For a hot but happy week in July, Old Union hosted a “Fruit of the Spirit” Vacation Bible School, where we learned about the blessings that come from the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). Because there are nine fruits, but only five days of Bible School, we had to leave the last four fruits for everyone to learn about on their own!
Something else that we didn’t talk about at Bible School was the Spirit that provides these fruits in our lives. As it happens, we don’t seem to talk that much about the Holy Spirit. That’s unfortunate, because it is the Holy Spirit who brings God’s presence into our lives. As Christians, we believe there is one God with three Persons. Most of us have a pretty good handle on the Father and the Son, but the Holy Spirit is often overlooked, even as we’re enjoying the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.
Who is the Holy Spirit? First, the Spirit is our teacher and guide. He (or she) is the Counselor that Jesus promised to his disciples at the Last Supper (John 14). The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives, now that Jesus has ascended into heaven. The Spirit is behind everything in our lives that draws us to God: the Bible, our prayer lives, the church, and so on.
Second, the Holy Spirit is our power and strength. She (or he) is the One who came upon the believers at the first Pentecost, and filled them with amazing power (Acts 2). As the presence of God in our lives, the Spirit brings power and authority into the circumstances we find ourselves in. When we are weak and confused, the Spirit who dwells within us accomplishes the impossible.
Third, the Spirit changes who we are. Romans 8 speaks at length about how the Spirit transforms us from being people who are controlled by sin and our natural desires, into children of God who have been set free from these things, so that we can experience the fullness of life that God wants for us. The “fruit of the Spirit” of Galatians 5 is one of several places in Scripture where we learn about the new kind of life that the Spirit works within us; Colossians 3:12-17 is another example.
The Holy Spirit’s presence in our lives is possible because of the redeeming work of Christ. Once we have accepted the grace that Christ’s death and resurrection brings, we begin the journey that the Spirit leads us on. With every passing day and year, our very character and identity changes, as the we bear the fruit of the Spirit’s work in our lives.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
A Godly Government
Everyone has their idea of what the government should do. As the 2012 Presidential campaign heats up, we’re sure to hear all sorts of notions and theories from the candidates. For this Fourth of July, I’d like to turn to the Bible to consider a role for the government that we often overlook.
Back in the days of the Bible, and of the Old Testament in particular, the government was the king. He had some advisors and assistants, but everything centered on the king himself. So if we want to see what God has to say about government, we should look at what the Bible tells us about being a good king. One of the best passages that does this is Psalm 72. Take a moment to read this psalm; but replace the word “the king” with “the government.” This will help you recognize what God wants from governments of all sorts, including ours.
1 Endow the government with your justice, O God,
the capital with your righteousness.
2 It will judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.
3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.
4 It will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
it will crush the oppressor.
5 It will endure as long as the sun,
as long as the moon, through all generations.
6 It will be like rain falling on a mown field,
like showers watering the earth.
7 In its days the righteous will flourish;
prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.
8 It will rule from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
9 The desert tribes will bow before it
and its enemies will lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores
will bring tribute to it;
the kings of Sheba and Seba
will present it gifts.
11 All kings will bow down to it
and all nations will serve it.
12 For it will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
13 It will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
14 It will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in its sight.
15 Long may it live!
May gold from Sheba be given it.
May people ever pray for it
and bless it all day long.
16 Let grain abound throughout the land;
on the tops of the hills may it sway.
Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon;
let it thrive like the grass of the field.
17 May its name endure forever;
may it continue as long as the sun.
All nations will be blessed through it,
and they will call it blessed.
18 Praise be to the LORD God, the God of Israel,
who alone does marvelous deeds.
19 Praise be to his glorious name forever;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory.
Amen and Amen.
20 This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.
This “royal psalm” can be read as a prediction of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But it is also a down-to-earth, straightforward description of what God wants kings (and all governments) to do. The primary theme of the psalm is the king’s righteous care for the oppressed, the afflicted, and the needy. He is to bring justice who have no one else to help them. In other words, the king looks out for people who can’t look out for themselves. The king’s job is not to let people “sink or swim,” but to help those who have been taken advantage of by those who are stronger and richer.
