Monday, September 23, 2013
God is Love!
The Apostle John writes that"God is love." But how do we define love? The American Heritage Dictionary defines love as "an intense affection for another person based on familial or personal ties." Often that "intense affection" stems from sexual attraction for that other person. We love others, or we say we love other people when we feel attracted to them and when they can make us feel good. Notice a key phrase in the dictionary definition, "based on." That indicates that we love conditionally, in other words, we love a person when he or she fulfills a condition that we require before we can love them.
Our love is not only conditional, but it is also mercurial. That is, our love is based on feelings and emotions that are subject to change from one moment to the next.
Can anyone comprehend unconditional love? Perhaps the love of parents for their children is the closest we can get to unconditional love without the help of God's love in our lives. God is love and His love is very different from human love. God's love is truly unconditional, that is it's not based on feelings or emotions. He doesn't love us because we're lovable, or because we make Him feel good; He loves us because He is love. He created us to have a loving relationship with Him, and He sacrificed His Son to restore that relationship after we exercised our free will and choose not to love Him.
When Scripture says that God is love, they are not telling us that God is some nebulous, warm and fuzzy feeling. When Biblical writers speak of the love of God, they aren't comparing His love to our limited form of human love; they are teaching us that God defines love and His love sets the standard of what love can be. God is the very definition of love itself. There is no such thing as love without God. As hard as we try, love can't be defined outside of knowing Him. Our human definition of love then is false. The best way to describe God's love is to say that it's unconditional in its truest sense. His love doesn't respond to us. He loves, because He is love!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
From Calm to Chaos (pt. 4)
The postmodern human has lost his automny; he is reduced to a mere cog in the social machinery. The "self" of postmodern construction is encouraged to celebrate her tribal-ness while at the same time excersing tolerance with regard to others. That is, to be an American is no longer about coming to this country and gradually being identifed as one more citizen of this great land, adapting to the culture around us. Many different ethnic groups these days, though enjoying the freedoms of America, retain their cultural language, rituals, lifestyles, refusing to be poured into the melting pot that was true of former waves of emigrants. Instead of adopting the label, American, they are now referred as Asian-American, African-American, Euro-American, Hispanic-American.
Within this new conctruct, everyone must be allowed to enjoy their history, heritage, and backgroud, while realizing that no one's story is true for everyone else. In postmodern vernacular, this means that there is no overarching story that ties all groups together, which of course suggests that the story of God's redemptive work through Christ can't be held as viable for the salvation of every soul of every generation or location. If our neighbor finds life fulfillment in the story of Islam then we must celebrate our own story and leave them alone to celebrate theirs. Evangelism is thus out-of-the-qestion. Who's to say that my story is better that any other story.
Therefore, everything is relative. There is no T-Truth, only t-truth. But where does Christianity's exclusive message of salvation through Christ only stand? Do we reject the great commission now because there is not meta-narrative, over-arching story?
Within this new conctruct, everyone must be allowed to enjoy their history, heritage, and backgroud, while realizing that no one's story is true for everyone else. In postmodern vernacular, this means that there is no overarching story that ties all groups together, which of course suggests that the story of God's redemptive work through Christ can't be held as viable for the salvation of every soul of every generation or location. If our neighbor finds life fulfillment in the story of Islam then we must celebrate our own story and leave them alone to celebrate theirs. Evangelism is thus out-of-the-qestion. Who's to say that my story is better that any other story.
Therefore, everything is relative. There is no T-Truth, only t-truth. But where does Christianity's exclusive message of salvation through Christ only stand? Do we reject the great commission now because there is not meta-narrative, over-arching story?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
From Calm to Chaos (pt. 3)
What does God look like in the new postmodern paradigm? Two terms seem to govern any discussion of the postmodern God, as well as postmodern religion: tolerance and inclusion. Intolerance has been labeled the cardinal sin by our culture. Each person's view of God must allow for every other person's understanding of the God-concept. Every view is tolerated, every deity included in the new pantheon. Because of the deconstruction of language, which allows us redefine words in terms of our own belief system, the Biblical text can now support a feminist agenda, or address racial tension, or serve as the foundation for liberation theology. The Biblical text is re-canonized to support whatever one chooses to believe.
