A study on the topic of false teachers can become something very bad in a hurry. I’ve never imagined Steamtown Church being the kind of church that takes a defensive posture, nor do I imagine the church in the Bible as being defensive in nature . The wrong way to approach the topic of false teachers is to act as if the Bible is a sort of handbook for them, as if we can pull out certain types and classify them for all ages. This will probably lead to some nasty finger pointing. There should not be a chart in anyone’s church that diagrams how to find a false teacher in your midst. If anything we ought to approach the issue the way that the Bible does, and the Bible does approach the issue, and so we shall. And the truth is that you can classify 3 to 8 different false teachings in the New Testament. The purpose of this study is not to break down these three or eight false teachings, and then go on a witch hunt for their 21st century version. There may not be an exact 21st century version. What I seek to do with this study is to study what I have classified as three different groups of false teachers in the New Testament and see if there are not some strand similar to all of them. In other words, for those of you who have studied logic, this is an inductive study as opposed to a deductive. Once each false teacher class has been discovered and explained, we will then see if there is a common principle, something universal we can apply to our own culture today. Our motivation is not fear. We are not afraid of false teaching. Falsehood is by default the loser. Rather our motivation is the removal of darkness so that more light may shine in. We shall be proactive, not reactive. The truth has never asked for our protection but it does want us to make it shine, and so we shall study the likes of the legalists, the skeptics, the hedonists.
Of course there’s overlap with these categories which are also fairly broad. But in my estimation these are the three major classes of false teachers in the New Testament. We will start with the legalists.
The legalists showed up in two forms. In the form of the religious leaders of the Gospels and Acts, and in the form of the Judaizers of Galatians. The Judaizers are the more pertinent people to talk about because they came from within the church, but understanding a little about the former group will be beneficial. It’s the former of which we begin.
The first kind of legalist is the scribe and the Pharisee that Jesus dealt with and then the Apostles in Acts. Jesus had these sorts of names for them; blind guides, hypocrites, brood of vipers. They constantly opposed Jesus doing miracles on the Sabbath, as they said it was a work. Of course Jesus pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and that there was no law against doing good on the Sabbath. Even the Pharisees would make an exception if one of their livestock was in mortal danger. Why couldn’t Jesus heal a human being on the Sabbath?
They also were confronting Jesus for not conforming to Jewish ritual cleansings, which were by the way, extra biblical. You see, the Pharisees had made all sorts of laws that governed how one could best keep The Law, that is the Scripture. The original motivation, which was noble but awfully misguided, for writing these commentaries, if you will, was to ensure that the Law would be kept. The Pharisees “filled in the gaps” in a way, as if God’s Word was imperfect without their commentary. What ended up happening is that the laws became the Law, and man’s opinions on equal turf with God’s eternal Law. So when the Pharisees asked Jesus why he didn’t wash his hands before eating, (because Jesus would’ve been breaking a Pharisaical law) Jesus pointed out that the Bible didn’t say he had to.
Another area of conflict with Jesus and the Pharisees was over the subject of “sinners”. The Pharisees kept as far away as possible from those considered sinners. To have intimate fellowship with them in any way was out of the question. Sinners would include mostly prostitutes, adulterers, and tax collectors, but were probably not limited to Romans, and other “lowlifes” and beggars, of which the Pharisees assumed were in the state they were in because of theirs or their parents’ sin. The Pharisees believed that the Messiah would not come until the land was pure, uncontaminated by these sinners. So you can imagine the scandal when Jesus procured a reputation for eating with sinners and tax collectors, while also claiming to be the Messiah. On several occasions Jesus said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Jesus conceived the mission of the Messiah exactly opposite of the how the Pharisees conceived it. And if we ever see Jesus being antagonistic, it’s towards the scribes and Pharisees.
But the problem with the Scribes and Pharisees is deeper than this spiritual arrogance, it’s the hypocrisy. For it is not the truth or the Scriptures, or the will of God that they really care about. It is the power, prestige, and recognition. And the result of their quest is the weighing down of burdens on the people, the divisions along arbitrary and subjective lines. And Jesus knows that this is the motivation, and he calls them out. And they kill him.
On many occasions the Gospels tell us that the Pharisees were jealous. And they were jealous because Jesus had won the heart of the crowds, stifling their power. They used religion to intimidate, and control, and for this did Jesus save his greatest displays of anger.
In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians we meet a different kind of legalist. They’ve been traditionally referred to as Judaizers. They were Jews who had “converted” to the Christian faith but were persuading the Galatian believers that they needed to be circumcised to be in, to be considered true believers. The book of Galatians is the definitive New Testament book on the primacy of grace. There is no such thing as Christ plus “something else” in order to be in. You are in upon faith in Christ. Paul says that this is the good news that he preached, and if anyone preached a different gospel “let him be accursed”!
In both the cases of the Pharisees and the legalists the false teaching was characterized by addition to God’s Word. The Pharisees by “putting their traditions above the commands of God” (namely loving their neighbors), and the Judaizers by adding circumcision to the Gospel.
The second class of false teachers are those that I will refer to as the skeptics. Their common problem seems to be an overemphasis on intellectual questions that are peripheral to what’s really important, which would be the preaching of the Gospel. Speculative people abound, no less in the Graeco-Roman culture of the New Testament. Paul warns his apprentice Timothy.
“…they devote themselves to myths and endless geneologies, which promote speculation rather than stewardship from God that is by faith”.
This is such a particular group of persons, that its not immediately applicable to our day and age, but as said before, speculation, not faith, is the prevailing characteristics of many the “Christian” throughout the ages. We may not have people who devote themselves to myths and geneologies, but we certainly have speculative folks in our midst.
