. I’m probably as turned off by the many things done “in the name of religion” as anyone could be. But I have encountered them as one of its supposed proponents. This leads to a lot of tension. Of course in the process I don’t want to dismiss the good that I find in the traditional church either. Where I recognize hubris (and I do!!!!), I want to identify it. But if I only notice the hubris of others, I might be opening myself up to a subtle type of hubris in myself (and, unfortunately, I sometimes have!!!!).

Just some random thoughts! :-)

Niceness - Plus

Some people are hard to get along with, consistently miserable, and just plain mean. In my worst moments I’d call them (or myself, when I fit this depiction) jerks. Boy, we could use a lot more nice people, people who say hello to you, who hold the door, who show genuine interest in others, who do the right thing. Some days, it appears the good guys are hiding. Someone called for a gathering of kind individuals, and I wasn’t invited. So, I’m stuck with the unkind and, I suppose, I’m one of them. Though I exaggerate to some degree, it is certainly refreshing to meet people who are just plain nice.

On the other hand, we probably shouldn’t be too quick to commend every person who wears a smile or speaks cordially. Sometimes, in fact, the very people who initially look and sound so impressive are the worst kind of jerks. I mean, some “kind and gentle” neighbors end up flying airplanes into buildings. Other “nice guys” end up making the evening news as perverts. Indeed, sometimes the worst culprits are the very ones who make the grand claims about morality and religiosity. Let’s not confuse an attractive outward demeanor with genuine niceness. Lots of jerks masquerade as the upholders of righteousness. Whatever your smile frequency, however many times you’ve been cordial, none of these makes up for a mean-spirit, a flawed sense of ethics, or an obvious lack of personal authenticity.

So, there you have my rant on niceness. I’m all in favor of being nice, good, kind, cordial, and the like. Lord, save us from an uncaring mean-spirited attitude. On the other hand, keep those plastic smiles away from me, too. Disingenuous people-pleasing is not what I'm after in anyone, including myself. Okay, then, what am I seeking? Hmm. I guess, I’m looking for people who are both nice and real. Niceness plus authenticity, niceness plus a willingness to by-pass the cordial when a situation demands it, niceness plus an commitment to speaking the truth even when it hurts, niceness plus boldness, niceness plus an appropriate emotional fervor, niceness plus all that is sacred and right. That’s it! I’m searching for (and praying for) niceness-plus!

King James Only?

During my Master's program, one of my course-requirements included the preparation of a short paper on the subject of the King James Only dispute. Specifically, my assignment was to interact with the works of James White (The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?) and D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism). That paper is reproduced here.

King James Only?: An Analysis of a Divisive Issue

Introduction

Christians have long maintained that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus an acquaintance with the Bible's contents is integral to knowing and serving Him. This being the case, it is surely a blessing that the Scriptures are (in the Western world, at least) so easily accessible. In fact, numerous versions of the Bible are available, from quite literal translations to looser paraphrases.[1]

Thankfully, the vast majority of English translations fairly represent the Greek and Hebrew (and a small number of Aramaic) manuscripts from which they are derived. Indeed, textual criticism has gone a long way in providing trustworthy modern translations.

Unfortunately, though, the sheer number of Bible versions has stirred a measure of controversy. The debate centers on the precise location of God's Word. If God has spoken, it seems impossible to accept translations that are something less than identical. Some would argue, therefore, that it makes sense for God to have preserved a single deposit of inspired truth. Such are the sentiments of a group of individuals that can be broadly labeled King James Only advocates.

Though a number of people hold to some form of King James Onlyism, many evangelicals strongly disagree with the King James Only position. Indeed, a number of biblical scholars and apologists have taken this view to task. Among these are James White and D. A. Carson. This paper will briefly interact with the thoughts of these (and, to a lesser extent, other) men as propounded in their respective works.[2] As a result, a number of broad principles will be brought to bear on this sometimes divisive issue.

The Origin and Preservation of the Bible

While the Scriptures were inspired by God, those who eventually copied them were not. Early on, mistakes crept into the NT text.[3] Occasionally these were deliberate. Most often they were the result of human error.[4] As time went by, more and more copies of manuscripts were made. Soon we had copies of copies and so forth.[5] Eventually, manuscripts could be broadly grouped according to textual types or families. "Basically, a text-type or text-family refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text types."[6] Though the peculiarities of a given text are not always easy to classify, these categories are somewhat helpful in sorting through the many NT manuscripts.

Of course, all of this talk about textual variants raises questions about the manner in which God has preserved His Word. King James advocates believe preservation comes via the King James Bible. After all, one would expect God to preserve one version, not many. This view is hardly tenable, however, for the plain fact remains that God has preserved a variety of texts. Thus the divine message is embedded within the many manuscripts.

While identifying the best manuscripts is no simple task, it is helpful (and encouraging) to consider that manuscript variants do not normally disappear. In other words, the original readings of the NT are likely to have been preserved, for once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. . . . The tenacity of the New Testament, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.[7]

Determining God's Words: Textual Criticism

The study and analysis of ancient manuscripts is called textual criticism. This can be further divided into two types, lower criticism and higher criticism. Lower criticism involves the study of manuscripts of the Bible, those written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as well as ancient translations into other languages like Latin, Sahidic or Coptic. Its goal is to reproduce the original text of the Bible from this vast wealth of information.[8]

Higher criticism, however, is less concerned about the manuscripts than the process by which the Bible came into its present form. Because it is highly subjective, higher criticism is prone to speculation and the whims of the interpreter. Lower criticism, on the other hand, is a valid instrument for determining the biblical text.[9]

Ironically, Erasmus, who gave us the Greek text (later known as the Textus Receptus) which undergirds the King James Bible, "used the very same methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use."[10] Yet many King James only advocates decry similar methodology among those responsible for the newer translations.