Postmodern religion resembles a montage more than anything else. Again, we are to tolerate and include the claims or worldviews of every tribe, group, or sect. In his newest work, George Barna discusses the truth claims of what he calls the "Seven Faith Tribes" that reside within the USA. These include,
* Casual Christians
* Captive Christians
* American Jews
* Mormons
* Pantheists
* Muslims
* Spiritual Skeptics
Postmodernism teaches that each group has the right to assert its truth claims, as long as they tolerate all the others. Which, of course, is why the exclusive claims of Christianity as so repulsive. How should Captive Christians respond to the tolerance and inclusion demanded by our postmodern culture?
Postmodern religion resembles a montage more than anything else. Again, we are to tolerate and include the claims or worldviews of every tribe, group, or sect. In his newest work, George Barna discusses the truth claims of what he calls the "Seven Faith Tribes" that reside within the USA. These include,
* Casual Christians
* Captive Christians
* American Jews
* Mormons
* Pantheists
* Muslims
* Spiritual Skeptics
Postmodernism teaches that each group has the right to assert its truth claims, as long as they tolerate all the others. Which, of course, is why the exclusive claims of Christianity as so repulsive. How should Captive Christians respond to the tolerance and inclusion demanded by our postmodern culture?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
From Calm to Chaos (pt. 2)
TV is not the only medium through which postmodern themes are popularized. The Cinema has become increasingly filled with postmodern chaos. The definitive work within the Cinematic genre which carries postmodern suggestions is "Pulp Fiction." As the title implies, "Pulp Fiction" is a film which celebrated its status as "soft" (pulpy) fiction. In this film moral relativism is clearly displayed, the sequence of events is so manipulated that all sense of linear time is blurred, and the boundary between truth and fiction is obliterated (becoming puply). Gene Veith observes that "postmodernist films set up different worlds, all occupying the same space. Characters must try to discover what world they are in." This shifting of realities includes both time frame and geographical location. Filmmakers constantly shift from one generation to another and from on locale to another.
Veith cites as examples of postmodernist cinematic chaos David Lynch's "Blue Velvet," in which a small-town of the 1950s coexists with "an underworld of nightmarish perversion," "Roger Rabbit," "with it's interplay between the cartoon world and the real world," "Blade Runner," which sets up a world where "humans act like machines and machines act like humans," and "Last Action Hero," where "a boy watches a movie and enters the screen to share the adventure." In these and other postmodern films, the reality/truth distinction is blurred and reality is considered nothing more than an "imaginative construction." Veith writes, "what they all have in common is playing with the conventionality of movie making and movie watching." In setting up fictionalized worlds and then confusing the boundaries between them, these films call into question the barriers we set up between what we think is real and what we think is made up; what is real and what is fiction? That's the question! There is not real reality, no true truth, no linear time, and no dimensional boundaries. Everything is confused and chaotic. Can you think of other movies that would fit into the postmodern genre?
Veith cites as examples of postmodernist cinematic chaos David Lynch's "Blue Velvet," in which a small-town of the 1950s coexists with "an underworld of nightmarish perversion," "Roger Rabbit," "with it's interplay between the cartoon world and the real world," "Blade Runner," which sets up a world where "humans act like machines and machines act like humans," and "Last Action Hero," where "a boy watches a movie and enters the screen to share the adventure." In these and other postmodern films, the reality/truth distinction is blurred and reality is considered nothing more than an "imaginative construction." Veith writes, "what they all have in common is playing with the conventionality of movie making and movie watching." In setting up fictionalized worlds and then confusing the boundaries between them, these films call into question the barriers we set up between what we think is real and what we think is made up; what is real and what is fiction? That's the question! There is not real reality, no true truth, no linear time, and no dimensional boundaries. Everything is confused and chaotic. Can you think of other movies that would fit into the postmodern genre?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
From Calm to Chaos
Since the 1940s the western world has been immersed in a somewhat subtle, howbeit dramatic shift in the way it deals with the questions of ultimate reality. So drastic has been this mindset re-orientation, that many are not merely rethinking truth claims, they are actually considering the possibility that there may not be an ultimate reality. Others have already concluded that truth claims are simply culturally shaped, linguistically defined, and locally applied; that there is no "true truth" or "real reality" which transcends localized interpretation. Labeled postmodernism, this new way of looking at reality has now begun to "trickle down" from its inception among the lofty hills of academia to the work-a-day world of average westerners. Though most could not define it, postmodernism's effects can be seen today in the arts and entertainment industry, the legal and governmental arenas, and the world of theology and religion.
