Have you ever noticed how sometimes well-meaning Christians say contradictory things? For example, sometimes in gatherings where multiple people are praying, a person will pipe up and say something like, "Lord, You said that whenever two or more are gathered together in Your name that You will be in the midst of them. Well Lord, there are more than two of us here, so we know that You are with us!"
I remember hearing people quote those words from the Gospel of Matthew and thinking to myself, "So what does THAT imply? Does that mean that Jesus ISN'T at the center of our prayer experience if at least TWO people aren't praying together? What if I'm praying by myself? Is Jesus ignoring me until I round up a partner?"
I'll let you sit on that one for awhile. I do have an opinion - but I want to raise an issue about a contradiction which is infinitely more important than the example above. The issue I'd like to discuss relates to God's forgiveness for us through Christ. For years I grew up hearing preachers talk about how we are eternally "forgiven" of all of our sins (past, present and future) when we receive Christ and become children of God. I agree with this as a basic tenet of genuine Christianity.
Yet, on the other hand I grew up being told that Christians must confess their sins to God on a regular basis in order to find forgiveness for individual sins. The idea was to "keep short accounts" with God so as to "maintain close fellowship" (whatever that meant). Most of the rationale was based on 1 John 1:9, which says "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to purify us from all unrighteousness." Now, you can see where the double-talk comes in. If I am eternally forgiven of all my sins the moment I receive Christ as Savior - why must I continually confess my sin in order to receive forgiveness and purification?" Is that REALLY what 1 John 1:9 is saying?
Please feel free to chime in with your thoughts...
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Burning the Koran in the Name of Christ?
Most of you have seen the reports about how Rev. Terry Jones and his church in Gainesville, FL. are sponsoring a “Koran burning” on September 11, 2010. This kind of behavior is – in my opinion – nothing more than a disgraceful, cheap stunt done in a manner that is both anti-Christian and anti-American. This week I join our Secretary of State and other political and religious leaders in their condemnation of the actions of this church.
In 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, RI that “This country will give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” As a Christian, I am obviously in disagreement with some of the teachings of the Koran as I understand them. Yet as both a Christian and an American, I believe in religious liberty and tolerance of those I disagree with. And I also benefit greatly by their treatment of me in similar fashion. I may not choose to worship alongside of a person from another faith, but I will rigorously stand alongside of them in defense of their right to worship as they see fit.
In his condemnation of the terror attacks on 9/11, Reverend Jones is now lowering himself to a level on par with the very terrorists he condemns. In fact, his actions are eerily reminiscent of a former terrorist regime known as the Nazis. I'm no genius, but I think a good rule of thumb is that if Hitler practiced it, it's probably something we should avoid! Repaying evil for evil is not only unbiblical, but extremely unwise in a case like this. In addition to his actions bringing reproach to the Name of Christ, Rev. Jones and his church are also putting many innocent people at risk by inciting more violence against Americans, U.S. Troops and peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide.
All legitimate Christians should wholeheartedly repudiate the unfortunate and despicable actions of this pastor and his church. Please pray with me as we remember those lost on 9/11, that this church and its sympathizers will be largely ignored and that the radicals who might respond to this Koran burning with violence will not be successful in the needless taking of more innocent lives.
In 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, RI that “This country will give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” As a Christian, I am obviously in disagreement with some of the teachings of the Koran as I understand them. Yet as both a Christian and an American, I believe in religious liberty and tolerance of those I disagree with. And I also benefit greatly by their treatment of me in similar fashion. I may not choose to worship alongside of a person from another faith, but I will rigorously stand alongside of them in defense of their right to worship as they see fit.
In his condemnation of the terror attacks on 9/11, Reverend Jones is now lowering himself to a level on par with the very terrorists he condemns. In fact, his actions are eerily reminiscent of a former terrorist regime known as the Nazis. I'm no genius, but I think a good rule of thumb is that if Hitler practiced it, it's probably something we should avoid! Repaying evil for evil is not only unbiblical, but extremely unwise in a case like this. In addition to his actions bringing reproach to the Name of Christ, Rev. Jones and his church are also putting many innocent people at risk by inciting more violence against Americans, U.S. Troops and peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide.
All legitimate Christians should wholeheartedly repudiate the unfortunate and despicable actions of this pastor and his church. Please pray with me as we remember those lost on 9/11, that this church and its sympathizers will be largely ignored and that the radicals who might respond to this Koran burning with violence will not be successful in the needless taking of more innocent lives.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
A Discussion About Grace...
