I want my life to be marked out by love. It is far too easy to slip into wanting to have it marked out by accomplishment. It is far too easy for me to try to build the perfect life, the perfect mind, the perfect ministry, as far as those things are possible. Too often, I try to craft my own reality to perfection.
But what really matters?
Love really matters, according to Jesus. It is both first and second on the list of most important things to do.
What is love basically like?
It is a binding commitment of the heart and will for the good of another, even at great personal cost. You cannot separate it from action because an emotion that does nothing is quite stagnant. And it seems wrong to call it merely an action because a pharisee or a robot can go through the right motions for the wrong reasons or with no heart at all. It is both! Sometimes love is tested when the emotions run dry, but you still hope that the emotion may return in some way.
I am going to die. You are, too. We only have so much time to love. We shouldn't waste the time we have. We shouldn't wait until we are on the other side of some imaginary hill, finally a better person and better equipped, before we start loving. We should start where we are at with the people we are around. We should seek to meet new people, but not in a frantic sort of way. Better to love fifty people really well than three hundred people really poorly.
Love does not seek to control and manipulate. If I am living for my own perfect life, everybody and everything is a pawn or player in my own game. In that game, I want them to do what I want them to do. I try to change people, so that I will be happier. When it doesn't work, I am unhappy. This is not love.
Don't twist my words there. It is not wrong to desire change for people. Especially if they are destroying themselves, quickly or slowly. But it is wrong for me to try to make it happen against their will. Coercion is not love. But neither is apathetic friendship.
Love is the key. Patience. Kindness. Complete lack of arrogance or boastfulness. Sharing in your joy. Sharing in your sorrow. Not manipulative. Other-focused. Humble.
When people are no longer objects in our own game, we are free to love them and enjoy them. I think love involves a desire to enjoy the other's presence. You simply desire to be with the other person. There is no agenda. There is no secret game afoot. You are not trying to manipulate them into doing something or thinking something.
There is a beauty to being. There is a beauty to celebrating birthdays, celebrating the fact that someone exists. We are made to do stuff. But we are also made to just be. God wanted us here. He wanted us here to see and enjoy. How great to do this with others!
My goal in life is to serve and enjoy the people that God brings into my life. I want to be a blessing to them, and I want to seek joy in the presence of my friends and enemies. Enemy-love, of course, means that I hope they will not remain enemies. The cross of Christ - if you think about what it is - has the power to turn enemies into friends.
I know this life goal is vague, but it is good to get that straight, at least, before I start working out the details. Let us love.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
The Greatest Apologetic
"They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another." The greatest commandment and the greatest apologetic is love.
The second greatest apologetic, in my opinion, is joy in suffering.
That is all.
The second greatest apologetic, in my opinion, is joy in suffering.
That is all.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
What is Faith? Part 1
This is a difficult question.
One of my provocative teacher friends in Dalton recently posted a facebook status...
"Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof..."
With this, I disagree.
In a qualified way.
Now it may be that we are simply working with different definitions of the word faith. If that is all, I don't want to be nit-picky about words. I also would not worry so much if he merely meant that something like Christian faith is not provable in the sense that the Pythagorean Theorem is provable. I would agree that I cannot prove the truth of Christianity to any person such that they will invariably accept it. God - if he is real - has not revealed himself in such a way as to remove any possibility of any doubt whatsoever. If that is what is meant, that is cool with me.
If, instead, my friend means that faith is by definition unreasonable, I would like to register a stronger disagreement. Perhaps an intended corollary of his statement is that atheism is a priori more reasonable than theism. I may be hasty in attributing this further corollary to my friend. But those slippery ellipses are like a siren call to someone all too ready to write a blog entry at the feeblest provocation. The temptation was too great...
And if the corollary was not intended in his instance, these sentiments are common enough to call for a general response anyway.
I think it would only be fair if I took a stab at defining faith, too.
________________________________________________________________________
Faith is trust.
Okay. But that is a little vague. Go a bit farther, please.
Faith is trust in something or someone.
Okay. Go on.
Faith is believing in something or someone in such a way that you are willing to put your weight on it.
What does that mean?
It means that you believe this something or someone will come through for you as expected. You have placed faith in the chair you are sitting in.
I am not sure I would label my relationship with the chair as faith. The chair is real. I can see it and touch it. I do not need faith to believe in it. Faith is about things we can't prove or know or see.
You expect the chair to continue in working order and hold you up, right?
Yes. I suppose that is so.
You trust the chair to hold you because in your experience chairs have generally done this. And maybe even this specific chair has worked for you in the past. You expect it to work for you again.
I should hope so.
Exactly.
Huh?
You have seen the chair, yes, but you have not seen the future. Your guarantee of the chair not breaking may be reasonable, but is yet to be seen. You hope it will not break. There is a future-oriented hope to your faith in the chair.
Fair enough.
This, I would say, is faith. It contains an element of uncertainty and hope about the future, which is invisible to us. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Everyday we lean into an unseen future, placing our practical trust in different things, doing things as best we can.
You seem to have broadened the definition of faith. In this case, everyone has faith.
I agree. Faith in different things, yes. That is what I am saying. Everyone in the natural course of living must place their trust in things. Everyone must make decisions and follow a particular course of action or inaction. If you keep asking why about those particular decisions, you get down to motivation. And if you drill down, you find what you are leaning on. Faith is not passive, but active. You are choosing some terrain to walk... or some place to stay. And you have placed your faith in that terrain.