The Genesis of the King James Bible

The King James Bible did not appear one day from heaven.Rather it was the culmination of a series of important historical events.[11] During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an interest in returning to the ancient writings. In fact a popular motto among thinkers of that day was the Latin phrase ad fontes, meaning "To the source!" "These men did not want to hear about the opinions of men passed down through the centuries. They wanted to go directly to the sources, directly to the ancient documents, so that they could learn for themselves."[12] For centuries, the Latin Bible, i.e., the Vulgate, was the accepted translation of the Church. But now there was a concern to examine the original languages. This eventually led the humanist-scholar, Erasmus, to publish the entire Greek New Testament (A.D. 1516).

It was Erasmus, and later Stephanus and Beza, who was responsible for the Greek text utilized by the King James translators in 1611.[13] Years after the publication of the King James Bible, the preface of the Elzevir brother's second Greek edition contained the words, "the received text," hence the term Textus Receptus.[14]

Noteworthy to this discussion is the fact that the King James Version and the Greek texts from which it was derived admit discrepancies. That is, there is no perfect Greek text, nor an infallible translation. In every case, scholars seek to piece together the original (i.e., by means of textual criticism) from the available manuscripts.

The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.[15]

Types of King James Advocates

Due to the popularity of the King James Bible, it is not surprising that some have become staunch advocates of this tried and true translation. Still, it is not always easy to characterize the King James advocate. Some prefer the King James Bible for stylistic reasons alone. Others of a more radical bent claim inspiration for the Received Text or the King James Version itself. Unfortunately, some of those who hold such views have made these matters a cause for disunity among brothers. As White laments, "That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern."[16]

King James Only Arguments

A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism. Among these are the following: (1) Modern translations make compromises when it comes to doctrinal matters. (2) The Greek text underlying the King James Version (i.e., the Textus Receptus) is superior. (3) We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false. These can be briefly examined in order.

First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]

The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]

Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.

Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]

Problems with the King James and King James Onlyism

King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus——a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders——is a collation of various textual readings.[21] Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]

Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.

Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.

Conclusion

Throughout their respective works, James White and D. A. Carson do a masterful job addressing the King James Only topic. In the end, they leave the reader with a basic understanding of the textual issues, a clear response to the faulty logic of King James Onlyism, and a sound defense of the Bible's reliability.

Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes:

There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]

Not skirting the issues, both writers build assurance in the biblical text, while simultaneously challenging the reader to employ sound textual critical methods.

NOTES:

1. For a fairly recent review of some of the more popular translations, see Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 1983).
2. James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
3. Though much could be said about Old Testament textual matters, here the primary emphasis will be upon the New Testament.
4. Carson, 21-24.
5. See F. F. Bruce, "Transmission and Translation of the Bible" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 39-57.
6. White, 42.
7. Ibid., 48. This isn't meant to imply that every copy of a manuscript contains all the words of that manuscript. The point, rather, is that when multiple copies are made of a given text, somewhere within the copies is found the words of the original. Textual criticism seeks to extract the original by sifting through these copies.
8. Ibid., 27-28
9. For a nice review of textual variants and some of the principles by which manuscripts are evaluated, see Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-149.
10. White, 58.
11. Carson, 33-37.
12. White, 13-14.
13. It is worth mentioning that the King James Bible has undergone numerous revisions (e.g., 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1769), with most modern versions following the 1769 edition. Ibid., 77-82.
14. See Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on The Textus Receptus and The King James Version (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Press, 1975).
15. White, 82.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 196.
18. Ibid., 151.
19. Ibid., 152-154.
20. Carson, 69.
21. "To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence." ibid., 37.
22. Ibid., 72.
23. For an excellent overview of textual principles, see David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32-36.
24. Carson, 24.

the extent of the atonement

The topic of “limited atonement” has sparked more than its share of debate and antagonistic response. Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of clarity of this terminology, and the emotional response it often elicits. To that end, definite redemption might be a more accurate depiction. Another part of the problem is the fact that we tend to compartmentalize ourselves into an either-or mode. This modernistic brand of theologizing is both limiting and naive.

In my opinion, definite redemption is difficult to deny biblically. For instance Jesus said that He came to lay down His life for His sheep, etc. In the context of His redemptive labors, He appears to be saying that His cross work would actually accomplish something, that entailed more than a potential redemption, and that His salvific death is a part of God’s great plan that spans the ages. This kind of understanding, which is more “Calvinistic” in orientation, appears to flow out of certain texts and in particular from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

Of course there are also other texts that seem more universalistic in their intent. I believe a good number of these can be best understood as meaning something like “all without distinction,” that is, Jesus’ death is not limited to Israel or to some particular brand of human being. Some of the “world” texts (1 John 2:2) might also be interpreted this way. However, there might also be passages that lead to more general atonement theory (John 3:16?). This being the case, what stops us from categorizing the redemptive work of Jesus as a “both-and” type of situation?

In one sense, His cross work is for all. It is offered to all in complete sincerity by God Himself. As such, it contains enough “redemptive power” to redeem any and all who desire to partake of it by faith. The best Calvinists have maintained something close to this idea, but I also believe many of them have been governed more by logic (which is important) than a plain reading of certain “hard” passages (which is essential–these are those passages that don’t neatly fit a given system).

At any rate, Jesus’ death is genuinely offered to all and truly contains, if we can put it this way, enough “propitiatory potential” to satisfy God’s justice for any who want it. At the same time, though, His cross–while not being withheld from anyone–is particularly applied to those “sheep” He came to rescue.

Of course we now enter holy ground, and with it we encounter profound mystery. How can this be? In what sense is this fair? Does this not contradict those other passages that treat the atonement in a more general sense? All of these are good questions, and I believe they are worth pursuing. However, I also believe that a complete understanding of them is unavailable in this life. In good postmodern fashion, we are left with mystery and tension, but we are also provided a (modernistic?) model that fits all of the biblical data. This, I would suggest, is of supreme importance.

Some Calvinists, though rightly emphasizing the particularism of the atonement, have minimized the fullness and sufficiency of the cross for all. Indeed, John 3:16, that most famous of evangelistic passages, is, in the opinion of some, a general atonement passage. On the other hand, some non-Calvinists have gone in the other direction, and have accused God of unfairness and the like when it comes to His liberty to exercise His complete and just will.

