DANGEROUS

For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love, and of self-discipline.

In reflecting on 2 Timothy 2:7, I was reminded of this quote from famous Christian missionary, Jim Elliot:

"We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with. But we are “harmless,” and therefore unharmed. . . . We are “sideliners” — coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!" 

Elliot was martyred in Ecuador in the 1950s. If you are not familiar with his story, I highly recommend reading Shadow of the Almighty: the Life and Testament of Jim Elliot, a collection of his writings from journals and letters compiled by his wife, Elizabeth, after his death at the hands of the Auca Indians. 

Elliot's story is amazing. He and his wife were anything but timid. 

AT ODDS

I grew up the third son in a line up of 4 boys. So I was a middle child ... and painfully shy. 

I remember on every occasion my mom had to introduce her children to someone, she would give each of us a label: "This is Ryan; he’s our oldest. This is Spencer; he’s our athlete. Here’s Russell; he’s our youngest" - at this point Mom would reach behind her, pry me loose from her leg, and drag me out into the open - "and this is Steven, he’s our Quiet One."

I was timid, to say the least.

One day in high school, I was reading a Norman Vincent Peale book off a bookshelf my parents kept in my bedroom. At least I think it was one of his books, but I have never relocated this story as an adult. Anyway, Peale wrote that he had grown up shy. One day, though, he had come to the realization under the influence of the Holy Spirit, that being quiet and being shy were not synonymous. 

In a flash, he realized that he was quiet by nature. This is the way God had created him.

But he was ALSO shy, and the shyness was different because it was actually a sin. A fear of other people.

In that moment as I read Peale's framing of the difference between introversion and shyness, it made perfect sense to me. I took it as a conviction from God Himself.

My shyness didn't disappear overnight. Since reading that book, I have spent some portion of every year actively pushing myself to overcome shyness. 

Some days more intentionally than others. 

Some years more successfully than others.

This was the first time, but not the last, when I found my faith to be at odds with my comfort.

QUESTIONS OF CANON

Here's another of my book reviews for class. This book was on how the Bible was pulled together:

Review of F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1988. 

Introduction: The Question of Belonging

Unlike Muslims or Mormons, orthodox Christians lack the easy solace provided by a mythology of sacred writings delivered by heavenly messenger, simultaneously dictated, recorded, and canonized. On the other hand, many believers simply never question the Bible’s origin, blissful in their ignorance. The risk, however, is falling prey to forces intent on attacking the validity and authority of Scripture, sometimes even from within the church. Without some familiarity with the canonization of the Bible, even basic questions can foster doubt and uncertainty: How was the Bible compiled? Who decided what would be included and what excluded? When was the canon closed, who closed it, and by what standard? In the hands of the worldly, these questions can be wielded as weapons against faith. Ignorance, then, is dangerous for the faithful. 

In The Canon of Scripture F. F. Bruce examines the historical record to reveal the process which led to the canonization of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Interested in writing for the common man, he acknowledges the existence of other trustworthy scholarship on the topic but justifies his book as “an attempt to communicate the present state of knowledge [on canonization] to a wider public” (10). Considering the author’s definition of canon as “the list of books which are acknowledged to be, in a unique sense, the rule of belief and practice”, questions regarding the formation of the Bible canon are deserving of thoughtful answers (18, emphasis in original). 

The Old Testament

Bruce first gives attention to the millennium-long process leading from oral traditions to what Christians today would call the Old Testament. He contends this process was complete by the time of Jesus and there seems to have been general agreement even among the various Jewish factions of the day as to established books of “the law and the prophets” and their place of authority (42). Although Jesus would have likely read the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was produced centuries before his time and seems to have been accepted as trustworthy by his contemporaries around Jerusalem, including the writers of the New Testament, who quoted it often in their own books. Bruce points out, though, that while the early church continued to revere the established law and prophets as inherited by God’s chosen people,  they now read it differently in light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, focusing on how it pointed to Jesus (64).  

Bruce pieces together surviving historical records, from both the east and west, indicating which books specifically were considered Old Testament canon in various places across the early centuries after Christ. Several books seem to have been contested, drifting onto and off surviving lists. Notable among those is Maccabees, now firmly off the list, and Esther, now on. In the 4th century A.D., Jerome made an interesting distinction, sorting the known books into three categories: canonical (those considered sacred), edifying (those useful for spiritual development), and apocryphal (those to be avoided) (90). Surprisingly, Bruce points out that even following various councils and the Reformation itself, agreement on Old Testament canon still does not exist across all believers (113). Nevertheless, in essence the Old Testament canon was settled by the time of Jesus.   

The New Testament

Bruce next turns his attention to a comparable examination of the history of the formation of the New Testament canon. He documents how in the early days of the church, the stories of Jesus found in the four gospels and the collection of Paul’s letters along with the book of Acts formed a proto-New Testament (132). According to Bruce, the first known publication of a “New Testament” was created by Marcion in the 2nd century A.D., but it was misshaped by certain unorthodox convictions he held (134 ff.). Marcion’s approach to canon, especially the fact he rejected the Old Testament altogether, gave the wider church a reason to clarify the usefulness of a broader definition of scripture. The relatively recent discovery of the Muratorian Fragment illustrates the church’s response to Marcion, in that it offered “a list of New Testament books recognized as authoritative in the Roman church at that time” with a “number of observations” about each (159). Unfortunately, the document is incomplete, and it is unclear how widely held were the opinions it expresses. 