This seems to trivialize faith. By changing the definition, you make it to mean less than it did. If everybody has it, does it still mean anything? I still want a way to describe what I see as irrational. Some people believe things they simply should not believe.
I agree with that last bit. Some people do believe in things they should not believe in. Some people are irrational. Some beliefs are irrational.
You say that everyone has faith. But not everyone is irrational. So you place faith and rationality in different categories. You are saying that to have faith does not mean to be irrational, right?
Right. It can, but it doesn't have to. It would not be irrational to trust in your chair. Placing your faith in the chair is generally a rational decision.
I do not see trust in my chair as irrational either. But when people talk about faith, they are usually talking about invisible things, like God. It seems like believing in something visible and something invisible are very different.
Yes. They are not exactly the same. But the problem I have is with automatically defining faith with irrationality. Blind faith and faith in something you cannot see are not exactly the same thing.
What is blind faith?
Blind faith would be trusting in something or someone for no good reason.
So there is a type of faith that isn't blind?
Yes. There can be well-placed faith, just as there can be poorly-placed faith.
So you think there can be a well-placed faith or trust in something you cannot see?
Absolutely!
To be continued...
One of my provocative teacher friends in Dalton recently posted a facebook status...
"Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof..."
With this, I disagree.
In a qualified way.
Now it may be that we are simply working with different definitions of the word faith. If that is all, I don't want to be nit-picky about words. I also would not worry so much if he merely meant that something like Christian faith is not provable in the sense that the Pythagorean Theorem is provable. I would agree that I cannot prove the truth of Christianity to any person such that they will invariably accept it. God - if he is real - has not revealed himself in such a way as to remove any possibility of any doubt whatsoever. If that is what is meant, that is cool with me.
If, instead, my friend means that faith is by definition unreasonable, I would like to register a stronger disagreement. Perhaps an intended corollary of his statement is that atheism is a priori more reasonable than theism. I may be hasty in attributing this further corollary to my friend. But those slippery ellipses are like a siren call to someone all too ready to write a blog entry at the feeblest provocation. The temptation was too great...
And if the corollary was not intended in his instance, these sentiments are common enough to call for a general response anyway.
I think it would only be fair if I took a stab at defining faith, too.
________________________________________________________________________
Faith is trust.
Okay. But that is a little vague. Go a bit farther, please.
Faith is trust in something or someone.
Okay. Go on.
Faith is believing in something or someone in such a way that you are willing to put your weight on it.
What does that mean?
It means that you believe this something or someone will come through for you as expected. You have placed faith in the chair you are sitting in.
I am not sure I would label my relationship with the chair as faith. The chair is real. I can see it and touch it. I do not need faith to believe in it. Faith is about things we can't prove or know or see.
You expect the chair to continue in working order and hold you up, right?
Yes. I suppose that is so.
You trust the chair to hold you because in your experience chairs have generally done this. And maybe even this specific chair has worked for you in the past. You expect it to work for you again.
I should hope so.
Exactly.
Huh?
You have seen the chair, yes, but you have not seen the future. Your guarantee of the chair not breaking may be reasonable, but is yet to be seen. You hope it will not break. There is a future-oriented hope to your faith in the chair.
Fair enough.
This, I would say, is faith. It contains an element of uncertainty and hope about the future, which is invisible to us. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Everyday we lean into an unseen future, placing our practical trust in different things, doing things as best we can.
You seem to have broadened the definition of faith. In this case, everyone has faith.
I agree. Faith in different things, yes. That is what I am saying. Everyone in the natural course of living must place their trust in things. Everyone must make decisions and follow a particular course of action or inaction. If you keep asking why about those particular decisions, you get down to motivation. And if you drill down, you find what you are leaning on. Faith is not passive, but active. You are choosing some terrain to walk... or some place to stay. And you have placed your faith in that terrain.
This seems to trivialize faith. By changing the definition, you make it to mean less than it did. If everybody has it, does it still mean anything? I still want a way to describe what I see as irrational. Some people believe things they simply should not believe.
I agree with that last bit. Some people do believe in things they should not believe in. Some people are irrational. Some beliefs are irrational.
You say that everyone has faith. But not everyone is irrational. So you place faith and rationality in different categories. You are saying that to have faith does not mean to be irrational, right?
Right. It can, but it doesn't have to. It would not be irrational to trust in your chair. Placing your faith in the chair is generally a rational decision.
I do not see trust in my chair as irrational either. But when people talk about faith, they are usually talking about invisible things, like God. It seems like believing in something visible and something invisible are very different.
Yes. They are not exactly the same. But the problem I have is with automatically defining faith with irrationality. Blind faith and faith in something you cannot see are not exactly the same thing.
What is blind faith?
Blind faith would be trusting in something or someone for no good reason.
So there is a type of faith that isn't blind?
Yes. There can be well-placed faith, just as there can be poorly-placed faith.
So you think there can be a well-placed faith or trust in something you cannot see?
Absolutely!
To be continued...
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Anger
Anger is sometimes a right response. We should be slow to anger. But sometimes it would be wrong to not be angry.
We get angry when something we love is threatened.
If a husband finds his wife cheating with another man, his right response is anger. He ought to be angry at this man. And he ought to be angry at the part's of his wife's heart that would allow this to happen.
Again, we get angry when something we love is threatened.
