There will always be things that we just can't know about God until we reach eternity. There will also be things that we are going to understand incorrectly. There are wonderful, intelligent Christians that if I were ever in doubt about some theological matter, I would completely trust their analysis of it, but with whom I disagree on certain issues. What I'm saying is, every person who claims to be a Christian is going to be wrong about Christianity to some degree.
So my question is, how wrong can you be and still be all right? A speaker at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) (man, these guys can provide lots of material) General Assembly in Memphis says we can talk about Christ without necessarily seeing him as the incarnate God, according to this Baptist Press article. If one doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is not the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus that the Apostles preached, the Jesus that orthodox Christianity has proclaimed from its beginnings. The speaker insists that this Christ is still Savior, but a non-divine Jesus is not the Jesus who can save people's souls and give people life.
Jesus Himself lets us know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, not everyone who call Jesus "Lord," are actual Christians. In fact, in Matthew 7:21-23 He describes the Christian ministry work these people perform, and yet will be completely rejected from the Kingdom of Heaven. They call Jesus "Lord," they prophesy in Jesus' name, they cast out demons in Jesus' name, they do miracles in Jesus' name, and yet Jesus' accusation of them is apparently that they do not do the will of the Father. How can this be? These people who are turned away seem completely surprised. I would suggest that perhaps one reason is because they had made up their own "God" and "Jesus" with characteristics and commands they were comfortable with, so that when they were confronted with the real Jesus, He says He never knew them.
I am working on a sermon series called "The Danger of Almost God" based on Exodus 32. While Moses is up on the mountain receiving instruction from the Lord, the children of Israel build a gold calf. Notice in verse 5 that in the presence of this calf they are having a festival to the Lord, and also in verse 8 that they are attributing to this calf their rescue from Egypt. Some in our day might defend the Israelites, saying they were worshipping God as best as they understood Him. But this is a case where "almost" isn't good enough at all, for God's response in verse 10 is a desire to destroy Israel, and in verse 35 He instead sent a plague on them.
How wrong can you be about God or Jesus and still be recognized by Jesus in the Kingdom of Heaven? Let us cling to the revelation He has given us about Himself in His Word. Anything else is playing with fire.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Illogical Is Becoming Conventional
I realize that I let the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis slip by without a single comment. In fact, I've let a lot of stuff slip by without a peep. I am planning some posts that will explain why I haven't been able to jump up on my little Internet soapbox and say anything. So be watching for those.
This past week, there was another gathering of people who call themselves Baptists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) met in Memphis, where they made some pretty outlandish statements. Take a look at this one, for example, in a Baptist Press article. One speaker claims that some passages of Scripture "embody the Spirit of Jesus" more than others. Maybe I'll come back to that one, because that is big enough to go on about for quite some time. But as this same speaker considers the "spirit" of Galatians 3:28, he came to the illogical conclusion that, "if we were not going to ordain women, we were going to have to stop baptizing girls."
Egalitarians, those who believe that there are absolutely no differences aside from genitalia between the genders, almost always start their argument off with Galatians 3:28. They rip it from its context to make it say much more than it does. Its context is a discussion of salvation, and the verse makes the point that everyone, not just Jewish males, but every person, has a need for salvation in Christ, and are saved in exactly the same way, not by works but by faith in Christ Jesus. The verse mentions three areas of distinction - race, status, and gender. Nothing about any of those makes any difference in a person's need for or means of salvation. But those three areas of distinction do still exist. The Jews do seem to still have their own part to play in events that have been prophesied, and by Jesus' command were to be preached the Gospel first. Paul did not use this concept to try to keep the slave Onesimus from going back to his master Philemon, and there will always be those who are workers and those who are their masters or leaders. Likewise, there continues to be differences between the genders that go beyond the physical.
One of those areas of difference has to do with preaching and pastoring. The CBF speaker fails to recognize that God does not use everyone He saves in the same way. And even if he does recognize that some are called or gifted for this or that, he does not recognize that God considers gender in His calling. But the Scriptures that list the qualifications for pastors (or elders) of a church are very specific that the pastor be a "man of one woman." The qualification goes one way; it does not turn around and say "or a woman of one man."