As an aside, many postmoderns seem comfortable with free will, which is fine, but they don’t seem to accord to God the same privilege. Thus, they minimize God’s freedom in order to highlight man’s. Again, this is naive and imbalanced. Worse, it fails to do justice to the many passages that speak of God’s freedom. When it comes to discussing these matters, the desire to guard man’s free will (which is a good thing) often dictates the type of conclusions we allow for. Since particularism appears to limit human free agency, it is tempting to jettison God’s freedom. Two comments: (1) God is presented as King in Scripture. As a transcendent being, He calls the shots. (2) Man is free in some genuine sense, but his freedom is not absolute (and whatever it is, it is not as great as God’s). Man is free in some sense (although simultaneously bound by his fallenness and humanity). Of course the concept of freedom (intellectual and moral) is not easy to capture. Indeed, theologians and philosophers have for centuries debated its meaning. Thus, to admit free will–which is a biblical thing–is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God is bound or limited by the free choices of His creatures.

In my opinion, divine sovereignty and (a rightly nuanced) human freedom are very puzzling concepts, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians have completely solved this dilemma. This is part of the reason why I have shied away from such labels, for I question their ability to convey much that is helpful. Not only are there varieties of each type (i.e., Calvinists and Arminians), but the labels have tended to keep people from honestly and openly investigating the various pieces of the redemptive puzzle (e.g., “limited atonement”). Furthermore, they have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality among equally sincere believers. When this occurs, we are all the worse off. Let it suffice to say that I believe that Jesus’ death was both for everyone (in some true sense) and for a particular group (in some other sense). However one defines this position, it is my attempt to incorporate all of the relevant data into the discussion and to allow the whole counsel of God to have its mystery-making but worship-inducing way with us.

Decision Making

During a segment on decision-making in my high school health class, we discussed what goes into decision-making and what makes us the decision makers that we are. To this end, I jotted down these words:

One’s decision-making strategy is dependent, to some degree, on the type of decision he or she is faced with. Some decisions are, frankly, not that life-altering (e.g., what to order at a restaurant, which shoes to purchase), while others are much more serious (e.g., whether or not to marry, the school you wish to attend). That being admitted, a good portion of decision-making is more about who and what we are than it is about a logical progression or step-by-step process. This is not to say that we cannot articulate factors that–whether consciously held or not–actually contribute to our decision-making. It’s just that decision-making, over the long term, is about our attitudes, the influences around us, the experiences we’ve had, and the people who are a part of our lives.

Beyond this, or so it seems to me, we cannot avoid seeing some decisions as inherently morality based. That is, we make at least certain choices based on whether or not we believe those choices are right or wrong. This leads many (not all) people to rely on (and draw from) ethics/morality-determining factors such as religious beliefs, spirituality, or some (perhaps undefined) higher reality or purpose. This reality or purpose includes standards of morality, of course, but it is never limited to the application of specific "rules." Our beliefs, in other words, not only inform us, but they actually help to shape us.

How, then, might we improve our capacity for making make wise decisions? One sure way is by becoming better decision makers, that is, better and wiser human beings. This, it appears, is inextricably linked to our spheres of influence, the people and places with which we have regular contact. Some of these cannot be easily altered, but some of them are well within our control.

To summarize, decision-making is a complex and on-going activity that relates to who we are (and are becoming), our experiences (consciously chosen or not), and the various influences in our lives. All of these are affected by deep personal beliefs, spoken or not, which provide the atmosphere or framework within which we make our choices.

Thoughts on Salvation

Our Sunday morning “church” group is currently taking a look at the subject of human salvation. To help stimulate our thoughts, we’ve decided to use portions of Terrence Tiessen’s Who Can Be Saved? In examining the various views of human salvation, Tiessen uses the following categories: Ecclesiocentrism (salvation only comes to those who hear and respond to the gospel), Agnosticism (while explicit faith in Jesus is normative, we don’t really know the fate of those who never hear the gospel), Accessibilism (there is reason to be hopeful about the salvation of some who have never heard the gospel), Religious Instrumentalism (while Jesus is in some ways special, God raises up non-Christian religions as instruments of salvation), and Relativism (salvation is universally available through various religions).

Of course there is some overlap between categories, and other writers have come up with their own schemes for delineating the different responses to the relevant subjects. We are not necessarily committed to Tiessen’s conclusions, though we do like the subjects he broaches and the way he handles at least some of these matters. What we are concerned about is thinking through some of the big issues that pertain to human salvation from a Christian and biblical perspective. To this end, I put some rather random thoughts on paper, which I hope will assist us in our discussions. These are not final thoughts or completely organized thoughts but rather general ideas that come to mind when approaching such matters. For what it’s worth, here they are:

Thoughts on Salvation

It is essential to realize that the thoughts I’m putting down here are not inspired, and that certain things I say are probably based more on gut feelings and assumptions than on some perfect understanding of what God is saying. While I hope these words are helpful and accurate, I do not assume, and neither should you, that they are somehow flawless representations of the truth. This being said, here are some off-the-cuff thoughts about the subject to which we now turn.

● It is important to ask what the practical implications of our choices are. If we are talking about human salvation, it is not enough to speculate about the spiritual status of so-and-so if we never weep over his lostness (if he is actually lost), celebrate his salvation (if this is the case), or are even likely to impact his life. E.g., How helpful is it to speculate about the fate of the ignorant in Africa if we are probably never going to visit Africa? It might, I suppose, affect our prayer lives or our missionary efforts. For most of us, however, (and whether or not this is good) it’s probably not a practical daily concern. Therefore, how much of our energy should be expended on such matters?