A little more than 20 years ago, a debate among theologians began to intensify about the nature of the grace of God in the salvation of humanity. One view became known as "Lordship Salvation" (LS). This position is predicated upon a few central ideas:
First, LS claims that true faith (what they call "saving faith") in Christ involves not only belief in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but also a commitment to submit to Christ as Master over every area of life. The idea is that "repentance" (which LS defines as "turning from sin toward God") is a necessary component of genuine faith - and that without such a commitment to turn from sin, a person is not exercising legitimate faith in Jesus. One common cliche popularized by this camp is "You cannot accept Jesus as Savior while rejecting Him as Lord." Sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it?
Secondly, LS asserts that in the life of all true believers, genuine faith will be "proven" by a lifestyle of increasing victory over sin, a demonstration of consistent obedience, and a track-record of obviously good works. Among the passages used to defend this idea are James 2:14-26 and Jesus' various statements in the Gospels related to "denying" or "dying to" oneself in order to come to Him.
On the other side of the debate, another view became popularly known as "Free Grace" theology (FG). This school of thought also emphasizes some core ideas about the nature of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the Apostles.
In contrast to LS theology, FG theology affirms that Biblical faith in Christ is nothing more or less than simple "trust" or "confidence" that the Gospel is true and that it's promises apply to us personally the very moment we place our trust in this work of salvation Christ accomplished. FG advocates distinguish faith from "surrender to Christ's Lordship" on the grounds that adding mandatory results as a "litmus test" for whether or not one's faith is genuine is unbiblical and runs against the nature of grace itself - which is defined as God's unmerited favor received as a free gift on the basis of simply trusting in the promises of Christ.
Secondly, FG advocates insist that while "repentance" CAN and often DOES involve a turning from sin, we must be careful to define repentance Biblically. The Biblical definition of the verb "to repent" means literally "to change one's mind or perspective". It does NOT mean "to turn away from sin", although as I just mentioned, it could and often WILL include turning away from sin. Popular passages used to defend the FG position include John 3:16 and following, along with various passages in the Pauline Epistles which affirm that grace and the Law are two entirely different systems with unique purposes.
At one time I was a staunch, card-carrying member of the Lordship Salvation camp. Over the years, and with many reasons brought about through careful study of the Scriptures, I have journeyed toward the Free Grace camp in my understanding of the Gospel. Some of the primary voices among the LS camp include John MacArthur, R.C Sproul and John Piper. Noteworthy advocates of the FG position include Zane Hodges, Charles Swindoll and Charles Ryrie.
While I respect each of the men I just mentioned in various ways, I am definitely thankful for the movement toward Free Grace theology that I have experienced as a believer and pastor. I cannot possibly go into all of those issues in this format, but I would be interested in knowing where you fit along this spectrum of thought. What exactly DOES it mean to have faith? What does repentance mean? And how do the two of these ideas fit together (if at all) in bringing about eternal life?
If you have non-combative ideas to share - stuff that you would be able to defend Scripturally and with respect to other viewpoints - I would love to hear from you. As Christians, we all believe that salvation is by grace through faith - but what exactly does that mean? Let's have a good discussion...
First, LS claims that true faith (what they call "saving faith") in Christ involves not only belief in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but also a commitment to submit to Christ as Master over every area of life. The idea is that "repentance" (which LS defines as "turning from sin toward God") is a necessary component of genuine faith - and that without such a commitment to turn from sin, a person is not exercising legitimate faith in Jesus. One common cliche popularized by this camp is "You cannot accept Jesus as Savior while rejecting Him as Lord." Sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it?
Secondly, LS asserts that in the life of all true believers, genuine faith will be "proven" by a lifestyle of increasing victory over sin, a demonstration of consistent obedience, and a track-record of obviously good works. Among the passages used to defend this idea are James 2:14-26 and Jesus' various statements in the Gospels related to "denying" or "dying to" oneself in order to come to Him.
On the other side of the debate, another view became popularly known as "Free Grace" theology (FG). This school of thought also emphasizes some core ideas about the nature of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the Apostles.