It seems to me that this continues to be God’s desire for our government, even though we live in a democracy instead of a monarchy. God expects civil authorities to use their power and influence to help the disadvantaged and abused members of society. Yes, some people “work the system” to milk the government for more than what they deserve. And yes, there’s plenty of room for debate about who is truly “weak, needy, oppressed, and afflicted,” and who simply hasn’t made do with what they have. But when we move too quickly to these objections and exceptions, we sidestep the main point of the psalm. The job of the king, and of the government, includes helping the nation’s underclass.
In the days of the Old Testament, these words applied only to the king and his officials. But we, who live in a democracy, stand under the guidance of these words ourselves. Caring for the poor, the needy, and the disadvantaged is not only something that we should each do individually. As Christians, we are to use our role as voters and citizens to ensure that our government does it as well.
And if we do, we may discover that the other major theme of Psalm 72 will apply to our nation as well. The psalm describes the land under the authority of this sort of government as one filled with prosperity and abundance, receiving honor from all the other nations of the world. This is what it means for God to bless America.
Back in the days of the Bible, and of the Old Testament in particular, the government was the king. He had some advisors and assistants, but everything centered on the king himself. So if we want to see what God has to say about government, we should look at what the Bible tells us about being a good king. One of the best passages that does this is Psalm 72. Take a moment to read this psalm; but replace the word “the king” with “the government.” This will help you recognize what God wants from governments of all sorts, including ours.
1 Endow the government with your justice, O God,
the capital with your righteousness.
2 It will judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.
3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.
4 It will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
it will crush the oppressor.
5 It will endure as long as the sun,
as long as the moon, through all generations.
6 It will be like rain falling on a mown field,
like showers watering the earth.
7 In its days the righteous will flourish;
prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.
8 It will rule from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
9 The desert tribes will bow before it
and its enemies will lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores
will bring tribute to it;
the kings of Sheba and Seba
will present it gifts.
11 All kings will bow down to it
and all nations will serve it.
12 For it will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
13 It will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
14 It will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in its sight.
15 Long may it live!
May gold from Sheba be given it.
May people ever pray for it
and bless it all day long.
16 Let grain abound throughout the land;
on the tops of the hills may it sway.
Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon;
let it thrive like the grass of the field.
17 May its name endure forever;
may it continue as long as the sun.
All nations will be blessed through it,
and they will call it blessed.
18 Praise be to the LORD God, the God of Israel,
who alone does marvelous deeds.
19 Praise be to his glorious name forever;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory.
Amen and Amen.
20 This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.
This “royal psalm” can be read as a prediction of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But it is also a down-to-earth, straightforward description of what God wants kings (and all governments) to do. The primary theme of the psalm is the king’s righteous care for the oppressed, the afflicted, and the needy. He is to bring justice who have no one else to help them. In other words, the king looks out for people who can’t look out for themselves. The king’s job is not to let people “sink or swim,” but to help those who have been taken advantage of by those who are stronger and richer.
It seems to me that this continues to be God’s desire for our government, even though we live in a democracy instead of a monarchy. God expects civil authorities to use their power and influence to help the disadvantaged and abused members of society. Yes, some people “work the system” to milk the government for more than what they deserve. And yes, there’s plenty of room for debate about who is truly “weak, needy, oppressed, and afflicted,” and who simply hasn’t made do with what they have. But when we move too quickly to these objections and exceptions, we sidestep the main point of the psalm. The job of the king, and of the government, includes helping the nation’s underclass.
In the days of the Old Testament, these words applied only to the king and his officials. But we, who live in a democracy, stand under the guidance of these words ourselves. Caring for the poor, the needy, and the disadvantaged is not only something that we should each do individually. As Christians, we are to use our role as voters and citizens to ensure that our government does it as well.
And if we do, we may discover that the other major theme of Psalm 72 will apply to our nation as well. The psalm describes the land under the authority of this sort of government as one filled with prosperity and abundance, receiving honor from all the other nations of the world. This is what it means for God to bless America.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A Line in the Sand
Last week, the Presbyterian Church (USA) officially changed its policy for ordination standards. Beginning in July, it will be possible for sexually active homosexuals to be ordained as deacons, elders, and ministers. For many people, this is a “line in the sand:” now that the denomination has crossed it, they can no longer in good conscience remain in the PC(USA). When I was in seminary back in the 1980’s, I wondered how I would respond if/when this time would come. Would I have to leave the PC(USA) and join a different denomination? Now that it’s happened, I know the answer. I’m staying.