We should make a careful distinction. The Apostle Paul, and Jesus can sometimes seem anti-intellectual. Recall Jesus’ prayer thanking God that He has revealed His Word to “babes” and not the learned; or when Paul exclaims, “God has used the foolishness of this world to shame the wise.” But the call to faith is not a call to stop thinking all-together. Clearly, Paul was an intellectual. The Epistle to the Romans is considered by religious and secular scholars alike one of the most brilliantly written pieces of work in all of religious history. The call to faith however is a call to stop entertaining certain intellectual questions. Christians don’t question the existence of God, the truth of a personal Creator, the reality of the Incarnation, the atoning sacrifice that is the death of Christ, the mystery of the Trinity, and the physical resurrection of Christ. We have made a decision about these matters. That’s the first decision made by a Christian, and it is that decision that is called faith, and the amount of humility, and abandon it takes to make this decision accounts for its “foolishness”. The intellectually astute cannot abide such an immoderate decision. To the world, our faith will always look juvenile and/or unenlightened. Of course those unhindered by intellectualism, who have never been accused of having an abundance of intelligence, are willing to accept any doctrine in which they are told that their sins are forgiven. This accounts for the popularity of Christianity in third world countries and it’s dropping off in nations of rationality and affluence. And this is not a bad thing. If you read I Corinthians, you will find it to be prophetic. But the content of our faith is as rich and as deep as any doctrine devised by man. Our claims may be incredible, but our faith is deep and meaningfully without end.
I think that the Apostle John’s perspective on this matter is enlightening. A common idea in his Gospel, and his epistles, especially in the epistle 1 John, is that only those who have been enlightened know the truth. Only those who have been supernaturally made to see the truth will see it, and the litmus test by which you know if someone is truly in the faith is seen in 2 things. 1)How they treat their brothers in Christ 2)Their opinion of the incarnation (which are related). They are certain things that are up for debate, but one of them is not the Incarnation. In straightforward manner John says in his first epistle, “…many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God (the teaching of God): every spirit (teaching) that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit (teaching) of antichrist.”
Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If you deny this with your words you are a false teacher. If you do not love your brother, you deny this with your life, and your words are useless. Intellectual debates can be fun and even edifying. But they can also be a waste of time and damaging. If the debate doesn’t promote love or edify, the debate is a “sounding gong”.
The final class of false teachers we see in the New Testament is the hedonist. Hedonism is defined in Webster’s dictionary as “the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life”. This is a working definition for our purposes, but I wish to broaden this category of hedonist to “those preoccupied with pleasure“. Allow me to give a brief summary of the philosophical atmosphere of 1st century Mediterranean culture. Most of the philosophies shooting around were offshoots of Platonic philosophy which makes a fine distinction between soul and body. Working from this distinction, you have the Stoics and Epicureans; two groups of people mentioned by name in the New Testament in Acts. The Stoics taught a kind of “mind over matter” philosophy. They believed essentially that happiness was not attained through the fulfillment of desire, but from the removal of it. Epicureanism taught that matter was everything, that there was no afterlife, and death was simply a loss of consciousness, and that meant that the chief goal of life was the pursuit of pleasure. To be fair, hedonism is a sort of crude form of Epicureanism, as Epicurus himself taught that immorality could bring temporary pleasure but pain in the long run. However you can see how hedonism could be a logical distortion of Epicureanism. Many who saw the distinction between soul and body accepted the Gospel, at least in their minds, on terms with their souls only, and saw the idea of Jesus being physical and fleshly as abhorrent. Their religion was ethereal and given the vast grace of the Christian God who required no sacrifices or penance, it was convenient for them to live the party life. The problem is of course that the Christian doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit lives in our physical bodies, and changes us from the inside out, that were saved in order to do good works, that the grace of God doesn’t excuse us from doing good works but frees us to do them, that drinking and carousing and promiscuous sexual exploits are not pleasing but binding and makes us slaves, that choosing to seek bodily pleasure defames the purpose of the cross and insults Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s will. Naturally these hedonists also mocked the subsequent return and judgment of Christ, and were irreverent in their attitudes towards spiritual things and spiritual beings. (2 Peter and Jude)
Today I am not sure that these types show up so blatantly denying the need for good works, but we can certainly see those who make a mockery of the cross with their complacency, constantly saying that they are a “work in progress” without ever progressing.
At this point it’s important to maintain a balance between the hedonist and the legalist. For it is true that we are a work in progress, and that its God’s work in us, not our own that effects change, and that God is infinitely merciful, compellingly gracious. We don’t do good works in order to be followers of Christ, or even to give ourselves assurance that we are saved, but if we are in doubt by chance our works can serve as a self-test for us. If we constantly rely on the boundless grace of God, living in constant realization that we are helpless without his decision to love us, then the results will show up in us doing good works, loving the brothers and sisters.
In a sense the three classes of false teachers have something in common. In all three situations the focus is on themselves instead of God’s Word. The legalist is focused on his own good works. The skeptic is focused on his own mind. The hedonist is focused on his own immediate pleasure.
Like I said, I don’t want the result of this little essay to be a witch hunt in which we all start looking for the three classes of false teachers and then “torch” them. We are not looking for legalists, hedonists, and skeptics, but we are first checking ourselves for legalistic, hedonistic, or skeptical tendencies, and then examining those who are in the position of teaching us to see whether or not they are preaching the Gospel, that Jesus came in the flesh, and died, and rose again and saved us from our sin. There is not an exact science for finding false teaching and I don’t mean for this essay to create one. But this essay has succeeded if it helps us to see the kind of false teaching that Jesus and the apostles were dealing with, examine their attitudes to it, reactions against it, and reasons for declaring it false teaching. The ultimate measure of falsehood is truth, and the truth is that Jesus came in the flesh, and is God, died, and rose again. He alone gives us eternal life. Every so called Gospel which preaches otherwise is a false teaching, whether it tells us we can earn our salvation, rethink our salvation, or mock our salvation. When it comes to the Gospel, we must only humble ourselves and believe.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Love Your Neighbor
This is an essay corresponding to the current sermon series called “Love Your Neighbor“. Let’s (just for fun) ask two fundamental questions. “What is love” (“Baby don’t hurt me”. Sorry. If I didn’t say it, you would’ve.) and “Who is my neighbor?” But let us start with the latter. One, because it has a simpler answer, and two because it is a question directly in the mouth of a speaker in the Bible. The greatest commandment is: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength. And the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This requires our high attention given the virtual agreement that these are the greatest commandments. And they are two separate commandments. Furthermore Jesus affirms with the prophets that “all the law and the prophets hang on these.” If you were looking for a purpose in life, you just found it. Love God. Love your neighbor.
