Apaulogetics

Kingdom Perspective

2013-08-26T13:59:00.000-07:00

Few of us, I think, truly feel that we have found the one and absolute calling on our lives professionally. I would hope that most pastors feel God has called them. I truly believe God does call many of us to specific vocations, specifically those in the ministry. The apostle Paul, for example. I wouldn't dare say Jesus revealed himself to Paul to give him an idea of what he may consider doing in the future. God called Paul. If he called Paul, he calls others. But, I'm not convinced he does this for each of us. Perhaps he does. God's sovereignty leaves nothing to chance... he does ordain our steps. What HAS he called each of us to do? The answer is in John 6:29 - "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

I think much of our angst about finding our calling is actually selfish, though it may be cloaked in what we think is a pursuit of obedience. We want to find fulfillment. We want to be satisfied by what we do. Don't mistake me, I want this too. We all want to have lives of meaning and significance, and this is surely not a bad thing in itself. But, it can be.

I was in 7-11 earlier, where you'll often find me... and while in line a picture came to mind. I pictured myself as a small child bent down trying to pick up a quarter from the sidewalk. The quarter was elusive. It's on its side under a grate, finger-length deep. I'm straining to line my fingers up just right so that I can pull it out. It will happen, it'll just take a moment. God is my dad, five paces ahead. He turns back to his left, left arm extended back saying, "Let's go... we need to keep going." This was a picture, not a video... it ends there.

What I know, though, is that my dad is leading me to a place with roads paved with gold, full of emeralds and diamonds. Wealth beyond imagination. He's taking me there and I'll share in the wealth. I tell him I believe I know where he's taking me. I do believe this is where he'll take me... I believe I trust him. And yet, I find it necessary to spend a few minutes grasping for this elusive quarter-dollar. I don't see my dad looking at my angrily, but more in the line of, "If you'd only get it. If you'd only listen, really listen to what I've said about where I'm taking you..."

Not one of us would spend a lick of time chasing after a quarter on our way to pick up a check for a billion dollars. I know the only reason that would lead me to do this is a lack of belief in the reality that I'll be receiving this check. In John 6:27-28 just before speaking the words above, Jesus says," Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you." In 1 Corinthians 2:9 we are told, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"

So, what does all this have to do with calling? Maybe you can relate - I know for me it's the internal struggle of seeking satisfaction, significance, influence, wealth, and happiness in this life. I believe the quarter will help. I believe if I pick up enough quarters I'll be a bit happier on my way to the paradise that awaits me beyond. This is ONLY true if: 1. I really don't believe in this paradise and don't trust my father. And/Or 2. I believe that on my way there I need to amass as much as I can (for you this may be money, relationships, fame, influence, etc.) in order to enjoy the walk.

If we could only catch a glimpse of the timeline of eternity! If we could only see that this life is an atom-wide spot on the 4 billion-mile timeline of our eternal lives. I really believe that the more I can come to understand this fact, the less anxiety I'll experience, the less I'll care whether I ever make that million, whether I get that part, whether I make my mark on this world. I pray for myself and each of us that we'll stand up and decide to be content to walk hand-in-hand with our heavenly Father as he takes us to his home. In this home I'm told I'll be his son, that I'll be a co-heir with Christ. I don't think all the quarters in the world will compare.

On Romans 3:21-28

2013-07-08T22:50:00.000-07:00

The following essay is less of a blog post than it is some thoughts on a passage. I'm privileged to have a friend who is a biblical scholar and he was working on Romans 3:21-28 and asked if I would take a stab at it and share my thoughts with him... I have NO idea why he would ask me for my thoughts, but it was nice of him. What follows is the email I wrote to him with my reflections on Romans 3:21-28. I recommend you read the passage before reading my thoughts. Thanks for reading.

On Romans 3:21-28

Though this passage has a great deal to say about justification by faith (vs. 22, 26 - wonderful), propitiation (vs. 25 - wonderful), and substitutional atonement (vs. 25 - wonderful), I believe the focus of this passage is not on the wonder of our salvation in Jesus Christ, but that in this God's Righteousness is now shown (as it was, in part, by the law in the time of the law and prophets).

