1.  ”The descriptions of heaven are as diverse as those who believe in heaven. There does appear to be one constant. It will last for eternity. Imagine that. Imagine eternity.”

On the surface, this line is neutral. Just reading it, you can’t really tell how the reader is asking you to feel. A preacher, on any given Sunday, may say these exact words with the intention to cause you to think happily about an eternal existence. Indeed, for most people, living forever does sound like a great thing. But the mood of this video would indicate we should feel the opposite about eternity. Here, eternity is a bad thing. Eternity is presented as an evil. How odd.

2. “Given eternity, everything that can be accomplished will be accomplished. Beyond all achievements there will be only limitless, pointless existence.”

This statement assumes that life is about accomplishment. It portends that life, existence, only has a point if it achieves or works toward something. The Christian worldview does not hold life to such a standard. Accomplishment is not the reason for existence, as is suggested here. Instead, life is meant for community. God, as He did in the Garden, intends our existence to find it’s purpose and fulfillment in loving relationships… both with him and each other. Achievements are a byproduct of our ingenuity. And who’s to say that everything that can be accomplished will be… and even if it did, who knows how long that would take. It’s a weak statement that plays on the “eternity is boring” factor that has no more basis than I have to say “eternity is fulfilling.” It’s much better to simply admit we don’t know much about what eternity will be like, or how we will feel about it ultimately.

The Christian hope is simple. Heaven is a place where a relationship with God can be proximal and even more realized, and it is a place of harmony, fulfillment and love. And I personally think that “fulfillment” opens up the options pretty wide.

3. “The first hundred maybe be possible. The first thousand, more painful. The first ten thousand, insufferable. But this is just the start. An eternity in heaven, would be hell. For me.”

I’m curious what basis he has for the statement. This must based on some opinion about what  heaven will be like that misses the mark. A way to describe heaven is to think of a newlywed army man whose been sent away from his wife after only being married 3 months. He writes letters, emails, and video chats with her, and all of that. In that sense, he and her have a relationship that somewhat fulfills him. But he longs for the day when he can go home to be with her. To start a family, and begin the unknown journey of their marriage. Heaven is similar to that longing for the Christian. There is so much unknown about it, but there is certainty that the relationship, and spending time with your loved one (God) will be worth whatever is coming, as long as you’re together.

It’s a girly, romantic example (you can interchange husband and wife, with father and son if it makes you feel more masculine), and it’s a broken analogy — but it gets near the point.

4. “When we look at what a human being is, what their identity is. That I am this collection of my memories, my hopes, my dreams, my desires… My consciousness exists as a product of the brain that is in this body. That ends at death.”

This all assumes there is nothing spiritual about us. Here, it is too much to type to try an convince the materialist that there is more to us than we can see. I’ll simply note that the Christian worldview clearly accounts for more than our physical makeup when it speaks about who we are. From a materialist point of view, this is an accurate statement. But I am not materialist, and so, something must account for my spirituality as well, who is just as much “me” as my body is.

Your thoughts?

The post Why Atheists Are Wrong About The Afterlife (Part 3) appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

For reference, check out the video. This post will begin replying to the comments made from about 2:28 into the video.

1. “To me, living for the afterlife, thoughtlessly following a set of what-not-to-doodles which you cannot question, that’s basically de-valuing your life in favor of worshipping death.”

If there is no afterlife (as this person believes) then it certainly does seem troubling to “live” for the afterlife. And yet, true Christianity is not concerned so much with living now for a better life later. In fact, the whole premise of grace (which we’ll get more into in point 4 below) is that your day-to-day life on Earth matters very little to where we spend eternity. In other words, the “what-not-to-doodles” this person rejects means little. Christians believe we will face a judge who will hold us accountable to the ways we’ve lived. And because that judge’s standard is perfection (and since we are not perfect), we are guilty. Thus, our entry into heaven has little to do with us, but everything to do with Jesus.