● What is the next question? If something is stated as necessary or likely for salvation, are we sure that we’ve asked enough questions about it? For instance, if we say a person must have faith to be saved, we are still left with a number of inquiries: What is faith? What does it mean to believe? If we say that true faith ushers in a holy lifestyle, which seems to be a biblical axiom, are we sure we are able to recognize holiness or fruit when we see it? (E.g., Holiness is obviously not “measured” by number of services attended or by our ability to use religious lingo). Please, do not misunderstand: We do not want to get tied down to an endless array of questions, rabbit trails that distract us from the real questions at hand. We do, however, want to stop and ask relevant questions when they have a direct bearing on the way we understand a given issue. For instance, if we say that the coming of Jesus has ushered in a new era, which it has, we should also ask ourselves in what sense (theologically and practically) this is so.

● What is salvation in the first place? By this, I am not trying to take a bare minimalist approach, reducing salvation to as few facts as possible. Rather, I’m seeking to understand what it is that unites any lost person with his Creator. As best as we can understand, what’s the essence of faith? From the human perspective, how does one come into a right relationship with God?

● What does it mean for God to save? If He saves, in what manner does He? Clearly, He uses human instrumentality in the conversion of others, which–for us–is both a responsibility and an honor. But, does He need to use us? Or, does He normally use us? Or, has He merely told us that He uses us, not in the sense to limiting His own ability to act apart from us but in order to call us to responsible action?

● It seems true that God can do whatever He wants with His creatures. Thus, if He chooses to allow us all to be condemned, that would be a biblically permissible thing for Him to do. In fact, it wouldn’t be unfair for Him to do a whole lot of things that we deem hard to swallow. On the other hand, He will not and cannot do that which contradicts His own nature and character. Nor, it would seem, does He act in ways that violate His own purposes.

● What is God like? From Scripture, it appears that a number of ideas come to the fore. God is holy, which entails His moral perfection, His separation from anything that is evil or wrong, His utter rightness and one-of-a-kind ness. Likewise, He is absolutely fair. Whatever He does is right, and any creature who could see things from His perspective would totally agree with His choices. As Scripture says, “Surely, the judge of all the earth will do right?” Also, and especially, God is love. What this entails is not always self-evident, and certainly God can be loving while simultaneously judging those who oppose Him. That much is clear. Beyond this, however, it appears that God is a community of perfect love, a being of incomprehensible mercy and grace, a Lord who has set as His primary agenda the mission of sharing His love with others. A being of perfect holiness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this), and absolute fairness (whatever that means, and I think we can know something [but not everything] about this, as well), has chosen to rescue us from ourselves and to envelop us in His immense love. Our assessment of salvation has to come to grips with the kind of being God is.

● In any Christian perspective, Jesus is the only Savior. Only He satisfied the demands of God’s justice. Only He is able to link heaven (since He’s God) and earth (since He’s a human). Only He can carry us into the presence of God, etc. Thus, if a person is saved, this salvation must come through the work and activity of Jesus. Still, there is another question: How does one come to benefit from Jesus’ activity? The normative answer is faith. But questions remain: What is faith, exactly? How much information is necessary to believe? How much error can be present where there is genuine faith? Can a person be united to God through Jesus without knowing about Jesus? In other words, is it possible to come to God through His Son without actually knowing anything about Him?

● In dealing with various biblical passages, it is important, I think, not to allow certain passages to be used in such a way that they crowd out or take precedence over other passages. When we do this, and it’s admittedly difficult to avoid such a mentality, we allow certain realities to shield us from other realities, or we allow one aspect of the truth (or our interpretation of it) to become the force by which we misrepresent another aspect of the truth. This often occurs when we consider matters of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the like.

● In discussing these matters, a number of related thoughts are relevant. These include but are not limited to the following: - Divine Sovereignty, - Free Will, - Epistemology (How do we know, and how do we know that we know? What is the basis for our knowledge?), - Hermeneutics (Interpretation), - The Hermeneutical Spiral, - Theology, - Cultural Assumptions (premodern, modern, postmodern, other tendencies and presuppositions). We should be willing to add to this list anything that is helpful to (and not a distraction from) the discussion. Want to add any?

● When it comes to our use of Scripture, we must take a number of things into consideration: (1) What a text says. (2) Whether our interpretation of the text is accurate or in need of revision. (3) Whether we are allowing certain texts greater priority than others. If we do this, why, on what basis? (4) Common sense and divine influence in our own lives. We are not inspired, to be sure, but neither are our interpretations of what the inspired text says. Thus, in thinking through these issues, I think it’s okay to ask one another (and God) how this works out. God’s working in our lives is not on par with Scripture, per se, but God Himself is. Thus, if God enables us to see something that throws a light on Scripture, it is potentially a good thing. (One example would be the age of the earth debate, etc. Some would argue that what God is saying in the world has given us “new eyes” for reading Genesis.)

● Where is God in all of this, and why has He designed things this way? If these discussions are important, and I think they are, why has God chosen such a round about way of leading us into the truth. We come to a Bible that requires our efforts to understand and apply it. Our interpretations are sometimes accurate and sometimes in error. There is no single text that gives us undeniable support for a single way of looking at these matters; instead, we have to grapple with various passages and ideas, seeking to pull the pieces together. God has taken a very indirect approach to these matters, requiring that we take time and make effort to unfold the truth, requiring that we interact with those who came before us, and leading us on a journey. If this is an accurate assessment, it would seem that God has “built into the system” of our journey a general sense that we can’t do this on our own. And, if that is the case, we clearly need Him. Thus, as we read, discuss, contemplate, and wonder, we are led, as well, to lean on Him for guidance, wisdom, strength, and a sense of His presence. As Psalm 119 says: Verse 18 - “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law,” Verse 27 - “Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders,” Verse 169 - “Let my cry come before You, O LORD; Give me understanding according to Your word.”

Okay, that’s enough for now. ☺

Show Me the Way

One of my all-time favorite songs is Show Me the Way by Styx. These lyrics, which capture the outlook of those hovering between belief and doubt, do something that is quite rare, for they strike a balance between realism and spiritual conviction. In these words, frustration and disillusionment rub up against authenticity and hope. The result? Real faith, the kind that comes when God himself shows us the way.