Therefore, examining the times in which we are most angry or aggravated or upset will lead us to understand our own hearts. It will help us pinpoint the things we love, the things we devote ourselves to, the things we live for.
Do you live for your reputation? If someone or something threatens your reputation, do you get angry?
Do you live for your family? When they are threatened, do you get angry?
Do you live for your own perfect life? When it is interrupted or marred, do you get angry? Are you most angry when your life seems out of your control?
Do you live for God? Are you angered when he is dishonored?
Our greatest love ought to be for God. And therefore our greatest anger ought to be towards that which dishonors God. Just as God is angry at sin, we ought to be angry at sin.
The person whose sin we should be most angry about is our own. It is the sin we know best, from the inside out. It is the sin that we can do something about.
Again, we should be most angry towards our own sinfulness. We are the wife who is sleeping around. God should be angry at the idols that enslave us, and one day they will all be destroyed. But he should also be angry at the disease that is in us, that latches on to the idols. He loves us. He loves us so much. He loves us enough to want us well, to want us to be rid of the disease of sin.
Are you more angry at those who are threatening your idols than you are at the sin within that threatens your relationship with God?
It is such good news to know that God's righteous anger toward all your sin has be spent at the cross, poured out upon Jesus, that we might experience the favor and blessing we don't deserve by trusting in Jesus. Jesus endured the Father's anger on our behalf. The wrath absorbed on the cross ought to make us quick to forgive, slow to anger ourselves.
I hope this has been helpful. Soli Deo gloria!
We get angry when something we love is threatened.
If a husband finds his wife cheating with another man, his right response is anger. He ought to be angry at this man. And he ought to be angry at the part's of his wife's heart that would allow this to happen.
Again, we get angry when something we love is threatened.
Therefore, examining the times in which we are most angry or aggravated or upset will lead us to understand our own hearts. It will help us pinpoint the things we love, the things we devote ourselves to, the things we live for.
Do you live for your reputation? If someone or something threatens your reputation, do you get angry?
Do you live for your family? When they are threatened, do you get angry?
Do you live for your own perfect life? When it is interrupted or marred, do you get angry? Are you most angry when your life seems out of your control?
Do you live for God? Are you angered when he is dishonored?
Our greatest love ought to be for God. And therefore our greatest anger ought to be towards that which dishonors God. Just as God is angry at sin, we ought to be angry at sin.
The person whose sin we should be most angry about is our own. It is the sin we know best, from the inside out. It is the sin that we can do something about.
Again, we should be most angry towards our own sinfulness. We are the wife who is sleeping around. God should be angry at the idols that enslave us, and one day they will all be destroyed. But he should also be angry at the disease that is in us, that latches on to the idols. He loves us. He loves us so much. He loves us enough to want us well, to want us to be rid of the disease of sin.
Are you more angry at those who are threatening your idols than you are at the sin within that threatens your relationship with God?
It is such good news to know that God's righteous anger toward all your sin has be spent at the cross, poured out upon Jesus, that we might experience the favor and blessing we don't deserve by trusting in Jesus. Jesus endured the Father's anger on our behalf. The wrath absorbed on the cross ought to make us quick to forgive, slow to anger ourselves.
I hope this has been helpful. Soli Deo gloria!
Monday, May 6, 2013
What the Bible has to say for itself...
It feels somehow wrong to conduct so much discussion - as I have lately done - about the truth of Christianity and the Bible without actually opening the Bible up to see what it has to say for itself.
Is the way that I go about defending Christianity consistent with the conclusions that I hope to reach in the end? Have I acted as if Jesus were not Lord and the Bible were not true in order to then argue that Jesus is Lord and that the Bible is true?
This feels a little like defending the existence of the lion when the lion's roar in his own voice will do more than all my arguments. Some may yet deny the sound. Some will say it is only a recording or a trick of the ears. But if I hope to convince someone that the Scriptures are the very words of God, how odd it would be to keep the real deal hidden until the end. Let us listen...
_____________________________________________________________________________
All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Bible's claim for itself is that it is God breathed. Either that is true or not. If it is true, this is how we would expect the Bible to talk about itself.
Will we come to the Bible on our own terms, or on its terms? If we are to come to it on its own terms, then we learn here at least some of what the Bible is for. Teaching, reproof, correction, righteousness. The Bible is not a textbook on science. It is not even a detailed systematic theology. It does not answer every question we might put to it. But it does answer the questions it seeks to answer. And here we find that the Bible is intended to produce godliness in its readers. Godliness for the sake of good works. Modern readers often come with atheistic assumptions and a scalpel, instead of with a willingness to learn and a willingness to be transformed and a heart seeking any truth to be found. If the Bible is the seed, not every soil receives it equally.
He who has ears, let him hear...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who were from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)
This is the beginning of Luke. He starts out and gives a reason for his writing. Luke is saying that others have written down things about Jesus - probably some of the other Gospels - and it seemed good to him to also do his own investigation and write it down. He wanted to do so orderly. He wanted to verify the accounts he had been hearing. He wanted to act as a historian while eyewitnesses were around in order to create an accurate account about Jesus. This is as a reassurance to Theophilus, a character we don't know too much about. Perhaps Theophilus was a believer who helped fund Luke's investigation, since he would have had to take time away from being a doctor in order to do his investigations.
