I have been swamped, but I've had this blog in my heart since 11/24. That's the day that this genius placed his laptop on top of his van, in order to load the kids, and then forgot to retrieve it before taking off. Not but a few hundred yards later, I heard a sickening crash. My wife was driving and she probably saved my life by refusing to stop and let me out in the midst of traffic on Vista Chino (a major road in Palm Springs). When we finally got the computer back it was smashed, of course, though we were spared the further indignity of having additional cars run over it.
My term paper, research notes, all of my sermons, everything I had worked on for the last four months (dating back to when I purchased the computer) was on the computer and not backed up. I was devastated beyond belief that in the final two weeks of the semester I would have to do everything again. I instantly craved a rewind button for life. But, of course, there is no such thing. To make a long story short, Best Buy's "Geek Squad" was able to save the hard drive. It didn't take the sting out of losing 1,200 dollars, but it did erase the despair I was feeling hours before I got the good news from Best Buy.
A few things were learned in this experience besides the obvious lesson of not placing objects on top of your van. First of all, I had overwhelming urge to yell at God when it first happened. "How could you let that happen God?!" The imagined reply was something like, "Excuse me. Did I place your computer on top of your van and drive off with it still sitting there." It is amazing how many times we like to blame God for that which is our fault. We humans balk at accepting responsibility for our actions, and the all-powerful divine is an awful convenient target to deflect the blame. Obviously, I quickly realized that God could not be blamed for my absent-mindedness (of which I am notorious for). I had no one to blame but myself. I could, however, turn to God in my need, and he was there for me.
Another thing I realized is that as upsetting as it was that I had done this, it was not some kind of moral failure. Rather, it is simply part of the human condition to have moments of frailty and ineptitude that has nothing to do with sin or moral choice. It just comes with being human. It is humbling and reminds us of our frailty.
I really started thinking about Jesus and how part of being human was to subject himself to this same frailty. It is part of the humbling process of God becoming man. Jesus never sinned, but did he put on a fourth leg to a table that was too short? Did he ever smash his head, because he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing? Did Jesus ever run the donkey pulled cart into the mud and get stuck? Was Jesus really human? If he was, he made these kind of errors. This brought great comfort to me in my moment of frailty. I knew that God understood what it meant to be human in every way, and could comfort me in my distress.
As you reflect on the birth of Christ, remember he really became one of us. He was subjected to all the frailties of being human. Jesus was not mistake free. You cannot be human in not make mistakes. I emphasize that I am not talking about moral failures (i.e. sin). Jesus was tempted in every way as us, though he never sinned. Yet it doesn't mean he never hit his thumb with a hammer. On November the 24th, I was glad to know that.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Search for Certainty
A good preacher friend of mine spoke recently of the need to have an absolute to fall back on when life itself begins to overwhelm you. All of our assumptions about life begin to collapse in the wake of tragedy or other disorienting events. When the last domino has fallen what will still be standing? For many the answer is 'nothing.'
Rene Descartes tried to determine absolute certainty and came up with "I think therefore I am." But in the end my own self-existence isn't much to rely on, since that can be snatched from me at any moment. A noble attempt indeed, but I've got to have something greater than "I think therefore I am."
How does one know what is true? It isn't as easy as saying "because the Bible told me so." I can choose to believe the Bible is true, but is believing knowing? (depends on what one means by 'knowing'). Besides as I have said in another blog, I can't rely on the Bible exclusively, because it requires my interpretation. The Bible is not my starting point rather something (or better said someone) is much more fundamental.
My starting point is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even this must be believed by faith, but that doesn't make it unreasonable. Ultimately, whatever you choose to believe is faith and whatever your faith is requires personal commitment. If you are an atheist, then you believe that we live in a closed universe and that nature is all there is. That, too, is a statement of faith. Certainty cannot be attained through scientific measurement, as if science itself is free from subjective interpretation.
Creation would be a good starting point, except we need a little help to get there. You see no one human was around when it happened. But people did see Jesus die. And people with a great deal to lose for saying so, said they saw him alive again, which of course we know through the Bible. Lesslie Newbigin says this is the whole new starting point in our quest for certainty, for truth.
When we accept the resurrection, we accept the God of creation, because in Jesus, God has made everything new. We have seen God put into action a new creation, which we participate in personally. It is a creation to be completed when we enter the new heaven and the new earth. So, the resurrection enables us to look back to God as the original Creator of the universe, as well as forward to the God who will again make everything new (the new heaven and new earth). The resurrection holds it all together.