Bruce next demonstrates that at least from the time of Irenaeus, in the 2nd century A.D., the church understood its sacred scripture as consisting of both the Old and the New Testaments (177). Indeed, the church was referring to the gospels and epistles collectively as “the New Testament” by the beginning of the 3rd century, as demonstrated in the writings of Tertullian (180). Bruce also shows, though, that just like the Old Testament, the shape of this New Testament shifted somewhat over time and place. There were certain books which nobody doubted as belonging to the canon: the four gospels, Acts, and most of the letters of Paul. Over time there was some dispute about the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation. Nevertheless, these were all included (along with every other book in our current New Testament) in Bibles published by Eusebius in the 330’s A.D. at Emperor Constantine’s request (204). Still, certain books remained somewhat controversial and unsettled, especially in the east. 

During his studies, it became clear to Bruce that when it came to the Old Testament, the fact that “it was good enough for” Jesus and the apostles meant that the early church considered it good enough for themselves (255). And as for the New Testament, the major consideration for what was to be understood as required reading was apostolic authority (256). Bruce brings his book to a close with an important reminder: Although The Canon of Scripture explores the historical dimension of canonization, for the believer, the more important dimension to consider is the theological, i.e., scripture’s inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: A Thorough Exploration

The depth of Bruce’s knowledge of the historical events and individuals who gave shape to the Bible as it stands today is apparent throughout The Canon of Scripture. Almost as important is his appreciation of the limitations of historical research. It is admirable that Bruce refuses to use fragments of documents and records to stretch speculation into certainty. This thoroughness of research, carefulness in documentation, and understanding of limitations leads the reader toward great confidence in Bruce’s conclusions, and thus toward greater confidence in the trustworthiness of the canon he has dedicated his life to studying. 

ALL MEANS ALL?

If you will indulge me, I want to share a follow up to yesterday's snippet of my exchange online with a Calvinist named "Dulls". 

(No comment. 😏)

I ranted for several paragraphs about how the Calvinist presuppositions about God determining all things makes their God a sadist, creating billions of sentient beings who are born predestined to die and face God's wrath. There is no definition of "love" which could be stretched to encompass God's apparent feelings towards those destined for hell. He hates them. And Dulls is OK with that. 

(A bone-chilling admission for a Christian.)

How did Dulls respond to my criticism of the Calvinist God's sadism? He gave me this sentence:  "It comes down to the fact that I dont hold as lofty a view of human nature as you do."

And because I had further questioned how Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son could possibly fit within Calvinist ideology, Dulls gave me a second sentence: "The prodigal son was always his son."

In other words, Jesus' parable is the story of a person who is already elect. Already guaranteed a happy ending.

That's convenient. But there's nothing in the story that would justify that reading.

So I ranted again, as follows:

Me: It's not just me who has a "lofty" view of humans. Apparently King David did too: Psalm 8:4 "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? 5You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor. 6You made him ruler of the works of Your hands; You have placed everything under his feet: 7all sheep and oxen, and even the beasts of the field, 8the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas." You want to blow your mind? Take a close look at Romans 3:9-18, a foundational text for total depravity ("no one is righteous, not even one", etc) and then look up the CONTEXT of the OT passages being quoted by Paul. Psalm 14:1-3, is a great place to start: 1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. The "ALL" of verse 3 (which makes its way eventually to Romans 3) is clearly referring here to FOOLS who deny God's existence, a stance which causes their corruption. To further prove that he is not speaking of ALL HUMANITY, David goes on (important context) to speak of those same people as "evildoers" who devour GOD'S PEOPLE (v.4). And in verse 5 David speaks of God being "present in the company of the RIGHTEOUS" (v.5). How does total depravity account for "no one does good" and righteous people in the same short psalm? This understanding that some humans spiral into greater levels of depravity BECAUSE of their denial of God fits with Romans 1 and makes better sense of what Paul is really addressing in Romans 3 and in the book as a whole. So ... ironically, Romans 3 is the one place where Calvinists really should question whether "all means all". But they don't.

RECONSIDER

I have been arguing with Calvinists on YouTube again. I try to resist, but sometimes I get dragged into it.

And once I start, I always have to get the last word, because in online arguments, THAT means you won the debate. 😉

This post offers a current snippet of a back-and-forth that has gone on for several days. My Calvinist friend, Dulles, has accused me of ignoring context AND the plain meaning of various verses. Now he protests I have "twisted everything". (Yet he keeps coming back for more!)

Below you will find his objection and my windy response, both unedited. Perhaps some of my points add more heat than light, but I am trying to overcome his cognitive dissonance.

For context, Dulles has been saying we must read "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" in Romans 9 absolutely literally. And therefore God hates all the reprobates which He created for destruction.