No amount of good can counter our bad. This is not unusual even in our courts in America. We wouldn’t expect to escape the paying a traffic ticket by saying, “But your honor, I’ve obeyed thousands of stop lights. Can’t you just give me a break for this one?” or “Okay, your honor, how about I make up the fact that I ran this red-light by obeying 1000 more red lights.”  No go. Nice try, but you’d still have to pay the ticket. In the same way that the traffic light is there to enhance life, Christian “what-not-to-doodles” (which come from God) have more to do with enjoying life on Earth, not for some afterlife reward.

2. “Apart from a lack of evidence of heaven or hell, there is another problem that the concept of an afterlife has. It is to diminish the value that we place on our lives in the here and now.”

This is an immature way to view life. It is, if you will, the teenager who screams they should be able to do whatever they want now, because they are after all, only teens. And to learn the skills, or practice a discipline (like homework), needed later in their adult life “diminishes” their teenage fun and experience. While there are scenarios where this is true (both of life and of teenagers), the mass majority of our comfort and “experiences” have to do with prepping us for the next phase of life. This courses through all of life. And doing so does very little to diminish the “now.” In fact, it is quite irresponsible not to live this way.

So, whether there is indeed a heaven, hell, or whatever after this life, it is perfectly reasonable to consider what comes after. And for those of us who believe this Earthly life is an age before an age, then it further provides good reason to live our lives with a wink toward that afterlife, just as we do all phases of our life now.

3. “An unlimited supply of anything, including life, means that his existence cannot be appreciated. If life is eternal, then there should be no sense of urgency.”

This is a troubling statement. While it is economically true that value is proportionate to scarcity, I’d also say everything has an exception (or at least most things). Life would be such an exception. However, let’s go on to suppose the reasoning in the quote is sound. A few questions. First, is the person suggesting eternal life is a bad thing, or simply that life cannot be appreciated unless it is finite? And if the former, can we conclude, then, that they feel death is good? If so, then a unique answer has been provided to the core of many atheistic problems with God regarding “bad things” or the fact that “death” was allowed in the first place. If death is a good thing, by an atheist’s reasoning, then God’s allowance of death is also good. Which means death speaks more for God than against him.

How interesting a proposition. Because if that were truly the case, eternal life would be appreciated only in death, which is precisely the sort of worldview the Christian believes to be true. The “urgency” has, again, little to do with rules for the sake of afterlife, but again (as described in point 2) for the fullness of life now. Which, as it turns out, is a rehearsal for life after now.

4. “The worst aspect of western monotheism is their system of judgment, wherein it doesn’t matter how good or bad you were in life. You won’t be judged according to your deeds the way it should be. It doesn’t matter what an evil, selfish, sadistic, bigoted, victimizer you were in life. All sins can be forgiven, if you but believe.”

This is the “worst” aspect? I can think of things far worse. Like the tendency to use Christianity (or religion) to boost ego with pride, money, influence and elitism in destructive ways.I’d say the worst aspect of western monotheism is the ease with which it is misused by extremists. Much like the worst aspect of a gun or a needle.

The idea of grace, which is explained so elegantly in this quote, is the most fascinating thing about Christianity. This facet of the Christian worldview sets it apart from nearly every other worldview on Earth. Again, here is a place where the atheists’ arguments turn on themselves. It is often argued that a God of love would forgive (on principle) the sins of us all, and thus all would go to heaven (if there were one). On the other hand, a truly just God would allow the better behaved to reap a better reward, which implies some sort of limitation to His forgiveness. Can’t do both. If God is going to forgive men, then he’ll forgive all of us. That really is the only just way.

If you are an atheist, and you disagree with the quote, then I’d like you to take note of the disagreement. The fact is, atheism does not have a standard of beliefs that all atheists adhere to. Much like Christianity, atheists disagree with each other. They can agree on “no God” but the reasons for that belief differ (and often contradict) each other much like they do in this video. The “moving target” that is atheism almost ensures there can be not definitive resolution… because there is no definitive stance. The ideas differ from person to person.