Postmodern themes are not simply fuel for theoretical dialogue; they have increasingly become the stuff which culture feeds upon. The Simpson family began each episode by racing home to watch the weekly installment of the Simpsons on their TV, thereby representing the breakdown between fiction and reality. The Simpsons were a cartoon family who were aware of their status as cartoon characters. They represent the fact that in a postmodern world it is not the actual family that matters but its TV representation. TV is the real world. Fiction is real and reality is fiction. It is a question of REEL vs Real!
Chris Carter, the producer of the X Files and Millennium, proved himself to be extremely adept at introducing postmodern themes to mass audiences. Both shows portrayed the search for an illusive "truth" that was never realized; they valued science and reason in favor of the paranormal and the supernatural, while giving a sense of impending cultural collapse.
Another TV genre which still supplies the market with postmodern themes is the "talk show." Talk show hosts interview a variety of guests who exhibit behavioral patterns that break "old moral" codes and celebrate relativism. The guests are "warmly accepted" by the host and the studio audience, except for a few who are unattractively judgemental. The guests seem normal and tolerance is the rule of thumb. The TV people are "real people" with real problems.
The reality-based TV program finds it's ultimate expression when the camera follows police officers or paramedics on their nightly rounds. The footage shows real cops or emergency personnel in pursuit of their duty. Yet, each episode is edited to include scenes where actors step into actual footage, and where the drama is "beefed-up" for audience appeal. This turns truth into a TV show and hopelessly blurs the truth/fiction distinction.
Postmodernism, you see, has no real-reality to which it clings, so all of life is a blur between what is truth and what is fiction. and nobody really knows the difference. Can you think of other TV shows that add to this confusion?
Postmodern themes are not simply fuel for theoretical dialogue; they have increasingly become the stuff which culture feeds upon. The Simpson family began each episode by racing home to watch the weekly installment of the Simpsons on their TV, thereby representing the breakdown between fiction and reality. The Simpsons were a cartoon family who were aware of their status as cartoon characters. They represent the fact that in a postmodern world it is not the actual family that matters but its TV representation. TV is the real world. Fiction is real and reality is fiction. It is a question of REEL vs Real!
Chris Carter, the producer of the X Files and Millennium, proved himself to be extremely adept at introducing postmodern themes to mass audiences. Both shows portrayed the search for an illusive "truth" that was never realized; they valued science and reason in favor of the paranormal and the supernatural, while giving a sense of impending cultural collapse.
Another TV genre which still supplies the market with postmodern themes is the "talk show." Talk show hosts interview a variety of guests who exhibit behavioral patterns that break "old moral" codes and celebrate relativism. The guests are "warmly accepted" by the host and the studio audience, except for a few who are unattractively judgemental. The guests seem normal and tolerance is the rule of thumb. The TV people are "real people" with real problems.
The reality-based TV program finds it's ultimate expression when the camera follows police officers or paramedics on their nightly rounds. The footage shows real cops or emergency personnel in pursuit of their duty. Yet, each episode is edited to include scenes where actors step into actual footage, and where the drama is "beefed-up" for audience appeal. This turns truth into a TV show and hopelessly blurs the truth/fiction distinction.
Postmodernism, you see, has no real-reality to which it clings, so all of life is a blur between what is truth and what is fiction. and nobody really knows the difference. Can you think of other TV shows that add to this confusion?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Why does a good God allow suffering? part two
My experience with suffering, sorrow, disease, and death has led me to three conclusions. First, no one has the complete answer, accept God! To insist that every question about sorrow and disease must have a clinical or comprehensive answer is to reduce God to nothing more than a logical proposition or a mathematical formula. The fact that God is consistently wise, just, true and faithful is clear, but this is not to say that we can strip Him down and understand how He works, as if He were an internal combustion engine. God is beyond our understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33). The mystery of God defies our attempt to tame it by reason. God's infinite transcendence means that there are issues on which we who are finite are simply unqualified to pronoun a definitive verdict.
