Relationship Versus Faith

This was originally Comment #62 on Condemnation by Virtue of Beliefs.  That post and its comments discuss the essence of salvation:  Is it primarily physical or intellectual?

Certainly, the relationship aspect of both the Fall and the Atonement, and the resulting works are important to theology. Any theology which lacks them is necessarily deficient, and any Christian who doesn’t live accordingly needs to be discipled. The perception of importance for this aspect increases with maturity, so only one who is fully spiritually mature (only Jesus) can claim any objectivity in the matter.

However, the faith aspect is also important, and it is often considered more important. This aspect is accurately perceived (insofar as we comprehend eternity), and is usually the primary reason that people seek a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

If I were to fully know God (a staggering thought in itself), which would I consider more important? Since no one but Jesus has ever reached such a height, we can never know for sure. But we can guess at Jesus’ priorities by reading His teachings. How often does He mention knowing versus obeying God? I’ve never performed such a Bible study, but even it would be limited in certainty by John 21:25.

On the other hand, some have proposed that they are actually the same thing – that is, that someone who doesn’t know God would necessarily be tormented in an eternity where He turns out, with all His holiness, to be real. C. S. Lewis, for example, offered such an explanation (or two, if you count the agony of being a ghost in the presence of light) in The Great Divorce.

But I think the entire discussion misses the point.  “For we know in part and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.”  (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, NKJV) Just as our works are a shadow of our faith, so too is our intellectual understanding.  I don’t know that either can be reliably tested, yet we must attempt such inside the Church as both are essential to the Christian walk.

Churches in the World

This is a Sunday School lesson I gave on January 4, 2009, as part of a rotation of teachers for a Baptist youth class.  I’d appreciate any comments and/or suggestions on the content and the lesson’s format/style.

This is a first for me, so please bear with any stutters of mine.  I doubt I’ll get through this whole lesson, but if I don’t then maybe I’ll have a chance to finish it.  And these two chapters are a great source of study material, so don’t think I’m coming close to exhausting them.

In the Revelation to John, chapters 2 and 3, seven types of churches are identified and their members encouraged by Jesus. Who here has already heard someone characterize evangelicals (that’s us) according to this passage? (Mark their names.) You won’t be allowed to answer questions, but you can help the others.

Out of these seven churches, one has nothing to be commended and is in a spiritual coma; two others are thriving and receive nothing negative, but one of them is about to suffer for its faithfulness.  (Mark the continuum below on the board.) Each of the remaining four has its problems but also some merit. I’ve marked them on the continuum according to my estimation; does anyone disagree with me? (Open the room for discussion.)

Sardis      Laodicea     Ephesus     Thyatira      Pergamos      Smyrna     Philadelphia
  |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
 Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt    Compromising  Persecuted    Faithful

Which state is [removed for publication] Baptist Church in?  Which one best fits your personal character?  (Open the room for discussion.)  To ask it another way, which epistle is your favorite?  My favorites are those to the Corinthians (the decision between first and second is a tough one).  The church at Corinth was approximately in the same state as at Pergamos: compromising.  I’ve concluded that I like all the rebukes to the Corinthians partly because I’m self-righteous.  I should learn to better enjoy the other epistles, particularly those to the Ephesians and Romans.  (Open the room for discussion.)

I think the state of a congregation reflects the percentage of its members who are saved.  If we’re lukewarm or loveless, does that mean we’re not all saved?  Are you saved?

As with all sin, the problem is pride.  The Ephesians are proud of their obedience, which is commended by Christ; but they are cheating on Him with His gift.  The Laodiceans are proud of their self-sufficiency: their Internet, physique, socialization, eloquence, and ideas.

Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away. For no sooner has the sun risen with a burning heat than it withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So the rich man also will fade away in his pursuits.

James 1:9-11

Nothing will ever take this love away
The grass will wither and the flower fade
These things don’t change

–Chorus to “These Things Don’t Change,” by Sherri Youngward

These are expressions of faithfulness and rebukes against lukewarmness.  The strong man, the beautiful girl, the wise mentor, the original artist, the smart intellectual, and the skilled crafstman all need to apply them.  We need to learn, deep in our heart of hearts, that we have no merit (especially righteousness), and that merit we do have comes only from him – for we were originally made in His image and those who repent are continually made in His image as much as they submit to improvement.  In other words, we need to accept the Gospel, or at least admit that we don’t really like it, to avoid being spat out.  The rich young ruler, when confronted with the challenge to give up the temporal, improved by becoming cold rather than lukewarm.  He went that much closer to admitting the problem, which is always the first step to solving it.

The loveless are in a different position than the lukewarm only because they idolize the Scriptures rather than worldly attractions, and the Scriptures point them in the correct direction.  So they are a somewhat more correct incarnation of the Pharisees – the folks who received Christ’s harshest words.