I digress, let’s go a little further in the video next post. Hope to see you there.

What are your thoughts about these quotes?

The post Why Atheists Are Wrong About the Afterlife (Part 2) appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

Today, I want to begin responding to a video  posted by TheThinkingAtheist which features a series of responses from prominent YouTubian atheists about the afterlife. It’s about nine minutes, so to treat it fully, I’ll have to make this a post series. Gotta try to keep the word count down on these things. So without further ado, check out the video then read on.

Death

We all struggle with death. Our own death, the death of a loved one, the death of the innocent. Admitting this must be the starting point for this conversation. It should be safe to say that for all of us, death has felt unfair, unjust, or imbalanced in one way or another at some time in our life. If you are among the few who has never felt this way about death, then it’s pointless to continue reading because the chance of ending the conversation respectfully will be minimal.

The subject of “afterlife” then, is the response to those negative feelings about death. As such, many of the views represented in the video seem to attempt to (to use Bible language) take the “sting” out of death by offering its inevitability as a beautiful, natural, even preferable and logical way for life to play itself out. I think the point of the video is that we don’t need a God (whom they feel doesn’t exist) or his heaven to make us feel better about dying. Instead, accepting the logical reasoning behind death can, well, comfort us. I disagree, of course, but I respect the way the video was put together.

1.  The Sand/Beach Analogy  

The first metaphor offered in the video asks if  one grain of sand  is removed from the beach does it cause the beach to behave differently. The point, of course, is that the universe is so vast a “beach” that our lives (even collectively, as humanity) amount comparatively to a grain of sand. Thus, our deaths do not send some shockwave to the universe that would suddenly stop it from functioning.

I agree with the analogy. I just don’t know what it has to do with afterlife or even the meaning of life. As a Christian, I look at the Bible as the story of Man. That is, I believe God gave us enough to know and speculate about our place in the universe.I see nothing in Christianity that suggests the universe is dependent on humanity in any way, so making this point only serves to disprove the idea that the universe was made for Man. Which, in the case of Christianity, is a non-issue. And when it was (decades ago) it was bad theology. We didn’t need science to tell us this, because a proper look at the scriptures would have shown us that God is the central piece to creation (not Man).

In fact, the Bible suggests Man’s lack of creational priority in James 4:14 where it says, “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” The Christian worldview believes God sustains the universe, not humanity. This reasoning, then, offers little to the conversation. It assumes that (for Christians) Man must be the center of creation to have meaning. When in reality, such a central position is not necessary for (nor does it align with) the Christian dogma of human purpose and meaning.

The quotes that follow expound on the metaphor by concluding that because we are so small, our lives must not hold much meaning. They don’t say this directly, but in using words like “insignificant”  the groundwork is being set that your life does not serve a particular purpose… at least not a purpose beyond what meaning you yourself may assign it.

2. “Why are you, and why was I, willing to sacrifice my humanity, sacrifice the sum total of human experience and interaction, and knowledge on the altar of a dream.”

There are, of course, many biblical answers to this question. But seeing that an atheist would regard what the Bible says much concerning this, it makes little sense to quote it. As such, the answer of the question becomes rather complex. I suppose we could devote much of our conversation to it. I’ll try to sum it up. It is no doubt heroic of soldiers to risk (or sacrifice) their lives for the idea that America represents. Sure there are tangible things about that American idea, like our freedoms and rights. But the idea of a society that thrives on excellence and opportunity is one that many are honored to have fought to further or maintain.

The question then, is why does anyone sacrifice their humanity, human experience, so forth and so on… for anything. And further, I would ask, why is such sacrifice considered so noble do theists and atheists alike.

The simple answer to this rhetorical question, is that Christian believe in something worth sacrificing for. And that something has everything to do with who God is to them, and what He designed them to accomplish on Earth.