In contrast to LS theology, FG theology affirms that Biblical faith in Christ is nothing more or less than simple "trust" or "confidence" that the Gospel is true and that it's promises apply to us personally the very moment we place our trust in this work of salvation Christ accomplished. FG advocates distinguish faith from "surrender to Christ's Lordship" on the grounds that adding mandatory results as a "litmus test" for whether or not one's faith is genuine is unbiblical and runs against the nature of grace itself - which is defined as God's unmerited favor received as a free gift on the basis of simply trusting in the promises of Christ.
Secondly, FG advocates insist that while "repentance" CAN and often DOES involve a turning from sin, we must be careful to define repentance Biblically. The Biblical definition of the verb "to repent" means literally "to change one's mind or perspective". It does NOT mean "to turn away from sin", although as I just mentioned, it could and often WILL include turning away from sin. Popular passages used to defend the FG position include John 3:16 and following, along with various passages in the Pauline Epistles which affirm that grace and the Law are two entirely different systems with unique purposes.
At one time I was a staunch, card-carrying member of the Lordship Salvation camp. Over the years, and with many reasons brought about through careful study of the Scriptures, I have journeyed toward the Free Grace camp in my understanding of the Gospel. Some of the primary voices among the LS camp include John MacArthur, R.C Sproul and John Piper. Noteworthy advocates of the FG position include Zane Hodges, Charles Swindoll and Charles Ryrie.
While I respect each of the men I just mentioned in various ways, I am definitely thankful for the movement toward Free Grace theology that I have experienced as a believer and pastor. I cannot possibly go into all of those issues in this format, but I would be interested in knowing where you fit along this spectrum of thought. What exactly DOES it mean to have faith? What does repentance mean? And how do the two of these ideas fit together (if at all) in bringing about eternal life?
If you have non-combative ideas to share - stuff that you would be able to defend Scripturally and with respect to other viewpoints - I would love to hear from you. As Christians, we all believe that salvation is by grace through faith - but what exactly does that mean? Let's have a good discussion...
Monday, July 12, 2010
Religion Kills
Have you ever stopped to take a close look at Jesus - independent from the religious baggage we've attached to Him? I was talking to a guy at Peet's Coffee who asked me what I do for a living. When I told him I was a vocational pastor (which is unfortunately a predictable conversation-killer in most cases), he promptly told me that he wasn't a religious person, but that he respected those who have faith.
You should have seen the look on his face when I responded that I am not a particularly religious person either. "But I thought you just said you are a pastor," he replied, "How can you say you're not a religious person." I began to explain my opinion that there are crucial differences between those who are religious and those who follow Jesus.
When Jesus came into the world, the last thing on His agenda was to launch a new religion. The Jewish culture into which He arrived was chock full of religion. In addition, the Roman Empire was a cesspool of pagan religious practice as well - from Caesar-worship to Greek mythology to ritualistic cults. Jesus came to launch a rebellion - not a religion. In essence, religion is virtually all the same. Sure there are key differences among man-made religions, but they are all essentially about pleasing or appeasing their Deity or Deities through some form of human effort. Even the Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism - while not so much affirming belief in any one "god" - operate on a system of Karma and essentially working one's way to a higher state of reincarnated life.
Jesus' message was quite literally: "To hell with all that!" The rebellion Jesus started was focused on an upside-down way of relating to God - one in which God did all the work, initiating a loving relationship with His creation and salvation that comes as a free gift rather than something you work for. For some people, this message is too good to be true. It is a blatant affront to the prideful human sense we all share - that somehow we want to prove ourselves at least partly "worthy" by contributing to our own salvation.
In the Book of Matthew - chapters 5-7 - Jesus shocks His audience with a message Christians commonly refer to as "The Sermon on the Mount". In that message He challenges religious thinking head-on. The entire foundation of the sermon is built upon a very key phrase where Jesus says, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven." This was so shocking because from the outside looking in, the Pharisees were the most pious religious sect among the Jews. They were known for their outward religious adherence to the strictest interpretation of God's Law.
You can imagine how the common people felt when Jesus told them that in order to receive salvation they had to be MORE righteous than these so-called "perfect" religious folks. But that - we would eventually find - was precisely Jesus' point! He wanted to drive them to the desperate realization that in and of their own effort, it is impossible to live up to God's perfect standards. In stating this, Jesus was setting the stage to introduce what for them would be an entirely new concept - namely, that we could exchange our lives for His life. He was claiming that God had sent Him to live the perfect life on our behalf, and that through simply believing in His perfect life and sacrifice on the cross, we could exchange our sinful lives for His perfect life even though our behavior remains imperfect.
