Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17

Many Christian thinkers defend the discipline of apologetics by quoting 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated. One problem, however, is that most apologists never bother to exegete the actual text to which they often refer! Therefore, because it plays a vital role in understanding the apologetic task, it may be helpful to take a closer look at this significant passage of Scripture.

Introduction

When it comes to apologetics, one of the most important (and often quoted) passages in Scripture is 1 Peter 3:15. Here the apologetics mandate is clearly delineated as Peter urges his readers to give an answer for their hope. Indeed, there is little question that this text plays a key role in understanding the subject.

But many, who rightly see in this text a justification for apologetics, are prone to merely quote it in a cursory fashion, while barely noticing (or missing!) some of the apologetic guidance this rich passage provides. Therefore, this portion of Peter's first letter warrants deeper reflection on its context and contents.

Survey

Peter's first letter to the believers scattered throughout Asia Minor (i.e., modern day Turkey) is filled with instruction on how to live successfully in a fallen world. This he accomplishes by identifying God's people (1:2; 2:9-10), depicting their relationships within society (2:13-20; 3:1ff), and pointing them to the One who alone can produce lasting hope (1:13). The reason why hope is so significant is because of the reality of suffering, specifically suffering for the sake of Christ (1:6-7; 4:12-19).

It is within the framework of this suffering motif that the apostle encourages his readers to live holy lives (2:15-16; 4:7). Indeed, Peter expands on this theme in 3:13-4:19. Then, within this broader context, he elucidates principles relevant to the subject of suffering for godly conduct in society (3:13-17). This passage further divides into two sections: (1) an encouragement to live zealous and informed lives (3:13-14a), and (2) the provision of an alternative to the intimidation resulting from persecution (3:14b-17). In essence, then, Peter here enjoins his readers to utilize, and so enjoy the benefits of, a truly Christian apologetic. This will be explored in greater detail. In verse thirteen of chapter three, Peter asks a rhetorical question: "Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?" The clear implication is that godly living (depicted, for example, in 3:1-12) can sometimes insulate the believer from certain troubles. On the other hand, suffering cannot be completely avoided, and when it comes, says Peter, Christians are "blessed" (v. 14). "This blessedness or happiness is the certainty that comes from belonging to God and His kingdom with the promises of future vindication."[1]

The thought continues as Peter draws, with minor alterations, from Isaiah 8:12 (LXX): "And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled" (v. 14b). This type of intimidation can be crushing for the suffering believer, leading to turmoil and trepidation. But there is an alternative to fear, one about which Peter has already written (e.g., 1:6-9, 13-16; 2:18-25). The alternative is perseverance, which is not to be viewed as a vague quality. On the contrary, the Christian's continuance in the faith is the result of a changed perspective. Instead of concentrating on the troubles that inevitably result from a God-honoring lifestyle, Christians are to "sanctify Christ as Lord" (v. 15). To sanctify Christ as Lord is to treat Him as He really is, to consciously yield to His authority and will. "The focus of itself is upon the inward acknowledgment of Christ's Lordship."[2] The phrase "in your hearts" refers to the believer's inner life. The believer's commitment begins internally and works its way out in practical ways.

Peter goes on to elaborate on the implications of Jesus' Lordship. For him, this entails the implementation of Christian truth and, among other things, a readiness to give an account of one's hope. The passage reads: "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you" (v. 15). "Always" stresses the ongoing need to remain alert, for unbelievers are watching (v. 15). This means that hope, normally considered an internal characteristic or mind set, is observable. As the Christian anticipates Jesus' return, hope begins to swell, and even present difficulties become something less than defeating. Far from a merely contemplated and/or verbalized wish, biblical hope so permeates the lives of God's people that unbelievers are forced to take notice.

But hope is not only to be perceived but explained. What is needed is a defense or answer. Though the Greek apologia (from which apologetics is derived) is used of a formal defense in a courtroom setting, here it is "being applied to informal exchanges between Christian and non-Christian at any time (aei) and under varied circumstances."[3] The term "account" (logon) similarly implies that "you are to state on what ground you cherish that hope."[4] In view, then, is the believer's effort to communicate objective Christian realities, those which undergird and stimulate hope. "This implies a constant willingness to speak up for him, to confess one's allegiance to him, and to witness fearlessly to his saving grace."[5]

Thus far Peter has urged holy living, even amidst suffering, and he has instructed his readers to "give an answer." This answer, this apologia, however, is not to be thought of as cold, abstract, and (worse still) condescending. Instead Christian apologists (i.e., all believers) are to speak with "gentleness" (prautetos) and "reverence" (phobou). Commentators differ on the precise meaning of these terms. Some take both as a Godward attitude, i.e., Christians are to be humble and respectful/fearful toward God, and this obviously affects one's relationships with others.[6] Many commentators, however, interpret the first term with reference to man, and the second to God. If this is correct, Peter is saying that "gentleness should be shown toward the antagonists and respect emphatically toward God."[7] It is even feasible that both terms are applicable to the Christian's attitude toward unbelievers. In this case, "gentleness and respect" (NIV) are traits exemplified in the evangelist's stance toward others. "‘Respect' would mean treating the unbeliever as what he is—a person created in the image of God. It would mean not talking down to him, but listening to him—not belittling him, but taking seriously his questions and ideas."[8] Whatever the specifics, central to Peter's purpose is the proper "delivery" of the Christian message. Thus life, words, and manner of presentation are all integral to the apologist's mission. As Peter concludes this portion of the letter, he once again reminds his audience that suffering is inevitable. In context, this takes the form of slander (v. 16), which is to be countered by conduct consistent with a "good conscience" (v. 16). When mistreatment is met in such a fashion, revilers are "put to shame" (v. 16). "Possibly he is thinking of the way in which persecutors will be ashamed at the Last Judgment when they realize that the people whom they despised are honored by God. More likely he has in mind a change of heart by the persecutors here in this life."[9] Therefore, if God allows persecution, it ought to be the result of "doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong" (v. 17). This way, both believer and (potentially, at least) unbeliever benefit. Peter encourages this outlook by appealing once again to Christ—the believer's Savior, hope, example, and strength (3:8-22).