I think we ought to take Luke at his word, unless we have a compelling reason not to. He is telling the reader how he wants his work to be read - not as myth or fiction, but as verified biography and history. (And archaeologists have found Luke to be a good historian, verifying over and over the accuracy of the different places and people he talks about in his gospel but also especially in Acts.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-9)
This is Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Paul speaks of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection as of first importance. It is the main deal.
And he gives appropriate evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. He is saying, "Hey, Peter saw him! and James! and I saw him. And not just us, but there was this one time when he actually appeared to hundreds of people at once. These people are still around. Don't just take my word for it. Go ask them! This isn't something I would just make up. Go check it out."
Paul was a pharisee. There is no up-front reason to think he was gullible. He had a vested interest in squashing out Christianity. He had a prominent position prior to becoming a Christian, and he had a reputation as a fierce persecutor of Christians. Yet, he became the chief spreader of Christianity. And he did so through persecution and distress, while claiming to have seen the risen Lord. His faith was an evidence-based faith. He did not stand to gain anything by switching sides if he hadn't really experienced Jesus. What he inherited was suffering and a lot of trouble and eventually a beheading by Nero. If he did not then get heaven, he got a raw deal.
If Jesus was real and his gospel was spreading, what would we expect the letters to look like? Something exactly like this. This does not have the feel of Islam or Mormonism in which the whole book or message is given to a single person who then must share it with everyone else. God's message about Jesus has not been funneled through a single source. No! You have Paul, the original disciples, and apparently a ton of extra witnesses who knew what Jesus had done. It didn't come down to one person saying, "I am God's messenger. Take my word for it." It came down to a lot of different people who couldn't help proclaiming what their eyes had seen: "God has come among us. We have seen his power. He is Jesus."
There is also a lot of fuss about whether or not the message of Scripture has been corrupted. But here - and plenty of other places, too - there is great emphasis on making sure the story is straight. Paul says that he has passed on what he had received. This is not something he would take lightly. We are talking about life-altering hugely important realities. In reading Paul's letters and the rest of the New Testament, I do not sense any tendency to want to be novel. I do not sense any tendency for the writers to want to put their own words in God's mouth. They want to get out of the foreground and let God do the talking. The later copyists would largely have been people who thought the Bible was both true and important, and it makes sense to me that they would have followed Paul's lead in wanting to faithfully pass on what they had received as of first importance.
I think only someone who didn't believe in God would have no fear about putting words in his mouth. So if, as some claim, Christianity got started as some vast conspiracy, the greatest generator of belief in God sprang from atheistic roots. To me, this would be a sociological miracle more unbelievable than resurrection itself.
John the Baptist is a great illustration of the tendency to want to get out of the way and let God be God. To humbly relay the message. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. (John 1:6-8)
_____________________________________________________________________________
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the father and was made manifest to us - that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
(1 John 1:1-4)
This passage drips with sensory confirmation. It is as if John is saying, "I know you may not be in the same situation as me, able to see Jesus with your own eyes. But I was. These are things that have really happened. Jesus was flesh and blood. I could see him and touch him. This Jesus that I know has a special relationship with the Father. He is God's Son. And in him we find life. We find eternal life. And I am writing to you because I want you to have this eternal life. Nothing at all would make me happier than for this writing to help you know God, to help you believe. You may not be able to see Jesus now. But trust me. And one day you will see him!"
Again, John is clearly acting as a witness. He wants to relate events. And he wants to pass on the message that was passed on to him. Being such a witness is a joy to him.
The only access we have to past events is through testimony and witness. We must decide who we will believe. Only one generation had first-hand access to Jesus. All later generations are put in the position of either trusting or distrusting witnesses. My claim is that we ought not treat every witness with extreme skepticism. We want to come with the attitude that will be most conducive to finding the truth. We do not want to be gullible; we want to be reasonable. If we trust no one, we can have no knowledge, except that which is inside the incredibly small sphere of my own personal experience.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"
(Mark 9:24)
I love the humility of this prayer, this cry from the heart.
I can see where reading Scripture might seem silly to someone who does not accept the truth of the Bible. I think what you get out of Scripture may depend on how you come to Scripture. I think to get out of Scripture what it wants you to get, you have to be open to God.
God either exists or he doesn't. Supposing he does exist, it makes sense to believe that he would be able to communicate. Supposing he exists, miracles are not ruled out of the realm of possibility. If God created the world, he certainly can do stuff in it. Suppose God did make himself known in a saving way, and he wanted to communicate the truth of that salvation to future generations. It does not seem at all unreasonable that he would put it in book form. That seems convenient at least. And the God who is able to create the universe and raise the dead also would be powerful enough to faithfully preserve this book for future generations.
If God exists, then belief in the Bible is reasonable.
If you try to read the Bible without an openness to God, it will be like trying to read a novel where all the words have been crossed out. It will be meaningless to you. I think if you are really interested in finding truth, you must be open to the possibility of God. If he turns out to be real, you would not want to have adopted an attitude or presuppositions that made it impossible for you to find him.
If you have doubts but want to seek, I invite you to pray something like this -
God, I don't really know if you are there. But if you are, I don't want to ignore you. I want to know you. I believe that if you are really there, then you will hear this prayer. I need help if the Bible is to make any sense to me. But I will read it open to your Voice. I want to know the truth.
If God is not real, you may have wasted a few breaths or a few moments. If he is real, then you may have taken a step toward securing your eternity.