A person who tries build on the type of certainty that we see with Descartes' search will end up in nihilism. There is no such thing as completely objective certainty. If there was, then faith would be non-existent. We walk by faith and that walk is personal, and for Christians rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When my last domino falls, I can see even more clearly the certainty that Jesus is alive!
Rene Descartes tried to determine absolute certainty and came up with "I think therefore I am." But in the end my own self-existence isn't much to rely on, since that can be snatched from me at any moment. A noble attempt indeed, but I've got to have something greater than "I think therefore I am."
How does one know what is true? It isn't as easy as saying "because the Bible told me so." I can choose to believe the Bible is true, but is believing knowing? (depends on what one means by 'knowing'). Besides as I have said in another blog, I can't rely on the Bible exclusively, because it requires my interpretation. The Bible is not my starting point rather something (or better said someone) is much more fundamental.
My starting point is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even this must be believed by faith, but that doesn't make it unreasonable. Ultimately, whatever you choose to believe is faith and whatever your faith is requires personal commitment. If you are an atheist, then you believe that we live in a closed universe and that nature is all there is. That, too, is a statement of faith. Certainty cannot be attained through scientific measurement, as if science itself is free from subjective interpretation.
Creation would be a good starting point, except we need a little help to get there. You see no one human was around when it happened. But people did see Jesus die. And people with a great deal to lose for saying so, said they saw him alive again, which of course we know through the Bible. Lesslie Newbigin says this is the whole new starting point in our quest for certainty, for truth.
When we accept the resurrection, we accept the God of creation, because in Jesus, God has made everything new. We have seen God put into action a new creation, which we participate in personally. It is a creation to be completed when we enter the new heaven and the new earth. So, the resurrection enables us to look back to God as the original Creator of the universe, as well as forward to the God who will again make everything new (the new heaven and new earth). The resurrection holds it all together.
A person who tries build on the type of certainty that we see with Descartes' search will end up in nihilism. There is no such thing as completely objective certainty. If there was, then faith would be non-existent. We walk by faith and that walk is personal, and for Christians rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When my last domino falls, I can see even more clearly the certainty that Jesus is alive!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Smoke
Many people's homes just went up in smoke and for many of them their entire lives. Amazingly so few people died. What incredible heroes firefighters are!
Here in Palm Springs, we were relatively far from the fires. Still I have seen our own mountains blazing in the night and so I know that ominous feeling of an approaching fire. There's is hardly a more destructive force in all of nature (Tsunamis not withstanding!). Of course, some of the fires were not started by nature. What kind of depraved individual chooses to light a fire that can destroy life and property I can't fathom.
The Message has an interesting section from Eccl. 5. It talks about working all of our lives for a salary of smoke. It seems many tragically found that out literally these past few weeks.
We feel blessed by God to have our homes and then they may go up in smoke. "Meaningless, meaningless" says the Teacher! Indeed, it might be if all of your life is tied up into your material things. Faith in God keeps one from despair in such times, or so I have to believe. If you life is built upon the rock of Jesus Christ, then everything that has value to you can't go up in smoke. Such disasters cause one to reflect on his/her life and what it is all built on. It also puts many of our religious squabbles in perspective. Faith is where the rubber meets the road. If it can't help me when facing disaster then all the right religious argumentation can't help me. That is why our faith must permeate every facet of our life. Otherwise all that we are might just go up in smoke.
Here in Palm Springs, we were relatively far from the fires. Still I have seen our own mountains blazing in the night and so I know that ominous feeling of an approaching fire. There's is hardly a more destructive force in all of nature (Tsunamis not withstanding!). Of course, some of the fires were not started by nature. What kind of depraved individual chooses to light a fire that can destroy life and property I can't fathom.
The Message has an interesting section from Eccl. 5. It talks about working all of our lives for a salary of smoke. It seems many tragically found that out literally these past few weeks.