As mentioned earlier, 1 Peter 3:15 is often quoted in connection with apologetics. But rarely is it observed within its wider and narrower contexts. Having conducted a survey, however, it is now possible to draw apologetic principles from this pertinent New Testament passage.

Apologetic Principles

The Bible is simply teeming with apologetic data. To 1 Peter 3:13-17 could be added any one of a number of relevant passages (e.g., Acts 17:2-3, 15ff; 19:8; Philippians 1:5-7, 16; Jude 3). Still, this text is indeed significant, for it provides clues as to how Christian apologetics works. To that end, here are a number of relevant principles.

(1) Genuine hope constitutes a kind of apologetic attention-grabber.

Throughout 1 Peter, hope is a predominant theme. This is the case, of course, because of the difficult circumstances that many a first-century believer endured. The same is true today. Trying and hurtful times require something of substance to cling to. Ultimately, only Christ can provide such an anchor for the soul.

But, the presence of hope is not merely a comfort for believers. It is also has a powerful influence on those outsiders who observe Christian behavior. This means that true biblical hope is often the instrument by which non-Christians come to see the power and uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

In a very real sense, then, hope itself—possessed, perceived, and eventually explained—is the impetus for evangelistic success. When unbelievers notice Christ's followers exuding hope, even when surrounded by persecution, they sometimes want to understand this strange outlook. One of the believer's greatest weapons of communication, therefore, is the stability provided by the knowledge of eschatological glory. As this hope permeates a person's life, it serves as a powerful apologetic attention-grabber.

(2) Hope's explanation is key to the apologetic task.

It is true that hope, all by itself, is able to capture the attention of non-Christians. But eventually more must be done and said. While the Christian's life is to attract people to the gospel, at some point this gospel must be verbalized. In other words, hope demands an explanation. As Goppelt notes: "Here every Christian is summoned to be prepared at all times in relation to every person to give an account about the meaning of being a Christian."[10]

Depending on the circumstances, there are many ways that this might be accomplished. For some a simple declaration of Jesus' suitability as Savior is all that is needed. Others require answers to the objections raised against Christianity. For certain individuals misperceptions need correction.

But whatever the particulars, the Christian's witness must center in God's Son. He, after all, is the source of genuine hope. Thus, apologetics involves a concerted effort to declare the facts about Jesus Christ and to show forth the attractiveness of following Him. There are countless reasons why a person should follow the Savior; the believer's task is to share these.[11]

(3) Life and word are inseparably linked in a truly biblical apologetic.

Christian evangelism involves both hope and an explanation of the same. Indeed, Peter seems convinced that these two cannot (or should not) be divorced. After all, a life without a message may impress, but it leaves the onlooker in his sins. The goal of evangelism is not merely that people notice Christian piety, but that they embrace the One who transforms lives. On the other hand, a message devoid of godly example remains unconvincing, even hypocritical. Indeed, one wonders how many have spurned Christianity because of the lack of godliness among professing Christians.

But the different facets of Christian apologetics were never intended to be compartmentalized, for hope and word, life and message work in tandem. Christian witnessing requires speech, the communicated Word of God, even as it demands conduct worthy of this heavenly message. Put plainly, the apologetic task requires a divinely initiated coalescence of life and word.

(4) Evangelistic relevance and apologetic savvy require the diligent use of the mind.

Peter informs his readers that they are to give an answer or a defense to those who ask. But this is not necessarily an easy task. At one level, of course, the Christian message is simple, and all believers ought to be able to share it with others. At another level, though, the complexity of life and of the situations in which men and women find themselves can make communication quite difficult.

For instance, certain people have been influenced by various anti-Christian philosophies.[12] Others have had bad experiences with church people. Indeed, the objections of some are grounded in the bad impressions fostered by true believers.

It is important or Christians to think through the ways in which they communicate with the unbelieving world. Of course believers should not be pressured (from within or without) to feel they must have the answers to all queries. Furthermore, the central answer to which Peter refers here relates to Christian hope, not some philosophical dispute. Still, there does appear to be more to evangelism (and to this passage) than the robotic repetition of a canned message.[13] Instead, Christians are encouraged to give serious responses to (sometimes reasonable, sometimes unreasonable) questions, and this requires some measure of thought. Indeed, apologetics "rests on two premises: (1) that you know something about your friends, and (2) that you know something about Christianity."[14]

It is true, of course, that believers need not become scholars in order to share the good news. Then again, clear thinking was never intended to be an activity reserved for professional theologians.

(5) One aspect of a Christian theodicy[15] is the hope of Jesus' return, coupled with a life transformed by this hope.

Suffering is surely one of the great equalizers of human existence and one of the major objections to Christianity. Indeed, in one sense, Christians and unbelievers share the same lot. Though perhaps for different reasons, all people eventually experience the pangs of heartache. No one can avoid contact with what theologians and philosophers refer to as the problem of evil. Now, the Bible has much to say (directly or by way of implication) about this subject (e.g., Job 38-42), but Peter's theodicy in this text is quite simple. He urges Christians to live soberly within this fallen world (1:13-16; 2:1-2; 4:7ff), and to look ahead to the time when evil's conqueror, Jesus Christ, returns.

Between now and then much suffering may come into a person's life, some of which is baffling and nearly unbearably painful. But there is a difference in the way Christians and non-Christians handle difficulty. When the unbeliever encounters life's trials, the outcome is often one of escape, frustration, depression, and confusion. Thus, when Christians react otherwise, non-Christians—who have themselves experienced pain—take notice. This does not mean that believers never fall apart. Nor does it imply some type of stoic resignation, as a kind of "spiritual" painkiller. It is just that the Christian's overall perspective is the antithesis of unbelieving thought, and this is a powerful argument against the ultimate triumph of evil. Though believers in Jesus are not given a full explanation concerning the problem of evil, they are given hope that one day the trials will end. In fact, Jesus Himself encountered and defeated evil in His cross (e.g., 1:11, 18-21; 2:21-24). Therefore, amidst the pain, Christians can hold up a genuine and powerful antidote to the problem of evil, the hope given to those who trust Jesus Christ. Whatever nagging questions remain, in Him there is enablement to persevere now and to expect that one day evil will be put down forever.