Every night I say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven
And every day I’m more confused as the saints turn into sinners
All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have fallen to idols of clay
And I feel this empty place inside so afraid that I’ve lost my faith

We all feel this way from time to time, and some of us live in a state of perpetual uncertainty. When so many of our childhood heroes turn out to be fakes, when even the “good” people end up going off the deep end, when people mask their weaknesses, and sometimes their perversions, with outward displays of piety, when it becomes common, even expected, that moral spokespersons fall prey to immorality and society’s big shots end up looking small–with all of this crap, how could we not feel somewhat taken aback?

But why would one be afraid to lose faith? Why would lack of faith lead to emptiness? Faith seeks a way ahead.

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way

Oh, Lord, how we need (how I need) you to wash away everything that’s fake and disingenuous. Clearly, we need Someone bigger than we are to come to the rescue, to provide a guiding light and a mighty hand. Show me the way!

And as I slowly drift to sleep, for a moment dreams are sacred
I close my eyes and know there’s peace in a world so filled with hatred
That I wake up each morning and turn on the news to find we’ve so far to go
And I keep on hoping for a sign, so afraid that I just won’t know

There are times, and You know when, Lord, when the good old days come to mind. More important, still, there are occasions when we see what we once saw and feel what we once felt. Our skewed views and blurred vision give way to something buried deep within, something for which we still long. Imagine, a world without strife, a world of peace and genuine love, and . . . oh, yeah, that’s right, the “real” world is filled with divorces, personal attacks, a disregard for truth, and terrorist threats. Still, hope won’t go away. Maybe, if I read between the lines, if I look really hard, I’ll find something that supports faith and doesn’t simply cause me to question it. What, though, am I looking for?

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the mountain
And take my confusion away

Lord, I need a word from you, I need to hear your calm yet authoritative voice if I’m going to think clearly.

And if I see a light, should I believe
Tell me how will I know

On the other hand, I’m not entirely sure I’d recognize your voice if I heard it. If you shine a light, how will I know it’s your light? Tell me, please!

Show me the way, show me the way
Take me tonight to the river
And wash my illusions away
Show me the way, show me the way
Give me the strength and the courage
To believe that I’ll get there someday
Show me the way

Even if I can’t understand as much as I’d like, at least let me know that one day I will. Move me in the right direction, keep me on the right path. Show me the way!

Every night I say a prayer
In the hope that there’s a heaven . . .

There it is, hope. It seems like the singer (Dennis DeYoung) wants to believe, but why? Perhaps, it’s all self-deception. It’s better to make believe and feel good about it than it is to face the facts and feel depressed, or so say some pundits.

But maybe, just maybe, there’s a better way. Why do so many people want to believe? It might be that we were created to believe. Indeed, the great majority of people throughout human history have believed. What’s more, so many of our daily affairs require that we believe. Every time we entrust our kids to the school bus driver or assume that we can safely cross a bridge, we express faith. Faith is built into the fiber of human beings.

This, I think, is why the song-writer yearns for faith, desires to believe, hopes that there is indeed a way. Life tends to drain the life out of us, sapping our energy and our sense of purpose. This results in a kind of tension in our lives. On the one hand, we think and hope that faith is true. On the other hand, we are faced with the undeniable reality of everyday pain, confusion, and uncertainty. So, what do we do? If we’re wise, we will “say a prayer in the hope that there’s a heaven.” God seems to have set it up this way. Fully aware of life’s difficulties and truly desiring to make sense of the confusion, we do what makes sense. We cry out or sing out “Show me the way.” Whether you’re a skeptic, an agnostic, or a believer, this is pretty good advice. Show me (show us all) the way!

WWJD?

What would Jesus do? It’s a great question, for it reminds us of a requirement that Jesus makes of all His would-be disciples. “Follow Me” is the way He put it. Sounds simple enough, even refreshing. But to ask what Jesus would do if He were in our shoes, to follow Him, is a daring proposition. Following Jesus? Living in a way that is consistent with the way He lived? Perhaps, there is more here than we bargained for.

Before we tackle this subject, please allow me to preface my remarks with a few cautions. First, while we are to follow Jesus, this doesn’t mean that we are to do exactly everything that He did. For instance we simply cannot duplicate His mind-boggling miracles. He was and is the God-man; we, obviously, are not. Second, it is important to see the attending circumstances and historical context in which Jesus operated. We cannot always make a one-to-one application from Jesus’ world to our own. That Jesus walked on water does not mean that we will be able to do the same. Third, there are numerous teachings and principles in God’s Word that we must be careful to avoid placing at odds with one another. Practically speaking, this means that in your desire to be like Jesus, you should never violate your conscience or some other clear principle of Scripture. For example Jesus obviously drank wine, which indicates that the mere consumption of alcohol is not wrong. However, if you have a history of alcohol abuse, it would be foolish to participate in that which is personally risky. Never, I repeat never, place yourself in a situation that, for you, is morally or spiritually harmful.

Now, having issued these warnings, we can seek to understand what it means to follow Jesus. How can we, especially in an evangelistic sense, conduct our lives in a way that mirrors Jesus’ own life? Fasten your seatbelts, for Jesus is about to take us for a ride.

What was Jesus like?

□ Jesus loved people, especially the outcasts of society.

One of the clear impressions you get from the Gospels is that Jesus spent a lot of time with people. Most often, in fact, He was willing to identify Himself with the average folk down the street, in particular the outcasts of society–the harlots, the disreputable, the irreligious.

Indeed, Jesus’ entire ministry was an invitation to “the weary and heavy laden.” It was to these people that He promised rest. What’s more, the individuals He surrounded Himself with, those to whom He would entrust the spread of His message, were not of high society. Fishermen, tax gatherers, zealots–these are not the type that would appear on anyone’s “who’s who” list.

Thus, a sure sign that you are not following Jesus is an aloof spirit, an attitude in which you refuse to get involved in the lives of those whom God brings your way. Jesus loved people, even “bad” people. Do you?

□ Jesus didn’t believe in a quick fix strategy. Rather, He entered relationships for the long haul.