But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:2)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)
Now there were also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
Is the way that I go about defending Christianity consistent with the conclusions that I hope to reach in the end? Have I acted as if Jesus were not Lord and the Bible were not true in order to then argue that Jesus is Lord and that the Bible is true?
This feels a little like defending the existence of the lion when the lion's roar in his own voice will do more than all my arguments. Some may yet deny the sound. Some will say it is only a recording or a trick of the ears. But if I hope to convince someone that the Scriptures are the very words of God, how odd it would be to keep the real deal hidden until the end. Let us listen...
_____________________________________________________________________________
All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Bible's claim for itself is that it is God breathed. Either that is true or not. If it is true, this is how we would expect the Bible to talk about itself.
Will we come to the Bible on our own terms, or on its terms? If we are to come to it on its own terms, then we learn here at least some of what the Bible is for. Teaching, reproof, correction, righteousness. The Bible is not a textbook on science. It is not even a detailed systematic theology. It does not answer every question we might put to it. But it does answer the questions it seeks to answer. And here we find that the Bible is intended to produce godliness in its readers. Godliness for the sake of good works. Modern readers often come with atheistic assumptions and a scalpel, instead of with a willingness to learn and a willingness to be transformed and a heart seeking any truth to be found. If the Bible is the seed, not every soil receives it equally.
He who has ears, let him hear...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who were from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)
This is the beginning of Luke. He starts out and gives a reason for his writing. Luke is saying that others have written down things about Jesus - probably some of the other Gospels - and it seemed good to him to also do his own investigation and write it down. He wanted to do so orderly. He wanted to verify the accounts he had been hearing. He wanted to act as a historian while eyewitnesses were around in order to create an accurate account about Jesus. This is as a reassurance to Theophilus, a character we don't know too much about. Perhaps Theophilus was a believer who helped fund Luke's investigation, since he would have had to take time away from being a doctor in order to do his investigations.
I think we ought to take Luke at his word, unless we have a compelling reason not to. He is telling the reader how he wants his work to be read - not as myth or fiction, but as verified biography and history. (And archaeologists have found Luke to be a good historian, verifying over and over the accuracy of the different places and people he talks about in his gospel but also especially in Acts.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-9)
This is Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Paul speaks of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection as of first importance. It is the main deal.
And he gives appropriate evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. He is saying, "Hey, Peter saw him! and James! and I saw him. And not just us, but there was this one time when he actually appeared to hundreds of people at once. These people are still around. Don't just take my word for it. Go ask them! This isn't something I would just make up. Go check it out."
Paul was a pharisee. There is no up-front reason to think he was gullible. He had a vested interest in squashing out Christianity. He had a prominent position prior to becoming a Christian, and he had a reputation as a fierce persecutor of Christians. Yet, he became the chief spreader of Christianity. And he did so through persecution and distress, while claiming to have seen the risen Lord. His faith was an evidence-based faith. He did not stand to gain anything by switching sides if he hadn't really experienced Jesus. What he inherited was suffering and a lot of trouble and eventually a beheading by Nero. If he did not then get heaven, he got a raw deal.
If Jesus was real and his gospel was spreading, what would we expect the letters to look like? Something exactly like this. This does not have the feel of Islam or Mormonism in which the whole book or message is given to a single person who then must share it with everyone else. God's message about Jesus has not been funneled through a single source. No! You have Paul, the original disciples, and apparently a ton of extra witnesses who knew what Jesus had done. It didn't come down to one person saying, "I am God's messenger. Take my word for it." It came down to a lot of different people who couldn't help proclaiming what their eyes had seen: "God has come among us. We have seen his power. He is Jesus."
There is also a lot of fuss about whether or not the message of Scripture has been corrupted. But here - and plenty of other places, too - there is great emphasis on making sure the story is straight. Paul says that he has passed on what he had received. This is not something he would take lightly. We are talking about life-altering hugely important realities. In reading Paul's letters and the rest of the New Testament, I do not sense any tendency to want to be novel. I do not sense any tendency for the writers to want to put their own words in God's mouth. They want to get out of the foreground and let God do the talking. The later copyists would largely have been people who thought the Bible was both true and important, and it makes sense to me that they would have followed Paul's lead in wanting to faithfully pass on what they had received as of first importance.
I think only someone who didn't believe in God would have no fear about putting words in his mouth. So if, as some claim, Christianity got started as some vast conspiracy, the greatest generator of belief in God sprang from atheistic roots. To me, this would be a sociological miracle more unbelievable than resurrection itself.
John the Baptist is a great illustration of the tendency to want to get out of the way and let God be God. To humbly relay the message. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. (John 1:6-8)
_____________________________________________________________________________
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the father and was made manifest to us - that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
(1 John 1:1-4)
This passage drips with sensory confirmation. It is as if John is saying, "I know you may not be in the same situation as me, able to see Jesus with your own eyes. But I was. These are things that have really happened. Jesus was flesh and blood. I could see him and touch him. This Jesus that I know has a special relationship with the Father. He is God's Son. And in him we find life. We find eternal life. And I am writing to you because I want you to have this eternal life. Nothing at all would make me happier than for this writing to help you know God, to help you believe. You may not be able to see Jesus now. But trust me. And one day you will see him!"
Again, John is clearly acting as a witness. He wants to relate events. And he wants to pass on the message that was passed on to him. Being such a witness is a joy to him.