The exchanged life that Jesus proclaimed is a radical rebellion against religion. Whereas religions says, "There's a lot of work to be done," the message of Jesus is, "The work has already been done." There is a radical difference between religion and the message of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, humans have neutered the raw power of the rebellion by attaching all kinds of religious baggage to Jesus. But even through the 2,000-year-old fog we've created, the clarity of Jesus' voice rings through loud and clear: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in (your) weakness..." (2 Corinthians 12:9).
Jesus is not about mustering up enough strength to be religious. He is exactly the opposite. He is about admitting your weakness and need for a Savior - and allowing Him to begin living His supernatural life THROUGH you by faith. That's how our lives are changed and become filled with power and joy. Religion kills. Don't let it kill you! Come to the Author of life and let Him exchange His life for yours. And remember, if you hear someone talking about Jesus and the message doesn't sound too good to be true, then you're not hearing the true message of Jesus. His grace ALWAYS sounds too good to be true. That's precisely what makes it grace!
I can hear some of the religious combatants now... "What are you talking about, Jeremy? If you teach people that Christ's grace is an unconditional, irreversible disposition of favor and tenderness toward people - then they will be tempted to abuse God's grace as a license to sin." To which I reply, "DUH! If grace were not open to the possibility of abuse, it would at that very moment cease to be grace!" And yet, when we truly begin to catch a glimpse of God's irrationally free gift of grace toward those who simply receive it though faith in Christ, that same grace begins to change us into grateful creatures. We begin to respond to His unfathomable tenderness with a disposition of surrender to Him as our Heavenly Father, Friend and Lord. But this cannot happen until we rest in the all-sufficiency of His grace. Grace is what sets Christianity apart from man-made religious bondage. it's what makes the message of Christ unique.
If you are reading this and your experience of Jesus has been the kind with all the religious baggage attached, I encourage you to join the rebellion and meet the real Jesus - the One who will never leave you or forsake you. The One who loves you as you are and not as you "should" be. The One who loves you so much that He would rather die for you than live without you for eternity. And yes, the One who loves you exactly the way He finds you - but also loves you WAY too much to leave you that way! He has the power to change your life. Will you let Him?
That's the way I see it. I welcome your thoughts... :)
You should have seen the look on his face when I responded that I am not a particularly religious person either. "But I thought you just said you are a pastor," he replied, "How can you say you're not a religious person." I began to explain my opinion that there are crucial differences between those who are religious and those who follow Jesus.
When Jesus came into the world, the last thing on His agenda was to launch a new religion. The Jewish culture into which He arrived was chock full of religion. In addition, the Roman Empire was a cesspool of pagan religious practice as well - from Caesar-worship to Greek mythology to ritualistic cults. Jesus came to launch a rebellion - not a religion. In essence, religion is virtually all the same. Sure there are key differences among man-made religions, but they are all essentially about pleasing or appeasing their Deity or Deities through some form of human effort. Even the Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism - while not so much affirming belief in any one "god" - operate on a system of Karma and essentially working one's way to a higher state of reincarnated life.
Jesus' message was quite literally: "To hell with all that!" The rebellion Jesus started was focused on an upside-down way of relating to God - one in which God did all the work, initiating a loving relationship with His creation and salvation that comes as a free gift rather than something you work for. For some people, this message is too good to be true. It is a blatant affront to the prideful human sense we all share - that somehow we want to prove ourselves at least partly "worthy" by contributing to our own salvation.
In the Book of Matthew - chapters 5-7 - Jesus shocks His audience with a message Christians commonly refer to as "The Sermon on the Mount". In that message He challenges religious thinking head-on. The entire foundation of the sermon is built upon a very key phrase where Jesus says, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven." This was so shocking because from the outside looking in, the Pharisees were the most pious religious sect among the Jews. They were known for their outward religious adherence to the strictest interpretation of God's Law.
You can imagine how the common people felt when Jesus told them that in order to receive salvation they had to be MORE righteous than these so-called "perfect" religious folks. But that - we would eventually find - was precisely Jesus' point! He wanted to drive them to the desperate realization that in and of their own effort, it is impossible to live up to God's perfect standards. In stating this, Jesus was setting the stage to introduce what for them would be an entirely new concept - namely, that we could exchange our lives for His life. He was claiming that God had sent Him to live the perfect life on our behalf, and that through simply believing in His perfect life and sacrifice on the cross, we could exchange our sinful lives for His perfect life even though our behavior remains imperfect.
