You Got to Be Part of This!

Last night in WELD we took a little departure from the Ecclesiastes series to talk about personal evangelism and how it needs to be a central part of how we follow Jesus.  First we talked about how God intends to motivate us declare His goodness by first amazing us.  Then we talked about the four key ideas we need to present when we have conversations about God.  Finally, we wrapped it up with an appeal to participate in the exciting work of God.

Listen to: You Got to Be Part of This!

10 Reasons Jesus Returns in 2010

The Last Judgment, Michaelangelo

Yeah right!  No way I’m touching that!

Besides the fact that I’m no prophecy nut, I’ve seen enough Christian authors and pastors make complete fools of themselves by predicting the Apocalypse and seeing each of those days go past (each one no doubt thankful that we no longer stone false prophets!).  While the 19th century was littered with cults whose origins were mired in false predictions of Christ’s return, a stunning [semi-]recent example is a fellow-graduate of mine from Dallas Theological Seminary (though some 4 decades earlier).

In 1970 Hal Lindsey published The Late, Great Planet Earth in which he concluded that the end of the world would begin sometime in the late 1980′s .  This he based on the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the mish-mashing of a number of unrelated Biblical texts.  Treating the Bible like a jig-saw puzzle, Lindsey concluded (and many others too, let’s be fair…) that within a generation (i.e 40 years) after the re-establishment of Israel the End would soon begin with the Rapture.  Rather than bringing heavenly paradise and the end of the world, the close of the 80′s only brought Nirvana and the end of hair metal.

So what do we essentially believe about the End of all things?  In short, Christians believe in the physical return to the earth of Jesus Christ, who will judge all people, rewarding the faithful with joyful eternity in God’s presence and the faithless with eternal punishment. Exactly when, how, and by what means have been the subject of [largely] fruitless debate for as many years as Christians have been arguing about unknowable particulars.

Discuss: As always, I’ve erred on the side of brevity; what have I left behind (perhaps the re-creation of Heaven and earth; what else)?

Trail of Blood or On the Origin of Denominations

John Baptizes Jesus -David Bjorgen

Looking something like a biological taxonomy, the relationship between Christian denominations is fairly clear: since the beginning, Christianity has experienced constant change, development, and bifurcation leaving us with uncounted denominations.  The major events that produced our largest classifications were the East-West split in the 11th Century and the Protestant Reformation in the 16th.  While any church could theoretically trace its lineage back to a common ancestor, some are troubled by the thought of bearing relation to those they consider unbelievers.  Enter Trail of Blood Baptists.

In 1931 J. M. Carrol published Trail of Blood about the origin of denominations.  Based in his disgust for Rome and her sins, he has refused a place in the “tree of Christianity” for Baptists and has claimed a unique lineage clear back to Jesus’s cousin.  The title refers to the martyrs that he assumes have existed since the beginning of the church and who were persecuted by the Roman Church but for which he has no consistent proof.  Whether or not he could ever prove such a lineage, the need for a pure lineage free from the faults of church history is misplaced, as the people of God have never been free from gross failure (Judges, anyone?).

So what do we believe about the people of God?  Without respect to denomination, the people of God are those individuals spiritually joined by their common confession in Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity who bore the cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. In obedience to God’s word we are baptized, worship regularly, and take communion, but none of these things (nor their lack) supplants that confession (aka faith).

Discuss: How else would you limit or describe the people of God?

Atheists in Heaven—Believers in Hell

Now I don’t exactly know how the going to heaven thing works, the mechanism that is.  Does your soul float up there as you watch your lifeless body?  Do you just wake up after who knows how long?  Now I can’t tell you how what it will be like to arrive, but I can tell you (at least according to the Bible) who can expect to make their home there.

Now its hard to poke fun at anyone in this discussion since sincere believers abound on all sides (kinda makes you wonder how you can call this an essential if there are so many “acceptable” points of view that seem so different).  The way the debate often gets framed in Protestantism is Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation.  “In the red corner we have John MacArthur… .” Unfortunately, it seems we have to choose between either too fuzzy a notion of faith (mental assent or praying a prayer in sincerity [whatever that means] regardless of whether any evidence of sincerity follows) or too rigid (faith is necessarily and immediately accompanied by full-blown spiritual maturity).

So what do we essentially believe about salvation?  Quite simply that the only way someone becomes a child of God is by turning to God from sin (repentance) through faith in Jesus the God-Man who died on the cross for those sins and was raised from the dead.  Faith is never a work nor is it simply thinking something about Jesus.  Without reference to how quickly it progresses, faith is a life-long total reorientation toward God accomplished through faith in Jesus, His cross, and His empty tomb.

Discuss: My definition leans more toward Lordship salvation but tries to allow for slow-starters – how do you see things?  Do you see the issue on another plane?

Oops, I Made a Mistake

Did I do that?