(6) Hard circumstances, especially those resulting from persecution for Jesus' sake, often provide an opportunity for apologetics to flourish.

As Peter's overall context shows, and as noted above, the Christian's response to suffering is a strong argument for the truthfulness of Christianity. In fact so surprising is this response that those who lack such hope are led to ask questions.

But all of this touches on another factor that is sometimes neglected by those emersed in life's trials. Trying circumstances often provide the context within which apologetics flourish. Though all people experience suffering, the Christian is able to handle it differently. This allows the unbeliever to witness, first-hand, the power of the Christian gospel. Since this is so, Christians should be more alert to apologetic opportunities when trials come.

(7) The proclamation of Jesus' Lordship and the use of reasoned arguments work hand in hand in the doing of apologetics.

Within the realm of apologetics, there are two broad camps, presuppositionalism and evidentialism.[16] Usually, these are viewed as separate and irreconcilable positions. What is interesting here, though, is that both are intertwined. Without getting into a detailed philosophical discussion, it appears that Lordship, the presuppositionalist's battle cry, and reasoning, the evidentialist's mainstay, exist side by side. On the one hand, Jesus' Lordship is to be maintained and announced. On the other hand, coherent answers are to be provided for the non-Christian inquirer. A balanced (and biblical!) apologetic can do nothing less.

(8) The gospel is integral to genuine apologetics.

Certain apologists are so concerned with winning an argument that they forget the ultimate purpose for which they are called, the winning of souls to Christ. This being the case, it is very instructive to see Peter's christocentric focus. Though there is much to share with the unbeliever, hope is of paramount importance. This hope centers in Jesus Christ, the Christian's Lord and love. Only He can rescue fallen humans from spiritual slavery.

Therefore apologetics is true to the evangelistic commission only to the degree that it points people to the unique Savior. He, after all, is the sum and substance of Christian theology, fellowship, evangelism, preaching, and life. In Him apologetics finds its sure foundation and goal.

(9) All Christian are to be, at some level, apologists.

Too often Christians consider themselves spectators, mere observers of Christian ministry.[17] From this mistaken perspective, apologetics seems foreign to some. They think it is the responsibility of someone else. Peter doesn't treat apologetics this way. Instead, he encourages believers to join the apologetic venture. While this does not mean that every Christian is equally gifted (or interested) in these matters, at some level all are urged to consider their role within the spheres in which they live.

Christians are often instructed to be heavenly minded (Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:1-4);[18] when this outlook evokes a response, they should be prepared. Answers must be provided, reasons given, hope explained. It is the privilege and duty of all Christ's followers to join in these noble efforts.

(10) Apologetics is central, not incidental, to the evangelistic cause.

Apologetics is often treated as ancillary to the task of reaching the world for Christ. Sometimes this mistaken notion is caused by overly zealous defenders of the faith, who promote an imbalanced (or even unbiblical) philosophy of apologetics.

A more biblical approach enables the Christian to see the true relevance of apologetics. Though there are many facets to this discipline, at the core it must be seen as integral to Christian evangelism. Here in 1 Peter it forms the content of the believer's message. Indeed, to excise the apologia to which Peter refers is to strip the gospel of its explanatory force, thus robbing unbelievers of the opportunity to know precisely what it is that stirs the hearts of God's people. If evangelism is, strictly speaking, the sharing of the how-to's of Christian salvation, apologetics is the platform on which evangelism is built. Evangelism says, "Come to the Savior." Apologetics exclaims, "Here is why." Whatever else is true, apologetics must not be minimized or treated as secondary. Instead it should be viewed as an indispensable component of the mission to show forth the beauty of Christ, the believer's hope.

Concluding Reflections

Life is complex and often unpredictable. Joy and sorrow, peace and misery, occupy the lives of all people. Christians especially know this to be the case, for in Christ joys are multiplied, as are persecutions.

It is within this up and down world, that the Christian gospel offers so much hope. This hope, as Peter instructs, is not temporary or shallow. Rather it finds its anchor in the magnificent Jesus, the One who came to save and who will come again to complete the work He initiated.

If anything ought to be true of the believer, it is this mighty allegiance to the Lord. He not only provides blessings now, but hope for tomorrow. So powerful is this hope that it is capable (in God's grace) of reaching into the hearts of lost men and women. When this occurs, they want to know why the Christian is so confident and secure.

A faithful apologia begins with a heart commitment; Jesus is "sanctified as Lord." This works its way out in the words spoken to those so desperately in need of the Savior.

"Our apologetics must be pervaded by a sense of Christ's lordship, and this demands diligent preparation so that we may be able to obey our Lord's great commission, being prepared to answer inquirers—not only with proclamation, but with answers and reasons."[19]

In the final analysis Christians must learn to appreciate the grace that causes them to be members of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession." Prolonged contemplation of this blessed condition can only compel believers to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [them] out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This declaration of the splendid Savior is at the hub of biblical apologetics. To that end, may the Lord Himself reign in the hearts of His people, shining forth in their lives, thus providing opportunities to share the reason for the hope that is in them.

NOTES

1. Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol 12. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 240.
2. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 49. (Waco,Tx.: Word Books, 1988), 187.
3. Ibid., 188.
4. Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishers, 1976), 1421.
5. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 213.
6. See Michaels, 189.
7. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter, The IVP New Testament Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 116.
8. John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994), 30.
9. Marshall, 116.
10. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 244.
11. Here the plural, reasons, has been employed, but the text of 1 Peter 3:15 actually reads reason. The use of the singular is probably intended by Peter to highlight the ultimate cause of a person's hope, i.e., Jesus Christ. But the declaration of this single reason, by the nature of the case, demands fuller explanation. Thus, the Christian's reason for hope is Jesus Christ, which is demonstrated through the use of many arguments or reasons.
12. For an exposé of some popular belief systems, see Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture (Nashville, Tn.: Word Publishing, 1997). Also, a good examination of world views can be found in James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
13. This is not to suggest that it is wrong for the Christian to memorize and rehearse what he or she might say. The point, rather, is that it is incumbent upon believers to acquire as much knowledge as they reasonably can. Though the essentials of the gospel can be grasped and communicated by a child, the Christian message should not be reduced to the simple repetition of the same words. For example, compare and contrast the evangelistic method of Acts 7 with that of Acts 17. Note also Peter's own instruction to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18).
14. Michael Green and Alister McGrath, How Shall We Reach Them? The Christian Faith to Nonbelievers (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 50.
15. A theodicy is an attempt to explain the presence of evil in a good and sovereign God's world. One component of a full-orbed apologetic, therefore, is to provide a solid, biblical perspective on such matters. See, for example, D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990).
16. Presuppositionalism and evidentialism are broad categories, admitting a wide range of perspectives. For an effort to combine the strengths of each, see Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984). See also D. A. Carson's discussion in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 184-188.
17. Contrast this with Ephesians 4:11-13, where "the saints" (i.e., all believers) are the ones performing Christian ministry.
18. An old saying goes, "You are too heavenly minded to be of any earthy good." Quite the contrary, the Bible tells us that it is precisely this "heavenly mindedness" that equips Christians to benefit others!
19. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 358.