3.  “…It’s just absurd to me, how many people live for dying in this way.”

This is the quote from Laci Green, and I’m not sure exactly what she’s saying. Probably because it’s not in the full context of her statement. No fault of hers, I guess. I like Laci. I think I remember seeing some of her videos a few years ago. I assume the pertinent portion of the quote is the latter portion — the “how many people live for dying in this way.” I assume the people she is referring to are Christians (but I suppose she could still be quoting someone).

This is particularly interesting wording. Again. I agree. The Christian worldview is (again, admittedly by the Bible) absurd to those with a different worldview. It’s historically always been that way. It’s not an “Aha!” moment to hear an atheist cannot logically come to terms with “living for dying” as she states. One might even say Jesus viewed his own life this way, since the Christian belief of Jesus’ ultimate purpose had more to do with his dying, then his gracious and philanthropic living.

I think that’s enough for Part 1.

Jump in the conversation with whatever thoughts you have…

The post Why Atheists Are Wrong About the Afterlife (Part 1) appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

Do you call immediately, risking that you are one of dozens of people calling offering condolences (which may not be a good thing, actually)? Or do you wait a day or two to call, to let the emotional tide calm down a bit and allow those closest to respond first? Sometimes I’m not so sure.

I know what I want to accomplish: I want my friends to know I genuinely care for them and that I  am sorry for the pain and hurt they are about to grieve through.

Seems simple enough. Just call them and let them know. Except…

Each time I hear a friend’s lost a loved one, I try to think about the way I’d want to be treated. And truth be told, if someone close to me died, I wouldn’t field most phone calls on day one. They’d go to voicemail. I’d only want to hear from my closest family and friends. From those impacted to near the same degree as I would be impacted. And that’s because, to me, what I need is someone to cry with, or someone to sit in silence with… or simply time to be alone. Pretty words and Christian death catchphrases like “they’re in a better place” and “God is still good” won’t help me. Not even a little bit.

One my vices is that I don’t take compliments well. And, as it turns out, I don’t take condolences well either. Mostly because, I don’t believe people mean them. And because I hold such skepticism, I feel weird offering catchphrase encouragement to others because I’m not sure people will receive them as authentic. In other words, I’m not sure those words communicate I care or that they will be helped by hearing them. They may (like me) find very little solace in the words. Especially since everyone is saying them.

Which puts me in a rather awkward position.

How can I effectively empathize with those who are feeling the pain of loss? How do I truly offer help in such a tough time, against the backdrop of so many other condolences? Not that the whole thing is about me. It isn’t. I just want the words I offer to mean something. Otherwise, I might as well have kept them to myself.

In the past few weeks, at least four people I know have lost loved ones. And with all four of them, I waffled with the thoughts above. Do I call as soon as I find out, or do I give them time? And in each, I did what I’d want others to do to me… which is to give them time. And when I spoke to them, I wondered what to say. Do I get Christian Hallmark on them with “all things work together for the good” or “they’re in a better place?” If not, then what do I say? Because I’m telling you right now, if I were to lose my wife and someone were to tell me “she’s in a better place” I just might bite their heads off. Not because I don’t believe she would be, but because that’s not the sort of thing I’d want to hear. In fact, I don’t think I’d want to hear much of anything. Which, in turn, makes me not want to say much of anything to others when they are grieving.

Seems silly really. But, as I said before, I simply want my words and/or actions to mean something. I want to be real and respectful, as well as empathetic and loving.

So, pray for me as I engage in the many situations ahead of me!

Prayer: God, thank you for you mercy and your grace. And for the many ways you humble me. Continue to teach me to rely on you, for everything, including how to best minister to those who are hurting around me. You know my heart, and you know what they need. Connect those two as only can, and we’ll be careful to give you all the glory. In Jesus name…

Do you struggle with how to help your friends respond to the deaths of their loved ones?

The post A Better Place appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

Nonetheless, let’s talk about once again today, but from what I think is a rather unique perspective.