Seeing that this is the love your neighbor series, we shall not delve into what exactly it means to “love God”, but when we get to the section, “What is Love” there will be some apparent overlap. Notice that Jesus says that this second command is like the first. What relationship must there be between love of God and love of neighbor. John helps us see this in an interesting light when he says in his Epistle, “If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” It seems they are necessarily related. In fact, part of loving God is loving your neighbor. This is why the second is like the first.
This brings us to the question that we’re supposed to be dealing with: Who is my neighbor? It should be noted that the text in Luke tells us that the lawyer asked Jesus this question with the purpose of “seeking to justify himself”. He must not have been loving very many people. He was maybe hoping that Jesus might give a narrower definition of “neighbor“, a definition that would allow his current state of care for others to be acceptable. Of course Jesus, ever not the legalist, and always up for a story, tells one as a response to this self-justifying question. This is the famous story of the Great Samaritan.
And as the story goes, a Jewish man on a dangerous road to Jericho, was beaten, robbed, and left for dead. He was passed by two of the lawyer’s buddies, who made up excuses for refusing to love their neighbor, and then the man who finally stopped and helped was a Samaritan. It’s really a big deal, and rather clever of Jesus to slip this part into the story. The Samaritans were “half-breeds” if you will allow the vulgarity. They were leftovers of the exile; part Jewish, part Gentiles, and were purposely excluded from participation in Judaism, and so formed their own cultic version, which of course only further divided the Jews and the Samaritans. They were natural enemies.
So when Jesus concludes the story with this question: “Which one of these was a neighbor?”, he brings to light how faulty the lawyer’s original question was, how tainted it was by selfish, and defensive motives. In the lawyer’s question, the “neighbor” designated the passive member of the care, but in Jesus’ question, the implied notion is that the neighbor is active, exposing the futility of the lawyer’s question twofold. One, that a neighbor is active not passive necessarily, and two, by the neighbor being the Samaritan, the lawyer has no right to assume that there is anything that qualifies being a neighbor besides being a human. Thus the question ought not to be, “who is my neighbor?” but, “to whom have I been a neighbor?”, and if one feels he or she needs to ask who might be exempt from neighborly care, they need look no further than the Samaritan who cared for his natural enemy. If our enemies are not exempt, who is? And so the second part of the greatest commandment is fulfilled by us caring for anyone, no matter who they are, and if you read the story again that includes praying, and going to church. This is, as we have pointed out, a part of loving God.
Our second question: What is love? It’s quite foundational really. But really what is love? It’s important to not read our modern notion of love into the Biblical text. They are really not the same thing. This is not Greek’s fault, it is that the English word “love” is so vague, general, subjective, and emotional. It can mean anything from a state of being, to a declaration of approval. (e.g. “I am in love”. “I love country music”) I can rightly love an object, an idea, or a person. Here is one of my favorite, humorous definitions of love.
“Love is a happy time. It is that time when the male part of the species says to the female part of the species, “Hey! You wanna go on a date?” And she says yes, if he’s lucky. And he takes her to a place called a restaurant. And she orders for herself a salad. And he orders a big piece of beef. And that ladies and gentlemen is love”
But love in the Bible is not so vague, or humorous, and carries not the same heavy romantic overtones. Nonetheless they are variations of meaning. There are three main words in the New Testament that are translated “love”. First, there is “eros” from which we get the word erotic. This is sexual love. Second, there is “phileo”, which can be translated, as brotherly love. Hence we get Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love”. But the words brotherly carry more than just a familial or neighborly love but also refer to a sweet and compassionate love. Then lastly, there is “agape“, which is somewhat commonly used in the Bible as well as other Koine Greek texts. Most of the time it seems to con notate an unconditional love, but is also used in places in Scripture where that would not make much grammatical sense. The safest understanding of “agape” is an intense, unwavering, intentional love.
Despite “love” being still vague in the Greek, though to a much lesser extent. It is not near as subjective as it is in English, and when we look at it closely we shall see that, whether it be “eros”, “phileo” or “agape” that it is always active and volitional. Therefore when Paul says in the famous love chapter 1 Corinthians 13 that love is (all these things, let’s for the sake of example say “kind”), he is not saying that the definition of love is kindness, he is saying that love is the act of kindness, and that it also the act of all these things. In the Greek the word love cannot ever escape its active nature, and the idea of appreciating something, or approving of something, or admiring something is never attached to the concept of love. Love is active. As DC Talk once said, “Love is a verb”.
With that said we understand that in the greatest commandment that God is not calling us to a subjective feeling towards him, but to an action towards him (which might lead to a feeling, but that’s another essay) And he’s not calling us to merely like our neighbors, but to actively care for them, to actively be neighbors to all people.
One question remains which I didn’t mention before. What does it mean to love your neighbor, “as yourself”? Much has been made of that little phrase, particularly in the last couple of individualistic, post-modern, psychological/introverted centuries. Perhaps too much has been made of it. Some have said something similar to, “You can’t love others unless you love yourself”, to which others have replied, “The Bible assumes that we all love ourselves” To me the conflict is clarified when we think of love as being active, and not necessarily a state of being or statement of admiration. I’m not sure what exactly is meant by the retort, “we all love ourselves” for if we’re using the vague modern concept of love here, there certainly are people who do not love themselves, which really means that they have too much pride to see their worth as a person. But if we take the active biblical understanding of love, we find that indeed everyone does (naturally) actively care for themselves, at least physically if not hygienically. If taken that way then the Bible does assume that human beings generally do care for themselves. So the commandment to love your neighbor (everybody) is the commandment to be equally concerned with everybody’s well-being, including yourself, as you would be useless to help if you were not taken care of.
But the greatest love Jesus says is that a man lay down his life for his friends. To consider your life worth sacrificing for the sake of another’s, this is the apex of agape. John says in his epistle: “In this is love. Not that we loved Him, but that He loved us, and became the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Christ sacrificed His life so that we might live. He is the greatest lover of all time.
So. The greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. It is as important as the first commandment to love God, and is a major part of loving God. Everyone is our neighbor. We are to be a neighbor to everyone, including our enemies. Love is volitional and active. To love our neighbor as ourselves is not to concentrate on good self-esteem, but to concentrate on others, knowing they need the same things that we do, to take care of ourselves with the motivation of allowing ourselves to take care of others, and to be willing to put our own life on the line for others, as Christ has done for us. In the next month, and beyond, this is what we shall do.