Hope's Reason: The Apologetic Significance of 1 Peter 3:13-17
Copyright © 1999 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.

Those damn Christians! -– Believing the message when you have reservations about the messenger

You’ve probably witnessed it many times, a believer proudly strutting, sanctimoniously proclaiming some odd agenda. What happens when a life doesn’t match the message, when it actually violates common sense and contradicts the claims of the messenger? The scenes are all to familiar.

• A preacher prances across a stage, waving a Bible, speaking with an authoritative twang, and promising some untold blessing. Often, the rewards seem to be in proportion to the amount of money you send to the preacher’s organization.

• A zealous believer spends an inordinate amount of time denouncing the behavior of others and threatening them with damnation if they don’t immediately conform to his standards. Many times, these standards appear more an expression of the believer’s practices than of a divine command.

• An overly vocal religious group makes it clear not only that its views are correct but that anyone who disagrees is at least a fool. Opponents are viewed as enemies, and a condescending attitude pervades any attempt at discussion.

• A religious “expert” is interviewed about some current event or controversial issue, and he/she seems unable to have an intelligent conversation with those who disagree. Be “faithful” is construed as verbally stating the facts as loudly and boisterously as possible.

• A man stands on a street corner and harangues those who pass by, warning them of impending danger. “Repent” is repeatedly on his lips, and he is evidently quite confident that his words and accompanying actions are the answer to life’s questions.

• A couple of believers at work are always using Christian speak, taking their religious stand and announcing it in distinct religious language. The lingo, which is only partly understood by others, seems strained and foreign to outsiders.

The intent of the above examples is not to demean those who sincerely desire to live out their religious convictions. Indeed, there are certainly times when speaking out boldly or defending the truth are admirable qualities. The unfortunate point here, however, is that many times the actions and attitudes of believers are anything but admirable. When this happens, the behaviors displayed reinforce long held stereotypes and, as a result, many people–within and especially outside the church–are turned off.

Ghandi once reportedly remarked that, though he admired Jesus, he would not consider becoming a Christian because many are so unlike their Christ. To put it bluntly, one of the great obstacles to faith is the faithlessness and/or hypocrisy of its adherents. Why should anyone take Jesus seriously if his followers live in ways that are, frankly, unattractive and perhaps questionable? These are pertinent issues that we must face with seriousness and honestly.

In thinking through these difficulties, I admit that I’ve often been irritated and repelled by the strange behavior of many religious adherents. The all too predictable air of superiority, the arrogant swagger, the condescending attitude, the “I already have everything figured out” mentality–these and other traits are offensive to me. What I offer here, therefore, is the view of one who is often repulsed by religious stereotypes. However, despite “those damn Christians” and our aversion to some of the things that are done in Jesus’ name, it just might be possible to approach these matters in a way that actually bolsters faith. Let’s take a look.

Handling Hypocrisy and . . . Weirdness

□ While some believers are indeed hypocritical, one wonders what portion of the typical opposition to Christians and Christianity is based on the often repeated caricatures that are so prevalent. It is, frankly, popular to criticize those who make statements pertaining to religion, and some pundits have made a religion out of attacking anything that pertains to values or morality. In at least some cases, therefore, the hype outmatches the facts, and the common religious depiction is exaggerated. Do you know of any religious person who is basically a good and kind individual? Disagreements to the side, how do the believers with whom you’re acquainted fare when compared to, say, the average unbeliever? Is it not possible that at least some of the attacks on religion are cases of persecution? Could it even be that certain religious types are actually models of integrity? More so, is not the impulse to oppose hypocrisy itself a religious or spiritual impulse? Those with a distaste for predictable religiosity (and I am one of them) must honestly face such questions.

□ Let’s face it, none of us escapes some measure of hypocrisy. We are all inconsistent at best. Have you ever made promises that you were unable or unwilling to fulfill? How often have you been insincere or self-centered? Indeed, even when you fall far short of your own ideals, you don’t abandon those ideals, do you? Though we often behave unlovingly, most of us still believe in love. While many of us have told “white lies” (or worse!), we still cherish honesty. However unkind we have acted, we don’t normally depreciate acts of kindness. Inconsistency, you see, is a part of the human fabric. Thus, before we too quickly dismiss Jesus because of the shallowness of some of his followers, we probably ought to take an honest look at ourselves. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to Jesus despite the fickleness and, sometimes, strange behavior of some who utter his name.

□ Of course there is an even better reason to look to Jesus, for he–above others–is critical of those who act with pretentious piety. Even a cursory look at the Gospels reveals that Jesus most often attacked not the average person but those who bragged about being the guardians of truth. Though Jesus hated and opposed arrogance, he was able to distinguish between genuine beliefs (from and about) God and those who sometimes used those beliefs to carry out personal agendas. No one utilized “fire and brimstone” language more than Jesus, and no one was on the receiving end of such judgments more than the proud, self-proclaimed defenders and executors of the faith. Jesus didn’t allow the imperfections of people to stand in the way of genuine faith. Should we? Ironically, it may be that the inconsistency we find in others (and ourselves!) is not a deterrent to faith but an indicator that the truth is “out there.” The fact that hypocrisy and related offenses raise our ire suggests that there is some higher standard that we ought to pursue.