Reading the title, you’re probably wondering how I could ever call a good person selfish. I could tell you where such audacity comes from, but that’s too long a tale. Instead, let’s just get to it.

Moral Theology

Moral Theology is the idea that God (if there is one) simply wants us to be good people. Good people, by the definition of those holding to this view, refers to the sort of people who seek the good of others. It refers to contributors to society. It refers to respect of people, charity, hospitality and good etiquette. And the greatest of good people, the heroes among us, contribute so much that it hurts them. Firemen, soldiers, icons of civil rights movements, and other such people are universally considered heroes for their great acts of selflessness for the common good. No religion is needed to accept these notions, and no religion really stands against them. Not even Satanism. (In fact, many Satanist are the most polite, agreeable, and charitable sort of people you’ll ever meet).

The argument is furthered by the notion that, if God waiting to judge us when we die, he’d be quite happy with a good person, and would grant him access to eternal bliss (whatever that may be). After all, good people deserve good things. That’s justice.

On the surface, that sounds more than harmless. And in the face of so many religions vying for our attention, it sounds refreshingly simple and indisputable.

Selfish vs. Selfless

I believe we can dispute this sort of thinking in several ways. We could talk about how works-based this sort of thinking is, and  how that’s a bad thing. But I’m afraid those who most Moral Theologians (if I may) would agree it is works based, and that’s why it makes sense to them. Only Christians are persistent about this grace concept that frees us from earning eternity. The rest of the world, religious and irreligious, seem to agree with the general premise of a God whose currency is good deeds.

The folks holding on to “just being a good person” have often heard the Christian sales pitch, and for them grace did not compute. Thus to pound on “being saved through faith and grace”, does little help us over the stumbling block in the way of their accepting Jesus. In fact, it may only serve to reinforce it.

But as it turns out, Moral Theology betrays itself. And it does so when it matters the most.

Most of us would agree the ultimate definition of goodness involves a fair amount of selflessness. As mentioned already, the heroes of our community are not those who risked their lives to save themselves, but those who risked their lives to save others. To go further, an even better than good person is someone who performs goodness purely for the sake of others, with no expectation of return.

But everything goes topsy-turvy once we’re standing before God. Because, should God ask us why we should get into Heaven, I think we’d all be quick to offer all of our “good” works. We’d be ready to remind God that we, in essence, deserve heaven because we were good and selfless in our lives.

But wouldn’t it be true that, by the very definition of selfless, no reward is deserved at all? Isn’t it true that the moment we seek to cash in on our goodness, it becomes self-serving instead of selfless.

Most of us do our jobs really well. But there is a difference between someone who goes above and beyond because they believe in what the company is about, and another who goes above and beyond in order to be considered for the promotion. The difference is motivation.

What the judgment of God will reveal to us is the true motive behind our actions. And if goodness, at its very core, is about us in any way, then, by our very own definition, it’s not goodness. The only true goodness is sacrifice. True goodness often goes unpaid, unrecognized because the goal of goodness is not to receive anything, but to give freely. So when we stand before God and he asks us why he’d let us into heaven, our goodness cannot be our answer. Because the moment we utter goodness for our benefit, it ceases to be goodness and becomes selfishness.

Quite the quandary.

This is one of the reasons the Bible says our righteousness is as filthy rags. It’s a reason Jesus gives us his righteousness to claim as our own. And it’s one reason we cannot bank on a Moral Theology that earns us salvation by trying to place God in debt to us by our deeds. God will never  owe us anything.

We can overcome this situation with a few simple admissions. We are not qualified to God by our goodness. We do not feel the pressure to measure up. Instead, we are objects of God’s affection, and vessels to be used to spread His desire for relationship with all those around us. And in the end, it’s not that God will let us into his heaven because we’ve earned it. It will be because we love him, and have proven that love through a life of selfless deeds for which He gets the credit, not us.