The only access we have to past events is through testimony and witness. We must decide who we will believe. Only one generation had first-hand access to Jesus. All later generations are put in the position of either trusting or distrusting witnesses. My claim is that we ought not treat every witness with extreme skepticism. We want to come with the attitude that will be most conducive to finding the truth. We do not want to be gullible; we want to be reasonable. If we trust no one, we can have no knowledge, except that which is inside the incredibly small sphere of my own personal experience.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"
(Mark 9:24)
I love the humility of this prayer, this cry from the heart.
I can see where reading Scripture might seem silly to someone who does not accept the truth of the Bible. I think what you get out of Scripture may depend on how you come to Scripture. I think to get out of Scripture what it wants you to get, you have to be open to God.
God either exists or he doesn't. Supposing he does exist, it makes sense to believe that he would be able to communicate. Supposing he exists, miracles are not ruled out of the realm of possibility. If God created the world, he certainly can do stuff in it. Suppose God did make himself known in a saving way, and he wanted to communicate the truth of that salvation to future generations. It does not seem at all unreasonable that he would put it in book form. That seems convenient at least. And the God who is able to create the universe and raise the dead also would be powerful enough to faithfully preserve this book for future generations.
If God exists, then belief in the Bible is reasonable.
If you try to read the Bible without an openness to God, it will be like trying to read a novel where all the words have been crossed out. It will be meaningless to you. I think if you are really interested in finding truth, you must be open to the possibility of God. If he turns out to be real, you would not want to have adopted an attitude or presuppositions that made it impossible for you to find him.
If you have doubts but want to seek, I invite you to pray something like this -
God, I don't really know if you are there. But if you are, I don't want to ignore you. I want to know you. I believe that if you are really there, then you will hear this prayer. I need help if the Bible is to make any sense to me. But I will read it open to your Voice. I want to know the truth.
If God is not real, you may have wasted a few breaths or a few moments. If he is real, then you may have taken a step toward securing your eternity.
But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:2)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)
Now there were also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
Jesus and Thomas and Proof
Two thoughts...
1. God does not seem concerned to prove his own existence on our terms.
We demand that Jesus provide a sign. He calls out our hard and wicked hearts. Our unbelieving hearts. The ancient Israelites had sign after sign and still hardened their hearts. The crowd saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and some still did not believe.
We still demand signs. We think that, if we are going to be expected to believe in God, he better make it plain and obvious that he exists.
My roommate my freshman year told me one time that if he woke up and God had burned a cross into his chest then he would believe. That would be evidence for him. But that wouldn't have worked. If he didn't believe that God was even a possibility, he would have woken up and seen the cross on his chest, and he would have thought someone had drugged him and put a cross on his chest.
You can only see what you can see...
God, if he does exist, does not have to behave the way we want him to or expect him to. Because he is God, he can do whatever he wants to do. And when he comes on the scene, I would hardly expect him to sit down and reason about why you should believe he exists.
2. Yet Jesus has subjected himself to human opinion and to investigation. He did not think it beneath himself to take on human flesh. He did not think it beneath himself to shoulder the cross. Likewise, it was not beneath him to invite Thomas, in his doubt, to touch his hands and feet. To see for himself and know.
As I wrote before, the truth of Christianity hangs itself on history. If it could be shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity would be seen to be a fraud and not worthy of belief and devotion.
Assuming at the start of the investigation that Jesus could not possibly have risen, and discounting any bit of evidence that he did is hardly proof that he did not rise from the dead. If that is your tack, you have begged the question of his resurrection from the very start. I think perfect neutrality on these issues is impossible, but that should not keep us from aiming at something like neutrality.
If you assume that miracles are impossible, instead of merely improbable, that will assure that you do not take a fair look at the evidence for those miracles.
Jesus invites you to take a look. He invites you to touch his hands and feet. To believe in the witness of men who shed their blood for the truth of their words.
If Jesus is God, then it is absurd to put him in the dock. It is absurd for us to sit in judgment of him. It is grace that he has stepped into the dock himself. More than that - he was crucified for us. We should not assume too quickly that we will never find ourselves in the dock, too.
1. God does not seem concerned to prove his own existence on our terms.
We demand that Jesus provide a sign. He calls out our hard and wicked hearts. Our unbelieving hearts. The ancient Israelites had sign after sign and still hardened their hearts. The crowd saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and some still did not believe.
We still demand signs. We think that, if we are going to be expected to believe in God, he better make it plain and obvious that he exists.
My roommate my freshman year told me one time that if he woke up and God had burned a cross into his chest then he would believe. That would be evidence for him. But that wouldn't have worked. If he didn't believe that God was even a possibility, he would have woken up and seen the cross on his chest, and he would have thought someone had drugged him and put a cross on his chest.
You can only see what you can see...
God, if he does exist, does not have to behave the way we want him to or expect him to. Because he is God, he can do whatever he wants to do. And when he comes on the scene, I would hardly expect him to sit down and reason about why you should believe he exists.
2. Yet Jesus has subjected himself to human opinion and to investigation. He did not think it beneath himself to take on human flesh. He did not think it beneath himself to shoulder the cross. Likewise, it was not beneath him to invite Thomas, in his doubt, to touch his hands and feet. To see for himself and know.
As I wrote before, the truth of Christianity hangs itself on history. If it could be shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity would be seen to be a fraud and not worthy of belief and devotion.
