Freedom!

Found this somewhere deep in the bowels of Letters from Kamp Krusty.
At of all the faux ‘motivational posters’ I have run across, this is one of my favorites. Too, you can make your own here.

This Is Sparta!!

We has three cats in our house.

Up to my old tricks again……edit..post… re-edit..post…etc….

FYI, I clarified point eight on my previous post….the first number eight, that is.  I noticed I briefly forgot how to count.  Had two points numbered ‘eight’  Fixed it.  Anybody want to volunteer to be my editor?

More on my covenant/dispy thoughts

In a previous post, I expressed an interest in learning more about covenant and dispensational theology. I have not had much time to do in-depth reading on these frameworks as of yet but have come away with some brief, broad, general, perhaps imprecise, perhaps incorrect, and quite nascent perceptions.

First, I am attempting to do something I have never done before - read through the entire Old Testament. I always bog down in Leviticus. I will persevere this time, however. Though I have read through the New Testament a few times, there are many books in the Old Testament I have never read. I wish to remedy that situation in the next few months to better grasp the full council of God. That all being said, in reading through Genesis, I am struck by the fact that God is a sovereign maker of Covenants. In my previous reading of Genesis, this fact has never stood out in such bold relief. Also, I want to read through at least the Pentateuch before I do very much ‘extra-biblical’ reading on covenant/dispensational theology.

Second, this area of theology is not unimportant. What we think about God and how He interacts with His creation has implications both historical, personal, and profound. Among other things, I believe it informs to a great degree how we ‘define’ His church, especially in relationship with Israel. It informs our thinking on eschatology, the study of the direction and culmination of history. It is the study of His working of redemptive history culminating with the revelation of the risen Messiah.

Third, though important, this area of inquiry, the ‘choice’ between these frameworks, is not a make or break doctrine. It is not a hill I would chose to die on. Most discussions I have read on this subject are quite irenic.

Fourth, there is a dizzying array of technical terms to understand, some that may be a bit peripheral to the discussion, some with which I am familiar, some with which I am becoming more familiar. I am learning more about hyper-preterism, partial-preterism, preterism, and amillinialism. I could give more terms, but the point is clear that this a subject that requires some effort to apprehend. I believe the effort will be well spent.

Fifth, and this is a thought that has been peculating in my weird little mind for quite a while, it seems a number of interesting things were ‘discovered’ or taught by elements of the 19th century American church that had somehow been missed in the previous eighteen hundred years of the church. Examples may include the ‘discovery’ and teaching of a ’secret’ rapture of the church to occur at some point in the future. This doctrine is the driving impetus behind the mindset of the Left Behind series of books and movies that dominate much of the popular eschatological landscape. Another example would be the evangelical measures and methods popularized by Charles Finney that have such great traction in the American evangelical community today. While I personally have some issues with the excesses often evidenced by adherents of the two aforementioned examples, dispensational thought, born, too, in the 19th century, needs and deserves a more sober assessment and should not be easily dismissed.

Sixth, how do I deal with the year 1948 when Israel became a nation again? How does this significant historical event relate to the amillinialism that seems to be a large part of covenant (reformed) theology?

Seventh, dispensationalists have cool charts.
Eighth, I lean towards, no…stand resolutely on….a reformed view of soteriology, the TULIP. Perhaps a hill to die on. I also favor a post-trib, pre-millennial ‘rapture’ eschatology. I am not dogmatic on this, however. Not a hill I would die on.

Number ninth, should someone outside of the church ever stumble upon this post, what gibberish it all must sound like. But, they are not the intended audience. Who the intended audience is, of that, I am not sure. I think perhaps me, for the most part.

Tenth, what is the deal with Federal Vision? Seems to be a controversy in Presbyterian circles. Something to study when I am more firmly grounded in covenant thinking.

As an addendum, please forgive any misspelled words. Spell-check did not recognize many terms and I did not take the effort to check every questionable spelling through an internet query.