The call to follow Jesus is coupled with danger, for we live in a dangerous world and we all possess deceitful hearts. Perhaps, this is why in choosing to believe certain things about Jesus we must never forget that we are ultimately following him. He alone can enable us to navigate our way through the dangers. It is comforting–at least to me–to observe how radical and, shall we say, anti-traditional Jesus can be. He takes up our cause and mingles with common folk. He criticizes the high and mighty and hangs out with the weak and unstable. He refuses to bend to the status quo when the status quo is contrary to the will of his Father and the good of his people. And, he invites us to go with him–boldly yet humbly, openly yet confidently–on a journey of faith.

Like you, I too am annoyed by so much of what goes by the name “Christian.” The strange beliefs and behaviors, the weird lifestyles, the ostentatiousness of so many are a real “turn off.” To be honest, it occasionally makes me question the whole enterprise. But in my better moments I also realize my own many shortcomings, and I recognize, as well, that Jesus long ago anticipated this sort of thing. Unsteady as we often are, bumbling idiots that we might be, there is still a place for faith in our world. Faith works its way around the obstacles of hypocrisy, pomposity, and wackiness, and finds a way to follow. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. That’s how faith operates.

One ancient sage said it well: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” Somehow, in the mystifying ways of God, this is the way he’s chosen for us. We must still oppose hypocrisy, of course, especially in ourselves, and we must do our best to distinguish between perfect truth and our imperfect expressions of it. Along the way, we must learn to embrace the treasure itself. The treasure is worth it all. Skeptical, uncertain, even cynical as we might be, there is still room for the treasure. You can still believe in the treasure.

Where did we come from?: origins, faith, and our place in the universe

It stands out vividly in my mind. We were traveling home from my grandparents, and I poked my head forward and asked the “big question.” It was not the first time I had inquired, but it stands out more than the others. “Mom, dad–where do babies come from?” Of course a good portion of this type of questioning is related to sheer curiosity and, perhaps, a sense of adventure as we seek to discover some truth that is hidden somewhere away from the minds of children.

Yet, as we get older, the subject of origins doesn’t go away. It’s not so much the biology of it all that intrigues us but the larger issue of who or what caused us to be in the first place. Are we the result of chance mutations in an otherwise meaningless universe? Or, are we the product of some special creation?

The opinions on this subject range from the narrowminded assertions of purely naturalistic evolutionists to the dogmatic claims of those who are so convinced about the precise mechanism of creation that it seems they must have been with God when he created. Between these, a host of other options are available. Some separate science and religion entirely, feeling that neither has the right to encroach upon the territory of the other. Others, theistic evolutionists, seek the blend the two, accepting evolution but attributing it to a deity who got the whole thing started. Still others advance various types of progressive creationism in which God creates life and then “steps in” at various times to introduce new features to the creation.

Though much ink has been spilt over the precise answer to such questions, most of what I will do here concerns broader issues of origins. Without denying the need for ongoing discussion of these matters, my intent is more modest but also, I hope, more profound and far-reaching. Where do we come from, and what does this tell us about our place in the cosmos? To this end, I offer these brief excursions.

The subject of origins is integrally tied to our sense of purpose in the universe.

While the precise mechanism that yielded our existence may be a hot topic, the real issue is whether we can honestly conclude that we have a raison d’etre, a reason for being. Where we came from is inextricably tied to our sense of purpose. If, as many naturalistic suggest, we are merely the result of blind chance plus time, if we originated in purposelessness, it is likely that our existence lacks meaning. As Scripture says in one place, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” While we can lose ourselves in a lifetime of supposedly relevant activities, it is difficult to imagine how these activities amount to anything more than wishful thinking.

Then again, if we are the result from some creative purpose, if we owe our existence to a master Creator, our origin might be meaningful. Indeed, if the Maker is personal and benevolent, our whole existence takes on a more pleasant hue. One might even argue that this involves nobility.

The thing to understand is that there is a correlation between the debate on origins and the issues of identity and purpose. Indeed, at some point when contemplating these matters, we have to face up to the ultimate question: Is there a God?

While it can be relevant to discuss such matters as the age of the universe, these must be viewed as ancillary (and not central) when it comes to thinking about origins.

A good portion of the debate about origins has focused on the age of the universe. Evolutionists place the age of the universe in the a billions of years, while young earth creationists place it in the order of thousands (or tens-of-thousands) of years. Then, there are old earth creationists, who believe that the universe is old but that an old universe can be reconciled with Genesis 1 and other passages from the Bible.

Too often, however, we have allowed our disagreements to degenerate to such a point that they become useless. The real issue is not how old the universe is but whether or not the universe was created with intent. Both old earth and young earth creationists, along with theistic evolutionists, agree that there is a God. If that is the case, can we not at least allow this to be a starting point for discussions? And can we not also agree that it is possible to have a relationship with a living God even if disagree over the manner in which he placed us here?

Please understand, I am not underestimating the implications of the various views. For instance, many young earth creationists believe we are compromising the biblical text if we allow for any other possibility. Likewise, many old earth creationists feel that we are abandoning common sense and the findings of science if we deny that the universe is ancient. But the reality is that fidelity to the biblical text and properly and honestly interpreting the created order are both necessary. When the Bible is set aside in a cavalier fashion, we lose our greatest spiritual resource. On the other hand, when we too easily dismiss the discoveries of science, we run the risk of neglecting our God-given instincts, our ability to interpret whatever it is that God has placed before our eyes. This is why, according to Christian theology, we must respect both special revelation–God’s special interventions in the historical process along with the writings provided for our edification and spiritual health–and natural revelation–our sense that his “fingerprints” are everywhere in creation. More importantly, we need to rely on him if we are to be able to make any sense of the world at all. The point, again, is not to ignore debates about some of these topics but simply to recognize that these should “take a back seat” in the overall discussion of origins.

The primary purpose of Genesis concerns the prerogatives and majesty of the Creator and our relationship to him.