There is more that could be said about that, but stepping away from the pastoral position, what about just preaching? First Timothy 2:11 instructs that the way the church is supposed to work is that women are not supposed to teach or to take authority over the men. That can be extremely offensive to some people. And so they try to explain it away by saying Paul was reacting to a problem with women who lacked proper training or understanding, or it was a cultural thing, that's just how things were done. But the problem with all these attempts to explain this verse into saying something other than exactly what it says is that the rest of the verse gives Paul's explanation for giving this instruction. It comes out of how God created things from the very beginning. There was an order in how and why God created man and woman.
Some will ask, "Can't God call a woman to preach?" as if to imply that if we say He can't, we are saying something is impossible for God, and thus they are attempting to set a trap. Contrary to what we sometimes say, there are wrong questions. Perhaps you've heard the question, Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? That's a wrong question because it is illogical. The question of "Can God call a woman to preach?" is similar to "Can God tempt a person to sin?" God cannot tempt a person to sin, because it goes against His nature. Likewise, God cannot call a woman to preach within the local church context because it goes against His own Word. But God can and does definitely gift women to teach, and call them to teach, and that calling and that giftedness definitely should be exercised within the Biblical parameters God has given. Without really getting into the subject of God's "calling," our subjective sense of God's calling is limited by what He tells us forthrightly in His Word. If we sense God calling us into something that contradicts His Word, we either misunderstood what the message is or who it was from.
For more about this topic, you can see the articles "God's High Calling for Women, Part 3" (check out the other three parts, too) by John MacArthur or "Women Preachers" by Robert Lewis Dabney. Also, be sure to read the article "Able to Teach and Complementarian?" by Kim Pennington.
Note: I have dealt with only the I Timothy passage in this post, but this doctrine is not built on this single Scripture. The articles I have referred discuss other Biblical texts regarding this issue.
This past week, there was another gathering of people who call themselves Baptists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) met in Memphis, where they made some pretty outlandish statements. Take a look at this one, for example, in a Baptist Press article. One speaker claims that some passages of Scripture "embody the Spirit of Jesus" more than others. Maybe I'll come back to that one, because that is big enough to go on about for quite some time. But as this same speaker considers the "spirit" of Galatians 3:28, he came to the illogical conclusion that, "if we were not going to ordain women, we were going to have to stop baptizing girls."
Egalitarians, those who believe that there are absolutely no differences aside from genitalia between the genders, almost always start their argument off with Galatians 3:28. They rip it from its context to make it say much more than it does. Its context is a discussion of salvation, and the verse makes the point that everyone, not just Jewish males, but every person, has a need for salvation in Christ, and are saved in exactly the same way, not by works but by faith in Christ Jesus. The verse mentions three areas of distinction - race, status, and gender. Nothing about any of those makes any difference in a person's need for or means of salvation. But those three areas of distinction do still exist. The Jews do seem to still have their own part to play in events that have been prophesied, and by Jesus' command were to be preached the Gospel first. Paul did not use this concept to try to keep the slave Onesimus from going back to his master Philemon, and there will always be those who are workers and those who are their masters or leaders. Likewise, there continues to be differences between the genders that go beyond the physical.
One of those areas of difference has to do with preaching and pastoring. The CBF speaker fails to recognize that God does not use everyone He saves in the same way. And even if he does recognize that some are called or gifted for this or that, he does not recognize that God considers gender in His calling. But the Scriptures that list the qualifications for pastors (or elders) of a church are very specific that the pastor be a "man of one woman." The qualification goes one way; it does not turn around and say "or a woman of one man."
There is more that could be said about that, but stepping away from the pastoral position, what about just preaching? First Timothy 2:11 instructs that the way the church is supposed to work is that women are not supposed to teach or to take authority over the men. That can be extremely offensive to some people. And so they try to explain it away by saying Paul was reacting to a problem with women who lacked proper training or understanding, or it was a cultural thing, that's just how things were done. But the problem with all these attempts to explain this verse into saying something other than exactly what it says is that the rest of the verse gives Paul's explanation for giving this instruction. It comes out of how God created things from the very beginning. There was an order in how and why God created man and woman.