Many Christians treat evangelism in formulaic ways. Just get someone to repeat “the sinner’s prayer,” or walk “the Romans road,” or “ask Jesus into their heart.” While it is at least worth noting how absent this type of language is on the lips of the early followers of Christ, the problem is not the words themselves. The real problem is that this isn’t the way evangelism normally works. We may feel like we’ve done our duty by spouting off a few verses, but in reality we have often done very little. Sometimes, in fact, we probably hinder the cause of Christ when we throw a little truth at people and then go our merry way.

Bluntly put, Jesus simply did not do evangelism this way. Read through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus certainly called people to Himself, and He was not afraid to demand repentance. Yet, it is perhaps surprising to discover how frequently He favored an indirect approach. For every time He says, “entrust your soul to Me,” it seems there are many other occurrences in which He merely spends time with people. The Son of God, the Savior of the world, did not typically cry out “believe, believe”–though surely that was His ultimate aim. More often than not, He simply hung out with people, listening to their complaints, discussing their particular struggles. In other words He spent quality time with those whom He encountered. Can the same be said of you?

□ Jesus was considered unorthodox, even radical . . . especially by the religious establishment.

One of the striking features of Jesus’ ministry was the fact that He so often broke “the rules.” It is not, of course, that He ever disobeyed God. To the contrary, Jesus always did the Father’s will. But when it came to human traditions (whether good ones, bad ones, or just outdates ones), Jesus was not afraid to go against the prevailing attitude of the day. Think for a moment about some of the scandalous things Jesus said and did.

On one occasion, He was sitting around, chatting with a bunch of shady characters. Not only did Jesus visit with them, but He actually seemed to enjoy their company. Do you remember the response of the religious leaders? “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Clearly, they were not impressed by His choice of company.

On another occasion, He sanctioned the seeming waste of costly perfume, which a woman poured on Him in her effort to honor Him. Was Jesus not frugal?

Another time, He told a revealing story that indicated the true motives of many first century religious leaders. It would be an understatement to say they were unhappy with His commentary.

Then, consider what Jesus did at a wedding feast. When the supply of wine had run dry, He miraculously provided a first century version of Dom Perrione. Here are these people, partying and having a good time, and what does Jesus do? Does He reprimand them for being “worldly”? Does He disassociate Himself from the abuses that surely took place that day? No, He contributes to the celebration. Imagine how the prohibitionists of His (and our) day would react to such an act.

It has often been said that genuinely godly individuals will appear radical to the world around them. To some degree, this is true. Obviously, the goals and priorities of Jesus’ followers can differ greatly from those of non-Christians. On the other hand, the truly radical nature of Christianity is often seen in how the religious people, defenders of the status quo, react to those whose only desire is to follow the Savior. It seems inevitable that those with an unwavering allegiance to God and His Word will be viewed by the traditionalists as a little bit “out there.”

The lesson here, of course, is not that we ought to go about seeking to ruffle everyone’s feathers. Neither are we trying to promote bizarre behavior and the like. What we’re saying, rather, is that people who are committed to Jesus don’t mind running contrary to popular opinions and unquestioned traditions, especially those that originate among those who proudly assume that they have God pretty much figured out. Ironically, Jesus, God’s incarnate Son, revealed a deity whose ways often ran contrary to the narrow assumptions of the religious elite. In this sense He was a radical. Are you?

What would Jesus do?

As we stated at the outset, it is important to be careful how we apply the example of Jesus. It is just not possible to lay out a simple prescription for imitating Him. Those who seek to follow Jesus must do so prayerfully, wisely, with the help of fellow-travelers, and always in a way that does justice to all that God has revealed. In this sense the question “what would Jesus do? must be applied on a person-to-person basis, with no two people being exactly alike.

But there are certain aspects of Jesus’ style that cannot be ignored. Whatever else might be said, He certainly lived “out side the box.” As a result, Jesus’ hopes were God-centered, His motives pure, and His determination undaunted. Though there are many other characteristics of Jesus’ life that might be emphasized, here we find that God’s Son loved people, chose long-term relationships over quick fixes and hurried evangelistic strategies, and was willing to go against the acceptable trends.

What would Jesus do? He’d go to any length in His desire to reach people with God’s love. He’d sacrifice everything in hope of leading men and women into a relationship with their Creator. He’d break any “rule” (except God’s) in His determination to rescue a lost and hopeless world. This same Jesus says, “follow Me.” Are you following?

Joe "Spiritual"

Joe is a Christian, and everyone knows it. The way he lives, the things he does and does not do, the beliefs he holds, the manner in which he speaks–all of these provide evidence that Joe is in a state of spiritual health. How do we know this is the case? Well, just look at Joe’s resume:

1. Joe attends church two to four times a week.

2. Joe regularly employs spiritual language, using terms like “saved,” “Lord,” “born again,” “Calvary” and lots of others.

3. When Joe is truly showing the depth of his spirituality, he can be found mouthing important words like “sanctification,” “theology,” “propitiation,” “substitution,” “Calvinism,” “regeneration,” “predestined,” “supralapsarianism,” and a host of others.

4. Joe often says things like, “The Lord did such and such” or “The Lord spoke to me.”

5. Joe doesn’t drink or curse, or approve of those who do.

6. Joe leads a Sunday School class, and he even does a bit of preaching. Sometimes, he’ll throw in a Greek word or two when he’s teaching.

7. Joe knows all the acceptable authors and frequently urges others to read them, as well.

8. Joe is always careful to wear a smile and has a reputation for being composed, calm, and content.

9. Joe has a reputation for witnessing.

10. Joe takes his leadership role seriously, and Joe’s wife is happily submissive. On those occasions when Joe’s wife isn’t cooperating, Joe is quick to request prayer for his rebellious wife.

11. Joe really wants his loved ones to join him at church and to become a part of the believing community. Because joining the faithful is a sure sign of spirituality, Joe makes every effort to encourage his loved ones to join him at church.

12. Joe gives his money to numerous Christian causes, some of them related to missions.

For these and other reasons, Joe’s spiritual health is assured, and his reputation untarnished. Clearly, Joe has made much progress in the faith, and everyone knows it.