The exchanged life that Jesus proclaimed is a radical rebellion against religion. Whereas religions says, "There's a lot of work to be done," the message of Jesus is, "The work has already been done." There is a radical difference between religion and the message of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, humans have neutered the raw power of the rebellion by attaching all kinds of religious baggage to Jesus. But even through the 2,000-year-old fog we've created, the clarity of Jesus' voice rings through loud and clear: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in (your) weakness..." (2 Corinthians 12:9).
Jesus is not about mustering up enough strength to be religious. He is exactly the opposite. He is about admitting your weakness and need for a Savior - and allowing Him to begin living His supernatural life THROUGH you by faith. That's how our lives are changed and become filled with power and joy. Religion kills. Don't let it kill you! Come to the Author of life and let Him exchange His life for yours. And remember, if you hear someone talking about Jesus and the message doesn't sound too good to be true, then you're not hearing the true message of Jesus. His grace ALWAYS sounds too good to be true. That's precisely what makes it grace!
I can hear some of the religious combatants now... "What are you talking about, Jeremy? If you teach people that Christ's grace is an unconditional, irreversible disposition of favor and tenderness toward people - then they will be tempted to abuse God's grace as a license to sin." To which I reply, "DUH! If grace were not open to the possibility of abuse, it would at that very moment cease to be grace!" And yet, when we truly begin to catch a glimpse of God's irrationally free gift of grace toward those who simply receive it though faith in Christ, that same grace begins to change us into grateful creatures. We begin to respond to His unfathomable tenderness with a disposition of surrender to Him as our Heavenly Father, Friend and Lord. But this cannot happen until we rest in the all-sufficiency of His grace. Grace is what sets Christianity apart from man-made religious bondage. it's what makes the message of Christ unique.
If you are reading this and your experience of Jesus has been the kind with all the religious baggage attached, I encourage you to join the rebellion and meet the real Jesus - the One who will never leave you or forsake you. The One who loves you as you are and not as you "should" be. The One who loves you so much that He would rather die for you than live without you for eternity. And yes, the One who loves you exactly the way He finds you - but also loves you WAY too much to leave you that way! He has the power to change your life. Will you let Him?
That's the way I see it. I welcome your thoughts... :)
Monday, July 5, 2010
A Few Thoughts about America and God's Grace
Having recently celebrated Independence Day with friends and family, I was reflecting on the song "America, the Beautiful". One of the lines in the song is the phrase "God shed His grace on Thee..." It got me thinking, is it really accurate to say that God has shed His grace upon a particular country?
As an American, I love this nation where I derive my earthly citizenship. As a Christ-follower, I love grace, because it alone secures me in my eternal citizenship both in and beyond this world. In the New Testament, grace is offered to individuals in numerous ways, not the least of which is through Christ's sacrifice for sin on the cross. So if the New Testament concept of grace is extended to individuals regardless of race, color or national identity, the question is worth asking: In what sense is God's "grace" shed on America - or any other nation, for that matter?
I do believe that America's foundational documents (i.e. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.) are morally superior to other systems of human government. And while we have at times fallen very short of living up to the ideals of our founding intentions, these documents are nonetheless a beautiful and Scripturally rooted set of values by which we seek to perpetuate freedom for our citizens. In that sense, God has indeed been gracious to the citizens of this nation - allowing us to live in relative peace, prosperity and political freedom by comparison to the vast majority of the global population.
And yet, under the New Covenant God no longer operates through specific "chosen nations" such as He did in the Old Testament. For "there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female - but all are one in Christ Jesus". The New Testament concept of grace is centered upon the unmerited favor of God being freely bestowed upon those who will simply receive God's grace as a free gift through faith in Christ. Obviously, not everyone in America believes this message. So again I ask, "In what sense is God's grace been shed upon America?" Or is that particular line of the song misstated?
Biblically, grace is the highest and sweetest expression of the love of God toward humanity. It is the offer of complete forgiveness of sin and eternal life based upon no effort of our own. So when we say that God has shed His grace upon America, do we mean that He loves Americans more than others? Is this line something that should be sung by Christians, thankful and patriotic as we may be about our country? I would love to know your thoughts...