Assuming at the start of the investigation that Jesus could not possibly have risen, and discounting any bit of evidence that he did is hardly proof that he did not rise from the dead. If that is your tack, you have begged the question of his resurrection from the very start. I think perfect neutrality on these issues is impossible, but that should not keep us from aiming at something like neutrality.
If you assume that miracles are impossible, instead of merely improbable, that will assure that you do not take a fair look at the evidence for those miracles.
Jesus invites you to take a look. He invites you to touch his hands and feet. To believe in the witness of men who shed their blood for the truth of their words.
If Jesus is God, then it is absurd to put him in the dock. It is absurd for us to sit in judgment of him. It is grace that he has stepped into the dock himself. More than that - he was crucified for us. We should not assume too quickly that we will never find ourselves in the dock, too.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Unique and Historical
I think that one of the difficulties to believing in Christianity or believing in any particular religion is the reality of religious pluralism. It seems that there are a lot of options.
Now as a strict logical problem, the mere existence of other possibilities does not rule out the truth of Christianity. And assuming that God does exist, it is not hard to imagine that there would be imposters or compromised versions of the truth. The Bible clearly alerts us to false teachers. And the narratives in the Old Testament show us a record of Jewish monotheism confronting a pluralistic world. The new Testament shows us Jesus alone as Lord and King, a threat both to polytheism and the ultimacy of Caesar's power. So the threat is not new, and there is nothing inherently wrong about searching for the true God amidst the options.
The boisterous atheists today will sometimes say something like this. Christians deny every other God but Yahweh. The atheists simply go one God further...
I do want to recognize that there is an initial appeal to this, perhaps an emotional appeal. The problem of religious pluralism is less a logical problem than a gut emotional problem. It is assumed that there is a certain sort of arrogance to claiming to know the truth about God, to know his identity. The problem of religious pluralism is one that I feel. It may be the biggest cause of any doubts that I ever have. Because it feels like, if Christianity turns out to be true, that it wasn't fair. That I lucked out. And it feels difficult to share the Gospel with others who have simply grown up and taken on the faith of their parents... like I have.
From all this I need a breath of fresh air.
The truth about reality - whether there is a God, who he is, what he is like - is not dependent on me or the family into which I was born.
So I need to ask the question as simply and honestly as possible: What is true? And in doing so, I do not need to be over-eager to renounce the faith of my family in order to avoid some vague feeling of guilt for being born when and where I was. Indeed, what is true?
Is my faith in Jesus an arbitrary choice? Or are there good reasons to be Christian specifically? Have I decided to believe in God and then simply picked? Or is there a uniqueness to Christianity?
I think there is a uniqueness to Christianity, and a significant part of it is to be found in its distinctly historical character. Take Buddhism as an example of a religion in which this is not true. The main thing in Buddhism is a philosophy of life. It is about certain ideals and ways of thinking about and doing life. It is not specifically dependent on the historicity of the Buddha for its important parts. If Buddhism had gotten started some different way, it would not much have mattered to what it is and how it is now practiced.
Christianity is historical at its heart. The Gospel is not primarily good ideas; it is primarily Good News. Christianity at its heart is not so much about a way of life and a list of things that we must do. It is at its heart about some amazing things that God has already done.
The massively important bit in Christianity that we must do is believe. In God. Not merely an abstract idea of God or in some abstract philosophy of life. We must believe in God's love for us. But not his love as an abstract idea. In a concrete love that has spilled over into saving action in the cross as related in the Bible. The cross shows the uniqueness of Christianity.
Christ came in humble majesty. And there is a majestic humility in the historical character of Christianity. This faith opens itself up to verification. It lays itself on the dissection table. This is where Mormonism runs into trouble. Mormonism tells stories, but they have been far more easily falsifiable. Christianity, on the other hand, has walked well hand-in-hand with historical investigation. Some atheists will irresponsibly claim that Christ did not even exist, which is laughable, and demonstrates that they have not studied history. There are early non-Christian sources, such as Tacitus and Josephus, who help us piece together a story of early Christianity that agrees with the Bible. Archaeology is revealing how accurate all the name-dropping of the New and Old Testaments have been. Read the book of Acts. Luke is name-dropping all over the place. Because he cares about accuracy, and he wants to tell the story truly.
Christianity is brave to hang its hat on history, especially the crucifixion and resurrection. But it has stood well the test of historical verification. (Of course you will still be able to find those with contrary views, but if you are an atheist, I challenge you to check out this evidence for yourself. The Bible turns out to be very historically reliable.)
I believe in God. It makes more sense of the world for me. It makes sense of why I feel a moral law pressing on me. It makes sense of the scientific evidence for a beginning to the world. It makes sense of why there is something rather than nothing. It makes sense why the great majority of humans in history have been spiritually searching. It makes sense of why the universe is orderly. And also fallen and struggling.
I do not believe in multiple gods. If there are multiple gods, where did they come from? The one who was there first, the most powerful one, or the law that governs the gods would seem to be the real God. Monotheism makes more sense to me than polytheism.
Among the main monotheistic contenders, I think that Christianity gets Jesus right. I think that Islam and Judaism gets Jesus wrong. Judaism fails to recognize him, and Islam demotes him from what the New Testament seems to teach. I think that the New Testament documents open themselves up to historical inquiry, and I think they withstand this test well. (Of course, those who approach the question of the New Testament on dogmatic secular assumptions will inevitably reach secular conclusions. But if you approach it with an openness, I believe you will find the New Testament to be reliable.)