I choose to remain in the PC(USA), even though I disagree with this change. I’ve studied arguments to the contrary, but I believe that the Bible speaks against homosexual activity. Someone who engages in such activity, and who believes it is consistent with God’s will for them to do so, should not be an ordained church leader. But I believe God continues to call me to serve in this denomination, for two reasons.
First, and most importantly, it’s not the big deal everyone makes it out to be. Sure; if you’re gay and you think God is calling you to ordained ministry, it matters to you. But for the rest of us, it shouldn’t be so important. At least, it shouldn’t be if we’re guided by Scripture. This issue does not rise to the level of importance in the Bible that we should disfellowship over it. Yes, I believe the Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. But it’s a parenthesis in the Scriptural witness; there are less than a handful of passages that deal with it. If, based solely on what the Bible teaches, we’re going to mat over something, this shouldn’t be it. There are many other things in our society that the Bible speaks much more clearly and strongly against. For example, will we deny ordination to someone who works on the Sabbath? Both testaments of the Bible go into great detail over this matter, and yet we seem to accept the fact that “good church people” violate this command without batting an eye. And again, what about treating the poor and disadvantaged of society with care and compassion? How about economic justice: making sure everyone receives fair and just payment for their labor? You can hardly read a page of the Bible without running into these issues. (By the way, according to Ezekiel 16:49, that was the real sin of Sodom, not homosexuality.) If we truly are guided by Scripture, as we claim to be, there are much bigger fish to fry and much more important issues to wrestle with. The ordination of homosexuals is not the litmus test for Scriptural authority that many people claim it to be.
Our reasons for focusing on this issue have more to do with cultural and personal preferences than they do with obedience to Scripture. Culturally, we’ve viewed heterosexual and homosexual misconduct very differently. It is only within the last couple decades that our society has not been scandalized by homosexuality, but go back forty or fifty years. Dean Martin and the rest of the “Rat Pack” were celebrated for their womanizing ways, but Rock Hudson had to hide his homosexuality if he wanted to have a career. By Scriptural standards, both were wrong. But our culture has condoned one while vilifying the other. Let’s not turn the Bible into a tool to justify cultural preferences; let’s use it to challenge and test the world around us.
There’s a second reason why I’m staying in the PC(USA): it’s the best way to witness to what I believe. For thirty-odd years, Presbyterians “on the other side” of this issue stayed and worked for change, even though the denomination repeatedly rejected their understanding of God’s will. While I disagree with them on this issue, I respect their faithfulness and perseverance. If I see something that I believe is wrong, my job as a Christian is not to cut and run; it is to challenge the error, even and especially when I get tired of dealing with it. The debate is far from over. The new policy gives each presbytery and session the authority to decide if a candidate qualifies for ordination. I will be one of hopefully many voices that will testify to the standards for ordination that I believe are right as these decisions are being made. If I, and others who view this matter like me, were to leave, there would be no testimony remaining. Unfortunately, this has already happened. Over the years, many people have left the PC(USA) out of fear that homosexuals would eventually be ordained. If they had stayed, spoken, and voted, the policy may not have changed.
There are things that are worth leaving a church over. This isn’t one of them.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Moderator's Letter to Beaver-Butler Presbytery on Ordination Standards
MODERATOR’S LETTER
TO BEAVER BUTLER PRESBYTERY
May 11, 2011
At its meeting last summer, the General Assembly proposed a change to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards stipulated in G-6.0106b of our constitution’s Form of Government. This proposal required approval by a majority of our denomination’s 173 presbyteries. Unlike previous proposals to amend this clause, the change has been approved as of May 10, with the 87th presbytery voting in favor of it. These new standards for ordination will take effect in July. While the change will affect other issues, the primary concern surrounding this debate has been the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. This issue has deeply divided our denomination for decades, and the change will encourage some and will trouble others. It’s good for us to know exactly what the new policy is, and what the change will mean for us.