Now, how can we improve our position?  (Open the room for discussion.)  Those who are lukewarm must acquire a zeal for God’s word for their own sake, and then they’ll be loveless.  The loveless must further acquire a love for God, and develop a relationship with Him.  When we get that far, we will naturally discuss what we can do about it, because love prompts action.  If we don’t compromise after that, maybe we’ll be in the faithful church.

What is a Christian?

A random internet person recently asked this question, adding that his own definition was “a kind and just person.”  I can understand where he’s coming from, given that, for example, “America is a Christian nation.”  “Christian” is a very old word and, for nearly two millenniums, it has also been a very popular word in some section of the world or another.

Over time, the popular understanding of a word, especially a popular word, can change drastically because people gradually ascribe to it new meanings slightly different (in the speaker’s mind) from the one(s) previously known.  Thus “happy” (fortunate) became “happy” (glad) and “gay” (glad) became “gay” (homosexual).  This happens everywhere in every language to the degree that the language is used liberally.  It’s a reason we have trouble reading ancient text supposedly authored in our current language; indeed, it’s one of the reasons we have so many languages.

So, back to the question:  What is a Christian?  In my opinion, there’s no good reason to abandon the original meaning of the word.  The word is first recorded in Acts 11:25-26, where it means “follower of the Christ.”  “Christ” is a Greek translation of the Jewish “Messiah,” which implies the Jewish concept of God.

To consider someone a Christian, I require that they (earnestly desire to) agree with Jesus on every point.  And the New Testament canon is the most reliable account of Jesus and His contemporary followers. Although there may still be a bit of subjectivity, it’s mostly objective; I cannot see a secular humanist, Moslem, or any other person whom I would consider “lost,” except of course members of ‘Christianish’ cults, claiming the label given those bounds.  And in the case of such cultists, I believe they’re on very shaky ground to say the least.

My Personal Graphic

I’ve been designing my site (from which I hope you’re viewing this blog) lately, and today I decided to make my own “favicon” with the GIMP.  First, because my online identity is “Jesdisciple” (“Jesus’ disciple” abbreviated as a computer-generated username suggestion), I decided to show a slightly elevated, capital ‘J,’ a forward-slash, and a small ‘d,’ after the style of hand-written mathematical equations.  The basic idea is that Jesus is “over” (divided by) His disciple (me), and that the smaller I am, the more accurately I view myself, the more powerful the result of our relationship becomes (2 Corinthians 12:9).

First, I had to choose a background color.  I like purple, so I started with full red and blue (hexadecimal #FF00FF or #F0F), but that was too bright, kind of pastel. So I went progressively darker until it conveniently looked royal, and it was then hexadecimal #430049 (or something like that).  In observance of the web-safe colors (3-digit hex numbers), I reduced it to #404; 404 is an error code which conveniently means “Not Found” in the HTTP standard. (I know, I know… I’m a hopeless geek.) The significance is that I don’t fully realize the above basic idea, i.e. I consistently view myself as more than I am and therefore limit my potential in Christ.

Then I needed a text color.  The GIMP had already selected white as the default background color and I had set the foreground to #404.  White text sounded fine to me, so I switched them.  (Actually, being an amateur GIMP user, I first clicked the wrong button and reset them to black on white…)  Do you think I should use some other color, maybe yellow?

I naturally tried typing “J/d” into my image, but the text was too big and I couldn’t find a way to resize it.  I tried drawing the characters 1px wide but didn’t like them very much.  Since I participate in a few forums and needed a larger original image anyway, I looked up “Avatar (computing)” on Wikipedia for the common size of forum avatars.  The article gave the range of maximums as 96×96 and 100×100 pixels, so I decided on 96×96 because any forum within that range would accept that size.  But then the text as written by the GIMP was way too small, and I still couldn’t resize it. So I decided to write the characters by hand; I do not have a steady hand, so it came out looking like a child’s crayon-art. This is convenient because it reiterates the basic idea from a slightly different perspective: No matter how sophisticated I think I am, I’m always a child in comparison to God.

As of early August 2008, I’ve added my name “Chris” in the bottom-left corner.  I used the GIMP’s text tool for this because 1) it’s the right size, 2) it should be legible, particularly on forums, and 3) it’s easy.

Being pleased by how many “happy accidents” (probably all intentional on God’s part) I’d had, I used Dynamic Drive’s Favicon Maker to generate the 16×16 version you should see in your browser.

Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ and Rebukes Him

I just returned from church camp, where the below Matthew and Mark passages were used as a foundation for the theme, “Who do you say Jesus is?” and a friend of mine, who couldn’t go to camp, mentioned the story as a foundation for ministry. To help him and anyone else who finds this page to study these corresponding passages, I’ve lined them up, according to what each includes and omits, for study.