I have seen cracks in his resolve, so I am "going in for the kill"...

Dulles: You twisted everything. Your language is disturbing in the way you attack what I believe. You are adding in a way I never had. Yes I am a sinner but Christ died for me. I dont believe I had any part on my salvation. It was all of God and God saved a wretch like me.

Me: One of us believes in something that is false and we are both trying to persuade the other he is wrong. False teaching deserves to be attacked, right? One of us has bought into false teaching. You believe it is me and I believe it is you. We are even. The loving thing would be to persuade the other he needs to reconsider. I think we are both motivated by love, ultimately.

Please consider that what you call twisting could also be the experience of cognitive dissonance on your part. It is very difficult for someone who believes in Calvinism to see that dark side of the belief system: your God has created legions of human beings predestined to live and die apart from Him. He sent His Son to earth - but NOT for them. And when these billions of people die, He unleashes His wrath upon them and condemns them to hell for acting according to the nature that He built into them. They didn't ask to be born - the God of the universe went out of His way to create them for destruction. To His GLORY. He decreed the Holocaust, starvation, child rape, and drunk drivers. It is all HIS SCRIPT.

Calvinist preachers always say, "The question isn't why anyone should go to hell; it is why God should SAVE anyone." That sounds pious, but it still leaves you with a God who royally screwed up His own creation INTENTIONALLY. And then He curses the vast majority of the sentient beings He brought into existence. He creates His script, He creates the humans, and then He punishes every last one of them for reading His script and acting accordingly to all the villainous roles He decreed. It is sadistic.

If He hates them so much, why did He create them? Is He a masochist as well as a sadist?

But ... He chooses a few to save, says He LOVES them and expects to be worshipped by them.

And if anyone objects to this system, He says, "Who are you, o man, to question Me?"

Contrast all of that with the Father in Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son, Who reluctantly allows His son to go his own way and then welcomes him home just because he starts walking back toward the Father. The son doesn't even ask for forgiveness and yet the Father forgives him and welcomes him back into the family. The Father gushes, "We have to celebrate because My son was lost but now he is found. He was dead, but now he is alive!"

So much for total depravity.

So much for irresistible grace dragging the son back home.

How does the Calvinistic portrait of God jive with Jesus' portrayal of the prodigal's Father? Can you honestly claim they are one and the same? If Jesus bought into TULIP, he sure told a heck of a misleading parable!

MERCY

Mercy: 

1."compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence". 

2. "an act of kindness, compassion, or favor" (dictionary.com)

I watched my dad once inflict a hearty load of emotional stress on a couple of teenage girls.

He had caught them shoplifting at our family business, Major's Five & Dime on the corner of Harrison and Broadway.

Phone in hand, Dad threatened to call the police and outlined the repercussions these two young ladies would face: charges, fines, a record. They sobbed and pleaded for mercy, beside themselves with fear, apologizing profusely. 

Dad relented and agreed to not call the police if the girls would each take a turn with the phone right then and there and dial their parents. 

Their repentance and shame was genuine, but Dad's threats were all an act. 

I don't recall Dad ever calling the police on any shoplifters. And he wasn't all that concerned over whatever small items these girls had stolen, especially since they hadn't gotten out the door. The reality was that people stole from us daily.

The girls never knew, but Dad's anger was an act - motivated by mercy. His only concern was for the state of their souls. His only objective was to scare those girls straight and spare them from the consequences of greater crimes down the road.

I tell you this story because last week someone stole Sarah's backpack and shoes out of the choir room during an school concert. Sarah was devastated.  

One of the deans used security camera footage to identify the perpetrator. Today Sarah's property was returned. Most of it. A few items were missing and the shoes were scuffed and stretched. 

Beyond the partial return of the stolen items, the school only required the thief to write an apology to Sarah. 

The note was poorly written, insincere, and unsigned. 

The school has failed this young lady. Who will help her see the gravity of her behavior?

Who will show her some mercy? 

SLOW THINKING

Writing's biggest draw for me is that it gives me time to weigh my words - and my attitude. When it comes to thinking - I can go deep, but quick? Not so much. With writing, I also have the opportunity to revise my thoughts and words before I "put them out there". 

Writing IS slow thinking. 

Each time I sit down to write a blog post I am reminded that words seldom tumble out of me in an impromptu string I feel comfortable publishing for the world to see. No, I always revise (a little or a lot, depending on available time). I cut words, I add words. I reorder ideas. I clarify anywhere I might risk misunderstanding. 

It's a messy process - my thinking - and I appreciate the opportunity to "get it right" before putting it out in public. 

So why did it take so long to see preaching, for me especially, is better done from a manuscript than from scribbled notes? 

I was often finding, in these recent days, "the perfect way to say" this or that pop into my head in the course of the week leading up to a sermon. But I wouldn't write it down. Big mistake.

Most often the result was that nobody but me ever heard that point stated well. After delivering a sermon, I would think, "Shoot! I forgot to say -----!" or "I hope people didn't hear me wrong when I said -----." 