I tried to draw this out a few times and couldn't quite get it right, so I'll use words. You can picture God as the sun and his people are separated from him by a great cloud. But, this cloud has a hole in the center in which a great light shines through - this ray of light is God's law. Though we were separated from God by our sin and curse, his righteousness is still made known to us as it pierces this cloud. The point is God's righteousness was made known through his law at this time. We often talk about the law as less of something that we can truly own up to as much as it is something to show us our own weakness in comparison to God's glory and righteousness. We saw his righteousness shine through the clouds in the form of a ray of light which had his essence and character, but the law itself was not God. It showed us a great deal about what he was like - but the law itself was not himself.

But now, Paul says, the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (vs. 21). In 22, he says that it is now displayed "through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe." They are justified "by his grace as a gift" through the redemption in Jesus. I think we can miss a point here. It's less that his grace has allowed us to be justified... I don't think it is saying, "because God was so nice (graceful) that he allowed us to be redeemed through Jesus Christ." His grace is not given as the reason behind the gift of justification. Jesus' redemptive work is the means by which his grace is apportioned/given/bestowed upon us. In my mind, it's helpful to understand this by replacing the word "grace" in vs. 24 with "righteousness." Paul is telling us that God's own righteousness is gifted to us by the means of Jesus Christ. His righteousness was put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith ("righteousness" entered into vs. 25). I'm not saying that righteousness is the better word - I'm certain that "grace" is the appropriated word. But, I believe that the point is well made to understand his grace as his loving kindness but also his righteousness itself. We are saved by his grace. We are saved by his righteousness, and not our own as Paul goes onto say in vs. 27-28.

The paragraph culminates in the profundity of vs. 26 - "It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Again, Paul's focus is not necessarily on the means of our salvation, which is wonderful and profound, but it is on the fact that in this way God has now shown/displayed/expressed/

revealed his righteousness to us in more fullness.

1. In the time of the law God's righteousness was displayed through the law

2. In the time of Christ and in Christ God's righteousness has been displayed by God's own redemptive work in Jesus Christ as the justifier of those in Christ.

3. When we are with the Lord his righteousness will be seen in its fullness to us, as we now see through a glass darkly.

We can see that God has progressively revealed himself to us, first in the law then through Jesus Christ's justifying act (and the holy spirit) - one day we will see him in his fullness.

Though one can make this a man-centered passage about God's great love for us, I believe it is a God-centered passage about the revealing of God's righteousness in this new way of being the great justifier. He has revealed himself in the law that no man can keep fully and so, in his justice (vs. 26), he has himself revealed his glory further in justifying those same people who could not match his represented glory in the law.

As I described the law as a ray of light piercing through the clouds, God has revealed himself and his glory further. God's righteousness is now literally placed upon our heads. He "righteousnesses" us in Jesus. It is not a straining to attain but a resting in the being in Christ. I am reminded of John 4:13, one of my favorite passages in John. He meets a woman at a physical well. She must come back to the well again and again to be replenished, just as we had to come back for forgiveness and life under the law. What amazes me is that Jesus does not say the water he gives will become a "well of water welling up to eternal life." It would have made sense, as he was at a well... would have been convenient, no? He says he offers a "spring of water" which wells up. God does not call us to dig man-made wells to get to his righteousness. In Jesus, God in his grace has made us to wade in the spring of water which he has placed us in. We no longer strive for justification because it is ours - he extols the Christian to bathe in his spring of grace, not dig the well of righteousness by effort.

This passage surely has great and comforting promises of our justification by God's righteousness and not our own - but what makes this all the better is that it is found in his righteousness displayed and given, not attained or earned, as God, too, is the giver of faith.

Written: September 30, 2011

They Had Been With Jesus

2013-06-11T18:43:00.000-07:00

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus"

- Acts 4:13

And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

I was struck by this as I was doing my reading today. Peter and John had just been arrested, spent the night in jail, and were being reprimanded and warned not to preach about Jesus. Peter and John would not relent. The leaders and elders were so struck, though, by their boldness they could not help but know that they had been changed by Jesus.