First, the previous clause stated:
“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
and it will be replaced with the following clause:
“Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
The effect of this change is to do away with a denominationally uniform standard for ordination and installation, and to empower each ordaining body (sessions for elders and deacons, presbyteries for ministers) to evaluate each candidate and determine their suitability. Because each session and presbytery is likely to have its own particular perspective on this matter, we are likely to have a wide variety of standards in place. It is important to emphasize that no new standards for ordination are being imposed upon sessions and presbyteries. More specifically, if a session or presbytery believes that unrepentant homosexual conduct or sexual activity outside of marriage disqualifies a candidate for ordination, then that body will be free to act upon its conviction and refuse ordination for such persons, or installation for service if they have previously been ordained by another session or presbytery.
What does this change mean for Beaver-Butler Presbytery? Although this change is a major shift for the denomination, our Presbytery’s standards for ordination will remain the same. While each candidate for ordination is considered individually, our Presbytery has established policies related to this matter. In 2002 we adopted an Affirmation of Faith which states, in part:
“We affirm that anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of our alienation from God, neighbor, and self and that the church is called to lead people out of this alienation and into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. We believe that God has provided for sexual intimacy only within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman.”
In 2009 the Presbytery adopted an Open Theological Declaration which states, in part:
“We will continue to uphold biblical standards for ordination, particularly in areas of sexuality…. We will not recognize ordinations that are constitutionally or biblically unsustainable. We will closely examine each candidate seeking admission to our Presbytery. We will not ordain candidates whose behavior violates the clear meaning of G‐6.0106b of the Book of Order [the clause which will be removed].”
Practices in Beaver-Butler Presbytery have affirmed and confirmed these policies. Unless an unexpected and dramatic change occurs in the policies and practices of our Presbytery, we will continue to follow the old standards of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness,” in full compliance with the new constitutional criteria.
According to the new clause in the constitution, each session will conduct an examination of candidates for ordination as elders and deacons according to its understanding of Scriptural and confessional standards. Our stated clerk has ruled that the policy of our Presbytery applies to its churches’ sessions and to its minister members as well. Candidates for ordination and installation as elders and deacons in our churches must also comply with the “fidelity and chastity” criteria.
Please join me in prayer that this change in our constitution will not cause undue consternation or divisiveness in our fellowship and, more importantly, that we serve and glorify our Lord and Savior in all we believe, say, and do.
In Christ,
Rev. Peter C. de Vries, PhD
Moderator, Beaver-Butler Presbytery
TO BEAVER BUTLER PRESBYTERY
May 11, 2011
At its meeting last summer, the General Assembly proposed a change to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards stipulated in G-6.0106b of our constitution’s Form of Government. This proposal required approval by a majority of our denomination’s 173 presbyteries. Unlike previous proposals to amend this clause, the change has been approved as of May 10, with the 87th presbytery voting in favor of it. These new standards for ordination will take effect in July. While the change will affect other issues, the primary concern surrounding this debate has been the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. This issue has deeply divided our denomination for decades, and the change will encourage some and will trouble others. It’s good for us to know exactly what the new policy is, and what the change will mean for us.
First, the previous clause stated:
“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
and it will be replaced with the following clause:
“Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
The effect of this change is to do away with a denominationally uniform standard for ordination and installation, and to empower each ordaining body (sessions for elders and deacons, presbyteries for ministers) to evaluate each candidate and determine their suitability. Because each session and presbytery is likely to have its own particular perspective on this matter, we are likely to have a wide variety of standards in place. It is important to emphasize that no new standards for ordination are being imposed upon sessions and presbyteries. More specifically, if a session or presbytery believes that unrepentant homosexual conduct or sexual activity outside of marriage disqualifies a candidate for ordination, then that body will be free to act upon its conviction and refuse ordination for such persons, or installation for service if they have previously been ordained by another session or presbytery.
What does this change mean for Beaver-Butler Presbytery? Although this change is a major shift for the denomination, our Presbytery’s standards for ordination will remain the same. While each candidate for ordination is considered individually, our Presbytery has established policies related to this matter. In 2002 we adopted an Affirmation of Faith which states, in part:
“We affirm that anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of our alienation from God, neighbor, and self and that the church is called to lead people out of this alienation and into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. We believe that God has provided for sexual intimacy only within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman.”
In 2009 the Presbytery adopted an Open Theological Declaration which states, in part:
“We will continue to uphold biblical standards for ordination, particularly in areas of sexuality…. We will not recognize ordinations that are constitutionally or biblically unsustainable. We will closely examine each candidate seeking admission to our Presbytery. We will not ordain candidates whose behavior violates the clear meaning of G‐6.0106b of the Book of Order [the clause which will be removed].”