Some will ask, "Can't God call a woman to preach?" as if to imply that if we say He can't, we are saying something is impossible for God, and thus they are attempting to set a trap. Contrary to what we sometimes say, there are wrong questions. Perhaps you've heard the question, Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? That's a wrong question because it is illogical. The question of "Can God call a woman to preach?" is similar to "Can God tempt a person to sin?" God cannot tempt a person to sin, because it goes against His nature. Likewise, God cannot call a woman to preach within the local church context because it goes against His own Word. But God can and does definitely gift women to teach, and call them to teach, and that calling and that giftedness definitely should be exercised within the Biblical parameters God has given. Without really getting into the subject of God's "calling," our subjective sense of God's calling is limited by what He tells us forthrightly in His Word. If we sense God calling us into something that contradicts His Word, we either misunderstood what the message is or who it was from.
For more about this topic, you can see the articles "God's High Calling for Women, Part 3" (check out the other three parts, too) by John MacArthur or "Women Preachers" by Robert Lewis Dabney. Also, be sure to read the article "Able to Teach and Complementarian?" by Kim Pennington.
Note: I have dealt with only the I Timothy passage in this post, but this doctrine is not built on this single Scripture. The articles I have referred discuss other Biblical texts regarding this issue.
Friday, June 6, 2008
From Greatest Pastime to Greatest Pursuit
You won't find me writing about sports very often on here. This will be one of those rare times, this time because it involves a friend and a brother in Christ. His name is Byron Shores. He gets out there and contends hard for the Kansas City Royals, although he won't be knocking out the new scoreboard with a grand slam home run and he won't be making any game-saving catch. What he will be doing is encouraging the fans to root loud and hard for the Royals as their mascot, Sluggerrr. And, as this article points out, just as he strives for a win for the Royals, he also contends for wins for the King.
For the next several days (until the next issue is posted), the front page should have a picture of Sluggerrr. Unfortunately, there is no picture of Byron. It makes me think of the verse to "Good Ol' Boys" that is not played as part of the theme song to the show "Dukes of Hazzard." Waylon Jennings sings, "I'm a good ol' boy, you know my mama loves me. But she don't understand they keep a-showin' my hands and not my face on TV." Unlike some of us who could use a big costume, Byron is actually not all that ugly.
For more pictures and information about Sluggerrr, you can check out his MySpace page.
For the next several days (until the next issue is posted), the front page should have a picture of Sluggerrr. Unfortunately, there is no picture of Byron. It makes me think of the verse to "Good Ol' Boys" that is not played as part of the theme song to the show "Dukes of Hazzard." Waylon Jennings sings, "I'm a good ol' boy, you know my mama loves me. But she don't understand they keep a-showin' my hands and not my face on TV." Unlike some of us who could use a big costume, Byron is actually not all that ugly.
For more pictures and information about Sluggerrr, you can check out his MySpace page.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Trying to Show a Little Intelligence
Well, the month of May is just almost over, and I need to write at least one post about something more substantive than gasoline.
Imagine a newspaper that covered one particular issue, and for a while it only covered one side of this issue. Then the proponents of the other side began to feel like this situation was a little unfair, and the newspaper and the proponents of the first side acknowledged that maybe they should let the other side get a say in. Time passes, and eventually the newspaper is only covering the second side. So the first side begins to feel like this situation is a little unfair, but when it raises its concerns to the newspaper and the second side, they both laugh in the first side's face.
That's the situation that Ben Stein's documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" presents - that both science and education have shut the door on non-Darwinian theories of origins or even criticism of the Darwinian theory of evolution. That doesn't sound like what science or education would do, you say. But both science and education are stuck defending Darwinism, because there are really only two possibilities for how we all got here. Either we came to be as the most recent in a very long and, frankly, unbelievable series of natural occurrences, or some more powerful, more intelligent designer created us and put us here. Neither science nor education can tolerate a designer operating above nature. But the funny thing is, Darwinian evolution requires more "magical" thinking (more "faith"?) than intelligent design - starting with the violation of the law of biogenesis, which states that life only arises from existing life.
Congratulations to Ben Stein on this film that opened on April 18. Box Office Mojo lists it as the twelfth highest grossing documentary. And at least in part as a result of this film, six states (including Missouri) have introduced "academic freedom bills."