“There is none good but the Father…” Jesus said. He’s right again.

 Do you believe all good people go to Heaven? How would you define “good”?

The post Why Being a “Good Person” is Selfish appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

It’s a subject, like many here at Candid Christianity, that’s hard to cover in a little blog. Truly giving it the consideration it needs leads us into fundamental conversation about God and his motives, grace and it’s purpose, and the definition of salvation.

The popular Bible verses used to support the once saved, not always saved view are:

• “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins.”  Hebrews 10:26
• For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2:21,22.
• “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” Luke 8:12, 13.

Strong passages. They certainly seem to support the idea that salvation can be lost. Now, we  could address each of these verses, but we don’t have the time to do it. However, a different passage, Hebrews 6:4-6 presents the most convincing argument. Let’s look at that one for a second.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

That one’s a doozy.

False Start

The issue is how to deal with sin after salvation. Which, to me, means we must begin by defining salvation. I’ll admit to my disenchantment with verbiage like “salvation” and “saved” because I think it caters to our sinful survivor nature. The emphasis of salvation from Hell, while certainly true, has created a generation of Christians who see salvation as survival rather than surrender. In other words, many (so-called) Christians have decided following Jesus simply helps keep them from Hell.

I don’t believe salvation is meant to be received that way.

The gospel of grace, while good news to us because of  Jesus’ payment of our sin, is only good news because of the opportunity it affords us to choose to be near God. And as the scriptures indicate, in order to draw nearest to God, we must be ready to surrender all. If Jesus showed us nothing else on the cross, he showed us that salvation is the result of sacrificing our lives to God — picking up our crosses to lead a life driven by Him. Salvation is not simply a decision we make to escape Hell. That’s a selfish decision. God calls us to be selfless.

This is important because I believe many Christians, should they interrogate themselves about their “salvation,” might find they are driven by selfish motives (surviving/escaping Hell) rather than selfless motives. And if that is the case, there is no reason to believe such selflessness will cease now that you think you are on the other side of eternity. Said more simply, many who profess Christianity may not be Christians after all. So maybe the real question is not can you lose your salvation, but rather were you ever really “saved” to begin with.

Survival is not the only misapplied motive to so-called salvation. Works (doing what we think will make God happy) is perhaps an equally shared motivation of many so-called Christians. Saying the prayer, coming to church, singing in the choir, giving to the poor — these are all actions some Christians think makes God happy. And they are right. But doing such works will never qualify us to be “saved.” Again, the reason Romans 10:9 says “if you confess with your mouth,” is because doing so in Roman society at that time was  risky. A public profession could very well mean your life, and thus, making a public confession revealed faith in, trust in, and surrender to God. It was not a good to-do item in God’s How-To-Be-Born-Again handbook.

Perhaps then it is true that most inquiries about once-saved-always-saved can be best challenged by investigating the integrity of one’s own salvation.

Amazing Grace

The Hebrews 6:4-6 passage, however, could be read as presenting true believers as backsliding. Dr. Constable’s notes read…

“The writer could describe Christians fairly as those who were once ‘enlightened’. The ‘heavenly gift’ of which they have ‘tasted’ at conversion seems to refer to salvation. Any attempt to interpret tasting as only partial appropriation (i.e., the idea that they tasted it but did not swallow it) is not credible.”

The good Dr. seems to believe the folks represented in this passage are true believers. Me, I’m not so sure. Enlightened in the passage could simply mean they understand (mentally) the gospel, and the heavenly gift may simply be making reference to their understanding of grace. Partaking of the Holy Spirit presents a challenge, but the Bible has shown how the Holy Spirit can move in those who do not claim him… and so on.