Practices in Beaver-Butler Presbytery have affirmed and confirmed these policies. Unless an unexpected and dramatic change occurs in the policies and practices of our Presbytery, we will continue to follow the old standards of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness,” in full compliance with the new constitutional criteria.
According to the new clause in the constitution, each session will conduct an examination of candidates for ordination as elders and deacons according to its understanding of Scriptural and confessional standards. Our stated clerk has ruled that the policy of our Presbytery applies to its churches’ sessions and to its minister members as well. Candidates for ordination and installation as elders and deacons in our churches must also comply with the “fidelity and chastity” criteria.
Please join me in prayer that this change in our constitution will not cause undue consternation or divisiveness in our fellowship and, more importantly, that we serve and glorify our Lord and Savior in all we believe, say, and do.
In Christ,
Rev. Peter C. de Vries, PhD
Moderator, Beaver-Butler Presbytery
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Interpreting the Bible
We Presbyterians believe that the Bible is the “unique and authoritative witness” to what God wants us to believe and to do. In other words, if you want to be faithful to God, the Bible is the first and most important place to turn. This conviction about the authority of Scripture is something that we share with most Christians. Unfortunately, this commitment isn’t enough to have us all agree with each other, even within the Presbyterian family. We all turn to Scripture, but frequently come up with many different perspectives from it. Acceptance of the authority of Scripture isn’t the conclusion; it’s the beginning of a conversation and adventure.
A number of years ago, the Presbyterian Church put together a summary of what the Book of Confessions (a collection of statements of our faith) has to say about interpreting the Bible. As you study the Bible and seek to hear God’s message for you through it, I hope these basic guidelines will be helpful.
a. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture. The redeeming work of God through Christ is central to the entire Bible. Any teaching of the Bible on a matter of faith or life should be consistent with Jesus' own teachings and His embodiment of the will of God.
b. Focus on the plain text of the Scripture, referring to the grammatical and historic context of a passage, rather than to allegory or subjective fantasy.
c. Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message. The Holy Spirit is living and active, so we can be open to the Spirit’s guiding presence only if we are ready to discover new and different insights for our time and place.
d. The rule of faith is the consensus of the church. Listening with respect to fellow believers from the past and in the present will enable us to interpret God's word faithfully for our time and place.
e. All interpretations should follow the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor. Our understanding of the Bible should promote our love for God and for people and groups of people within and outside the church.
f. Interpreting the Bible requires earnest study in order to recognize the divine message within the influence of the historical and cultural context of the text.
g. Seek to interpret a particular passage in the Bible in light of all the Bible. A proper understanding of one passage will be consistent with what the Bible as a whole teaches us.
Enjoy the adventure of learning what God has to teach you!
A number of years ago, the Presbyterian Church put together a summary of what the Book of Confessions (a collection of statements of our faith) has to say about interpreting the Bible. As you study the Bible and seek to hear God’s message for you through it, I hope these basic guidelines will be helpful.
a. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture. The redeeming work of God through Christ is central to the entire Bible. Any teaching of the Bible on a matter of faith or life should be consistent with Jesus' own teachings and His embodiment of the will of God.
b. Focus on the plain text of the Scripture, referring to the grammatical and historic context of a passage, rather than to allegory or subjective fantasy.
c. Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message. The Holy Spirit is living and active, so we can be open to the Spirit’s guiding presence only if we are ready to discover new and different insights for our time and place.
d. The rule of faith is the consensus of the church. Listening with respect to fellow believers from the past and in the present will enable us to interpret God's word faithfully for our time and place.
e. All interpretations should follow the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor. Our understanding of the Bible should promote our love for God and for people and groups of people within and outside the church.
f. Interpreting the Bible requires earnest study in order to recognize the divine message within the influence of the historical and cultural context of the text.
g. Seek to interpret a particular passage in the Bible in light of all the Bible. A proper understanding of one passage will be consistent with what the Bible as a whole teaches us.
Enjoy the adventure of learning what God has to teach you!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Who Gets Into Heaven? (And What Happens to Those Who Don’t?)