These were uneducated, unimpressive, lower-class men before they knew Jesus. They may not have been especially poor individuals, but it is clear they were not exceptional by any means. The leaders of the synagogue knew this, yet these men were different. Not because they went to seminary. Not because they completed a "best life now" training course. Not because they tried really hard. They were bold and different because they had been with Jesus. Jesus changed them and infused them with a mission, an identity, a purpose that is greater than all others.

Friends, people know when we have been with Jesus. Lately I have been on this "spiritual discipline" kick, if you can call that a kick. It's not about Moralism or checking off the spiritual to-do list. It's about being with Jesus. If you don't spend time with Him, you see it and others see it. If you spend time with Him, you are changed and this change, this infusion of the Spirit spills out... people notice. People are affected.

I am continuing to be encouraged by scripture and the Spirit to be with Jesus. He wants to change me and renew me. And, he wants others to be changed and renewed. How do we do this? We read his word, we pray (more than 3 minutes before bed), we practice silence, listening to Him. If we want boldness in our life people need to see us and be able to say, "they have been with Jesus."

Written: January 19, 2011

Simplicity

2013-06-07T16:22:00.000-07:00

We have such a difficulty as men with this simplicity of seeking God’s kingdom and his righteousness above all else. It is among our greatest issues in my view. Many of us seek to have our cake and eat it too. “I want to be rich, but not to be fixated on my riches. I want to be both successful in the world’s eyes and in the Lord’s. I want to be an example of a rich successful person who doesn’t put his riches before God. I am the exception. I won’t struggle with finding satisfaction in my wealth like most men would. I deserve to have both God’s simplicity and earthly wealth.” How unbiblical this is! Yet most of us feel this way at our core! I feel this way! Why are we unwilling to trust in God’s word? Why must I be the exception? We love to picture those wealthy men in our lives who embody God’s gift of simplicity and generosity in their lives, yet who among us looks at the man with no great wealth who lives simply before God and men and says, “I want that!” We often desire to be in the circumstances where temptation to take our eyes of the Lord are greatest and walk the “healthy line” in that circumstance, yet who among us seek only God’s kingdom and his peace without a care of personal affluence? We want to be with the hottest girl in the world, yet not place too much value in appearance. We want wealth without greed or a hoarding mentality. We want to be looked up to by both the world and in God’s kingdom. Yet, often these things are not congruent, yet we choose the world’s common sense above God’s word.

Written: December 18, 2010

John 1-3: The Whole Gospel is Here

2013-06-06T21:08:00.000-07:00

It's amazing what happens when you really read scripture. I mean really read it. We often skim along, "read this, understand that, I know what happens here...skipping ahead." And at other times, even when we are truly spending time in a passage, it is all too easy to see only the obvious. Jesus turned water into wine... cool story! His first miracle was making alcohol for a wedding! Cool. Jesus must like parties. Or, "Come follow me." I get it, Jesus asks his new disciple to follow him. Simple. Got it.

But there is such an incredible depth behind the simplest of verses... even the ones that seem to have one simple, even strong, obvious meaning.

I've just been digging into John 1-3. I did not know this... but Jesus gives us the entire gospel in the first three chapters.

The first words uttered by Jesus in the book of John are, "What do you seek?" Yes, Jesus said this to two men who were probably awkwardly following behind him as he walked. But look deeper. "What do you seek?" This is really the big question every man and woman asks him or herself in life. What do I seek? What do I want? What is this life about?

Next, we have the answer: "Come and you will see." Jesus' answer here is in response to the question, "where are you staying?" Simple right? Some guys ask him where he's staying and he gives a simple answer, come and find out. But is this not the invitation Jesus gives to all who are seeking? He says to us, "come with me and you will see what it is you seek." We see an even clearer example of this in vs. 43 when he calls Phillip. He simply says, "Follow me." Jesus offers an invitation to follow him.