A much more significant case against the ideas some think this verse propagates is the very doctrine of grace. True salvation is not something you worked your way into, so it does not stand to reason you can work your way out of it. If the presence of sin, maybe even the same sins one struggled with prior to salvation, removes your salvation (as Hebrews and 2Peter suggest) then I don’t suppose anyone’s salvation has lasting power. We are all struggling with the same sins. Even the great trailblazer Paul expresses his disdain with his own actions (Romans 7,8). Paul knows he should do one thing, and yet finds himself doing the opposite. Is there no repentance then for Paul?

Sure there is.

Because we are pure spirits living in sinful bodies. And the natural tension between these two natures battling it out in us often result in the very sin we are delivered from. Repeatedly. Does this mean God has forgotten us? That He does not forgive us those sins? If so, where do you draw the line for sins that are not forgiven.

I am under the influence that once one has truly surrendered his life to God, there is no going back. Yes, we will fail. But God’s grace is sufficient. If it were not, then we would never have been saved in the first place.

So what are you thoughts? Do you think you can lose your salvation?

The post Once Saved Always Saved… Maybe appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” – John 20:22http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:22&version=NIV

I think that’s hilarious! I’m not sure Jesus said it with the same gusto the average irate New Yorker says it with, but it’s funny to me anyway. So let’s set up the scene real quick. Jesus had already resurrected and Simon Peter Johnson (get it, because Peter was the “son of John” in verse 17. hee hee) had gone back to his fishing. I guess he  thought his work was done. Anyway Jesus showed up while Peter, John and Thomas were out casting nets one day. Long story short, Jesus ends up telling them where the fish are, they catch 153 of them (like, exactly that number) and Jesus invites them to grab a couple and join him for breakfast.

Once they finished eating, Jesus turned and asked Peter if he loved him (an interesting choice of words for you Calvinists out there). In fact, he asked him this three times, each time followed by a “feed my sheep.” A popular preaching point for this scripture makes note of how Jesus “redeems” or “commissions” Peter three times… the same number of times Peter betrayed his knowledge of Jesus. Anywho, Jesus goes on to foretell the latter years of Peter’s life, and how he’ll need to have some one dress him and lead him around.

… and that’s when Peter was like, “What about that stalker dude that’s eavesdropping on our conversation.” Okay, not really. But John (“the one Jesus loved” per the author, who happens to be John) was apparently creeping, trying to listen in on the conversation. And Peter did ask about what would happen to him.

And that’s when Jesus dropped it. “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 

Boom.

“You’re Worrying About the Wrong Thing”

So what are we to gather from this?

Well, I think it’s pretty simple. God has specific plans for each of us. And though many times we quote and dedicate our children to the ever popular Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future,”  it doesn’t make it so for all of us. In fact, Jesus had just suggested the opposite for Peter. There would be harm for Peter, as history confirms. So why did Jesus come down so hard, so fast on Peter when he asked about what would happen to his fellow disciple? Because, basically it was none of his business. What God had for Peter was for Peter. And what God had for John is for John. And what God has for you and me, is for you and me.

It’s so often that ministry is stifled by our over attentiveness to other ministries, instead of following Jesus’ lead for our ministries. I love Peter because he is the one disciple that is most like I am. Like many of us. We may sometimes ask, “God, I see you allowed this or that thing in my life, but what about that guy? I’m doing the same things he is, but why is he not suffering the way I am?” Or, we’ll try the negative version. “God, I asked for this and that, and you haven’t given it to me. But that guy over there is doing way worse, and he gets all the good stuff.”

Paul can help us here if we look in his letter to the Romans, where he says, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall.” In essence, like a good friend of mine used to say “You worryin’ ’bout the wrong thangs!”

It’s so like us, in our competitive, capitalist culture to compare ourselves. When in reality, God, the ultimate judge, is the only one qualified to truly define goodness and justice. What is “fair” to us, from our very limited perspectives, may not be fair at all to the God of the heavens who sees and knows all.

So then, our job is simple. We must follow Jesus. We must allow him to take the wheel, and we must trust that God knows what He’s doing with us and our ministry, as well as with those ministries at work around us.