Secondly, it is clear to me that God does not owe us an explanation. Where did we ever get the idea that God owes us anything, anyhow? As creatures, our lives are in His hand. He is God and we are not! If He chooses to make something clear to us, then we praise Him, if not, we praise Him still. Job ran up against this truth. The whole book of Job revolves around the question of suffering. Chapter one is a chronicle of Job's suffering. His initial response was one of faith. "Naked I came into the world; naked I will leave. But blest be the name of the Lord." After the counsel of his friends, and the continuation of his distress, he seemed to wavier in his trust. Finally, confused and confounded he strikes back at God. Why? Why has this happened to me? When God replies, He addresses Job's ignorance of the world's natural order to reveal his ignorance of the world's moral order.
"Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you will make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have any understanding. Who determined its measure--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?..." (Job 38:2-11)
If job could not comprehend the workings of the physical order, how could he possibly understand God's mind and character? God did not give Job an explanation and He does not owe us one.
Thirdly, I believe we would do better to consider the issue a mystery rather than a problem. To call the question of sorrow, suffering, disease, and death a mystery is not to evade the issue; it simply suggests that we may not have all the data yet.
I actually see the issue of suffering and disease as four mysteries. One is the mystery of creation and moral choice. God created the universe and has absolute control over everything in it. Yet there are some things God can't do. He cannot violate His nature. For example, He cannot be cruel. He cannot lie. He cannot break a promise. And He cannot make a man who has freedom of will, then guarantee that he always chooses rightly. The point is simple, if God was going to make a world in which there were genuinely free moral beings, then He would have to create a world with the possibly that those free moral beings would choose wrongly.
Another mystery in the discussion I would call the mystery of blame and cause. When tragedy hits the front pages, God often gets the blame. Where was God when two planes hit the World Trade Center? Where was God when a tidal wave hit the shores of Indian Ocean rim and several thousand people were swept into eternity? Where was God when a sniper murdered a dozen folks along the Washington DC beltway? I would respond by saying, just how is all this God's fault? If man utilizes his moral freedom to defy God's laws and precepts, and thus launches a cause and effect chain of consequences that results in a groaning planet, or a murderous rampage, how can we blame God?
The still another mystery in the equation is the mystery of momentary pain and eternal pleasure. We are inclined to identify good with whatever is pleasant to us at the present, and evil with whatever is unpleasant, uncomfortable, or disturbing at the present. Yet from a Biblical perspective, good is not defined as that which produces personal pleasure, but that which works in us God's holiness. Further, Scripture sees pain as temporary, and holiness and the glory it reveals in us as permanent, eternal.
Finally the discussion addresses what I will call the mystery of a good God dying for sinful man. God did not create sin; He merely provided the options necessary for moral freedom. We choice sin, and with it set in motion a cause and effect world of sorrow, suffering, disease, and death. But God didn't stand back, content to watch the developing tragedy. He came to earth in the form of His son, subjected Himself to sorrow and death, dying to set us free from the terrible consequences our choices unleashed on us and the world. If you want to see how much God cares about our sorrow, suffering, disease, and death, look to the cross and see a good God dying for sinful man!
Secondly, it is clear to me that God does not owe us an explanation. Where did we ever get the idea that God owes us anything, anyhow? As creatures, our lives are in His hand. He is God and we are not! If He chooses to make something clear to us, then we praise Him, if not, we praise Him still. Job ran up against this truth. The whole book of Job revolves around the question of suffering. Chapter one is a chronicle of Job's suffering. His initial response was one of faith. "Naked I came into the world; naked I will leave. But blest be the name of the Lord." After the counsel of his friends, and the continuation of his distress, he seemed to wavier in his trust. Finally, confused and confounded he strikes back at God. Why? Why has this happened to me? When God replies, He addresses Job's ignorance of the world's natural order to reveal his ignorance of the world's moral order.
"Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you will make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have any understanding. Who determined its measure--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?..." (Job 38:2-11)
If job could not comprehend the workings of the physical order, how could he possibly understand God's mind and character? God did not give Job an explanation and He does not owe us one.