The next passage is the all-too famous turning of water into wine, his first miracle. We all know it's his first miracle. I tend to think of it fondly as Jesus' endorsement of wine, which I happen to love. But looking deeper, it's incredibly meaningful and significant. This may not be the only "truth" in this passage, but it has struck me. We tend to see water as the most life-giving of substances. This is probably true. But in Judaism water most often symbolized death (the flood, baptism is a death and rebirth as we emerge from it, etc.). Wine often symbolizes life and abundance, even spiritual love. Jesus' first act of ministry is to turn death into life. He is showing us the core of who he is. He the man that turns death into life.

Next, Jesus turns over the tables and pours out the coins in the temple. We often see this as Jesus showing his more masculine side, right? He's furious, so he acts. He takes charge. He stands up for God's name. This is true. But, there is more! We know that we as Christians are called God's temple. He dwells in us through his Spirit. Jesus has come to this temple to drive out that which has taken the place of His holiness and purpose for this temple. Namely, sin. Jesus then tells us how he'll do it.

Jesus predicts is his death for the first time. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" He was just in a temple, a literal temple. He's talking about that temple, right? No. He is talking about his body. John explains this. This is the cross. We could stop here and it's pretty complete overcast of the gospel. But, the final forecast is given in chapter 3.

Jesus begins to talk about the kingdom of God. Want to see it? First, you must be born again... not physically but spiritually. Notice the capital "S" in verse 6 of chapter three. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." We must be born of God by his Spirit to see his kingdom. Are you able to do this, will yourself to be born? Nope. We are born of the Spirit. Jesus begins to tell us about the sovereignty of God here.

And lastly he explains the saving power of the cross. He has foreshadowed his death already when he mentioned the temple. But, here we see the purpose more fully. Jesus tells Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel by the way, about the serpent that Moses lifted up on a pole that whoever looked upon would be forgiven (interesting to note, too, that Nicodemus represents the Jews here who rejected and would not recognize him as a people). Jesus goes onto say that he too must lifted up, that whoever believes (looks upon) in him may have eternal life.

And that's the whole of the gospel in 3 chapters, foreshadowed... and what's the very next verse? What do you know... John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

And there is a broad stroke of Jesus, tied up in a little bow.

1. What do you seek?

2. Come and see/Follow me.

3. Jesus turns water to wine (death to life).

4. Jesus battles sin in the temple (the body).

5. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.

6. Jesus explains how one receives forgiveness/eternal life.

7. Seven, the number of completion, wholeness perfection... Jesus tells us the master plan, the title of this great book that God is writing.

Written: February 7, 2011

Jesus the Man

2013-06-05T15:34:00.000-07:00

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

- John 3:16-17

We've all seen this verse before. It's likely the most well-known verse in the entire Bible. It's a verse we often quote and look to as an expression of the incredible love of God.

But, what does it say about manhood? Nothing? Look again.

It may feel harder than ever in these times to understand what makes a man. Is it power, wealth, maturity, a 401k, owning a house? Left to ourselves, it seems "manhood" would be defined by what our surrounding culture tells us a man is. Living in that paradigm might lend some markers to manhood, but I would be left unsure. So many things the world tells me define me as a man seem out of my control, out of grasp. I cannot will myself to own a home (anytime soon), have a huge bank account, lead others, succeed in achieving all my life's ambitions and dreams. These are circumstances I may find myself in as a man, but they do not define me. We all understand that these things don't define us, but we often act as if they do.

There are a ton of qualities that a true man, we could say, must possess: integrity, honesty, humility, compassion, strength. None of us would argue that these are not good things; indeed, they are. But do they define a man? What actually defines a man? It's a good thing we are not left to discover this for ourselves...

Jesus was the man. I mean, he was THE man. He also happened to be God. Not a bad combo for a role-model. Let's look at what he had to offer.

In John 3:16-17 we see that God loved the world, he valued it. The first point to note is that God loves. God is love. But there is a problem. In verse 16 the Word says that without his Son we would perish. He desired that we would not perish, so what does he do? He saves us. He, Jesus, takes responsibility for my problem. God would have been well within his rights to say, "not my death, not my problem." But he doesn't. He moves. He acts. Why does he do this? To give life. Jesus came in an act of love to save for the benefit of life. Jesus is a life-giver. He is not a consumer, he is not passionate about receiving what the world can offer him, but with what he can offer the world... and this is life.