Seeing that this is the love your neighbor series, we shall not delve into what exactly it means to “love God”, but when we get to the section, “What is Love” there will be some apparent overlap. Notice that Jesus says that this second command is like the first. What relationship must there be between love of God and love of neighbor. John helps us see this in an interesting light when he says in his Epistle, “If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” It seems they are necessarily related. In fact, part of loving God is loving your neighbor. This is why the second is like the first.
This brings us to the question that we’re supposed to be dealing with: Who is my neighbor? It should be noted that the text in Luke tells us that the lawyer asked Jesus this question with the purpose of “seeking to justify himself”. He must not have been loving very many people. He was maybe hoping that Jesus might give a narrower definition of “neighbor“, a definition that would allow his current state of care for others to be acceptable. Of course Jesus, ever not the legalist, and always up for a story, tells one as a response to this self-justifying question. This is the famous story of the Great Samaritan.
And as the story goes, a Jewish man on a dangerous road to Jericho, was beaten, robbed, and left for dead. He was passed by two of the lawyer’s buddies, who made up excuses for refusing to love their neighbor, and then the man who finally stopped and helped was a Samaritan. It’s really a big deal, and rather clever of Jesus to slip this part into the story. The Samaritans were “half-breeds” if you will allow the vulgarity. They were leftovers of the exile; part Jewish, part Gentiles, and were purposely excluded from participation in Judaism, and so formed their own cultic version, which of course only further divided the Jews and the Samaritans. They were natural enemies.
So when Jesus concludes the story with this question: “Which one of these was a neighbor?”, he brings to light how faulty the lawyer’s original question was, how tainted it was by selfish, and defensive motives. In the lawyer’s question, the “neighbor” designated the passive member of the care, but in Jesus’ question, the implied notion is that the neighbor is active, exposing the futility of the lawyer’s question twofold. One, that a neighbor is active not passive necessarily, and two, by the neighbor being the Samaritan, the lawyer has no right to assume that there is anything that qualifies being a neighbor besides being a human. Thus the question ought not to be, “who is my neighbor?” but, “to whom have I been a neighbor?”, and if one feels he or she needs to ask who might be exempt from neighborly care, they need look no further than the Samaritan who cared for his natural enemy. If our enemies are not exempt, who is? And so the second part of the greatest commandment is fulfilled by us caring for anyone, no matter who they are, and if you read the story again that includes praying, and going to church. This is, as we have pointed out, a part of loving God.
Our second question: What is love? It’s quite foundational really. But really what is love? It’s important to not read our modern notion of love into the Biblical text. They are really not the same thing. This is not Greek’s fault, it is that the English word “love” is so vague, general, subjective, and emotional. It can mean anything from a state of being, to a declaration of approval. (e.g. “I am in love”. “I love country music”) I can rightly love an object, an idea, or a person. Here is one of my favorite, humorous definitions of love.
“Love is a happy time. It is that time when the male part of the species says to the female part of the species, “Hey! You wanna go on a date?” And she says yes, if he’s lucky. And he takes her to a place called a restaurant. And she orders for herself a salad. And he orders a big piece of beef. And that ladies and gentlemen is love”
But love in the Bible is not so vague, or humorous, and carries not the same heavy romantic overtones. Nonetheless they are variations of meaning. There are three main words in the New Testament that are translated “love”. First, there is “eros” from which we get the word erotic. This is sexual love. Second, there is “phileo”, which can be translated, as brotherly love. Hence we get Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love”. But the words brotherly carry more than just a familial or neighborly love but also refer to a sweet and compassionate love. Then lastly, there is “agape“, which is somewhat commonly used in the Bible as well as other Koine Greek texts. Most of the time it seems to con notate an unconditional love, but is also used in places in Scripture where that would not make much grammatical sense. The safest understanding of “agape” is an intense, unwavering, intentional love.
Despite “love” being still vague in the Greek, though to a much lesser extent. It is not near as subjective as it is in English, and when we look at it closely we shall see that, whether it be “eros”, “phileo” or “agape” that it is always active and volitional. Therefore when Paul says in the famous love chapter 1 Corinthians 13 that love is (all these things, let’s for the sake of example say “kind”), he is not saying that the definition of love is kindness, he is saying that love is the act of kindness, and that it also the act of all these things. In the Greek the word love cannot ever escape its active nature, and the idea of appreciating something, or approving of something, or admiring something is never attached to the concept of love. Love is active. As DC Talk once said, “Love is a verb”.
With that said we understand that in the greatest commandment that God is not calling us to a subjective feeling towards him, but to an action towards him (which might lead to a feeling, but that’s another essay) And he’s not calling us to merely like our neighbors, but to actively care for them, to actively be neighbors to all people.
One question remains which I didn’t mention before. What does it mean to love your neighbor, “as yourself”? Much has been made of that little phrase, particularly in the last couple of individualistic, post-modern, psychological/introverted centuries. Perhaps too much has been made of it. Some have said something similar to, “You can’t love others unless you love yourself”, to which others have replied, “The Bible assumes that we all love ourselves” To me the conflict is clarified when we think of love as being active, and not necessarily a state of being or statement of admiration. I’m not sure what exactly is meant by the retort, “we all love ourselves” for if we’re using the vague modern concept of love here, there certainly are people who do not love themselves, which really means that they have too much pride to see their worth as a person. But if we take the active biblical understanding of love, we find that indeed everyone does (naturally) actively care for themselves, at least physically if not hygienically. If taken that way then the Bible does assume that human beings generally do care for themselves. So the commandment to love your neighbor (everybody) is the commandment to be equally concerned with everybody’s well-being, including yourself, as you would be useless to help if you were not taken care of.
But the greatest love Jesus says is that a man lay down his life for his friends. To consider your life worth sacrificing for the sake of another’s, this is the apex of agape. John says in his epistle: “In this is love. Not that we loved Him, but that He loved us, and became the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Christ sacrificed His life so that we might live. He is the greatest lover of all time.