The fact that it took me all my life to figure out my sermons would flow better if written out completely before I step into the pulpit illustrates my first point here: 

I am a slow thinker. 

I have preached from a written manuscript for the last two Sundays, and I will be making it a habit from now on. 

SPIRITUAL LEGACY

This morning in our little congregation I was privileged to enjoy the presence of the first pastor I ever knew. He was in town for his 90th birthday party, hosted by his daughter who is quite active in our church. 

I was not yet in kindergarten when Reverend Bill Clayton was appointed to First United Methodist Church of Shelbyville, Indiana. When the denomination moved him and his family out of town for a new appointment, I was 9. 

That was the last time I saw him - 46 years ago. 

When I shook his hand this morning, he said I looked taller.

He was always a man with a good and gentle sense of humor as well as a man of rock-solid faith. 

Considering the fact that my parents were discipled under him and I was discipled under them, I am part of Reverend Clayton's spiritual legacy. It was good to have the opportunity to thank him for his faithfulness. 

LOVE'S AUSTERE AND LONELY OFFICES

Here's one of my all-time favorite poems:

Those Winter Sundays        By Robert Hayden

Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?

I don't love this poem just because it is about an underappreciated father. (Friendly reminder: Father’s Day is coming up, June 18th.)

It's more than that. For one thing, I am in awe of Hayden's economy of words, evident from the first: “Sundays too”. (So much sleeker than “Every day of the week including Sundays”.)

Also, I love the sound of the poem: The “blueblack cold” and the “cracked hands that ached” and all. Beautiful!

Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that – unlike too many poems – this one is not terribly difficult to understand. And yet it still packs an emotional punch. 

It is simply a memory shared by the poet. A confession of sorts. 

His father would rise early, even on Sunday mornings, to rekindle the fire, making it so much more pleasant for everyone else to get out of bed. The fire had been “banked” overnight, waiting for the morning. Dad would bring it to a blaze, providing heat to everyone in the house. 

And then he would go further and polish his son’s good shoes (implying a trip to church was near at hand). 

For his part, rather than offering a word of thanks, the poet would rise and “speak indifferently” to his father. 

The closing lines reveal the poet is older now and deeply regrets his failure to acknowledge his father’s love. “What did I know?” he repeats. 

And what a powerful concluding line, with its focus on “love’s austere and lonely offices”. “Offices”, here, is used in the sense of duties and responsibilities. Somebody had to keep the fire going. Dad took it upon himself. It was just part of the job. 

I am always left wondering – when the poet finally learned about "love’s austere and lonely offices", did he thank his dad? 

Or was it too late?

One thing seems clear: Dad kept right on stoking that fire regardless of whether anyone recognized its importance or not.

THERE IS NO SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD

As a kid I was fascinated by the concept of "spontaneous combustion" - the belief that it was possible for a person to suddenly and unexplainably burst into flames.

Can you imagine? Just walking down the street one day and - poof - you are engulfed in flames. 

I wasn't the only one whose imagination was caught by spontaneous combustion. Stories of such go back to the 1600s. Charles Dickens even eliminates a character in Bleak House via the mysterious process. 

But there has never been a case of spontaneous human combustion confirmed by science. It seems pretty obvious that it just can't happen. In every other case, fire is the result of some outside force: lightning, lighter, spark, or electrical current. Spontaneous combustion is not possible in the physical world.

Neither is it in the spiritual world. 

In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul associates faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with fire imagery. 

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am convinced is in you as well. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. (1 Tim 2:5-6)

Timothy is responsible for fanning the flame within his own heart, but Paul reminds him that the sparks of that faith came from outside him: from his mom, his grandma, and Paul himself. 

“Faith comes by hearing" - it always originates outside of us. 

We need to acknowledge and praise God for those who sparked faith in us. 

And we should live in such a way as to spark faith in others. 

MEMORABLE

Back when I was in seminary and working as a youth pastor at my home church in Shelbyville, Indiana, I sometimes got the opportunity to preach before the whole congregation.

Especially during the summer, when the senior pastor wanted some vacation time.

Also during the summer our church would host a particular youth group from somewhere up north as they traveled south for their annual mission trip. They would crash on the youth group floor in their sleeping bags on a Saturday night, attend worship the next morning, and then be on their way.

One particular summer weekend, my preaching and their visit coincided, so I was one of the first to greet them early Sunday morning. I said, "Our pastor is out of town for vacation, so you get to hear me preach instead."

One of the teens spoke up: "That's funny. The same thing happened last summer when we were passing through. I remember your sermon."

Really? My preaching struck a chord with this young man? And the lesson stayed with him throughout an entire year? I could only imagine how my words had impacted his spiritual walk.

An unexpected burst of pride expanded my chest an inch or two. 

With great humility, I fished for more details: "Oh yeah? What do you remember?"

And that is when this kid replied - with that special candor possessed by teenagers - 

"I remember you were sweating. A lot."

WHAT IT OUGHTA BE

Spiritual growth could be and should be the most fascinating process experienced by humans. 