As an American, I love this nation where I derive my earthly citizenship. As a Christ-follower, I love grace, because it alone secures me in my eternal citizenship both in and beyond this world. In the New Testament, grace is offered to individuals in numerous ways, not the least of which is through Christ's sacrifice for sin on the cross. So if the New Testament concept of grace is extended to individuals regardless of race, color or national identity, the question is worth asking: In what sense is God's "grace" shed on America - or any other nation, for that matter?
I do believe that America's foundational documents (i.e. the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.) are morally superior to other systems of human government. And while we have at times fallen very short of living up to the ideals of our founding intentions, these documents are nonetheless a beautiful and Scripturally rooted set of values by which we seek to perpetuate freedom for our citizens. In that sense, God has indeed been gracious to the citizens of this nation - allowing us to live in relative peace, prosperity and political freedom by comparison to the vast majority of the global population.
And yet, under the New Covenant God no longer operates through specific "chosen nations" such as He did in the Old Testament. For "there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female - but all are one in Christ Jesus". The New Testament concept of grace is centered upon the unmerited favor of God being freely bestowed upon those who will simply receive God's grace as a free gift through faith in Christ. Obviously, not everyone in America believes this message. So again I ask, "In what sense is God's grace been shed upon America?" Or is that particular line of the song misstated?
Biblically, grace is the highest and sweetest expression of the love of God toward humanity. It is the offer of complete forgiveness of sin and eternal life based upon no effort of our own. So when we say that God has shed His grace upon America, do we mean that He loves Americans more than others? Is this line something that should be sung by Christians, thankful and patriotic as we may be about our country? I would love to know your thoughts...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Praying for the President
Recent weeks have been tough for America overall. At present, we are faced with an oil spill filling the beautiful gulf coast environment with billions of gallons of sludge. A top military general has been replaced to provide leadership for the war effort in Afghanistan. Sales of new homes plummeted following the recent expiring of the new home buyer tax credit. The only sizable area of job growth has been due to temporary government employees working for the U.S. Census Bureau - all of whom will lose those jobs in a matter of weeks. Political leaders continue to be scrutinized for possible ethics violations. And the list goes on...
Say what you will about President Obama, but if there is one job on the planet I do not wish to have (besides a FIFA World Cup referee) it is his. When Mr. Obama was elected, I vowed that I would pray for him regularly - and I am thankful to say that I am meeting that goal. Even though I disagree with many of this administration's policies, I truly desire for our President to make decisions that are good for America. I want his little girls to be protected and raised well. I pray for his safety against those who would be so sick as to try to do him physical harm. And I pray for God to help me to disagree with grace (which I sometimes fall short of).
One thing we have to keep in mind no matter which party or person is in power - is that God is in charge of His universe. It may not always feel that way when we consider the suffering of this world. But sin is real, and it leads to misery. The good news is that there is a Savior from sin - and this Savior is not a President, or a celebrity, or a billionaire or an athlete. He is Jesus - and He said that His kingdom is not of this world. And He said that His followers are aliens and strangers on this planet who are here as His ambassadors. So I will keep praying for this President...and the next one and the next one...unless there is no next one.
Jesus said "Behold, I am coming quickly and my reward is with me." The early disciples understood this, and while they were definitely engaged in their human citizenship, they saw it as secondary to their heavenly one. So, I plan to remain engaged in the affairs of this planet - but I pray I will never lose sight of the reason I am here. Although I love and give deep thanks for America, I am not primarily an American. Or a voter. Or even a pastor in a formal role as such. I am first and foremost a bearer of grace and truth as I allow Jesus to live His supernatural life through me. What about you? What keeps you anchored to Reality in the midst of the falsehood that surrounds us? Will you pray for the President with me? I hope so. But even more importantly, I want to pray with the Apostle John "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus..." What say you...?
Say what you will about President Obama, but if there is one job on the planet I do not wish to have (besides a FIFA World Cup referee) it is his. When Mr. Obama was elected, I vowed that I would pray for him regularly - and I am thankful to say that I am meeting that goal. Even though I disagree with many of this administration's policies, I truly desire for our President to make decisions that are good for America. I want his little girls to be protected and raised well. I pray for his safety against those who would be so sick as to try to do him physical harm. And I pray for God to help me to disagree with grace (which I sometimes fall short of).
One thing we have to keep in mind no matter which party or person is in power - is that God is in charge of His universe. It may not always feel that way when we consider the suffering of this world. But sin is real, and it leads to misery. The good news is that there is a Savior from sin - and this Savior is not a President, or a celebrity, or a billionaire or an athlete. He is Jesus - and He said that His kingdom is not of this world. And He said that His followers are aliens and strangers on this planet who are here as His ambassadors. So I will keep praying for this President...and the next one and the next one...unless there is no next one.