Christians (rightly, I think) have a high regard for Genesis One, for there we discover the Jewish-Christian perspective on beginnings. Still, so much debate has surrounded matters of detail (e.g., the meaning of the Hebrew term “Yom,” i.e., day, the order of creation, the age of the earth) that we sometimes neglect the larger picture. When Genesis One was written, when the Psalmist spoke of the creation (Psalm 8), when Jesus referred to the beginning (Matthew 19:4, 8; Mark 10:6)–the major points of emphasis were highlighted. What are these?

First, the true God is the Maker of all things; he, not impersonal forces or other gods, is the Creator. Second, creation is separate and distinct from the Creator, being designed and fashioned by him. Third, the living God is a magnificent and all powerful being, worthy of our honor. Fourth, human beings are the crown of God’s creative activity, occupying a special place among his creatures. Fifth, we were made for God. We are both subject to divine authority and find our greatest meaning through him. Though other topics are relevant, it is important to accentuate those truths that are central to the writers of Scripture, drawing forth from the relevant texts that which God intends for us. Whatever else is true, the heavens declare the glory of their architect. However much we don’t know, we can know him and marvel at the intricacies and spectacular displays of his wisdom and power. The Word informs us of creation’s Originator, as the world shows us the marvels of the Originator’s handiwork. Through it all, we encounter beauty and mystery, along with the imperfections of a marred and scarred world. Likewise, we are drawn to the true source and goal of creation, the One whose imprint is there for all who are willing to see.

embrace the gift

“To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.”

These words by legendary distance runner Steve Prefontaine capture much of what matters (or ought to matter) in life.

What is the gift? The gift is that which is primarily and ultimately unearned. What we have received is the gift. That to which we are given access is the gift. Talents, abilities, insights, capacities–these are all included in the gift. Do you have a special knack for something that is good and right? Are you able to see things that most others miss? Do you possess a certain perceptiveness that nearly everyone else lacks? Is there a compassion or a kindness that radiates from your life? All of these things are aspects of the gift. The gift is full and free. Indeed, it is life itself with it’s countless challenges and opportunities. In the final analysis, the gift is that which originates in our Maker and flows to and through us. It is God’s power, presence, and mysterious love permeating our hearts and lives, and it is our proper awareness of these most relevant things. The gift is sacred. The gift is good. Embrace the gift. By faith, embrace the gift.

mercy and grace

Mercy and grace. These are fairly common words that aptly describe what I always need but only occasionally recognize.

To receive mercy is to have what one truly deserves withheld. Grace, on the other hand, is the reception of blessings that one has not earned. To put it bluntly, I have earned God’s disfavor, and I have no claim on anything that is good. Or, it can be stated this way: my own stupidity and foolish choices–stupidity and foolishness that I display at varying levels each day–leave me in a place where I should be smacked and should never experience anything positive. Yet, goofy as I often am, mercy and grace meet me, even when I don’t notice it.

My hope is anchored to these words or rather to the realities they depict. I often act, live, and think like a spiritual imbecile, a rebellious fool, and somehow God refrains from casting me aside. Moreover, he actually showers blessings on me. Go figure!

“Lord, please enable me to see much more clearly how much you love me. I realize that I don’t get it. I admit that I am a rebel whose rebellion is all too common. Don’t abandon me though, Lord, and keep immersing my family and me in your goodness. Allow mercy and grace, those twin divine characteristics, those ever-needed divine responses, to propel me/us in a good direction. Mercy and grace, mercy and grace. I would be nothing without mercy and grace. Thank you.”

"it's legal" -- legislation and our highest court of appeal

Legal–you here this term referenced all of the time. If it’s legal, it’s okay. If it’s legal it is moral. Somehow the two are often equated. But many legal things are not moral–drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and dishonesty in relationships come to mind, and not everything that is moral becomes moral simply because someone somewhere wrote a law to that end.

Yet, we live in a culture where it almost seems like the highest court of appeal is legislation. If we can enact new legislation we will overcome discrimination, ward off hatred, ensure fairness, and basically create a better world. And so the lawyers and legislators of the land have somehow become the arbiters of what matters most. You can have your “private” religious or ethical views, but if you are really serious about life, if you really want to affect society and people in a deep and meaningful way, you have to somehow get it written down somewhere. You need legislation.

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that legislation is wrong, for clearly it plays an important role in any civilized society. Nor am I saying that morality and legislation are somehow separate categories that ought not intrude on one another. Yes, you can and must legislate certain (not all) types of morality. You have to say that some things are wrong and that violators of certain moral guidelines will be held accountable. So, I am not in favor of ignoring (good) laws or minimizing the importance of creating and enforcing them.

All I am saying is that there is more to cultural change than what some guys and gals in Washington (or wherever) decree. Indeed, I would suggest that as significant as it is to legislate certain things, it is even more important that we take our cues from a higher source.

I know that making such statement often creates more questions than it answers. After all, whose particular cues should be taken most seriously? Granted, there is a lot of debate that must take place in any type of moral discussion. But, perhaps that is in fact a good thing. If you believe–as I do–that we are made in God’s image, that God is a talking deity, that he has spoken in the past and will continue to speak in the present, then you have to trust that honest discussion will provide an avenue to truth. In other words, God has a way of sneaking into our world and impacting our thoughts and lives. And he can do so not only through legislation, which clearly has its place, but especially through the everyday lives of thinking, praying, wondering, doubting, and (ultimately) believing people.

Allow the law-makers to make their laws. Get involved in helping to shape such legislation, accepting that this is indeed one way in which God works through people in our society. But never limit yourself to human statutes, laws, and the like. We can and should and must appeal to laws when discussing morality–in fact a violation of the law is itself immoral unless that law specifically demands that we violate a higher/divine law–but the greatest form of appeal is that which not only transcends but actually informs the best kind of legislation. Jesus once said it this way: “Set them apart in the truth; Your word is truth.” May this truth guide us in our legislative choices. More so, may it draw us closer to the true originator and supplier of what matters most.

the quest (uncertainty, danger, excitement, and something/Someone more)

Quest–many things in life and theology are a quest, a journey, an on-going effort to better understand, formulate, and most importantly live out the truth that is found in Jesus.