So. The greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. It is as important as the first commandment to love God, and is a major part of loving God. Everyone is our neighbor. We are to be a neighbor to everyone, including our enemies. Love is volitional and active. To love our neighbor as ourselves is not to concentrate on good self-esteem, but to concentrate on others, knowing they need the same things that we do, to take care of ourselves with the motivation of allowing ourselves to take care of others, and to be willing to put our own life on the line for others, as Christ has done for us. In the next month, and beyond, this is what we shall do.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scranton Revisited
I wrote a post about Scranton a few months ago. It was highly romanticized. Something has changed over the last few months in my overall attitude towards the city. Although it still contains much of it's charming quirkiness, reality has started to set in through a series of certain events, and I have been unpleasantly enlightened to the darkness of the city. A defeatist mindset pervades. A sense of distrust accompanied by its usual partner, the tribal mindset, is a cultural norm, and the divisions among ethnic lines is stunningly sharp, as if the city lives in a pre-enlightenment time warp, but doesn't know it.
I have never lived anywhere in which telling someone your religious heritage is the same thing as telling someone your ethnic background, and how baffled these people are when they hear than I'm a German-Irish protestant, whose mother was Roman Catholic, and whose father was Amish. In fact, they are even more baffled when they hear that I am not Protestant in any of the ways that they think of Protestant, and I've had to realize, living in this culture for most of the decade, that in order for people to understand where I'm at religiously I have to explain the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Virgin Birth, His death for our sins, Resurrection for our life, that we only can have a relationship with God if we repent of our sins and turn to Him in faith, and this is only possible by His Grace, because in this religious/cultural atmosphere, there is no name for that set of beliefs, not even "Christian". Upon sharing this I have received 2 reactions, one extremely positive, and the other extremely negative, and ought not to be surprised by this because it is the only kind of reaction that the Gospel has ever received.
It might seem ironic that folks who call themselves "Christians" would react with strong opposition to this, but it ought to lead us to conclude that their idea of "Christianity" (the majority use of the Word), is false. Thus it is not entirely false, nor should it be problematic to say that in Scranton "Christianity" is false. Now we might go about addressing this problem in one of two ways. One, we could take pains to explain what true Christianity is, which will probably confuse people more than help them, make them think that we are trying to convert them to our version of Christianity rather than Christ, and offend them more than they need to be. Or, we could just share the Gospel, and let them reject it or accept it, and in that way we are sure that they understand the Gospel. There is little confusion, and that if they reject or accept the message, we are assured that they are rejecting or accepting the message and not some new man-made/ legalistic version of the Christian religion.
The realization that Scranton is a dark dark place, while diminishing my comfort level in the city has emboldened my belief in the exclusive power of the gospel to change lives, motivated my witness, and caused me to cry out for the city with the compassion of Jesus. In Scranton, we followers of Christ cannot afford to be religious, or get bogged down in debates over terms, and eschatology. This city, this dark place, like the rest of the world, needs the light of the Gospel, and she needs it now.
I have never lived anywhere in which telling someone your religious heritage is the same thing as telling someone your ethnic background, and how baffled these people are when they hear than I'm a German-Irish protestant, whose mother was Roman Catholic, and whose father was Amish. In fact, they are even more baffled when they hear that I am not Protestant in any of the ways that they think of Protestant, and I've had to realize, living in this culture for most of the decade, that in order for people to understand where I'm at religiously I have to explain the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Virgin Birth, His death for our sins, Resurrection for our life, that we only can have a relationship with God if we repent of our sins and turn to Him in faith, and this is only possible by His Grace, because in this religious/cultural atmosphere, there is no name for that set of beliefs, not even "Christian". Upon sharing this I have received 2 reactions, one extremely positive, and the other extremely negative, and ought not to be surprised by this because it is the only kind of reaction that the Gospel has ever received.
It might seem ironic that folks who call themselves "Christians" would react with strong opposition to this, but it ought to lead us to conclude that their idea of "Christianity" (the majority use of the Word), is false. Thus it is not entirely false, nor should it be problematic to say that in Scranton "Christianity" is false. Now we might go about addressing this problem in one of two ways. One, we could take pains to explain what true Christianity is, which will probably confuse people more than help them, make them think that we are trying to convert them to our version of Christianity rather than Christ, and offend them more than they need to be. Or, we could just share the Gospel, and let them reject it or accept it, and in that way we are sure that they understand the Gospel. There is little confusion, and that if they reject or accept the message, we are assured that they are rejecting or accepting the message and not some new man-made/ legalistic version of the Christian religion.
The realization that Scranton is a dark dark place, while diminishing my comfort level in the city has emboldened my belief in the exclusive power of the gospel to change lives, motivated my witness, and caused me to cry out for the city with the compassion of Jesus. In Scranton, we followers of Christ cannot afford to be religious, or get bogged down in debates over terms, and eschatology. This city, this dark place, like the rest of the world, needs the light of the Gospel, and she needs it now.
Friday, December 18, 2009
John 1:1-17
John 1:1-17 is in need of a good paraphrasing. Allow me to attempt my own.
“In the beginning there was the Word. This Word was with God. This Word was God. He was with God at the very beginning. All things were made through Him. Everything. Nothing was made without Him. In Him was life. This life was the enlightenment of mankind. This light shines in the darkness. The darkness does not overcome the light.
A man sent from God, whose name was John, came as a witness to this light, so that all might believe through the light. He himself was not the light. He was a witness to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming. The Word was in the world that was made through Him, but ironically this same world did not know Him. He came to His own people whom He created, and they did not even accept Him. But for the few who did accept Him, He gave them the right to become the children of God. They were not children of blood, nor the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but they were born of God.
And this Word, He became flesh, and lived among us. We have seen his glory. Glory that only the Son from the Father can have, full of grace and truth. And from His infinite glory storehouse we have received and unending supply of grace. Through Moses came the law. Through Jesus Christ (the Word, the light) came grace and truth.”