Imagine a newspaper that covered one particular issue, and for a while it only covered one side of this issue. Then the proponents of the other side began to feel like this situation was a little unfair, and the newspaper and the proponents of the first side acknowledged that maybe they should let the other side get a say in. Time passes, and eventually the newspaper is only covering the second side. So the first side begins to feel like this situation is a little unfair, but when it raises its concerns to the newspaper and the second side, they both laugh in the first side's face.
That's the situation that Ben Stein's documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" presents - that both science and education have shut the door on non-Darwinian theories of origins or even criticism of the Darwinian theory of evolution. That doesn't sound like what science or education would do, you say. But both science and education are stuck defending Darwinism, because there are really only two possibilities for how we all got here. Either we came to be as the most recent in a very long and, frankly, unbelievable series of natural occurrences, or some more powerful, more intelligent designer created us and put us here. Neither science nor education can tolerate a designer operating above nature. But the funny thing is, Darwinian evolution requires more "magical" thinking (more "faith"?) than intelligent design - starting with the violation of the law of biogenesis, which states that life only arises from existing life.
Congratulations to Ben Stein on this film that opened on April 18. Box Office Mojo lists it as the twelfth highest grossing documentary. And at least in part as a result of this film, six states (including Missouri) have introduced "academic freedom bills."
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Gas Price Break, Part 2
Gas prices are on the minds of a lot of people, I suspect. And there doesn't seem to be much we can do about them, despite the encouragement of those e-mails that suggest a one-day "boycott" from buying gas or a boycott of certain brands of gas. But the fact that the price of a gallon of gas does have such a direct (as well as indirect) impact on so many of us has caused many churches to think about ways to use gasoline as something of an attention-getter, as I pointed out in my last post. But here is a different approach that seems to be a little more Christ-honoring.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
I Could Use the Gas Price Break, But...
First of all, gas prices are RIDICULOUS! That pretty much goes without saying. And I know it is affecting many of us quite seriously - it almost costs more to drive to work than we'll make once we get there. So, I guess it is only natural that churches would want to try to help some of the people affected. But I'm thinking this is probably not the way to go about it.
It seems to me that publicity is not something that is completely off-limits for churches. A yellowish-colored pages advertisement in the phone book, a web page, or a listing in the local newspaper - those would all be excellent ways to let people know that you exist, where you're at, and maybe a little bit about you. But isn't the church's only "marketing gimmick," the only way we are given to add to a church's membership, by presenting the Gospel, which is very likely going to be seen not as compelling but as offensive?
It seems to me that publicity is not something that is completely off-limits for churches. A yellowish-colored pages advertisement in the phone book, a web page, or a listing in the local newspaper - those would all be excellent ways to let people know that you exist, where you're at, and maybe a little bit about you. But isn't the church's only "marketing gimmick," the only way we are given to add to a church's membership, by presenting the Gospel, which is very likely going to be seen not as compelling but as offensive?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
God Helps Those Who Help Themselves
That's got to be in the Bible, right? Actually, no, it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But many people quote it as if it were. And so Representative and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently has helped herself to creating her own personal additions to the Bible. According to this article, for Earth Day she "quoted" (or at least paraphrased) the non-existent Scripture, "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us." Funny, I just don't remember that one. And she couldn't be bothered with a pesky thing like a Scripture reference. But apparently it is one of her favorites, as she has quoted it on several occasions.
It's one thing when the Enemy attacks the words of Scripture, but quite another to attempt to discredit the Bible on the basis of things that aren't even in there. By the same token, even when we quote Scripture that is actually in the Bible, we must be careful to not quote it in such a way that we make it say what it truly does not mean in its context. Those of us who hold God's Word in its proper high esteem should guard its meaning as well as its words.
Interestingly, one of the interviewees for this article was Claude Mariottini, who was my Old Testament teacher in college.
It's one thing when the Enemy attacks the words of Scripture, but quite another to attempt to discredit the Bible on the basis of things that aren't even in there. By the same token, even when we quote Scripture that is actually in the Bible, we must be careful to not quote it in such a way that we make it say what it truly does not mean in its context. Those of us who hold God's Word in its proper high esteem should guard its meaning as well as its words.
Interestingly, one of the interviewees for this article was Claude Mariottini, who was my Old Testament teacher in college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)