We feel blessed by God to have our homes and then they may go up in smoke. "Meaningless, meaningless" says the Teacher! Indeed, it might be if all of your life is tied up into your material things. Faith in God keeps one from despair in such times, or so I have to believe. If you life is built upon the rock of Jesus Christ, then everything that has value to you can't go up in smoke. Such disasters cause one to reflect on his/her life and what it is all built on. It also puts many of our religious squabbles in perspective. Faith is where the rubber meets the road. If it can't help me when facing disaster then all the right religious argumentation can't help me. That is why our faith must permeate every facet of our life. Otherwise all that we are might just go up in smoke.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Contemplating Authority
Churches of Christ, though not original with us, see Scripture as the lone authority for Christian faith and practice with a special emphasis on the New Testament. Yet, is this not problematic for us? We claim to restore the Christian faith back to the first century using a canon they didn't have or use! Oh, I know there was some circulation of NT letters and the gospels were used early, but they didn't sit around and seek out a supposed embedded pattern in Acts and the NT epistles to determine how they should 'do' church.
Truthfully, authority for the early church was found in the apostles and, of course, the Old Testament. Yet, they didn't look for how to organize the church or what exactly to do in the assemblies in the OT. Could it be that such things were not so important? New practice was established in the light of the resurrection and direction of the apostles. So, communion was central to the early practice of the church. So was baptism. But is everything recorded in the NT intended to give a pattern of church practice for all of history? I highly doubt this.
This is a crucial question for us today. We all agree that ultimate authority is God's word. But the problem is that it must be interpreted and applied! Who's the authority for that? Can I go into my bedroom and act as if I was reading it for the first time apart from any influence historical or otherwise? Alexander Campbell seemed to think so. I don't agree with him.
I cannot interpret scripture apart from my own heritage and tradition, my own biases and assumptions about even the purpose of scripture. I bring into the text questions that are foreign to the original intent of the author. So, I must acknowledge that there is no such thing as starting from scratch. I also must acknowledge that the community plays a key role in interpreting scripture. I don't get to do this all on my own.
The Bible may be the ultimate authority, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it is the only authority in our lives. We cannot interpret it apart from our experiences, tradition, and reason (cf. Wesley's quadrilateral). I wish the issue of authority were as simple as we think it is. I know I don't buy the Catholic view of authority (i.e. the Church interprets scripture in an absolute sense). I'm still wrestling with all of this. I will write more when I figure something out!
Truthfully, authority for the early church was found in the apostles and, of course, the Old Testament. Yet, they didn't look for how to organize the church or what exactly to do in the assemblies in the OT. Could it be that such things were not so important? New practice was established in the light of the resurrection and direction of the apostles. So, communion was central to the early practice of the church. So was baptism. But is everything recorded in the NT intended to give a pattern of church practice for all of history? I highly doubt this.
This is a crucial question for us today. We all agree that ultimate authority is God's word. But the problem is that it must be interpreted and applied! Who's the authority for that? Can I go into my bedroom and act as if I was reading it for the first time apart from any influence historical or otherwise? Alexander Campbell seemed to think so. I don't agree with him.
I cannot interpret scripture apart from my own heritage and tradition, my own biases and assumptions about even the purpose of scripture. I bring into the text questions that are foreign to the original intent of the author. So, I must acknowledge that there is no such thing as starting from scratch. I also must acknowledge that the community plays a key role in interpreting scripture. I don't get to do this all on my own.
The Bible may be the ultimate authority, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it is the only authority in our lives. We cannot interpret it apart from our experiences, tradition, and reason (cf. Wesley's quadrilateral). I wish the issue of authority were as simple as we think it is. I know I don't buy the Catholic view of authority (i.e. the Church interprets scripture in an absolute sense). I'm still wrestling with all of this. I will write more when I figure something out!
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Call Me A Convert
I'm at school and have some reading to do that I've been procrastinating! Hey, you can't read 24/7, though I probably need to in order to keep up! I've only been in grad school for six weeks, but already I've been converted in some of my ideas. One of these "conversions" has to do with scientific apologetics.
I really liked philosophical apologetics and loved evidences for the resurrection. I believe these are important. However, I felt wary of scientific apologetics, because I felt that it made the Bible a science book. I figured that God made the universe and anyone who didn't believe that really had a moral issue and not an intellectual one. So, it seemed to me a waste of time to publicly converse about science with atheists.
What I didn't' realize is how far-reaching Darwinism had become, how it touched nearly every field of study (including theology). I never realized how it seeps in and is an acid (a term from atheist Daniel Dennett) to every other belief. I never realized how much Christians had just turned over science to those with knowledge but lacking wisdom, and the consequences of all of this. I also never realized how much effort goes into Darwinists covering faulty evidence and outright lies.