Seriously. The Spirit taking a run-of-the-mill sinner and molding him or her into the image of Christ, the very Son of God? Daily progress towards fulfilling the purpose for which we were created? 

What a ride that should be! Challenges, setbacks, failures, and victories. All the while, cheered on by the Father and a great cloud of witnesses.

What a shame, then, - especially for young people - when preachers, churches, and various believers around us make spiritual growth seem like drudgery. 

Or worse - unnecessary. 

Like homework.

Are you growing spiritually? If so, has it got you excited?

WHAT A JOB!

When I took the position as pastor at Sardinia Baptist Church, I wasn't sure how I much I might love or hate preaching on a weekly basis. 

Turns out, I kinda love it. 

I know a lot of church folk would absolutely refuse to step foot behind the pulpit. Others might be persuaded ... but only after the twisting of an arm or the inflicting of guilt. 

In general, public speaking is a fearful thing to most people (although it doesn't rank above death, as many claim). 

Preaching has to be among the most formidable sort. 

With preaching you are not only vulnerable to verbal gaffes, awkward silences, nervous sweats, and dry mouth - you could also be exposed in front of others as ignorant of God's ways or hypocritical.

Or both.  

As for me, I know I will always feel a bit of fear when I first step up to read the morning's Scripture passage, but it is an exhilarating fear. The kind some people pay good money for - like walking through a "haunted house" or riding a roller coaster.

For me, any fear is overshadowed by the fact that I am being employed to read my Bible and share what I learn! 

Kenton Anderson in Integrative Preaching accurately characterizes my experience so far:

"Preachers are less communicators than they are listeners - special listeners, first listeners, with the advantage of a head start. We get there first, ahead of the crowd and know the joy of first discovery. We engage the text, seeking the Spirit and we hear! We hear the voice of God who speaks to us his grace and truth. Then having heard, we take what we have heard and offer it to others. God comes with us as we do." (p.xii)

What a great job!

NO FEAR

I met a sweet lady who has been bed-bound since September. 

She apologizes for "letting me see her like this" in her hospital gown and her hair undone. It's a perfect spring day but her blinds are pulled. She can't get outside so she doesn't care to see it, I suppose.

She tells me she married at 18. Gave birth to her only child, a son, at 19. Married 60 years before she was widowed. She speaks of grandchildren and great grandchildren and the church members who call or visit her regularly. One sometimes brings a pint of ice cream with her. "It doesn't matter what flavor - I like it all."

A woman after my own heart!

Her voice is soft and sweet and gentle. 

"I will be 90 in June - if I live long enough to see my birthday."

And then she adds, "I sure hope I don't." Without a hint of fear or deceit. 

In fact, she is beaming. She means it.

She is ready to be out of that bed.

Ready to fly.

HEADLINES

This post is not a comment on the bruhaha Bud-Lite ignited recently by tying its brand to controversial transwoman Dylan Mulvaney.

Not directly.

It is a comment on the media's use and abuse. 

And to what extent we should trust the media.*

Here are two headlines offered up on my Google newsfeed the other day, only separated by a short scroll:

*Not at all. 

WHAT'S WRONG?

You don't have to be alive too long before you reach the conclusion that this world is not what it could or should be.

The fact that there's a major problem seems fairly obvious - but what exactly lies at the root of that problem is less certain.

Every major religion puts its finger in a different place. Maybe the problem is too much desire. Maybe it's suffering. (Maybe it's "whiteness"!) 

Christianity says the problem is sin.

And that can be a hard sell. 

We know there is something wrong with this world, but we don't want to admit it is us. It is so much more desirable to blame something outside of ourselves.

But Scripture says what's gumming up the works is sin. Mine. Yours. Everybody's.

So a Church which stays true to its calling is, by definition, in the business of dealing with sin - and that puts us in an admittedly uncomfortable position.

On a daily and weekly and yearly basis. 

So if you're a Christian, you might want to figure out how to properly deal with sin - your own and others'. 

(Or find yourself one of those progressive churches.)

THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE

I had a book review due tonight for one of my classes. The book was excellent and tackles a crucial topic for Christians - the authority of Scripture and what we mean by calling it "inerrant" - so I thought I would post it here in its entirety:

Review of The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible by Clark Pinnock and Barry Callen, Third Edition 

Introduction: Drawing the Lines

Although they are never emblazoned across a church’s entryway, certain presuppositions regarding Scripture shape each pastor’s study and preaching, and thus also the life of the congregation. Pastors universally refer to the Bible as “God’s word”, but what they mean by that phrase varies widely. In looking beneath pastors’ personal opinions about the reliability of Scripture and the role it plays in faith – opinions shaped by denominations, mentors, historical figures, and seminaries – is it possible to discern a bedrock principle which ought to shape the Bible’s use in the life of believers collectively, as the church, and individually? Clark Pinnock and Barry Callen propose such bedrock in The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible. The authors make a convincing case for a middle path between the inflexibility of fundamentalism and the free-for-all of progressivism. The authors argue for the need to understand and appreciate the interplay of the human and divine in both the formation and the interpretation of the Bible.