Along the way, however, this quest is necessarily accompanied by uncertainty, danger, and excitement. The uncertainty is a by-the-nature-of-the-case recognition that all of these endeavors are my endeavors. As such they are human, imperfect, and subject to error and miscalculation. The danger comes in recognizing that at least some of these issues are extremely important. They are more than black ink on a white page, for they relate to ultimate matters like God and our relationship to him. The excitement is a by-product of such large thoughts and reflective of the One whom we seek to comprehend, engage, and in some sense know.

All of these things–the uncertainty, the danger, and the excitement–are a regular reality for me, and I fluctuate between them, experiencing the joy and disappointment, the satisfaction and the frustration, that accompanies the effort to make sense of life from a Christian view. Sometimes, frankly, I wonder about it all, and sometimes the uncertainty of it all can result in skepticism, cynicism, and doubt. Other times, I wonder about the dangers that are a part of this effort, fearing that my desire to be thorough will degenerate into the “double-minded man” status that James warns us about; it seems we must constantly resist the temptation to allow the desire to “gain the whole world” theologically/philosophically to lead us to the forfeiture of our soul. Still other times, the excitement of it all breaks in and makes this whole endeavor meaningful and electric.

My hope, I suppose, is that along with the uncertainty, danger, and excitement, there is something more to consider, or rather Someone. My hope is that a “Wind” accompanies me, a Spirit of truth and love walks with me, a merciful Person rubs shoulders with me. Mercy, grace, the constant need for forgiveness and guidance, wisdom, and so many other things are gifts from a higher place, from a higher being, from a Savior who lives among us still. Though my faith can sometimes waver, and while I freely admit my own imperfections and faulty ways, he–at the end of the day, at the end of all days–is my hope. “Lord, increase my faith.”

spirits and the Spirit -- alcohol and faith

Many religious people have a propensity for rule-making. Often, this entails a list of do’s and don’t, designed (in theory) to promote spiritual health and ward off negative influences. In some cases these rules are a means of salvation, a way of actually attaining eternal life. In other cases the prescribed regulations determine religious status and/or promote growth.

Before dismissing the rules mentality, it is important to recognize that there are indeed rules in the Bible, intended to benefit humankind. The ten commandments and the golden rule have served humanity quite well for millennia. Not only is there is nothing inherently wrong with rules, but sometimes the rules actually prompt wisdom and healthy living. The key, I think, is to determine what the precise rules are and whether they are applied properly. So it is when it comes to the matter of drinking alcohol.

Certain segments of the church reject the use of alcohol, decrying its consistent abuse and advocating that believers abstain. Others, while not technically advocating abstinence from alcohol, simply frown upon its regular use. Often the impetus for such decision making is not that alcohol is inherently wrong but that it is safer to avoid. Thus, so the thinking goes, if being drunk is wrong, why not abstain from drinking entirely? That way, there is no chance of ever getting drunk. By avoiding alcohol, we show that we are really serious about our walk with God.

The problem with all such rules, however, is that they are simply arbitrary. While the Bible does oppose drunkenness, there is simply no obvious reason for all believers to abstain from alcohol entirely. Jesus drank alcohol and even created it for others (see John 2). Other biblical characters likewise partook of wine and similar beverages. So, what are we to make of the issue of spirituality and alcohol?

First, it is important to recognize the obvious, which is that alcohol is a potentially harmful product. Being a depressant, alcoholic beverages cause us to relax and tend to lessen our inhibitions. Many people have become addicted to alcohol, and many lives have been ruined through its misuse. As Proverbs comments, “Wine is a mocker and strong drink is for fools.” Second, the bible certainly teaches that it is improper to reach a state of intoxication. Though it is difficult to determine where the line is that separates sobriety from drunkenness, it is quite evident that countless individuals cross that line regularly. If we define drunk as being under the control of, our basic guide is this: “Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.” That is, rather than allowing alcohol to govern our lives, the chief influence should be God. Third, it is evident within Scripture that the proper use of alcohol is both acceptable and potentially good. Though we should, perhaps, consider that in the ancient world the drinking options were severely limited, thus necessitating a greater prevalence of wine–after all, diet coke was not on the menu–it is nonetheless true that alcohol was considered a regular part of the social environment of that day. Jesus and his disciples drank wine. Indeed, the supper that commemorates his death involves the use (not abuse) of wine. What’s more, Jesus did not think it improper to initiate his miraculous ministry by creating wine at a celebration where alcohol had already been flowing freely. This is not to say that he advocated or facilitated drunkenness but that he evidently lacked the rigid scruples of some of his contemporary followers. Fourth, none of this eliminates the principle that we should avoid anything–be it alcohol or something else–that actually endangers us morally or spiritually. While these are matters of wisdom and individual conscience, they are important to keep in mind. Thus, a person who becomes abusive or who is prone to addiction should obviously avoid alcohol entirely. The point here is neither that alcohol is inherently wrong nor that abstinence is necessarily a better choice. What really matters is that we do whatever is good for our spiritual health and that of others. Jesus uses hyperbolic language to make this very point: “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off” (Mark 9:43ff).

Some drink because it’s “cool,” while others refrain for the same reason. But the key is not whether or not we drink. The real issue is living for God within the sphere of spiritual liberty. If it hurts you, stay away from it. If it truly hurts someone else, avoid it. Not sure? Pray and seek wisdom. If you can do something responsibly, go for it. 1 Corinthians provides the key: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (10:31).

the pain of pastoral stereotypes

One of the things I most hate is the stereotypes associated with certain “Christian” terms. Indeed, even the name Christian has many silly and unhealthy ideas associated with it. But one idea has, for me, been perhaps the greatest nuisance, and that is the term pastor. Recently, John Smulo wrote a blog dealing with many of these same things, and so I thought I’d add my own, for my experience as a pastor has often frustrated me to the extreme.

Just to fill you in, right now, we are meeting in my home in a very casual manner, and I probably wouldn’t refer to myself as a pastor. Sometimes, others do, and that’s okay, I guess. But after having experienced some 13 plus years in this role, I have to say that the negatives probably outweigh the positives.