Matthew 16:13-28	Mark 8:27-38	Luke 9:18-27
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”	And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”	Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.	And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly.	And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”	And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”	And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”	And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

How to Gather

Whether we are to gather isn’t a question (Hebrews 10:25), but how are we to gather? As it is, we (my usual congregation) have:

• an early service for the more traditionally minded, where the small audience sings out of the hymnbook and the pastor delivers his sermon,
• a class discussion period of thirty minutes, where conversation is lead by the teacher, and everyone tries to stay on the specific topic,
• a second service, where contemporary worship music is displayed on a screen, the kids are released for children’s church, and the pastor gives his sermon,
• a night service, an hour of class discussion identical in format to the earlier thirty minutes,
• and a Wednesday night service, with fun activities and a sermon from the youth minister (I’m not sure what it is for everyone else).

It seems to me that the pastor would get slightly bored during the second delivery of the same sermon in the same morning, but I won’t take issue with that right now. However, I do want to examine the Scriptures on the subjects of:

• sermons,
• corporate song and orchestration,
• and discussion.

I expect it to be readily obvious that sermons themselves are Biblical, as “the sermon on the mount” is one of the most-spoken phrases in the Church, but their Scriptural context contrasts with our custom. I won’t reference every sermon in Scripture, but I assert that not one of them was scheduled; all were -to the audience- apparently spontaneous, and prompted by the fact that something really needed to be said (or a false prophet needed to ‘earn’ his bread). But now the pastors are expected to fill an allotted time slot every week. Christ replaced the priests, so why do we think we should invent unscriptural clerical duties?

I also assert that corporate song, where an entire congregation is expected to worship with predetermined songs almost like clockwork, is completely absent from Scripture. Orchestration, on the other hand, with a team of musicians and singers praising, was used in battle (2 Chronicles 20) and the Temple (1 Chronicles 16:4-6; 23:5; 25:1; 2 Chronicles 29:25), but (judging by the topical indexes at BibleGateway.com) was only mentioned once (Palm Sunday) in the New Testament as a form of worship (except Revelation 5:8,9;14:2,3;15:2,3). As we can see, musical worship didn’t cease in Israel at Christ’s birth, but the Church was never advised to use it. Shouldn’t it take a back seat to the thing(s) we were advised, maybe even commanded, to use?

Discussion is the main thing, if not the only thing, I had in mind while typing the previous sentence. Unfortunately, there remains a stark contrast between Scriptural specifications and current practice: teachers direct conversation according to their lesson plans. Paul (Corinthians 14:26-33) says to discuss in an open forum. Jesus spoke in such a format, and indeed the entire history of Israel shows this to be the general case, the only exceptions which I know of being when an authority captures the attention of all by means of the open forum. Paul (Acts 20) discussed with a group of people of unknown (likely immense) size, and they were so engrossed that it continued till midnight (verse 7), not noon as is the modern convention.

The Sabbath, whichever day one holds it on, sets the spiritual and emotional pace for the entire week. Just like a physical pace, this one slows as the weary -and, in many cases, sleepy- pilgrim advances, so shouldn’t we start out as briskly as possible?

The Emerging Church

Some Christians, known as “the emerging church,” incorporate the postmodern worldview, hermeneutics, and terminology, and I wonder if this movement has any Biblical merit. Before I jump into the actual topic, some people might want a background of what “postmodern” means. Wikipedia says of postmodern philosophy, “The essential point is that the meaning of all things is colored by subjectivity, and that for a philosophy or ideology to pretend full objectivity is not only deceptive but also in some cases politically abusive.” At the least, I must agree that some human perceptions (e.g., of color) are subject to the humans who have them, but hold that this doesn’t change the absolute truth of what is being perceived. Wikipedia also notes a common (supposed?) misconception “that postmodern skepticism appears similar to relativism or even nihilism,” and McDowell, on page xlii of The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, seems to equate postmodernism and relativism, i.e. “Christianity may be true for you but it’s not true for me.” To my knowledge, however, there’s a consensus that postmodernism emphasizes confusion. I suppose the debate is mostly over whether it generates this confusion or simply exposes it.

The emerging church incorporates postmodernism by noting that we cannot fully know God and regarding “concealment as an aspect of revelation” rather than its opposite. It also includes at least one aspect of mysticism, namely dualism (i.e., that God is both known and unknown). I think the core of the emerging church is explained well in this paragraph from the last link:

Following the postmodern understanding of man as subjective, Rollins advocates an understanding of faith that pays careful attention to our limited ability to describe the subject of our faith. By describing our talk about God as iconic, and our Christian discourse as a/theological, Rollins highlights our limited ability to objectively speak of God. By affirming the place of silence and doubt within our theology, he suggests we should be comfortable with our limited ability. His overall goal is to communicate a humble faith comfortable with uncertainty and subjectivity, not pressured into foundational thinking, but resting in faith and trust that God is God regardless of our failed attempts at describing him. A nonfoundational theology values the known and unknown elements of God, recognizing the need for humility when doing theology.

Does this movement have the right idea in general? If “yes,” does it have any bad points? If “no,” does it have any good points? And how should we react to it?

Topics?

Hey, You!

-

What should I write about? I won’t necessarily apply your suggestions, but I’ll certainly take them!