Sin is unquestionably an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.  No sin, no cross.  No cross, no resurrection.  No resurrection, no Christian faith.  Question is, what do we mean by sin?  Unfortunately, many definitions I hear from preachers seem to evaporate down to mistakes and imperfections.  It’s as if God is just really particular, like some kind of transcendent frat-boy who can’t find a girl worth settling down with.  “Too heavy, too skinny, too tall, too short.”   Let’s probe the language: by “mistake” do we mean unintentional actions?  For example, the other month I was being a bit careless washing dishes and accidentally broke a plate.  Is that something Jesus died on the cross to forgive?  Or do we mean something far different by mistake?  Something like, I knew it was wrong and I did it anyway, but I’m so ashamed—and it feels better just to call it a mistake.

The greater problem, however, is not in defining sin but what sin does to our relationship with God.  Sin is anything and everything contrary to the will and nature of God—whether we’re talking actions and inactions, beliefs and postures, willfull and in ignorance—we all do it (that was easy!).  More problematic, sin is what separates us from God, what stirs Gods wrath, what puts Christ not only on the cross but also in the tomb.  For those who do not find forgiveness in that cross, sin is what condemns to Hell.

Discuss: Some soften sin for fear of offending, some go strong and find no one listening—how do you present sin?

PCD: Not Just Bad Music…

… they also promote heresy.

For millennia the Trinity has been mind-numbing to orthodox and heretic alike.  This is how the logic goes: 1+1+1=3; therefore, there are either 3 Gods or we need to figure out some way to adjust our view of how Father, Son, and Spirit relate.  Inadequate views of the Godhead can be generally summed up as either polytheism or monarchism.  To my knowledge there are no notable movements promoting Tri-theism so this article will focus on those “creative” views that give priority to the Father as the one God and king over all creation at the cost of the Divinity or personality of Son and Spirit.  History bears two main forms:

(1) Modalism: popularized first by Sabellius in the 3rd century and riffed on ever since, each member of the Trinity is not a distinct person but a particular manifestation of God (often Father in Creation, Son in Redemption, Spirit in Sanctification) as if God changed outfits to match the job He was doing (e.g. suit for the office, shorts for the gym, overalls for the yard).  Modern manifestations of modalism are Oneness Pentacostalism or the Jesus-Only movement.

(2) Adoptionism: like Arianism last week, adoptionism holds that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father but simply a man who was granted divinity for his perfect life and role in the program of God (this should be distinguished between modern views of Jesus that see Him as little more than a really good man—both start with Jesus as just a man, adoptionism just takes it a little further).

So what do we need to essentially believe about God?  First, there is one God.  Second, there are three distinct persons who are fully God: Father, Son, and Spirit. Somewhere in the harmony of these two truths we find the Trinity, three in one.  In the West, we easily affirm the first and struggle with the second leaning toward monarchism in the way we think and pray (I mean, seriously, how many times have you heard someone thank the Father for coming to earth and dying on the cross?  Shoot, I’ve even heard the Spirit thanked for dying in our place—pneumatipassionism, anyone?).  In the East the reverse is true, they struggle to grasp the unity of the Three persons.  It should be no surprise that we cannot accurately describe God, not with an egg, a shamrock, the triple-point of water, or any other thing in our experience.  This is no cause for abandoning the essential truth of Three-in-One—God is enigmatic and transcendent, Father, Son, and Spirit.

Discussion Prompt: Throughout the history of the church belief in the Trinity was an absolute essential (i.e. you were not Christian if you denied it), now days it’s treated as though it were only of secondary importance.  What do you make of this?

If You Want Santa to Punch You in the Face…

… say this: hote pote ouk ēn (roughly, “there was a time when he [Jesus] was not”).

Early in fourth century there was a massive controversy in the church over how Divine Jesus actually was.  Was He Divine-Divine, or just divine?  In competition to the orthodox view of Jesus as true God—uncreated and eternal—there was was an upstart Christology sweeping the Eastern Church known as Arianism (not to be confused with the Aryanism of white supremacy).   Using the Bible for support, Arius, the bishop of Alexandria, maintained that Jesus was the first created being rather than true, pre-existent God.  Strangely enough at the council of Nicea in 325 Arius and Saint Nicholas got in such heated debate that it ended with St. Nick punching Arius in the face [and subsequently getting stripped of his position - kinda wish he'd put a lump of coal in a stocking and beat him with it - now that's irony!].

So what do we essentially believe about Jesus?  Was Arius close enough on Jesus?  Did St. Nick overreact?  Of first importance we believe that Jesus is fully God (uncreated and eternal) and that He is fully man.  We believe that He was born of the virgin Mary, that He lived a sinless life, and that He died for our sins on the cross.  Furthermore, we believe that He was raised from death on the third day and ascended to Heaven from which He will return to usher in eternity (click here for Hessel Church’s full doctrinal statement).