God’s Special Revelation

In offering their corrective to both the left and right sides of the theological spectrum, the Pinnock and Callen first seek to establish the validity of their understanding of the “Scripture Principle”: the Bible as God’s special revelation, meant for the transformation of believers. In giving the Bible, God has documented important aspects of His nature and His intentions toward humanity. The authors consider the Scriptures to be like a telescope, an instrument whereby humans can clearly see something otherwise unknowable. The authors warn that it would be an unwise scientist who lets interest in the functioning and construction of the telescope distract from the wonder of the object toward which the telescope is pointing.

The Old Testament is internally consistent in seeing itself as the instrument of God’s special revelation. The fact that its witness began as an oral tradition long before being written down is merely one facet of the interplay between the divine and human through which God delivered His inspired word. The New Testament also witnesses to the reliability of the Old, even as it (unsurprisingly) reinterprets its message in light of the arrival of the Messiah. Likewise, the New Testament writers give evidence that they considered the New Covenant writings to be authoritative and inspired even as they were yet in the process of being gathered and canonized. The authors maintain that though the Bible sees itself as inspired, it does not clearly nor explicitly claim strict inerrancy for itself.

The exact method of this inspiration is never outlined clearly within the pages of the Bible. What is clear is that the message is from God and for humanity. Biblical criticism is valid and useful in so far as it seeks to foster that message rather than undermine it. Criticism becomes counterproductive when it focuses all attention on the search for error and contradiction. On the other side, blind loyalty to perfect inerrancy does harm to believers’ credibility in the face of legitimate textual difficulties. Thoughtful readers of the Scriptures must acknowledge the power of cultural forces to shape communication of any sort. Thoughtful reading, then, must account for the fact that inspiration occurred in the context of a particular time and place.

Pinnock and Callen offer an interesting reframing of the inerrancy question by comparing Scripture’s containment of divine wisdom in human words to the incarnation of Jesus Christ Himself. If believers can confess the mystery of Jesus being fully human and fully God, in some ways limited and yet without sin, surely Scripture can likewise be conceived of as fully inspired and trustworthy yet having a fully human dimension. A hardcore insistence on strict inerrancy cannot accommodate the trickiness of those human dimensions of Scripture even as basic as translation, the strengths and challenges of the various genres found within the Bible, or the extent to which culture colors communication.

As a result, the authors do not see biblical criticism as an enemy to be feared or shunned, but as an ally in getting the most out of biblical studies. Criticism then, whether form, redaction, textual, source, or historical, is a positive force to be embraced - with one fundamental caveat: the critic always must remember that the text is first criticizing the reader. Negative criticism of the sort that assumes the text is little more than human strivings after God is to be avoided and called out. There is no justification for the prejudice against the supernatural which is common in much progressive criticism.

Although most of their book concerns issues surrounding God’s giving of Scripture to the world, Pinnock and Callen conclude The Scripture Principle with an examination of the other side of Scripture’s inspiration, the Spirit’s role in humanity’s receiving of the message. Again, the authors see both the left and the right falling short in appreciating the Holy Spirit’s role in interpretation. The right tends to devalue the subjective experience and the left the objective truth. Both are necessary, however, for the Scriptures to bring transformation. If readers on either side hope to find God’s word to be living and active, they need to consciously set aside presuppositions to the best of their ability.

Conclusion: The Middle Way

Pinnock and Callen provide a valuable service in carefully navigating turbulent waters with their proposed correctives to inadequate or harmful conceptions about the reliability of the Bible. The Scripture Principle is written in such a way so as not to provide too much comfort nor provoke too much ire with either the theologically left or right. In addressing this complicated topic, the authors’ treatment is thoughtful, balanced, and comprehensive. Pinnock’s update in the appendix is particularly encouraging as he relates how faith experiences outside the world of the academy have caused him to double down on some key underlying themes of the book: the transformative mission of God’s word and the reader’s need to apply both heart and mind in order to secure that transformation. Those are Scripture Principles worth spreading.

THE WORLD WILL TELL YOU

Carl Jung (1875-1961) was a prognosticator:

"The world will ask you who you are, and if you don't know, the world will tell you."

It is shameful how ill-prepared American teenagers are to withstand the woke ideology flooding our schools. How many are able to stand unshaken before woke teachers and peers? 

Christian teens at least should know who they are in Christ, but how many churches are providing their young people with more than games and pizza?

A PRAYING LIFE

I came across the following definition of prayer and thought it was worth sharing:

"Prayer is talking with God about what we’re thinking and doing together; it is co-laboring with God to accomplish the good purposes of his kingdom. Prayer almost always involves other disciplines and spiritual activities (e.g., study, meditation, worship, solitude, or fasting). Don’t seek to develop a prayer life — seek a praying life." 

(Dallas Willard as quoted/paraphrased by Bill Gaultiere)

I used to get really anxious about "developing a prayer life" because I have always felt inadequate at building and maintaining a structured prayer time (like keeping a prayer journal or setting aside a regular - and substantial - time). 