Now, before I go any further, it is important to recognize that many of the things I’ve mentioned are indeed potentially helpful ways to manifest one’s walk of faith. The terminology and the practices listed here can be a valid outworking of true faith.

Still, for all of the potentially good signs, for all of the sincere efforts to embody the faith, for all of the energy used to promote this religious paradigm, for all of the accolades that have come Joe’s way, none of the above statements about Joe is directly related to his faithfulness and spirituality.

Please understand that the point is not simply that we are all susceptible to hypocrisy. Clearly, that is a part of what is involved, and it is certainly true that we can all tend to be fakes. But there is more here than double-mindedness, for there is also present in the above examples a type of faulty reasoning. While many of the things Joe is involved in can be valid expressions of the faith, none of them gets at the essence of the faith. For example:

1. Joe attends church two to four times a week.

While the Bible talks about fellowship, accountability, and community, it does not define spirituality in terms of how many times per week we should meet. Neither does it say that more is necessarily better. We assume that, but Scripture does not.

2. Joe regularly employs spiritual language, using terms like “saved,” “Lord,” “born again,” “Calvary” and lots of others.

&

3. When Joe is truly showing the depth of his spirituality, he can be found mouthing important words like “sanctification,” “theology,” “propitiation,” “substitution,” “Calvinism,” “regeneration,” “predestined,” and a host of others.

While certain religious terms are drawn from Scripture, the mere use of such terms is never a sure guide for determining a person’s spiritual health. What’s more, just because we throw around religious terms does not mean that we have properly understood them. Likewise, the fact that we make frequent use of theological terms does not assure us that we have experienced (or are experiencing) the reality to which the terms point.

4. Joe often says things like, “The Lord did such and such” or “The Lord spoke to me.”

So far as “The Lord says” language, my first impulse is to ask, “How do you know?” How do you know that the Lord has spoken? What distinguishes your feelings that the Lord has spoken to you from the feeling of some anti-Christian? Indeed, are you sure that want to go out on that limb and take credit for having “gotten a word from God” when the Bible itself cautions us to avoid putting words in God’s mouth. Though I do not doubt that God can and does speak to and through us, I am very skeptical about the sloppy and often silly ways that we claim to have heard from Him. At any rate, merely declaring that the Lord has said such-and-such is not the same thing as having actually heard His voice.

5. Joe doesn’t drink or curse, or approve of those who do.

Though drunkenness is condemned in Scripture, drinking never is. When we attempt to be even more strict than Scripture, we take on the role of Pharisee, and we end up exuding arrogance. So far as cursing is concerned, that is, cursing as commonly understood, the Bible doesn’t have a lot to say. Cursing can indeed be a culturally unacceptable practice, and it certainly can indicate that our hearts are wrong. On the other hand, is it truly possible to measure spirituality by the way we string together vowels and consonants? I’m not really sure, but it does bother me that we are so damn prone to judge on such superficial matters. :-)

6. Joe leads a Sunday School class, and he even does a bit of preaching. Sometimes, he’ll throw in a Greek word or two when he’s teaching.

Teaching is potentially a good thing, and such teaching can take place via a traditional Sunday School class, a Sunday preaching assignment, or a Bible Study. But the mere fact that we teach does not mean that the content of what we express is accurate or true. Nor does it mean that we are somehow godly for being involved in such activities. As for Greek, it has its place. But my suspicion is that it is often used not so much as a means of communicating the truth but as an opportunity to show how “learned (and “spiritual”) we are.

7. Joe knows all the acceptable authors and frequently urges others to read them, as well.

Reading can be a wonderful tool for learning, but even here there are many dangers. Sometimes, a certain type of book is deemed acceptable, while other books are placed on our version of the index of forbidden books. Evangelicals that I’ve known have been particularly rigid here and have sometimes closed themselves off from the insights of those who don’t cross their “t’s” the same way they do.

8. Joe is always careful to wear a smile and has a reputation for being composed, calm, and content.

There is nothing wrong with smiling, and there can be a lot right about it. However, a smile can be very unspiritual when it reflects an inauthentic attitude. While love and joy and peace are conveyed through our lives and mannerisms, a plastic, make-believe attitude is not spiritual. Furthermore, it can actually hurt others. Some will be deceived by your “too nice” antics, while others (those more discerning?) will be suspicious of everything you say or do. Please understand , I am not for a moment advocating a frowning persona; a joyful demeanor is the outworking of the Spirit's work. On the other hand, so is authenticity, truthfulness, and a willingness to be real. Smiles can be good, but they are not a sure sign of genuine or healthy spirituality.

9. Joe has a reputation for witnessing.

Sharing the truth is part of the responsibility and privilege of all believers. Still, this does not mean that we are doing it correctly or wisely. It amazes me how formulaic we can be when it comes to evangelistic faithfulness. By many people’s standards, Jesus and Paul and most of the biblical characters were witnessing failures. Our techniques, words, attitudes, and expectations can easily become a cover for genuine love for others. Not only does witnessing by itself not necessarily indicate spirituality, but our views of evangelism can sometimes be in error.

10. Joe takes his leadership role seriously, and Joe’s wife is happily submissive. On those occasions when Joe’s wife isn’t cooperating, Joe is quick to request prayer for his rebellious wife.

An arrogant male dominance is way, way too common in many circles. This does not mean that men should become subservient wimps, of course, and in some circles this has become the new paradigm. But, however these things work out, women should never be minimized, devalued, or in any way abused. Too often, I afraid, this has been the case, and that in the name of spiritual health.

11. Joe really wants his loved ones to join him at church and to become a part of the believing community. Because joining the faithful is a sure sign of spirituality, Joe makes every effort to encourage his loved ones to join him at church.

The issue is not joining our assembly or attending our services but knowing God. To be honest, many of our churches are the exact opposite of what any normal, searching individual would desire. Of course we can always (conveniently) blame a person's lack of attendance on his or her sin, and sometimes this might be the case. But often, I suspect, we have confused conversion with church attendance, spiritual rejuvenation with adherence to our particular programs, truth with tradition.