The light exposes the darkness. We are light. Therefore, we must expose the darkness for what it is. I still don't believe that the best strategy is to argue about dinosaurs, the flood, and the age of the earth. Rather, we should harness our efforts on the concept of Intelligent Design, which actually has much more science than Darwinism supporting it. Of course, there is a strong academic prejudice against ID (or any theory that presupposes a god). Shall we just give up then? No, I believe we must take the battle as far as we can, exposing the lies that hold so many captive, and tell the good news that we have a Creator! Like I said...I'm a convert...thanks again to Nancy Pearcy and her book Total Truth.
I really liked philosophical apologetics and loved evidences for the resurrection. I believe these are important. However, I felt wary of scientific apologetics, because I felt that it made the Bible a science book. I figured that God made the universe and anyone who didn't believe that really had a moral issue and not an intellectual one. So, it seemed to me a waste of time to publicly converse about science with atheists.
What I didn't' realize is how far-reaching Darwinism had become, how it touched nearly every field of study (including theology). I never realized how it seeps in and is an acid (a term from atheist Daniel Dennett) to every other belief. I never realized how much Christians had just turned over science to those with knowledge but lacking wisdom, and the consequences of all of this. I also never realized how much effort goes into Darwinists covering faulty evidence and outright lies.
The light exposes the darkness. We are light. Therefore, we must expose the darkness for what it is. I still don't believe that the best strategy is to argue about dinosaurs, the flood, and the age of the earth. Rather, we should harness our efforts on the concept of Intelligent Design, which actually has much more science than Darwinism supporting it. Of course, there is a strong academic prejudice against ID (or any theory that presupposes a god). Shall we just give up then? No, I believe we must take the battle as far as we can, exposing the lies that hold so many captive, and tell the good news that we have a Creator! Like I said...I'm a convert...thanks again to Nancy Pearcy and her book Total Truth.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Jesus is God!
It used to be easier for me to say. Don't get me wrong; I've always believed that Jesus is God, but the title grew a little uncomfortable for me. Perhaps that is because the New Testament rarely makes such a direct statement and opts rather for "Son of God." I understood the implications of that title as well. I understood what it meant for Jesus to be called the image of the invisible God or "who being in very nature God..." I was moved by the profound declaration of Jesus when he said, "Before Abraham was I AM!" And nothing gives me goose bumps more than that climatic scene of worship in Rev. 5 where all of creation bows before him and sings the seven fold song of praise. I knew all this and would declare that Jesus is God, but I admit that I wasn't completely comfortable saying it so directly.
I feared in my church history class it might not increase my confidence. I was afraid I might discover that the official church statement at Nicea would be more arbitrary than I always wanted to believe. How would I feel if the earliest Christians (after the 1st century) didn't interpret those passages about the divinity of Jesus in the same way we did and then they figured they all had to decide something so that they just voted Jesus is God into Nicea?
My study of history has done just the opposite. Whatever hesitation I felt about saying it as directly as the title of this blog says has vanished. It is evident to me that Clement and Justin were articulating this view of Jesus from early in the 2nd century. It is clear that this was the dominant belief of the church from the earliest of days. The only reason why the church had to do what it did at Nicea was because Arius and his cronies challenged the orthodoxy of what was already accepted. It was further impressed on me that the entire history of the church depended on the Orthodox position (which was in great jeopardy even after Nicaea) winning out!
I feel that I can now say more than ever that Jesus is God (as I said I've always believed this, but can express it with even greater conviction now). There was not a time when he was not...to contradict Arius. It only increases the majesty of Jesus even more in my heart to feel this conviction rekindled in my heart. The Creator of the universe became man and gave his life for his creation. That is good news and there is no good news if Jesus is not God in the flesh!
I also see now how serious this issue was and is. People want to pretend that what you believe about Jesus doesn't matter as long as you live your life in a certain way. Even the Arians knew that was hog wash. The identity of Jesus is the core of Christian faith. Either he's God and is our Savior or he's something other than God and not worthy of our worship or qualified to be our Savior. The early Christians (first three centuries of Christianity) felt that even the semantics of how you expressed the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were essential. That's how much was at stake in their view.
I may do another post about him, but Athanasius was a hero. You might say he saved the Christian faith. We honor him by not treating lightly what was worthy of an entire generation of church leaders' work. May we not repeat the mistakes of Arius, but rather proclaim with all the faithful Christians of old; Jesus is God!