I can honestly say that over the last few years especially, I have been building a "praying life".

In the end, I don't suppose it is an either/or thing ... but it could well be a sequential thing: first this/then that.

I say that because now that I have built a praying life, I have a greater internal urge to develop a prayer life. 

It's coming - not because I am gritting my teeth and making myself do it - but because I want to do it. 

ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR WRATH

Last night I pondered the mystery of the story of Adam and Eve's fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden - how one might expect a whole lot more anger from the wrathful God portrayed by certain Christians. Those terrible humans had fouled God's good creation and broken the relationship between God and man. 

If it would prove too deadly to have fire and brimstone raining down in that moment, surely a light sprinkle would be an appropriate way to show a holy God's great displeasure.

Instead the Lord sews up some clothes for the naked couple and sends them on their way. It seems more sadness than anger.

But the Bible records an even greater missed opportunity for a wrathful God to really let His anger show: the Incarnation.

After all, Jesus told Philip, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." (John 14:9)

And according to the Apostle Paul, "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15)

And as the exact image of the invisible (and presumably wrathful) God, what was Jesus up to during His time on earth?

"God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Col. 1:19-20) 

Rather than a Supreme Being defined by anger and wrath, we find One who is serene, determined, self-sacrificing, and ... loving. 

Fancy that!

SHOW ME THE WRATH

I keep looking at the story of Adam and Eve's fall into sin in Genesis 3, wondering why the story is not told in such a way as to appeal more to all the "Wrath of God" type preachers. 

To be clear, I know that the wrath of God, God's holiness, and God's hatred of sin are all very real, but why are all of these so very muted in that historic moment when the first humans disobey God and unleash sin into His creation?

Consider the following:

• God discovers the couple's sin when He comes down to walk with them in the garden.
• God curses the serpent and he curses the ground. He never directly curses the woman or the man .
• Before sending them out of the garden, God takes it upon Himself to make clothing for the two.
• The cherubim with flashing swords are posted to prevent further tragedy: Adam and Eve living forever in their sins. 

None of that speaks of fire and brimstone to me.

In fact, God's original command to Adam does not even specifically designate his death would be a punishment for eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, only that death would be the result. 

"You must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." 

How do we read that command? It makes a difference. Was the commandment similar to "Do not touch that candy - if you do, I am going to spank you hard" or more like "Do not touch the stovetop - if you do, you are going to get burned"? 

The similarity is only in the outcome: either way, there will be pain. 

But they are worlds apart in what they say about the motivation of the One giving the command: 

It is "Don't you dare defy me!" vs. "I don't want you to get hurt!" 

ALL IN

I remember thinking that Marvin Gaye was using hyperbole when he cautioned his listeners to "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear".

In 2023, that advice doesn't sound unnecessarily exaggerated. 

There's a great scene in Dickens' A Christmas Carol when Ebenezer Scrooge is confronted by the ghost of his old business partner Marley. Scrooge's first instinct is to dismiss the spirit as a figment of his imagination.

“You don’t believe in me,” observed the Ghost.

“I don’t,” said Scrooge.

“What evidence would you have of my reality, beyond that of your sense?”

“I don’t know,” said Scrooge.

“Why do you doubt your senses?”

“Because,” said Scrooge, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

Scrooge is not wrong in his mistrust of his senses. We ultimately cannot depend even on our own sight or hearing or touch. 

And in a world where you really can't trust even your own senses, if you are waiting to give faith your all until you possess incontrovertible proof of God's existence, you will never arrive at that high standard. 

There will always be a nagging thought in the back of your head saying, "Perhaps God is nothing more than a fragment of an underdone potato." 

A better approach is to throw yourself fully into faith and see what happens. 

IMPORTANCE

Tomorrow is Easter Sunday - and Easter is the Super Bowl for preachers, so I am keeping this short tonight. I have two separate sermons to preach tomorrow morning and the second one still isn't where I want it. 

I plan to share one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes in our second service tomorrow: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

What he said goes for the resurrection of Christ as well - If Christ was not raised, Christian faith is of no importance. If He was raised, His resurrection is of infinite importance. The only thing the resurrection cannot be is moderately important.

Happy Easter. He IS risen!

READING A PRAYER

This week I was offered the opportunity to say the closing prayer at a community Good Friday service. 

Knowing that I sometimes verbally stumble around in my public prayers, I decided to go into the evening prepared.

I first Googled "Good Friday prayers" and scrolled through several pages looking for the perfect prayer.

I got bupkis.

Then a 2023-inspired thought popped into my head: Let's see what ChatGPT might come up with.

Honestly, the prayer written by AI was better than a lot of the others I was reading on line, so I emailed myself the text intending to simply read it off my phone ... while all heads were bowed.

But as the service approached, I felt weirder and weirder about reading a prayer written by AI. I went back and forth in my mind. Was it really any different than reading one written by some other human?

Not really.

Then it hit me: THAT was the problem - reading a prayer.

I know there's a time and place where that might be appropriate, but in my opinion it most often turns the prayer into a ceremony when it ought to be ... communion with God.

Or at least an attempt at communion with Him. 

