Category: Religion

Last night Laura and I were talking about a womens study that she is participating in with our Bible Fellowship class at church. The topic was Idols. The author wrote, “in biblical terms, it is something other than God that we set our heart on”, I thought this definition was alright, a little open ended. Then as we continued to read the author made an important distinction, between a functional god versus a professed god. A professed god is the “who or what we say our god is”, while the functional god is “who or what actually operates as our god”.

The thing is, for most Christians, our functional god’s are often things that are good within themselves, but become a distraction to the one true God. They are things we substitute in attempt to fulfill our deepest desires, which can only be met by Christ.

These Idols never satisfy, you would think we would catch some kind of clue that ‘these functional gods’ were not what we desired in the first place. Lewis once wrote that “the human soul was made to enjoy the object that is never fully given”. At least not in this life. It seems that these desires in themselves are nothing more than a pointer. Our earthly desires are never fulfilled. Yet we still place functional gods in that gap in attempt to appease the longings.

I wonder if we, Christians, will ever realize that the thing we have desired was that which we have been professing all along?

An author by the name of William Young has recently published a book titled “The Shack”, which has become very popular. Although it is fiction, there is a theology developed within the story. A theology that is quite problematic. In fact, one advertisement reads ‘God as you have never seen him before!” This should provide the first clue that something may be a bit off. For someone to come up with a ‘new’ way to see God, well…I am a bit skeptical off the bat.

Tim Challies offers a very good book review, as he often does.

We have all heard the news about California’s ban on same-sex marriage being struck down. I was listening to NPR the morning after the decision and one of the state officials was recorded as saying ‘I believe the institution of marriage has been strengthened by this court decision’. As a Christian, I disagree fully. This is obviously against what the Bible teaches.

What was interesting about the radio program was that, at one point they turn attention to a Christian in the crowd (who had traveled a long distance to protest) holding a sign saying ‘God hates homosexuality’. While I would agree that God is against homosexuality, I would have to question the method employed by this particular Christian in getting this message across. Let me explain.

First off, let me make it clear that I am not going to take Matthew 7 out of context by saying ‘we as Christians cannot make judgments’. This verse is often taken out of context. We live in an age of relativity, where it is not ‘appropriate’ to claim to know what truth is. This feeds into society’s hypersensitivity, a fear of offending others, or calling truth what it is. As Christians, belief in absolute truth is fundamental to our faith. The Bible is authoritative, and is absolute in all areas of truth that it speaks to.

Back to the Christian with the hate sign, there is a difference between critical condemnation (fault finding) and using discernment in guidance. Matthew 7 was not intended to disarm Christian’s from making discerning judgment on matters of truth and error. In Matthew 7, Jesus warns us about making harsh judgments while assuming we are immune ourselves.

I believe we should make judgments and uphold God’s truth. But, in making judgments keep ourselves in mind, as well as those whom we are talking to. We should judge with mercy. The first priority should be on our own purity, I doubt most Christians spend much time in reflection, fully examining our own lives. We, as Christians need to be the prophetic voice in our culture. I think we should take heed to the words of third century Rabbi Hillel, who once said, ‘Do not judge your brother until you have come to his place’. Once we have become aggressive in examining ourselves, we can become more Christ like in guiding others (Galatians 6:1).

There is a difference between calling people what they are, and leading people towards Christ. The man with a sign models the former.

Our primary purpose should be bringing others to see the Glory of God in the Gospel, the love of God displayed in the life and work of Christ, and the power for change in the Holy Spirit. This truth becomes tainted by uncaring Christians who condemn people who have no context for their condemnation. Any time Christ corrected someone in their sin, he offered life. The goal should always be restoration to God. It’s much easier to hold up a sign than it is to lovingly invest in someone’s life by showing them their error.