Thirdly, I believe we would do better to consider the issue a mystery rather than a problem. To call the question of sorrow, suffering, disease, and death a mystery is not to evade the issue; it simply suggests that we may not have all the data yet.
I actually see the issue of suffering and disease as four mysteries. One is the mystery of creation and moral choice. God created the universe and has absolute control over everything in it. Yet there are some things God can't do. He cannot violate His nature. For example, He cannot be cruel. He cannot lie. He cannot break a promise. And He cannot make a man who has freedom of will, then guarantee that he always chooses rightly. The point is simple, if God was going to make a world in which there were genuinely free moral beings, then He would have to create a world with the possibly that those free moral beings would choose wrongly.
Another mystery in the discussion I would call the mystery of blame and cause. When tragedy hits the front pages, God often gets the blame. Where was God when two planes hit the World Trade Center? Where was God when a tidal wave hit the shores of Indian Ocean rim and several thousand people were swept into eternity? Where was God when a sniper murdered a dozen folks along the Washington DC beltway? I would respond by saying, just how is all this God's fault? If man utilizes his moral freedom to defy God's laws and precepts, and thus launches a cause and effect chain of consequences that results in a groaning planet, or a murderous rampage, how can we blame God?
The still another mystery in the equation is the mystery of momentary pain and eternal pleasure. We are inclined to identify good with whatever is pleasant to us at the present, and evil with whatever is unpleasant, uncomfortable, or disturbing at the present. Yet from a Biblical perspective, good is not defined as that which produces personal pleasure, but that which works in us God's holiness. Further, Scripture sees pain as temporary, and holiness and the glory it reveals in us as permanent, eternal.
Finally the discussion addresses what I will call the mystery of a good God dying for sinful man. God did not create sin; He merely provided the options necessary for moral freedom. We choice sin, and with it set in motion a cause and effect world of sorrow, suffering, disease, and death. But God didn't stand back, content to watch the developing tragedy. He came to earth in the form of His son, subjected Himself to sorrow and death, dying to set us free from the terrible consequences our choices unleashed on us and the world. If you want to see how much God cares about our sorrow, suffering, disease, and death, look to the cross and see a good God dying for sinful man!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Why does a good God allow suffering?
When theists ponder evil and suffering, they inevitably phrase the question, "why would a good God allow evil and suffering." A simple examination of the question itself leads to five observations.
1) There is a God!
2) He is a good God!
3) He is a sovereign God!
4) Suffering is a reality!
5) The good and sovereign God allows suffering! But why does He do so?
The debate has raged for centuries. Even the Bible does not avoid raising the issue. Jesus faced the challenge on a number of occasions. Sometimes it came to Him in subtle forms, sometimes directly. One of the most striking incidences in which He faced the problem of a good God and an evil world is recorded the 9th chapter of John's gospel. The discussion ensues on the heels of one of the lengthiest reports of any miracle He preformed.
As Jesus was walking along with His disciples, they crossed the path of a man who was blind from birth. The disciples weren't just content to witness the miracle of sight retored, they wanted to know more. They sought an explanation for his blindness. "Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind" (John 9:2)? Is he responsibile for his suffering or is someone else? It was widely held that suffering, especially the diaster of blindness, resulted from sin. The disciples evidently accepted this, but the present case perplexed them. There were serious difficulties in seeing how a man who was born blind could have sinned himself, thus resulting in his lack of sight. And it is not much easier to think that a man should bear such a punishment for the sin of his parents. So the disciples put the question to Jesus.
The Master completely surprised them with His answer that it was neither the man nor his parents who were responsible for his physical challenge. "It was so the works of God might be made manifest in him" (John 9:3). But how does this response help? Has God caused the suffering of this man so that God might gain some greater glory? Is that the way God works? Does He toy with His creation to get something for Himself? At first glance it may appear so, but in comparing Scripture with Scripture we know it isn't that simple. What is clear from the response here is that God is at work, and we want to know why He works this way.