If you are still confused, let me break this passage down even more. Let’s see if you got out of it what I got out of it. Jesus Christ is the Word. In the Word was light and life. The light enlightens. The Word was with God. The Word was also the same God who created everything. The Word became human, and made His home among us in order to enlighten us. So. Jesus Christ is Creator God a.k.a. “the word” who became human, and made his home among us. He possesses life and enlightens us. If we will accept him as such, he will make us children of God.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps it makes sense and it doesn’t. Perhaps you understand what the passage is saying, but don’t quite understand how what the passage is saying is true. Perhaps you are wondering why the Apostle John used such confusing language. To be fair, John’s Greek was a little strange even in Greek. He is repetitive and often says the same thing he just said in a different way. But you ask: “If John wanted us to know that Jesus is God. Why didn’t he just say, “Jesus is God”. The mostly likely answer is that John didn’t just want us to know that Jesus is God, but that He is the Word. He is not simply indwelt by God, but He actually is the God who created everything. He is, so to speak, the inherent logic of the universe, He is the one that the Apostle Paul says, “holds everything together”. John wants us to know this so as to communicate the extent of Jesus’ condescension in “becoming flesh”. He is God and I mean God; the one and only God, the God who made every single thing, the God in whom all our hope rests, the God who shines light in the darkness, I mean God, the heretofore, unseen God of everything, God became a human, and his earthly name was Jesus.
The reason He came, John tells us is to enlighten us, and to shine God’s light in the darkness that is this world. At least in this chapter. In fact the book of John can be seen as a treatise on why God sent Jesus at all. In John 10 Jesus says explicitly, “I have come that you might have life, and that you might have it more abundantly.” In John 3 Jesus says, “[That God] gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life” This is pretty consistent with John’s comments in Chapter One when he said “In Him was life and the life was the light of men” He came essentially to enlighten us to eternal life. Apparently God thought that the best way to show us the way to life was through becoming one of us.
Every year we celebrate Christmas. And the truth is for many of us that we celebrate family, and/or consumerism, and/or Christmas specials, and/or Rudolph. Somewhere in the back of our minds we know that this is really about Jesus. Everyday is really about Jesus. And Jesus made every day. And everyday is another day to think about, and contemplate, and meditate on Jesus’ becoming one of us, so that we can know God, so that we can be enlightened, so that we can have life. And Christmas is also the perfect time to think about being like Jesus ourselves. God did not just ignore us in our situation. He did not simply condemn us. He did just send us a memo., He came down. He became one of us. He identified Himself with our situation. He modeled for us what ministry is. May we not forget Jesus this Christmas and what He has done for us. May we also not forget that we are called to be his disciples, to follow in his footsteps, to be (here’s the word) incarnational, to be the light in the darkness, to bring life and hope. May we realize, as God has modeled for us, that the best way to do this is to “dwell among them”, identify with their situation, break into their world, and show them what Jesus showed them. God. If you’re thinking about a good Christmas gift, how about eternal life? Merry Christmas!
“In the beginning there was the Word. This Word was with God. This Word was God. He was with God at the very beginning. All things were made through Him. Everything. Nothing was made without Him. In Him was life. This life was the enlightenment of mankind. This light shines in the darkness. The darkness does not overcome the light.
A man sent from God, whose name was John, came as a witness to this light, so that all might believe through the light. He himself was not the light. He was a witness to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming. The Word was in the world that was made through Him, but ironically this same world did not know Him. He came to His own people whom He created, and they did not even accept Him. But for the few who did accept Him, He gave them the right to become the children of God. They were not children of blood, nor the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but they were born of God.
And this Word, He became flesh, and lived among us. We have seen his glory. Glory that only the Son from the Father can have, full of grace and truth. And from His infinite glory storehouse we have received and unending supply of grace. Through Moses came the law. Through Jesus Christ (the Word, the light) came grace and truth.”
If you are still confused, let me break this passage down even more. Let’s see if you got out of it what I got out of it. Jesus Christ is the Word. In the Word was light and life. The light enlightens. The Word was with God. The Word was also the same God who created everything. The Word became human, and made His home among us in order to enlighten us. So. Jesus Christ is Creator God a.k.a. “the word” who became human, and made his home among us. He possesses life and enlightens us. If we will accept him as such, he will make us children of God.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps it makes sense and it doesn’t. Perhaps you understand what the passage is saying, but don’t quite understand how what the passage is saying is true. Perhaps you are wondering why the Apostle John used such confusing language. To be fair, John’s Greek was a little strange even in Greek. He is repetitive and often says the same thing he just said in a different way. But you ask: “If John wanted us to know that Jesus is God. Why didn’t he just say, “Jesus is God”. The mostly likely answer is that John didn’t just want us to know that Jesus is God, but that He is the Word. He is not simply indwelt by God, but He actually is the God who created everything. He is, so to speak, the inherent logic of the universe, He is the one that the Apostle Paul says, “holds everything together”. John wants us to know this so as to communicate the extent of Jesus’ condescension in “becoming flesh”. He is God and I mean God; the one and only God, the God who made every single thing, the God in whom all our hope rests, the God who shines light in the darkness, I mean God, the heretofore, unseen God of everything, God became a human, and his earthly name was Jesus.
The reason He came, John tells us is to enlighten us, and to shine God’s light in the darkness that is this world. At least in this chapter. In fact the book of John can be seen as a treatise on why God sent Jesus at all. In John 10 Jesus says explicitly, “I have come that you might have life, and that you might have it more abundantly.” In John 3 Jesus says, “[That God] gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life” This is pretty consistent with John’s comments in Chapter One when he said “In Him was life and the life was the light of men” He came essentially to enlighten us to eternal life. Apparently God thought that the best way to show us the way to life was through becoming one of us.
Every year we celebrate Christmas. And the truth is for many of us that we celebrate family, and/or consumerism, and/or Christmas specials, and/or Rudolph. Somewhere in the back of our minds we know that this is really about Jesus. Everyday is really about Jesus. And Jesus made every day. And everyday is another day to think about, and contemplate, and meditate on Jesus’ becoming one of us, so that we can know God, so that we can be enlightened, so that we can have life. And Christmas is also the perfect time to think about being like Jesus ourselves. God did not just ignore us in our situation. He did not simply condemn us. He did just send us a memo., He came down. He became one of us. He identified Himself with our situation. He modeled for us what ministry is. May we not forget Jesus this Christmas and what He has done for us. May we also not forget that we are called to be his disciples, to follow in his footsteps, to be (here’s the word) incarnational, to be the light in the darkness, to bring life and hope. May we realize, as God has modeled for us, that the best way to do this is to “dwell among them”, identify with their situation, break into their world, and show them what Jesus showed them. God. If you’re thinking about a good Christmas gift, how about eternal life? Merry Christmas!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Good Books
I, Pastor Matt, in case you were not aware, enjoy reading. I'd like to now have a list of all sorts of books that I think you all should read. I will put them into different categories as well. It should be self explanatory.