Jesus said "Behold, I am coming quickly and my reward is with me." The early disciples understood this, and while they were definitely engaged in their human citizenship, they saw it as secondary to their heavenly one. So, I plan to remain engaged in the affairs of this planet - but I pray I will never lose sight of the reason I am here. Although I love and give deep thanks for America, I am not primarily an American. Or a voter. Or even a pastor in a formal role as such. I am first and foremost a bearer of grace and truth as I allow Jesus to live His supernatural life through me. What about you? What keeps you anchored to Reality in the midst of the falsehood that surrounds us? Will you pray for the President with me? I hope so. But even more importantly, I want to pray with the Apostle John "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus..." What say you...?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Can Truth and Tolerance Coexist?
What is truth? In John 18, Pilate asked Jesus that exact question. The answer may be one of the most consequential conclusions we ever come to. In an increasingly relativistic culture like ours, objective truth is a concept that fewer and fewer people seem to believe in. To suggest that one particular idea or belief system is true to the exclusion of any other is seen by many as arrogant at best - and dangerous at worst.
Yet, Jesus told Pilate that "everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus also made exclusive claims about Himself being the only way by which a person could find God (John 14:6). According to Jesus, objective truth does exist and is found in Him. In today's smorgas-board approach to life and spirituality, it seems that the highest of virtues is not truth, or even love - but "tolerance".
Tolerance is actually a great word and a very biblical concept, when properly understood. The traditional understanding of tolerance meant respecting the fact that everyone has equal rights to believe what they want to believe according to their own conscience. Christians support this kind of tolerance as consistent with the volitional and rational capabilities God has given to humanity.
But in recent times, tolerance has been radically re-defined. No longer is the concept focused on equal rights to individual beliefs - but instead, today's "tolerance" seeks to force everyone to affirm that all views are equally right. So is this a wise philosophy to embrace? Is it true that all belief systems are equally valid and that truth is merely whatever the individual happens to decide is in fact true? Or is there an objective, higher and absolute realm of truth which applies to all people, from all cultures, for all of time?
Beginning this Sunday at Valley Church, we will be launching a brand-new 3-part series called "True(ish)". We will be investigating the answer to these and other questions which are crucial to the process of critical thinking, sound decision-making and ultimately discovering whether the claims of Jesus and the Scriptures are trustworthy. What do YOU think about this issue of absolute truth? Does it exist? If so, is it possible to find and understand? Feel free to chime in here with your thoughts - and also please join us this Sunday at Valley Church (9am and 11am - 5063 Maple Rd. Vacaville, CA. 95687, www.valleychurch.com). Blessings to you...
Yet, Jesus told Pilate that "everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus also made exclusive claims about Himself being the only way by which a person could find God (John 14:6). According to Jesus, objective truth does exist and is found in Him. In today's smorgas-board approach to life and spirituality, it seems that the highest of virtues is not truth, or even love - but "tolerance".
Tolerance is actually a great word and a very biblical concept, when properly understood. The traditional understanding of tolerance meant respecting the fact that everyone has equal rights to believe what they want to believe according to their own conscience. Christians support this kind of tolerance as consistent with the volitional and rational capabilities God has given to humanity.
But in recent times, tolerance has been radically re-defined. No longer is the concept focused on equal rights to individual beliefs - but instead, today's "tolerance" seeks to force everyone to affirm that all views are equally right. So is this a wise philosophy to embrace? Is it true that all belief systems are equally valid and that truth is merely whatever the individual happens to decide is in fact true? Or is there an objective, higher and absolute realm of truth which applies to all people, from all cultures, for all of time?
Beginning this Sunday at Valley Church, we will be launching a brand-new 3-part series called "True(ish)". We will be investigating the answer to these and other questions which are crucial to the process of critical thinking, sound decision-making and ultimately discovering whether the claims of Jesus and the Scriptures are trustworthy. What do YOU think about this issue of absolute truth? Does it exist? If so, is it possible to find and understand? Feel free to chime in here with your thoughts - and also please join us this Sunday at Valley Church (9am and 11am - 5063 Maple Rd. Vacaville, CA. 95687, www.valleychurch.com). Blessings to you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)