12. Joe knows whose “in” and whose “out” when it comes to eternal matters of the soul.

Because we live in a certain world, it is common to take on the governing traits of that to which we are regularly exposed. In church circles, the above mentioned beliefs and practices can often take on a life of their own. Though we may know better, we start judging things like spiritual health by standards that are not biblical in any immediate sense. In some cases, in fact, they are downright erroneous. Perhaps the supreme example of this occurs when we assume that we know the spiritual state of another human being. I’m not saying that we cannot make reasonable assumptions, and I certainly don’t think we should be naive when it comes to a person’s spiritual well-being. All I’m saying is that, given our often skewed standards, we can often be very quick to judge matters about which we have no right. Think, for a moment, about Jesus’ ministry and the people to whom He ministered. Most often, it seems, He came to the rescue of individuals who were anything but religiously acceptable. Yet, in at least some cases, these same people had indeed experienced a new birth. Let me ask you. What do you think when you come across a person who is holding a beer, smoking a cigarette, using a few expletives? Of course we must avoid foolishness and naivete. However, we must also be careful not to make hasty judgments. Indeed, I don’t think God really cares what our evaluations are. Actually, I suspect that He often draws people to Himself who are not acceptable or spiritual by our standards. We must be careful not only to avoid hypocrisy but to reject the idea that spiritual health is determined by our ability to identify who is “in” and who is not.

Do I sound a bit too critical? Perhaps I am, but that is not my intention. Rather, I hope to draw your attention to the fact that true spirituality is just that, true and spiritual. True means genuine, consistent with reality, not spurious, and--if we want to be biblical about it--related to God. Spiritual means associated with the Spirit and His influence and activity in our lives.

While true spirituality makes an imprint and can indeed be measured ("You can tell a tree by its fruit, etc."), it is also somewhat hard to reduce to a formula or a rigid list of activities. Thus, while there are, shall we say, parameters for what it means to "look" like a Christian, the outworking of these is often less-than easy to pin down.

Okay, so what's the point? Simply that we are all prone to confuse our own versions of the faith--be they valid or invalid, correct or incorrect--with the faith itself. When we do this, we open ourselves up to the charge of hypocrisy, close ourselves off from new insights, and end up making the activity of the Spirit something that can be precisely outlined. Perhaps, Jesus had a better idea: “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Yeah, I like that. Wind, Spirit . . . and spiritual life. :-)

Truth as Person and Idea

I was just reading an article on The Oooze. The author, Willie Krischke, does a nice job talking about truth as a person, emphasizing the need for humility when it comes to the assertions that we make. You can find the article at http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1212.

Well, for whatever reason, I was in the mood to add a few comments of my own concerning the subject about which he writes. Here they are:

I totally agree with what you’ve written . . . sort of. :-) That is, I agree that truth is a person, that we are very susceptible to error, that we must remain open to new views and interpretations, etc., etc. This is good stuff, but I tend to think that it goes a little bit (not a lot!) too far in the opposite direction from which you (and I) have come.

In recognizing my proneness to error and my tendency to be dogmatic about matters for which only God has the ultimate perspective, I find that I cannot completely abandon my “old ways.” Thus, for instance, to say that the truth is ultimately a person can only be defended and explored if I assume that I have access to this proposition: truth is a person. In other words if I claim that truth is a person, it would be perfectly appropriate for someone to ask how I came into possession of this knowledge. Was I zapped from on high? Do I have “inside” information about these matters? How is my view–which, by the way, I actually believe–that “truth is a person” to be distinguished from or shown to be superior to the “truth is a proposition” model. The truth is (there I go again with that truth word :-) ) that truth is both a concept or idea and a person. The way I see it (for what that's worth), the truth has been revealed in Scripture, and we have access to this knowledge. This is why we can say with some measure of confidence that we know many of the truths of the faith. The problem for moderns is that they became consumed with something closer to perfect knowledge of the faith, which resulted (results) in an emphasis on details and a tendency to become arrogant. Still, this being admitted, there is something to this notion that we can know at least some things sufficiently (not flawlessly) well.

The other side of this, of course, is that truth is much more than a proposition or an idea or a systemized version of the truth. As you have stated so well, truth is a person. He is real and present and, frankly, often hard to figure out. What’s more, I truly believe the “truth as a person” view facilitates our efforts to gain access to better ideas about this person.

Perhaps, ideas about God (derived from Scripture, tradition, and our reflections on truth and life) are intended to drive us to the person of God, while God himself likewise drives us back to Scripture, looking for improved insights into his person. It seems that we have to live with this idea-person tension. Moderns have, for all their official disclaimers to the contrary, often (not always) overly emphasized the ideas or doctrines of the Bible. But, and I think this is where we have to be careful, we sometimes fail to see that in our frustration with a propositionally oriented faith, we cannot abandon our belief in propositions (indeed, to reject all propositions is itself a kind of proposition). What some postmoderns do is sneak certain propositions in the back door, assuming or believing that they have escaped the need for anything resembling a dogmatic belief. Of course I am aware that some would distinguish between propositions and propositionalism, and I am very open to a nuanced version of this “truth as idea” paradigm. It’s just that I would hate to see the church so overreact to the many abuses of the past that it bends too far in the other direction. So, while I understand that we need to be humble in our knowledge claims, etc., I have to realize (humbly, of course) that even the determination to remain humble is an assertion we make (rightly, I think) with a measure of confidence. :-) In other words we know at least enough to recognize that there is a whole lot that we don’t know. In fact even what we do know, we only know in part. As you say, this spawns creativity and is an impetus for further reflection on the faith.

Please forgive me for rambling on and on about these matters. As I’ve said, I agree with what you’ve said, and I in no way wish to criticize. In fact I kind of think that we are on the same page with many of these things. I suppose I was just in the mood for getting these things out of my system. Sorry that you are on the other end of my random thoughts! At any rate, I want to thank you for your insightful and very helpful article.