Those who are Christians need not feel as if they have simply chosen one among many options. Like we have simply reached into a bag.
And I might add, the Christian must not feel like he should have tried out everything before meeting Christ. When you meet the love of your life, if you really love them, you bind yourself to them, and it would be unthinkable to go out and sleep around before settling down. If you have doubts, deal with them, but I hope that your Christianity runs deeper than a mere change-of-clothes.
God is who he is. And he is worth finding.
Now as a strict logical problem, the mere existence of other possibilities does not rule out the truth of Christianity. And assuming that God does exist, it is not hard to imagine that there would be imposters or compromised versions of the truth. The Bible clearly alerts us to false teachers. And the narratives in the Old Testament show us a record of Jewish monotheism confronting a pluralistic world. The new Testament shows us Jesus alone as Lord and King, a threat both to polytheism and the ultimacy of Caesar's power. So the threat is not new, and there is nothing inherently wrong about searching for the true God amidst the options.
The boisterous atheists today will sometimes say something like this. Christians deny every other God but Yahweh. The atheists simply go one God further...
I do want to recognize that there is an initial appeal to this, perhaps an emotional appeal. The problem of religious pluralism is less a logical problem than a gut emotional problem. It is assumed that there is a certain sort of arrogance to claiming to know the truth about God, to know his identity. The problem of religious pluralism is one that I feel. It may be the biggest cause of any doubts that I ever have. Because it feels like, if Christianity turns out to be true, that it wasn't fair. That I lucked out. And it feels difficult to share the Gospel with others who have simply grown up and taken on the faith of their parents... like I have.
From all this I need a breath of fresh air.
The truth about reality - whether there is a God, who he is, what he is like - is not dependent on me or the family into which I was born.
So I need to ask the question as simply and honestly as possible: What is true? And in doing so, I do not need to be over-eager to renounce the faith of my family in order to avoid some vague feeling of guilt for being born when and where I was. Indeed, what is true?
Is my faith in Jesus an arbitrary choice? Or are there good reasons to be Christian specifically? Have I decided to believe in God and then simply picked? Or is there a uniqueness to Christianity?
I think there is a uniqueness to Christianity, and a significant part of it is to be found in its distinctly historical character. Take Buddhism as an example of a religion in which this is not true. The main thing in Buddhism is a philosophy of life. It is about certain ideals and ways of thinking about and doing life. It is not specifically dependent on the historicity of the Buddha for its important parts. If Buddhism had gotten started some different way, it would not much have mattered to what it is and how it is now practiced.
Christianity is historical at its heart. The Gospel is not primarily good ideas; it is primarily Good News. Christianity at its heart is not so much about a way of life and a list of things that we must do. It is at its heart about some amazing things that God has already done.
The massively important bit in Christianity that we must do is believe. In God. Not merely an abstract idea of God or in some abstract philosophy of life. We must believe in God's love for us. But not his love as an abstract idea. In a concrete love that has spilled over into saving action in the cross as related in the Bible. The cross shows the uniqueness of Christianity.
Christ came in humble majesty. And there is a majestic humility in the historical character of Christianity. This faith opens itself up to verification. It lays itself on the dissection table. This is where Mormonism runs into trouble. Mormonism tells stories, but they have been far more easily falsifiable. Christianity, on the other hand, has walked well hand-in-hand with historical investigation. Some atheists will irresponsibly claim that Christ did not even exist, which is laughable, and demonstrates that they have not studied history. There are early non-Christian sources, such as Tacitus and Josephus, who help us piece together a story of early Christianity that agrees with the Bible. Archaeology is revealing how accurate all the name-dropping of the New and Old Testaments have been. Read the book of Acts. Luke is name-dropping all over the place. Because he cares about accuracy, and he wants to tell the story truly.
Christianity is brave to hang its hat on history, especially the crucifixion and resurrection. But it has stood well the test of historical verification. (Of course you will still be able to find those with contrary views, but if you are an atheist, I challenge you to check out this evidence for yourself. The Bible turns out to be very historically reliable.)
I believe in God. It makes more sense of the world for me. It makes sense of why I feel a moral law pressing on me. It makes sense of the scientific evidence for a beginning to the world. It makes sense of why there is something rather than nothing. It makes sense why the great majority of humans in history have been spiritually searching. It makes sense of why the universe is orderly. And also fallen and struggling.
I do not believe in multiple gods. If there are multiple gods, where did they come from? The one who was there first, the most powerful one, or the law that governs the gods would seem to be the real God. Monotheism makes more sense to me than polytheism.
Among the main monotheistic contenders, I think that Christianity gets Jesus right. I think that Islam and Judaism gets Jesus wrong. Judaism fails to recognize him, and Islam demotes him from what the New Testament seems to teach. I think that the New Testament documents open themselves up to historical inquiry, and I think they withstand this test well. (Of course, those who approach the question of the New Testament on dogmatic secular assumptions will inevitably reach secular conclusions. But if you approach it with an openness, I believe you will find the New Testament to be reliable.)
Those who are Christians need not feel as if they have simply chosen one among many options. Like we have simply reached into a bag.
And I might add, the Christian must not feel like he should have tried out everything before meeting Christ. When you meet the love of your life, if you really love them, you bind yourself to them, and it would be unthinkable to go out and sleep around before settling down. If you have doubts, deal with them, but I hope that your Christianity runs deeper than a mere change-of-clothes.
God is who he is. And he is worth finding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)