I am not sure what to make of this ;-)

My wife and son are in New Jersey this week visiting friends and relatives. During one of our phone conversations, she informed me that one of her friends read my ‘blog’ and came away with the impression that I was clergy (which, by the way, I am not). Not knowing the context, I am not sure how to ‘exegete’ that statement in a hermeneutically appropriate fashion. Am I coming across as too homiletic? But seriously…….

I repent

It dawns upon me that have been quite judgmental of a large, local church. It is not a perfect church with a non-perfect pastor. It does engages far, far from perfect methods in doing church and evangelism that are difficult to condone. I am far from perfect, too.

I listened to his Easter message today. Not the most profound or polished, not without some measure of inappropriateness, but it did evidence a true love for Christ. It honored Christ. Forgive me, my Lord and Savior, for my self-righteousness.

Philippians 1:6 (New International Version)

“being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

Too Deep

Pilfered from barwal1’s StumbleUpon blog

The Easter Event

(After a quick read prior to posting the following, I feel compelled to briefly qualify the opening statement. I am not, in any way, shape, or fashion, intending to marginalize the import of the death of the Messiah on the cross. Without Christ’s death, without His sacrifice, I affirm there is no atonement for sin. )

Let us open with a controversial statement: it may be argued that the cross is not central to the Christian faith. Not only is it not central to the Christian faith, the impact of the symbol has been diminished by popular American culture to the point that it is almost meaningless. If this symbol, long revered by Christians as evidenced by all the church steeples capped by the obligatory cross, is not central to the Christian faith, then what is? It is the event that proceeds from the cross, the physical resurrection of the Messiah. The cross symbolizes death - the Roman cross was a horrific death, torture, and punishment machine; the resurrection event shouts life, shouts boldly victory over death. However, the resurrection event of Christ does not lend itself to simple forms or images; it cannot be apprehended by a simple symbol. It can hardly be comprehended by the most supple of minds. Without the physical resurrection of Christ, though, our faith, as the Apostle Paul wrote, is in vain and we, the followers of Christ, are to be the most pitied of all people.

The question that should follow the aforementioned statement is thus: did the resurrection of the Christ actually occur in time and space, and if so, how can we know? Many sincere followers of Christ, though, may ask why one needs evidence? Is not this religion thing about faith, the belief in things unseen? Is not asking for evidence counter to the need for faith?

Let us answer the second question first and begin the answer with a question or two. What kind of faith is required of a Christ follower? What do we mean by faith? First, I assert that the word ‘trust’ is perhaps a more accurate term for our relationship with Christ than the word ‘faith’. If I have more than adequate evidence to believe that Christ exists and that He did rise from the tomb, can I trust Him? Does what I know of His character and power lend credence to His claims even when, at times, my immediate personal circumstances are painful? Do I have a solid foundation for the times when God seems distant? If I can reasonably validate that Christ is who He and his followers say He is, then I have an objective foundation that is independent of malleable, subjective, and emotional experience.

When I was a child, I believed certain things unconditionally that brought joy and excitement to my life for a time, but upon later investigation, I found them to be false. I had been easily mislead because I did not, nor could not at my young age, critically examine the evidence. Needless to say (and said with tongue in cheek), I can no longer believe in Santa Claus. Many are brought up in a ‘church-going family’, but upon leaving the safe, cloistered confines of home and entering into and increasingly post-Christian world, they find their belief system questioned. Because they may not be equipped with answers, because they may have never had their faith challenged, they may be left with limited options: they may they must either sacrifice their intellectual integrity and continue to believe blindly or they may feel they must abandon their faith. Even worse, they cannot answer sincere questions about our hope. Their ability to carry out of the Great Commission may be compromised.

Moving on to the first question, is there evidence for the resurrection? The short answer is yes. What, then, is the nature of this evidence and can the resurrection be proved? The nature of the evidence is circumstantial and, no, the resurrection cannot be proved. Proof lies only in the realm of mathematics. Neither can the scrutiny and verifiability of the scientific method be applied to the resurrection event due to the non-repeatable nature of history. What we can do, however, is apply the standards of historical analysis to the evidence regarding the resurrection of Christ.