I should say at the start that I’m not one to follow the latest trends and fads in the religious world. Most of them seem to me like a slick marketing strategy that encourages lightweight belief rather than deep discipleship. Not to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with WWJD, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose-Filled Life, Missional Church, and all the rest. It just isn’t my cup of tea. And so I have to admit that I don’t remember if I ever even heard of Rob Bell before this controversy about his new book has hit the fan. I haven’t read his book, and don’t plan to. But I can’t resist the temptation to chime in on the debate. You can click on the following link to see his promotional video for the book: http://vimeo.com/20272585. And you can follow this next link to read one of the prominent criticisms of it: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf.
The controversy, as I understand it, focuses upon two questions. First, who will get into heaven? And second, what happens to the people do don’t make it? Regardless of what Rob Bell and his detractors have to say, these are questions worth asking.
First, who will get into heaven? Or, to word it slightly differently, what does it take to get into heaven? For now, I won’t get into what exactly heaven is. Let’s just agree that it’s a blessed state of being in presence of God after we die and/or after the end of the world as we know it. And let’s agree that “getting into heaven” is, for Christians, essentially the same thing as “being saved.” The Biblical witness is pretty clear: our access to heaven (or, the way for us to be saved) is only through Jesus Christ. About ten years ago I helped to draft a statement for our Presbytery which addressed this topic as follows:
We believe in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven (Nicene Creed),” and “is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” We believe Jesus “is the only Savior of the world (Second Helvetic Confession 5.077; see Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 9:15-28),” and that His life, death, and resurrection are the sole means of intimacy with God (see John 10:7-18). Our salvation is completely dependent upon the work of God’s free grace by which God credits Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in Him. We believe that salvation is the will of the Father for us (1 Timothy 2:3-6), and that the Holy Spirit opens us to receive this salvation that is offered through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Consequently, we acknowledge that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, see also Heidelberg Catechism 4.029).”
Obviously, since I helped to write this, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it addresses the issue well.
But the current issue goes a bit deeper than this. Yes: Jesus is the one who makes it possible for us to get into heaven (or, to be saved). He is the means; but what do we have to do to avail ourselves of it? How do we get the benefit from the work that Christ has done? This, I think, gets to the issue that Rob Bell raises. How widely does God share the saving work of Christ? The Bible clearly tells us that if we believe in Jesus, we will be saved (John 3:16, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 2:8-9, for example). So, if you want to be sure to get into heaven, that’s what you have to do (and nothing else, by the way). But the question is still open: is it possible for people who have not put their trust in Jesus to be able to get into heaven? According to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So, since he’s God, can’t he accomplish that? Can’t he, from his own free loving will, make the saving work of Christ efficacious for all people, regardless of whatever faith in Christ they may or may not have? Since I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, I’m not going to say that this is his position. But there are Christians who have made this kind of an argument.
To explain my position, let me present two hypothetical people. Person #1 is someone who has never heard the message of Christ’s salvation in a meaningful way. But in her own way, as best as she is able with the knowledge of God that is available to her, she does her best to honor and follow God, or at least her perception of God. In my book, Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work touches her life. I do not believe that God holds us accountable for knowledge that is impossible for us to have. My formula is this: “We are to commit as much of our lives as we are aware of to as much of God as we are aware of, and we are to seek to learn more about ourselves and about God, so that we can offer more of ourselves to God.” After all, who among us is arrogant enough to think that we know absolutely everything about God? Every human being is upon a relative spectrum of knowledge about God. And, for that matter, we don’t even know ourselves all that well. Offer as much of yourself as you are able to the God that you know about, and seek to know God better and better. I believe that someone like Person #1 will be in heaven, because Christ’s work covers her.
Person #2 is different. He is someone who has heard about Christ’s work, but has rejected it. Because I’m describing a hypothetical person, let’s make him really easy to define. He is someone who has had regular exposure to a reasonable and understandable explanation of who Christ is and what Christ has done, and he has been given a clear opportunity to place his trust in Christ. But he refused to do so. He intentionally rejected the offer of salvation (or getting into heaven) from Christ. I believe that this is someone who does not benefit from Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work, and therefore will not be saved and go to heaven.