I feared in my church history class it might not increase my confidence. I was afraid I might discover that the official church statement at Nicea would be more arbitrary than I always wanted to believe. How would I feel if the earliest Christians (after the 1st century) didn't interpret those passages about the divinity of Jesus in the same way we did and then they figured they all had to decide something so that they just voted Jesus is God into Nicea?
My study of history has done just the opposite. Whatever hesitation I felt about saying it as directly as the title of this blog says has vanished. It is evident to me that Clement and Justin were articulating this view of Jesus from early in the 2nd century. It is clear that this was the dominant belief of the church from the earliest of days. The only reason why the church had to do what it did at Nicea was because Arius and his cronies challenged the orthodoxy of what was already accepted. It was further impressed on me that the entire history of the church depended on the Orthodox position (which was in great jeopardy even after Nicaea) winning out!
I feel that I can now say more than ever that Jesus is God (as I said I've always believed this, but can express it with even greater conviction now). There was not a time when he was not...to contradict Arius. It only increases the majesty of Jesus even more in my heart to feel this conviction rekindled in my heart. The Creator of the universe became man and gave his life for his creation. That is good news and there is no good news if Jesus is not God in the flesh!
I also see now how serious this issue was and is. People want to pretend that what you believe about Jesus doesn't matter as long as you live your life in a certain way. Even the Arians knew that was hog wash. The identity of Jesus is the core of Christian faith. Either he's God and is our Savior or he's something other than God and not worthy of our worship or qualified to be our Savior. The early Christians (first three centuries of Christianity) felt that even the semantics of how you expressed the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were essential. That's how much was at stake in their view.
I may do another post about him, but Athanasius was a hero. You might say he saved the Christian faith. We honor him by not treating lightly what was worthy of an entire generation of church leaders' work. May we not repeat the mistakes of Arius, but rather proclaim with all the faithful Christians of old; Jesus is God!
Friday, September 21, 2007
First Blog
It is late Friday night and my wife is at a Lady's retreat. It is my first blog and I sort of impulsively decided to have a blog. I don't how much this will just be for me to air my thoughts or how many I will share my blog with, but I always have a lot of thoughts that need expressed. If anything, I look forward to articulating what's going on in my head, because it often disappears later when I want to return to it!
I am reading a life changing book right now called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. She rails against the sacred/sectarian divide in Western civilization. I have longed wondered why we are not doing a better job of making disciples. I have thought for some time that it was just because people didn't want to pick up there cross and follow Jesus. But Pearcy has opened up eyes to see that often people just don't know how to be a disciple. They have been conditioned by society and the church to intensely privatize their faith, so that they have no Christian worldview for their jobs or schools or the public sector in general.
It is so easy for us "ministers" to preach at our congregation to be more Christ like in their workplace. The truth is I have no idea how hard it is for them. The last time I worked in the "secular" world was over ten years ago. So, we are sending people out every week without giving them the skills to form a worldview that allows them to live as disciples 24/7.
I've got to work on this. I am expositional preacher and have always looked at other stuff as "fluff." However that other stuff sometimes is what people need. I may need to preach in a more relevant, contemporary way while still being true the text. It is not fluff. It is theology. On the other hand, if we give people the text and don't show them how it shapes their everyday life, then it might as well be fluff.
I look forward to reading more from Pearcy.
David
I am reading a life changing book right now called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. She rails against the sacred/sectarian divide in Western civilization. I have longed wondered why we are not doing a better job of making disciples. I have thought for some time that it was just because people didn't want to pick up there cross and follow Jesus. But Pearcy has opened up eyes to see that often people just don't know how to be a disciple. They have been conditioned by society and the church to intensely privatize their faith, so that they have no Christian worldview for their jobs or schools or the public sector in general.
It is so easy for us "ministers" to preach at our congregation to be more Christ like in their workplace. The truth is I have no idea how hard it is for them. The last time I worked in the "secular" world was over ten years ago. So, we are sending people out every week without giving them the skills to form a worldview that allows them to live as disciples 24/7.
I've got to work on this. I am expositional preacher and have always looked at other stuff as "fluff." However that other stuff sometimes is what people need. I may need to preach in a more relevant, contemporary way while still being true the text. It is not fluff. It is theology. On the other hand, if we give people the text and don't show them how it shapes their everyday life, then it might as well be fluff.
I look forward to reading more from Pearcy.
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)