Discussion Prompt: There’s probably a lot more I could have said about Jesus that is really important if not essential; what have I left out?

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Last week I came across this article describing a North Carolina Church’s Halloween plans to conduct a good old-fashioned book burning.  Taking their cue from Acts 19.19 (I’m sure) the list of books to be banned was set to include none other than Satanic Bibles.  Unfortunately, they weren’t referring to anything written by Anton LaVey but every other English translation of the Holy Scriptures than the good ol’ KJV.

Rather than waste my keystrokes refuting King James Only arguments (I mean, if I have to we can go there in the comments) I’d like to use this news item as a launching point for a brief series on the essentials of the Christian faith illustrated by instances where those essentials are corrupted, pushed too far, or added to without warrant.

So what do we believe about the Bible?  While the creeds simply state “according to the Scriptures” our present discussion requires a bit more nuancing; most notably, which Scriptures? Briefly, we believe that the 66 books of the Bible are God’s truthful, authoritative, self-revelation that came by the dual agency of the Holy Spirit and human authors (click here for Hessel Church’s full doctrinal statement).  If there is a “version” that we give priority to it is the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts.  Although we no longer have a single original in whole or in part, we are able to recreate and translate them with total and complete confidence.

Discussion Question: There’s probably a lot more I could have said about the Bible that is essential to the Christian faith, what have I left out?

Salt & Hate

This weekend the C+C group screened Voice of the Martyr’s latest documentary, Underground Reality: Colombia which follows four college students from Australia, the US, and Canada as they meet and serve with native and foreign Christian workers who suffer terribly for the sake of Christ.  At one point, Brad, the young man from Australia reflects,

“I feel like the world hates our message.  And I don’t want to be hated.  But Jesus said, ‘You’ll be hated.  If they hated me they’ll hate you also, if they persecuted me, they’ll persecute you also.’” [Paraphrase of John 15.19-20].

And as I recall these words of Jesus I also remember the promise of salt and light where people would “see our good works and praise our Father in Heaven” in contrast to living the sorts of lives that would discredit us as believers [Matt 5.13-16].

At the intersection of these passages all I can think is that we strive to be hated, mocked, or ridiculed for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.  In my mind that means two things: (1) we need to listen to valid criticisms and repent [thus the unChristian book/series] and (2) we need to make sure the message we are hated and ridiculed for is the message we live and die for.

Discussion Question: Along the lines of point #2, are there any non-essentials we need to let go of or refuse to let identify us because they are not worthy of the attention they draw and because of the obstacles they’ve become?

Guest Post: What is Essential? by Ryan Carter

An oft quoted dictum in theology states, “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in everything charity.”  As with most oft quoted dictums, it is simple to say, but difficult to apply. For most believers, getting a sense of exactly what is essential and what is not essential is about as easy as fitting the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle. Christian leaders have an unfortunate tendency to blur the distinction between the essentials and the non-essentials.

It took me years of growing in Christ before I was able to understand that someone’s view on the end times was not the central and defining feature of their Christianity. In my childhood church, a pretribulational premillenial eschatology was an absolute essential. It also took me years to accept that Arminians are Christians too. In that same church, Calvinist predestination was taught as the only legitimate form of Christianity. I had similar experiences with baptism, Bible translation, women in ministry, alcohol consumption, and other issues. These non-essentials were treated like essentials.

So what is the answer? How do we discern those things upon which we must have unity from those things in which we have liberty?

In my opinion the answer here is two-fold: 1) We look to our great tradition to see what has been held everywhere and always by those who call themselves Christian. 2) We dialogue about our differences on the non-essentials so that we can understand the legitimate variety that exists within the body of Christ.  At first glance it may seem strange that we would not simply look to the Bible for the essentials. The difficulty with this is that the Bible assumes certain things about God which the creeds have effectively synthesized.  So although it does not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc… these doctrines are present in the Bible and are essential for identifying Him against counterfeits.  Recall, the Bible has been used by genuine believers and heretics alike to prove disparate positions. The Bible must be interpreted.

First, I believe we look to the great tradition for the things we must hold in common. In particular, we should look to the creeds and decisions of the 7 ecumenical councils. In our work, we use the Nicene Creed in particular.

Second, I believe we need to listen to each other. We need to hear sincere Christ-loving believers say, “I do not agree with you about this or that.”  I believe that this process is the best way to open our eyes to places where we have turned non-essentials into essentials. My blog, Christian Matters of Taste, is designed to facilitate this kind of discussion.

Discussion Questions: 1) What do you see as the absolute essentials of the Christian faith? 2) What non-essentials have you seen turned into essentials?

Ryan is a friend of Bern’s from seminary. He is the husband of Amber, and the father of Ben. Ryan trains leaders for inner-city churches. He is also helping plant a church, Christ the Victor, in the inner-city of Wichita, KS.  You can read more from Ryan at his blog: Christian Matters of Taste.