Let us look at the consequence of claiming faith in Christ in the early years of the church. Indeed, it is the bold commitment of the first evangelists that speaks loudly to the veracity of the resurrection claims made for the Messiah. To be intellectually honest, we must admit that we do not have complete historical knowledge of the lives and deaths of all the apostles. Much is based on early church traditions, some of which is admittedly a bit ambiguous and fanciful in the details of, for example, martyrdom, though it seldom contains outright fabrication. We do know with reasonable certainty that Peter, for example, was crucified, upside down at his request, in . He did not think himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Savior. In the New Testament (Acts 12:2), the death of James is recorded. Herod has James killed by the sword, most likely beheaded. Matthew was martyred by in Ethiopia; he died from a sword wound. Bartholomew, known also as Nathanael, was martyred for his preaching in Armenia. He was flayed to death under the whip. Thomas, the doubter, was killed by a spear in India . He was on a missionary trip to establish a church. The great apostle Paul was tortured and beheaded by Nero in Rome in A.D. 67. Mark was dragged to his death behind horses on the streets of Alexandria, Egypt.
How did these men, finding, at the foot of the cross, their grand cause crushed, in ruins, summon the courage to die horrible deaths rather than recant their bold proclamation? The remarkable transformation was the result of something the happened in time, in history. They did not die for a story they knew to fabricated. They did not die over a cleverly devised myth. They were eyewitness to the risen Savior.

I do not think it is hyperbolic to assert that there is as much evidence for the resurrection of Christ as there is for most any event in ancient, and not so ancient, history. I have only scratched the surface of the supporting evidence the historicity of the resurrection of Christ Jesus with this modest essay. Given the weight of evidence available for the resurrection for those who wish to examine it, I believe the resistance to the supporting evidence is more one of presuppositions and personal bias than one of absolute intellectual tension. I believe the cross is an offense to the world in that the cross convicts the world of its sin.  The crux of the matter is this: what do we do with this undeniable Easter Event?

• 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV)
  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
  
• 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (ESV)
  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

John Piper on the Cross vs. self

Recently, I have not had the time or inclination to write. I have, however, found words of others that resonate with me and I delight in sharing them. Following is a quote by John Piper that I found at ακολουθω Χριστω.

• It is profoundly wrong to turn the cross into a warrant for self-esteem as the root of mental health. If I stand before the love of God and do not feel a healthy, satisfying, freeing joy without turning that love into an echo of my self-esteem, then I am like a man who stands before the Grand Canyon and feels no satisfying wonder until he translates the canyon into a case for his own significance. That is not the presence of health but of bondage to self. The only ultimate love is the sacrificial act of God saving me to share God’s passion for the supremacy of God. Nothing glorifies him, or satisfies us, more.

-John Piper, “Taste and See,” pg. 45

Interesting post on American evangelicalism

(7-02-08: As a sort of chronologically challenged preamble to this post and after reading a bit deeper into the blog, I have developed some reservations about what I perceive to be an alignment with with the Emergent strain of Christendom.  I still agree with the following post, but again, I do not know if I can endorse the blog as a whole (not that it matters to anyone what I endorse), especially without further examination of the blog.  Anywho, moving on……)

Stumbled on this post titled Burger King Christianity:

First, while I’m sure many people reading this understand what I mean when I say “attractional” church, but many might not, so briefly…
Attractional church is that model where we see the work of church and of evangelism as getting people to come. If we tink enough with the seats, if the music is rocking enough, if the kids program high energy enough, if the parking is plentiful and the coffee sweet, non-Christians will magically develop a desire to come to church. And when they come, Pastor can take a whack at ‘em.
For better or for worse… no, scratch that… for worse, this has become the dominant model in American evangelicalism.

Second- what’s wrong with it? If it gets people to church, why should we not do anything possible, short of something immoral or illegal to get people there?

Because the goal is not to pack a room, and it’s not the Pastor’s job to get your friends saved. And shame on any pastor whose model allows people to think it is.

This is the phrase that has been going through my head recently: What you win them with, you win them to. The problem with the attractional model is this: We bring people in on the basis of consumeristic impulses and when they fail to make the transition from church consumer to servant of all, we scratch our heads and wonder what’s wrong with them.