The Basics
*There are a lot of theology books out there. In my opinion the best systematic theology book is Wayne Grudem's.
*"Walk Thru the Bible" by Bruce Wilkinson
The Deeper Stuff
*"Knowing God" by J.I. Packer
*"The Pursuit of God" by A.W. Tozer
Not For the Faint of Heart
*C.S Lewis. Read anything and everything by him. (The ones that I recommend in particular are: "The Great Divorce", "Mere Christianity", "The Chronicles of Narnia Series"{fiction}, "The Screwtape Letters".
*The Man Who Was Thursday" by G.K. Chesterton
*The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
*Desiring God" by John Piper (The thing with Piper is if you read him once you simultaneously read both everything he and Jonathan Edwards ever wrote)
For the Truly Adventurous
*"The Gagging of God" by D.A. Carson (It's 600 pages long and would be worth it if it were 1000, one of the most important books on postmodern culture you could get. Be warned this is the furthest thing from an easy read)
*"Confessions" by Augustine. (Despite my penchant for hyperbole, I have to say that next to Jesus, and Paul stands Augustine as one of the three most influential figures in the Western World. In other words if you don't read Augustine, then you might as well only read the Bible)
Fiction
*"The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck
Personal Favorites
*Plato's Republic
*"The Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne
*"The Meaning of the City" by Jacques Ellul. (This one's a little crazy)
The Basics
*There are a lot of theology books out there. In my opinion the best systematic theology book is Wayne Grudem's.
*"Walk Thru the Bible" by Bruce Wilkinson
The Deeper Stuff
*"Knowing God" by J.I. Packer
*"The Pursuit of God" by A.W. Tozer
Not For the Faint of Heart
*C.S Lewis. Read anything and everything by him. (The ones that I recommend in particular are: "The Great Divorce", "Mere Christianity", "The Chronicles of Narnia Series"{fiction}, "The Screwtape Letters".
*The Man Who Was Thursday" by G.K. Chesterton
*The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
*Desiring God" by John Piper (The thing with Piper is if you read him once you simultaneously read both everything he and Jonathan Edwards ever wrote)
For the Truly Adventurous
*"The Gagging of God" by D.A. Carson (It's 600 pages long and would be worth it if it were 1000, one of the most important books on postmodern culture you could get. Be warned this is the furthest thing from an easy read)
*"Confessions" by Augustine. (Despite my penchant for hyperbole, I have to say that next to Jesus, and Paul stands Augustine as one of the three most influential figures in the Western World. In other words if you don't read Augustine, then you might as well only read the Bible)
Fiction
*"The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck
Personal Favorites
*Plato's Republic
*"The Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne
*"The Meaning of the City" by Jacques Ellul. (This one's a little crazy)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Faith Like a Child
When I was a kid, I was selfish, and to make it worse, entitled. It's one thing to always want to get your way, but its worse when you believe you always deserve it. And then the worse kind of entitlement complex is the kind in which one is not aware of his entitlement complex, because that one is of course always entitled. And these are our children. Not only our children, but all children. Children learn quickly within the first months of their existence, that if they cry they will get what they want. It's funny to think that it may take a lifetime to beat out of them what we conditioned in them within the first few months of their life. As parents, we (we being human beings, not me and you, for I am not a parent, and this is not about parenting)spend 18 years (or more)unspoiling the child. Of course, the diaper must be changed, naps must be taken, food distributed, and of course babies have no other way to communicate to us their helplessness except to cry, but it does not take a way from the fact that babies learn to get what they want by crying and usually they get it, and once they're old enough we then have to deprogram of this. What a strange inconsistency this must seem to be to the toddler, who has heretofore, always been supplied his basic needs by employing the tool of crying, now he gets scolded for doing so, and is suddenly made to "go potty" on his own. We allow our kids to be selfish because they're helpless and clearly we have no choice, but we mistake the helplessness for innocence and the crying for polite requests instead of calling it (the crying) what it is; selfishness. Almost all kids struggle to share their toys, learn the word "mine" very quickly, and spend most of their first 3 years thinking the world revolves around them. And if we do nothing to discourage this behavior, they grow up to be entitled, winey, selfish adults. I always laugh when people talk about children as if they are saints. If kids were saints, you wouldn't need recess ladies, paddles, or bubble baths. When I was a child, I got kicked out of class my first day of Kindergarten for publicly making fun of another kid who peed his pants. In fourth grade, my first day at a new school, I was kicked out of class for laughing at a kid name Morgan. He was a boy. He had what I thought was a girl's name. You get the picture. These were not the worst things I ever did. The other things I did might put my pastoral position on the line if I mentioned them. The thing is, I wasn't the worst kid either. Some of you with children are thinking; "Yeah, tell me about it".
But children however have two redeeming qualities. They are worth emulating. These are the qualities of sincerity and faith. When a child says something, he means it. If he lies, its because he going to get in trouble. But if he tells you that you look ugly, its because you do. And if you tell a kid that the sky is pink, that elephants fly but only on Tuesday, and that the Cleveland Browns are going to win the Super Bowl she will without question believe you. So when Jesus takes a child and puts him on his knee, and tells the disciples that in order to receive the kingdom of God they must become "like one of these" He is obviously not telling them to be good. He is telling them to believe God, without doubting, the way that children believe everything their parents tell them. No matter how ridiculous something may seem to a skeptical adult, a child will never fail to believe it. No matter how ridiculous the thing is that God is asking us to do seems, the kind of person who will receive the kingdom of God is the kind of person who doesn't even give a thought to the ridiculous nature of the thing. In fact the thing is never ridiculous because in the mind of a "child" God would never ask us to do something ridiculous. If God says "I am for you", a child thinks, "He is for me".
Also, a child always means what they say. In may be inappropriate, but it is always sincere, without pretense or any impulse to manipulate. Sarcasm is not a vehicle employed by a child. Wittiness is not a virtue.