Perhaps you’ve already noticed: the distinction between Person #1 and Person #2 isn’t always very clear. It’s not always obvious if someone has really ever heard the gospel, or if they’ve accepted or rejected whatever amount of knowledge of God was available to them. To use the example that Rob Bell mentioned in his promotional video, did Gandhi ever really hear the gospel? What sort of trust or relationship did he have with Jesus? Did he offer as much of his life as he was able to as much of God as he knew about? I can’t answer that question, and neither can anyone else. I can’t answer it about Gandhi, or about anyone else. To use an opposite example, what about Hitler? Just before he killed himself in his bunker, did he offer his life to Christ, or to the best understanding of God that he had? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. So none of us can ever presume to judge that someone else is Person #1 or Person #2.
This now leads to the second question that the Rob Bell controversy raises: what happens to the people who aren’t saved, or go to heaven? This question assumes that there are at least a few “Person #2”s in the world. What happens to them when they die, or when the world comes to an end? The conventional, traditional Christian answer is that they go to hell: a place or condition of eternal torment. Rob Bell is certainly not the first person to question this concept: that a loving God would allow people to be in agony for all of eternity, even if they intentionally and explicitly rejected Him. I like the way that my dissertation advisor framed the issue: Is it just for a person who has committed a finite offense to receive an infinite punishment? Remember, infinite isn’t just “a really long time;” it’s forever. After a million years of torment, you still have an infinity of torment to face. After all, any offense that we commit is finite, because we are not infinitely powerful and because our actions are limited to the time period of our lives. I’m going to agree with Tony that we can’t sidestep this issue by waffling on the term “justice,” by saying that God’s sense of justice is different from ours. If that would be the case, then it would be meaningless for us ever to talk about a “just” God. However, I take issue with Tony’s sense that our offenses are finite, because they are offenses against an infinite God. The “infinite-ness” of the offenses of Person #2 does not depend upon the actions themselves, but upon the One against whom they have been committed. Simple example: if I punch my friend, the offense is not as great as if I punch the President of the United States. The first offense might cost me a friendship, but the second offense will land me in jail for a long time, with a nasty record against me when I get out. Take that distinction and multiply it by infinity, and you get the sense of what it means to offend against God.
The conclusion I reach from all this is that it’s vitally, infinitely important to do all we can to make sure that there are no “Person #2”s in the world. And because we’re not exactly sure where the line between Person #1 and Person #2 is, we ought do what we can to help even the “borderline” cases.
The controversy, as I understand it, focuses upon two questions. First, who will get into heaven? And second, what happens to the people do don’t make it? Regardless of what Rob Bell and his detractors have to say, these are questions worth asking.
First, who will get into heaven? Or, to word it slightly differently, what does it take to get into heaven? For now, I won’t get into what exactly heaven is. Let’s just agree that it’s a blessed state of being in presence of God after we die and/or after the end of the world as we know it. And let’s agree that “getting into heaven” is, for Christians, essentially the same thing as “being saved.” The Biblical witness is pretty clear: our access to heaven (or, the way for us to be saved) is only through Jesus Christ. About ten years ago I helped to draft a statement for our Presbytery which addressed this topic as follows:
We believe in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven (Nicene Creed),” and “is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” We believe Jesus “is the only Savior of the world (Second Helvetic Confession 5.077; see Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 9:15-28),” and that His life, death, and resurrection are the sole means of intimacy with God (see John 10:7-18). Our salvation is completely dependent upon the work of God’s free grace by which God credits Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in Him. We believe that salvation is the will of the Father for us (1 Timothy 2:3-6), and that the Holy Spirit opens us to receive this salvation that is offered through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Consequently, we acknowledge that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, see also Heidelberg Catechism 4.029).”
Obviously, since I helped to write this, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it addresses the issue well.
But the current issue goes a bit deeper than this. Yes: Jesus is the one who makes it possible for us to get into heaven (or, to be saved). He is the means; but what do we have to do to avail ourselves of it? How do we get the benefit from the work that Christ has done? This, I think, gets to the issue that Rob Bell raises. How widely does God share the saving work of Christ? The Bible clearly tells us that if we believe in Jesus, we will be saved (John 3:16, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 2:8-9, for example). So, if you want to be sure to get into heaven, that’s what you have to do (and nothing else, by the way). But the question is still open: is it possible for people who have not put their trust in Jesus to be able to get into heaven? According to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So, since he’s God, can’t he accomplish that? Can’t he, from his own free loving will, make the saving work of Christ efficacious for all people, regardless of whatever faith in Christ they may or may not have? Since I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, I’m not going to say that this is his position. But there are Christians who have made this kind of an argument.