I decided I would rather offer the genuineness of an impromptu prayer even if the price is a few awkward pauses and some verbal gaffes. 

(I ended up basing my prayer on a passage of Scripture which I had open in front of me.)

THAT GOD MAY HEAL

In 1756 John Wesley wrote out his exhortations for pastors in his charge in a booklet entitled Address to the Clergy. 

And let's just say Wesley had high standards for preachers. 

For instance: Along with his studies of Greek and Hebrew and Latin and various sciences, the ideal preacher should also have "some knowledge of geometry".

I kid you not.

Nevertheless, I did find within Wesley's Address some advice that would set the American church back on a proper course, if it were to be followed. Wesley says the pastor must be kind but tough. Never shrinking away from confronting sin:

"Should not compassion, should not tenderness, hinder us from giving pain? Yes, from giving unnecessary pain. But what manner of tenderness is this? It is like that of a surgeon who lets his patient be lost because he is too compassionate to probe his wounds. Cruel compassion! Let me give pain, so I may save life. Let me probe, that God may heal."

Progressive Christianity pats American culture on the head and says, "God loves you just the way you are."

This has the appearance of love and compassion, but it is not. 

Let the pastor probe, that God may heal. 

SLOW TO ANGER

Here's an incredible passage from the 103rd Psalm, one of my favorites:

8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion.

9 He will not always accuse us,
nor harbor His anger forever.

10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins
or repaid us according to our iniquities.

11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is His loving devotion for those who fear Him.

12 As far as the east is from the west,
so far has He removed our transgressions from us.

13 As a father has compassion on his children,
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

14 For He knows our frame;
He is mindful that we are dust.

I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on this particular passage from a Calvinist or any other "Wrath of God"-type. 

What would they do with it? 

Now granted, the majority of this passage is describing how God relates to "those who fear Him" and not necessarily to the general population. Still, verse 8 makes a general statement about the Lord: He is slow to anger and abounding in loving devotion. 

Like a parent, right?

I often wonder what drives some believers to emphasize God's anger and wrath over His love? 

It's not Scripture. 

TURNING POINT

One of the first questions I got after being hired at Sardinia Baptist Church back in mid-March was "Would you be interested in leading a special service for Maundy Thursday?"

I gave an enthusiastic "Yes!"

I think it's a shame when churches skip straight from Palm Sunday to Resurrection Sunday. So much truly heavy stuff happened to Jesus and around Jesus in those days in between. It's really not possible to appreciate Easter without reliving some of the pain, darkness, and brokenness that drove Jesus to the cross in the first place.

Maundy Thursday, of course, is a recognition of the Last Supper, the last bit of "normal" in celebrating the Passover, just before all hell broke loose with the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. 

Even though the disciples had no clue what was coming, Jesus certainly knew. Luke notes that Jesus says to the 12 at the start of their meal, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15) 

Even in the midst of what is about to drop, Jesus finds joy in revealing to His disciples how His body and blood are about to open a new era in human history.

It is a turning point: a new covenant between God and humanity. 

ANSWER A FOOL ... OR DON'T

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

or you yourself will be like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

lest he become wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)

I love these two proverbs and the way they appear side by side in Scripture. 

If nothing else, they should serve as a warning against proof-texting theological opinions.

And a word of precaution to those who confidently begin sentences with the words "The Bible clearly teaches ..." 

VIDEO

My boss at Mission Resource is great at networking - which means he is always introducing me to interesting new people. 

Today I met Jon, one of Dave's longtime friends who happened to be back in Columbus for a friend's funeral. 

Jon is a videographer/artist/website designer who recently traveled to Ghana with Dave to capture some footage of Mission Resource's work on the ground there. It had been several years since the last time we had a new video.

Anyway, the resulting video is fantastic and I want to share it here to give you a better understanding of our work in Ghana. It is a very succinct 7 minutes in length:

CAUTION!

The other day the YouTube algorithm served me a video entitled "Some CAUTION About The Bible Project!"

What a bummer! I had just recently rediscovered The Bible Project - an online collection of about 150 excellently crafted videos explaining various books and themes of the Bible. I had browsed their collection and came away thoroughly impressed and determined to recommend The Bible Project as a valuable resource to other believers. Now I feared I had overlooked some terrible heresy lurking within their animated videos.

After this initial fear, my reaction - as typical for me now in the 2020s - moved simply to "I don't believe it." Nevertheless, I decided to watch the video for myself to see if I needed to retract my support of The Bible Project.

To my surprise, the speaker had high praise for the work being done on the website. His great and terrible word of caution boiled down to one main concern: 

The videos did not stress the wrath of God enough! That's right - The Bible Project needs to make God angrier. 

I will give you three guesses as to what the speaker's theological background was. 

(Hint: it's a group whose theological beliefs have been shaped primarily by a man whose initials are J.C. - but who is not Jesus Christ.) 

Anyway, I can still happily recommend that you check out The Bible Project. 

Unless you prefer your God more wrathful. 

In which case you can always go read old Jonathan Edwards sermons instead.