What’s it to ya, huh?  Man, sometimes Jesus cracks me up in the scriptures. So funny, and yet so profound.

The post When Jesus Said “What’s It To Ya!” appeared first on Antwuan Malone.

How consistent.

We’ve been trying to figure out the best way to do that ever since. In part 1 of this Discipleship 101  series, we determined discipleship  first involves equipping his disciples. Such equipping begins with Jesus inviting us to walk beside him, to follow Him, so that he can equip us to be fishers of men. We learned how this flies in the face well-meaning, but ultimately misguided plans for Christian discipleship that for whatever reason skips  the “prepatory” stages to plunge headlong into the field of mission. Jesus means to make us fishers of men, not simply call us and send us.

Admittedly, from a sequencing standpoint I flip-flopped when deciding which idea — equipping or engaging — is first in the process. I settled on equipment as the first step because I don’t believe God sends us into situations for which He has not prepared us.

And by “not prepared,” I mean we are not in a place where we can hear God’s voice clear enough to even consider obeying it. It’s possible that, in conversations like this, phrases like “equipped” or “prepared” could be taken to mean “taught” or “instructed.” Or that evangelism requires some form of training. Equipping, in this sense, is meant as a teaching term.

That’s half right. There is certainly a place for being able to make a defense for your faith, but the most important of all “training” produces an acute awareness to God’s Spirit as He directs your next step.

Prepared, in the context of Christian discipleship, simply means we are in a place to hear what the Spirit tells us, and that we are willing to obey Him. After all, our trust in our teacher and guide (the Holy Spirit) can only be proven by our obedience to what He says, even when what He says seems more than we are able to do. Sure, we need teaching and preaching to facilitate growth as a disciple. But getting close enough to hear what God is saying personally — that’s what Jesus called his disciples to when he said “follow me.” That’s why the veil split after He was crucified. That’s what God’s gone through so much trouble to make available to us.

The Next Step

Once we have understood equipping, engaging those around us is the natural next step.

However, engagement, it turns out, is even more tricky. At first it is natural to engage those around us. But then we begin to realize that the gospel doesn’t always fit nicely into place in the secular society. We soon find people who are confused and/or resistant to the good news of God’s grace. Or that they are willing to take on partial truths, rather than truth in its entirety.

The question then is, how can we engage a secular society to make disciples out of them? How do we speak spiritual truths in spiritual words to carnal ears? How can the gospel be made plain to any cultural mindset and people group we encounter?

So much of discipleship requires serious consideration of these questions. Because, if we are to take the Truth to the world the way Jesus and Paul did, we must know enough about the world’s various cultural mindsets and patterns to be able to bridge the spiritual/carnal gap. In other words, we must learn to speak the language of the natives.

It’s funny, I could read the Bible front to back to a run full of Chinese people. But unless they speak English, or I speak Chinese, it will do very little good. To make the Bible mean something, I’ve got to get to the place where we communicate through the same language. The same is true for non-linguistic barriers as well. Understanding the culture of those whom you seek to disciple transports us into their worlds, and gives us much larger influence. Once we’ve have done that, we can begin communicating the gospel through stories, arts, illustrations, and common language that facilitate Truth’s path to the heart. And transformation can begin.

Jesus exemplified this for his disciples as He went from town to town. He spoke parables using characters and scenarios his audiences understood. He complied to, and broke (when necessary), social taboos for effect – in order to reveal a truth. He knew what their questions were, what they valued, what their idols were, etc… And he used them to reveal the Truth.

Our engagement in discipleship must follow suit. But it will take work. It takes more than Bible tracks and mailing invites. We’ve got to be ready to go to where the people are, and learn about them. Then, we can begin to cultivate the kinds of relationships where true discipleship can thrive. Engaging the culture is a crucial element to discipleship?

How well do you think the Church engages the culture? What are some of the pitfalls of  engaging the culture, and where are some of the treasures?

The post Discipleship 101: Engagement appeared first on Antwuan Malone.