In conclusion, children are not innocent, but they are sincere, and they have tremendous faith. Therefore when Jesus tell us and His disciples that we must become like a child in order to inherit the Kingdom of God, he is not telling us to be innocent, but to be sincere, to mean what we say and to have tremendous faith.
But children however have two redeeming qualities. They are worth emulating. These are the qualities of sincerity and faith. When a child says something, he means it. If he lies, its because he going to get in trouble. But if he tells you that you look ugly, its because you do. And if you tell a kid that the sky is pink, that elephants fly but only on Tuesday, and that the Cleveland Browns are going to win the Super Bowl she will without question believe you. So when Jesus takes a child and puts him on his knee, and tells the disciples that in order to receive the kingdom of God they must become "like one of these" He is obviously not telling them to be good. He is telling them to believe God, without doubting, the way that children believe everything their parents tell them. No matter how ridiculous something may seem to a skeptical adult, a child will never fail to believe it. No matter how ridiculous the thing is that God is asking us to do seems, the kind of person who will receive the kingdom of God is the kind of person who doesn't even give a thought to the ridiculous nature of the thing. In fact the thing is never ridiculous because in the mind of a "child" God would never ask us to do something ridiculous. If God says "I am for you", a child thinks, "He is for me".
Also, a child always means what they say. In may be inappropriate, but it is always sincere, without pretense or any impulse to manipulate. Sarcasm is not a vehicle employed by a child. Wittiness is not a virtue.
In conclusion, children are not innocent, but they are sincere, and they have tremendous faith. Therefore when Jesus tell us and His disciples that we must become like a child in order to inherit the Kingdom of God, he is not telling us to be innocent, but to be sincere, to mean what we say and to have tremendous faith.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Suffering and Salvation Part 2
The idea that I am about to write about has been written about well in many books. One of the more popular books being "Jesus Wants to Save Christians" by Rob Bell. This is the idea that throughout the Bible and Judeo-Christian history the people of God have been persecuted and rescued from persecution on such a regular basis that one can reasonably believe that persecution is a distinctive of being "the people of God"as well as a major theme of the Bible. From Egypt to Babylon; Persia to Rome; the Crusades to the Holocaust, to the present day persecutions of almost epidemic proportions, the "people of God" have suffered at the hands of the unjust. Indeed the symbol of our faith is the innocent Jesus, blessing His persecutors. Jesus' type is David who wrote a seemingly unending amount of Psalms asking God to deliver Him from his enemies. The Bible begins to come alive and really make sense when we put ourselves in the place of a persecuted people. With the lens of persecution on, books like
1 Peter, Philippians, 2 Timothy, James, and Revelation become surprisingly clear. Persecution is the world that the Biblical writers lived in. It's the framework from which Jewish people understand who they are. They see themselves as the persecuted people of God, awaiting their deliverer, Messiah. Paul, James, Peter and John were of course Jewish people operating in a Jewish framework. And we are part of the Jewish heritage. I assert that, given everything I have written so far, that we would be seriously lacking in our understanding of our faith, if we are lacking in our understanding of persecution, not only cognitively, but also experientially. Persecution is to the people of God what the Big Mac is to McDonald's. The New Testament is essentially the Apostles trying to understand and explain their Jewish religion in light of Jesus' being the crucified and Resurrected Messiah. Considering that suffering and persecution was the standard of their lives, (they all were martyred, with the possible exception of John) a suffering Messiah was perfectly in line with their experience. The New Testament is a rearticulation of the Jewish faith in light of Jesus' Messiahship, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return.
We claim that in Jesus we are the people of God, the church. I don't know if the Bible teaches that persecution teaches is a prerequisite for Christianity. I would doubt that because faith is the first prerequisite on our part. But if we find ourselves avoiding persecution at all costs, it is reasonable to check our faith. If we are in the world so much that we are actually of the world, the world will not hate us, and we will have no way to identify with our leader. (Jesus) The people of God have always been a threat to society, not in a violent or manipulative way, but society is threatened by a group of people committed to justice, righteousness, and Jesus. True dialogue must begin on what this looks like. For we cannot force persecution. As Peter says our suffering is not godly suffering if it is not "as a Christian". In other words, there is basic suffering that everyone experiences, and then there is persecution that comes from the hands of the same unjust opposition that crucified our Savior. We're not looking for it, or avoiding it. One is simply left to wonder: If I never suffer persecution, am I really a Christian? Am I really one of the people of God?
1 Peter, Philippians, 2 Timothy, James, and Revelation become surprisingly clear. Persecution is the world that the Biblical writers lived in. It's the framework from which Jewish people understand who they are. They see themselves as the persecuted people of God, awaiting their deliverer, Messiah. Paul, James, Peter and John were of course Jewish people operating in a Jewish framework. And we are part of the Jewish heritage. I assert that, given everything I have written so far, that we would be seriously lacking in our understanding of our faith, if we are lacking in our understanding of persecution, not only cognitively, but also experientially. Persecution is to the people of God what the Big Mac is to McDonald's. The New Testament is essentially the Apostles trying to understand and explain their Jewish religion in light of Jesus' being the crucified and Resurrected Messiah. Considering that suffering and persecution was the standard of their lives, (they all were martyred, with the possible exception of John) a suffering Messiah was perfectly in line with their experience. The New Testament is a rearticulation of the Jewish faith in light of Jesus' Messiahship, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return.
We claim that in Jesus we are the people of God, the church. I don't know if the Bible teaches that persecution teaches is a prerequisite for Christianity. I would doubt that because faith is the first prerequisite on our part. But if we find ourselves avoiding persecution at all costs, it is reasonable to check our faith. If we are in the world so much that we are actually of the world, the world will not hate us, and we will have no way to identify with our leader. (Jesus) The people of God have always been a threat to society, not in a violent or manipulative way, but society is threatened by a group of people committed to justice, righteousness, and Jesus. True dialogue must begin on what this looks like. For we cannot force persecution. As Peter says our suffering is not godly suffering if it is not "as a Christian". In other words, there is basic suffering that everyone experiences, and then there is persecution that comes from the hands of the same unjust opposition that crucified our Savior. We're not looking for it, or avoiding it. One is simply left to wonder: If I never suffer persecution, am I really a Christian? Am I really one of the people of God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