When you are a “pastor” people have all kinds of crazy ideas about you. For example: You are somehow gifted at prayer, a specialist at hospital visitation, a pro at being “holy” and “spiritual” and “religious” and a whole host of other things. Some refer to you as “reverend,” and many are leery of letting their hair down when in your presence. Some don’t want to offend you, thinking that your only life experience is in doing weddings and funerals and appearing appropriately somber when the occasion calls for it. Others think you have some sort of backstage pass that affords you access to things that most people aren’t privileged to see. Still others treat you like a good luck charm, a good guy to have around and have on your side. Generally, you are thought to lack the real-world expertise and to have ears easily offended by four-letter words, the sight of alcohol, and the mere mention of sex.

First of all, let me say that many of the stereotypes mentioned here are true, having been earned by countless individuals who truly measure spirituality by such things and who really do look like many assume they would–rigid, corny, out-of-touch, etc.. Second, let me also add that I am nothing like the stereotypes, at least not when it comes to the supposed magic that flows from the title and position. While I have lead churches in the past and still play a role in some of these matters today, I really struggle with the assumptions that people make when they hear you are a “pastor.”

Though I am not ready to abandon the notion of pastor as taught in the New Testament, and while I certainly desire to fulfill some of the characteristics associated with this usage, I have no desire to be treated as a “pastor” in common, stereotypical fashion. Whether right or wrong, I have to admit that I am sickened by the whole feel of this stereotype.

No, I don’t think I am better than anyone out there, pastor or not, and I don’t intend to demean anyone who is sincerely doing the best he or she can to lead God’s people. God bless them. At the same time, I also can’t pretend that I am anything less than turned off by the traditional pastoral stuff.
Indeed, it saddens me that my perceived role as a pastor has sometimes made me wonder about my own sincerity. When you visit enough hospitals and do enough funerals, you begin to wonder if you’re doing these things because they are right or simply because you are supposed to do them. While duty sometimes demands that we do what’s proper no matter what, it is numbing when the perceptions and expectations of people actually hinder your own spirituality. What I’m saying is that I want to visit hospitals and pray and a whole lot of other things not because someone expects me to do these things but because I feel called and compelled to do so.

In other words I want to be spiritual in the best sense of that term. I want to follow Jesus, whatever that means, to the best of my ability. I want to live the right way, to care, to be kind, to be bold, to be wise, and to exude love. But I want to do these and similar things as a person who lives with others in the real world, and I don’t want some ridiculous stereotype to stand in the way of my (hopefully) honest efforts to be authentic, to be me.

God knows that I get in the way of the truth enough as it is; I don’t need the extra baggage that comes from those determined to make me wear the garb of out-of-touch, meaningless religiosity. Lord, save me (us) from the crazy ideas, the assumptions, the predictable expectations, the enslaving influence of pastoral/Christian/whatever stereotypes. Let me be me . . . for you and for others.

sometimes i wonder

Sometimes, I wonder about it all. What is faith, and do I have faith? Indeed, what if I’m wrong about many of the things on which that I rely? What if my belief system has holes, major holes, in it. Even if my beliefs are generally correct–and I hope they are–what if my faith is, well, something less that faithful?

I don’t say any of these things because I’m going through some spiritual crisis or because I’m particularly worried about this belief or that one. Indeed, the best I can tell, God has blessed me immeasurably and I am aware of that fact.

It’s just that my form of faith is, shall we say, non-traditional. It’s not that I hold to some sort form of heterodoxy, that I worship nature, or that I sit around pondering my navel each day. Rather, I’m non-traditional, I think, in that there is currently no overarching pattern to my life that fits the common paradigm. There is no hymn singing or mid-week Bible study. There is no traditional Sunday service or church program. Indeed, to be honest, I have little interest in being involved in that which is often considered “Christian.” It’s not that I hate Christians or anything along those lines, for some of my best friends are believers, even traditional ones. It’s just that I have no desire to follow some prescribe agenda. I have no inkling to “evangelize” as commonly practiced. I have no inclination to use traditional religious jargon. I have very little affinity for that which many, if not most, Christians in our country would consider the outward expressions of the faith.

Am I a heretic? Again, I hope not, for I do believe in the tenets of orthodoxy, though, perhaps, with a sense of openness to new insights that might cause me to tweak my current views. Am I a liberal? No, for I maintain that there are a number of important things that should be conserved. Thus, while we must remain open to the truth–whatever it is and wherever it is found–the truth, once sufficiently understood, should be upheld and maintained . . . even though our maintaining and holding will always be imperfect. Am I a rebel? Hmm, perhaps to some degree, but I hope that at least some of my rebellion is against that which is wrong or contrary to the truth and purpose of Jesus. Am I disillusioned? Yeah, I think to some degree, for I have indeed experienced a good measure of hypocrisy and arrogance and naivete and just plain goofiness that was integrally connected to various models of faith.

Again, just to be honest, I’m not sure what I am, and some of this is a bit scary. Where am I traveling? What road am I on? In what direction am I headed? What will my faith look like in the future? What should my faith look like? There is a lot of traveling and wondering and pondering going on. And, for the most part, it is not a pressured kind of traveling, wondering, and pondering. Rather, I am bathing in what I hope is a new light of God’s love, still occasionally feeling slightly “guilty” that this is not the path of many, still uncertain about the choices I am making, yet reveling in the blessings that flow my way and the light that at least occasionally seeps into my thick head.

Are any of you in a similar place. Just curious. I’m not currently doing “church” in any formal sense, but I am interested in being a part of the Church of Jesus. I have no motivation to follow some agenda or become anything that is “churchy,” but I do want to love and to see and experience the love of the One who is love incarnate. I don’t really want to play some game of artificial evangelism, the type in which you feel like you must verbalize certain phrases (supposedly) in order to provide a way to God, but I certainly do want others to experience genuine joy and love and to connect with the true Savior. I do not want to join some predictable group of Christian flag wavers, consumed with carrying out their various agendas, but I do want to share the love of God’s Son and, to the best of my ability, give expression to the truth.

Where am I? Only God truly knows. Prayer: “Forgive my foolishness, Lord, and continue to let your light shine in, through, and around me. Let Jesus truly be the author and completer of my faith. Be merciful and gracious, Lord, and let your love and truth guide and shape me and my loved ones. Let it be.”

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?