We must also remember that prejudging how people will respond to the Gospel is not our task. It might be pertinent to add that forcing God’s truth on those who show no inclination towards righteousness bears little fruit. Praying that God would open their eyes to see their desperate need of a savior, thats another story. Something not often communicated on a posterboard sign that reads ‘God hates homosexuality’. Oh that we would be loving in defending the truth.

One of my closest friends, Cliff Jordan has caught a passion to reach Richmond, Virginia with the Gospel. Over the next few months Cliff and his family will be in preparation to follow the call of God in their lives. (His big brother is proud of him too)

Check out this website often. Pray, and support the Jordan’s as they seek to be obedient to the Holy Spirit, and as God moves Richmond through their ministry.

MoveRichmond.Org

I remembered reading a blog post where Al Mohler rightly noticed that “assaults upon the Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert Christianity’s theological integrity.”

We might be tempted to think that these attacks come only from outside the church. Not the case. It is true that within Christianity we often disagree over certain things, some have taken these disagreements as reason to dismiss the church all together. Throwing the baby out with the bath water?

In a recent book, an author wrote that assuming “our convictions about God are somehow timeless is the deepest arrogance”. He goes on charging that throughout church history, Christians have “held positions” on issues “with deep conviction”, and have been wrong.

Here’s the thing, I see no problem with disagreeing over certain things. But when it comes down to it there are issues that I cannot waver on. These are the timeless convictions of historic Christianity. These first tier issues are essential to proper theology, issues such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (which is connected with the virgin birth), justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture. Throwing out these doctrines have deleterious effects on our whole system of belief. In fact, I don’t see how a group of people can dismiss these issues and still claim to be a church, in the biblical sense.

While God has not revealed himself exhaustively, he has revealed himself sufficiently in his word. It is from here that we do ‘theology’. My fear is that many people are being tempted to adopt a ‘pseudo-theology’ that asserts humans as the primary judge on truth. The same author argues that theology is local, and originates in us. This cannot be further than the truth, for me.

Much of these thoughts come after reading the material coming out of a movement called the emergent village. The author I quoted above was Tony Jones. While I do think these guys are raising some good questions, I fear that their methods of theology are very dangerous.

It seems that many within the emergent movement attempt to flatten the theological landscape, putting all theological issues on the same ‘plane’. The problem with this is simple, it allows one to ignore specific theological issues, and emphasize others without considering the effects of dismissing certain doctrines. While at some points we all emphasize certain doctrines over others, we should never completely ignore doctrines, or change doctrines in light of changes in culture.

When flattening the tiers of theology, you can do away with what you want, or what you feel is ‘unnecessary’ and believe that it will have “no effect” on the whole system. While in reality, our doctrines are so intimately connected that what you hold on one issue can have major implications on other doctrines.

Have you ever wondered what doctrines you can disagree about with other Christians and still be able to partner in the Gospel? If you have never thought this through, you need to. In an age of relativism it is quite easy to waver on the essentials, and many books in our Christian book stores operate under these assumptions. The point is, when you attack isolated doctrines it does have implications on other doctrines, and your faith as a whole. Be thinking Christians.

Dr. Albert Mohler wrote a thought provoking article on this issue.

Theology, simply put is ‘what we know about God’. It is a compound word derived from the Greek; Theos: God, and Logos: word, or knowledge. All Christians are Theologians in some sense or another. How can this be, well if you claim to be a Christian, you must have beliefs about God, right? This has implications that stretch beyond mere belief itself. What you beleive about God effects how you view reality, the world around you, and even has implications on your day to day actions.

Now, Graeme Goldsworthy makes an excellent point in his book ‘According to Plan’ that all Christians are theologians, “but some are more able theologians than others”. (29) I have often thought, what is a better test of ones ‘able-ness’, their words or their actions? This is somewhat of a trick question, I do not think beliefs and actions can be separated.

I think Bonhoeffer sums it up nicely, “only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes”. (63)

Dr. Daniel Akin has written a wonderful article on this matter.