Again and again the challenge is raised. Sometime ago I stood over the bed of a 17 year old boy with muscular dystrophy, his twisted frame a testimony to the agony of living with that dread diease all these years. He's a geniune believer, knows he going to heaven to get a new body, and has an incredible attitude in spite of the suffering he has endured for so long. WHY does a good and sovereign God allow such a thing?
We pray constantly for a little girl whose grandfather is a member of our deacon board. She was born with spina bifida; has undergone over twenty different surgeries in her young life; and will never be able walk like you and me. WHY?
Nearly three years ago an unspeakable tragedy occurred in our community when a little boy accidently shot his younger brother to death. Their father works on our church staff, and his mother plays the piano during our worship services. They love God like few people I know, and have given themselves to building of the kingdom of God. All that is in me wants to know WHY!
Like every pastor I have buried young and old alike, many with dieased wracked bodies, others lossing their lives in aweful accidents. These include: Keith-42, Greg-36, Brent-51, Shane-29, Josh-16, Brittany-23, Jim-62, and many more. I have counseled the parents of run-away children; spouses with run-away partners; pastors with run-away church members; and many people with run-away depression; each one crying out to the Lord God of heaven, WHY?
Is it enough to say that God is at work in them for His greater glory? Is it enough to say, "Trust Him, it will all work out one day?" What do we say? How do we respond? Can you help me so I can help them?
1) There is a God!
2) He is a good God!
3) He is a sovereign God!
4) Suffering is a reality!
5) The good and sovereign God allows suffering! But why does He do so?
The debate has raged for centuries. Even the Bible does not avoid raising the issue. Jesus faced the challenge on a number of occasions. Sometimes it came to Him in subtle forms, sometimes directly. One of the most striking incidences in which He faced the problem of a good God and an evil world is recorded the 9th chapter of John's gospel. The discussion ensues on the heels of one of the lengthiest reports of any miracle He preformed.
As Jesus was walking along with His disciples, they crossed the path of a man who was blind from birth. The disciples weren't just content to witness the miracle of sight retored, they wanted to know more. They sought an explanation for his blindness. "Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind" (John 9:2)? Is he responsibile for his suffering or is someone else? It was widely held that suffering, especially the diaster of blindness, resulted from sin. The disciples evidently accepted this, but the present case perplexed them. There were serious difficulties in seeing how a man who was born blind could have sinned himself, thus resulting in his lack of sight. And it is not much easier to think that a man should bear such a punishment for the sin of his parents. So the disciples put the question to Jesus.
The Master completely surprised them with His answer that it was neither the man nor his parents who were responsible for his physical challenge. "It was so the works of God might be made manifest in him" (John 9:3). But how does this response help? Has God caused the suffering of this man so that God might gain some greater glory? Is that the way God works? Does He toy with His creation to get something for Himself? At first glance it may appear so, but in comparing Scripture with Scripture we know it isn't that simple. What is clear from the response here is that God is at work, and we want to know why He works this way.
Again and again the challenge is raised. Sometime ago I stood over the bed of a 17 year old boy with muscular dystrophy, his twisted frame a testimony to the agony of living with that dread diease all these years. He's a geniune believer, knows he going to heaven to get a new body, and has an incredible attitude in spite of the suffering he has endured for so long. WHY does a good and sovereign God allow such a thing?
We pray constantly for a little girl whose grandfather is a member of our deacon board. She was born with spina bifida; has undergone over twenty different surgeries in her young life; and will never be able walk like you and me. WHY?
Nearly three years ago an unspeakable tragedy occurred in our community when a little boy accidently shot his younger brother to death. Their father works on our church staff, and his mother plays the piano during our worship services. They love God like few people I know, and have given themselves to building of the kingdom of God. All that is in me wants to know WHY!
Like every pastor I have buried young and old alike, many with dieased wracked bodies, others lossing their lives in aweful accidents. These include: Keith-42, Greg-36, Brent-51, Shane-29, Josh-16, Brittany-23, Jim-62, and many more. I have counseled the parents of run-away children; spouses with run-away partners; pastors with run-away church members; and many people with run-away depression; each one crying out to the Lord God of heaven, WHY?
Is it enough to say that God is at work in them for His greater glory? Is it enough to say, "Trust Him, it will all work out one day?" What do we say? How do we respond? Can you help me so I can help them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