To explain my position, let me present two hypothetical people. Person #1 is someone who has never heard the message of Christ’s salvation in a meaningful way. But in her own way, as best as she is able with the knowledge of God that is available to her, she does her best to honor and follow God, or at least her perception of God. In my book, Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work touches her life. I do not believe that God holds us accountable for knowledge that is impossible for us to have. My formula is this: “We are to commit as much of our lives as we are aware of to as much of God as we are aware of, and we are to seek to learn more about ourselves and about God, so that we can offer more of ourselves to God.” After all, who among us is arrogant enough to think that we know absolutely everything about God? Every human being is upon a relative spectrum of knowledge about God. And, for that matter, we don’t even know ourselves all that well. Offer as much of yourself as you are able to the God that you know about, and seek to know God better and better. I believe that someone like Person #1 will be in heaven, because Christ’s work covers her.
Person #2 is different. He is someone who has heard about Christ’s work, but has rejected it. Because I’m describing a hypothetical person, let’s make him really easy to define. He is someone who has had regular exposure to a reasonable and understandable explanation of who Christ is and what Christ has done, and he has been given a clear opportunity to place his trust in Christ. But he refused to do so. He intentionally rejected the offer of salvation (or getting into heaven) from Christ. I believe that this is someone who does not benefit from Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work, and therefore will not be saved and go to heaven.
Perhaps you’ve already noticed: the distinction between Person #1 and Person #2 isn’t always very clear. It’s not always obvious if someone has really ever heard the gospel, or if they’ve accepted or rejected whatever amount of knowledge of God was available to them. To use the example that Rob Bell mentioned in his promotional video, did Gandhi ever really hear the gospel? What sort of trust or relationship did he have with Jesus? Did he offer as much of his life as he was able to as much of God as he knew about? I can’t answer that question, and neither can anyone else. I can’t answer it about Gandhi, or about anyone else. To use an opposite example, what about Hitler? Just before he killed himself in his bunker, did he offer his life to Christ, or to the best understanding of God that he had? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. So none of us can ever presume to judge that someone else is Person #1 or Person #2.
This now leads to the second question that the Rob Bell controversy raises: what happens to the people who aren’t saved, or go to heaven? This question assumes that there are at least a few “Person #2”s in the world. What happens to them when they die, or when the world comes to an end? The conventional, traditional Christian answer is that they go to hell: a place or condition of eternal torment. Rob Bell is certainly not the first person to question this concept: that a loving God would allow people to be in agony for all of eternity, even if they intentionally and explicitly rejected Him. I like the way that my dissertation advisor framed the issue: Is it just for a person who has committed a finite offense to receive an infinite punishment? Remember, infinite isn’t just “a really long time;” it’s forever. After a million years of torment, you still have an infinity of torment to face. After all, any offense that we commit is finite, because we are not infinitely powerful and because our actions are limited to the time period of our lives. I’m going to agree with Tony that we can’t sidestep this issue by waffling on the term “justice,” by saying that God’s sense of justice is different from ours. If that would be the case, then it would be meaningless for us ever to talk about a “just” God. However, I take issue with Tony’s sense that our offenses are finite, because they are offenses against an infinite God. The “infinite-ness” of the offenses of Person #2 does not depend upon the actions themselves, but upon the One against whom they have been committed. Simple example: if I punch my friend, the offense is not as great as if I punch the President of the United States. The first offense might cost me a friendship, but the second offense will land me in jail for a long time, with a nasty record against me when I get out. Take that distinction and multiply it by infinity, and you get the sense of what it means to offend against God.
The conclusion I reach from all this is that it’s vitally, infinitely important to do all we can to make sure that there are no “Person #2”s in the world. And because we’re not exactly sure where the line between Person #1 and Person #2 is, we ought do what we can to help even the “borderline” cases.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Word of God
You’ll frequently hear people talk about “the Word of God.” What comes to mind when you hear that phrase: the Bible? Or something else? It’s a hugely important concept for us Christians, so it’s good to take a moment to ensure that we understand it well.
A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.
There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.
The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.
The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.
The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.
It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.
Peter
A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.
There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.
The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.
The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.
The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.
It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