This is our model. As men, we must be committed to lovingly give of ourselves in service as an act of life-giving to others. Now, you and I are not in the place of savior. Jesus is the savior. So what do we do? We lovingly give of ourselves to others that they may have life in Jesus Christ. This boils down to two things that I are easily understood: 1. Take responsibility for yourself and for others. A man doesn't pass the buck, in fact he might even ask for it. 2. Be a producer of life-giving fruit that blesses others. Don't be a consumer, sucking the life/resources of others. Tall order, huh? Yep. Sounds impossible for me.

It's a good thing scripture says this:

"With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."

- Mark 10:27

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

- 2 Peter 1:3-8

God has chosen us by the witness and act of Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit to point others towards Jesus, the giver of life.

You can focus on attaining manhood all you want. But, you can become a "man" and look nothing like Jesus. But if you come to look like Jesus, I think you'll find that you are a man.

God has given us a world to enjoy. I truly believe we are to enjoy our food and drink, our jobs, our friends and families. We can take pleasure in the fruits of this world. But if the pleasures of this world come even close to surpassing the blinding glory of God in our eyes, we are missing it. We must be men who desire God's glory above all else. This is a tall, difficult order. But we find our most epic example of this in action in Jesus' death. He died that life would come. We too must die to ourselves and receive true life from the life-giver. This is a life of freedom. We are no longer slaves to our ambitions, to the pressure to succeed. We find true freedom in the giving-up. I can't do it. You can't do it. But, God can... let's let him do it. Let's give him the glory, I don't deserve it and if I had it I wouldn't know what to do with it.

P.S. If we want to look like Jesus, guess what, we need to get to know who he is.

Written: February 3, 2011

What If It's All True

2013-06-04T18:13:00.000-07:00

While painting and cleaning today, I listened to several Ravi Zacharias sermons/talks (if you haven't listened to him, please do yourself a favor and do). Ravi tells many of the same stories over and over, but he does so because they are profound tales.

He mentioned one as I was listening today and have always liked, but today it hit me at a deeper level. He tells the story of his father-in-law as he was dying...

"I mentioned that my father-in-law did something utterly unforgettable in the final days of his life. As strength was leaving his body and he could no longer communicate with loved ones, he suddenly opened his eyes and said twice, quietly and clearly, “Amazing! It’s just amazing!” A few hours later, he again stirred, reached out his thin arms to his wife of sixty-two years, and said, “I love you!” Then he let his head drop back on his pillow. Those were his last words. Within twenty-four hours he was gone. That was the end."

How would it change the way you live today if you knew, I mean really knew, that it was all true. If you could catch a glimpse today of the glory of heaven, of the glory of the Lord as you might in your passing, if you could see it with your own eyes... how would this affect your life today as you live it?

I think we often fall into a patter of hedging our bets. We, especially as men I think, can fall into living a double life. We pursue the things of God as well as those things we know are likely very much a waste. If you could catch a glimpse of God's glory as a few men like Moses and Isaiah have, would that be enough? Would that be enough to convince you of your place in this world? I am constantly challenged about my half-belief. I sometimes find myself living as though either might be true: either the Kingdom of God is of the utmost importance and reality, or pursuing my own gratifications and self-fulfilling dreams are paramount. Many of us say, "I will try to do both; God will understand."

I have also been listening to John MacArthur. He has shared in these last few years about his discovery of our identity as "slaves" of Christ. It seems that in almost every case when our Bibles call us "servants" the actual word and meaning is "slave." What rights do slaves have? None. What rights do slaves have to pursue their own ends? None. Now, God is no slave-master as we think of it. But the very definition of a slave, one could say, is one who is owned. Scripture tells us that we have been bought with a price. We have been purchased, redeemed and made to belong to a Lord. Do I tell my Lord what I wish for him to grant me or do I seek, more than anything else, his will and desire for me?

How would it change your perspective to read that famous verse, "Well done, good and faithful slave." Does that word shatter you or humble you? I assume many of us have imagined that moment when God looks at you and you stand there in that moment of silence... what will he say? Will he say, "well done," or something else? If God has set me upon this planet to pursue my dreams and desires then perhaps anything I do will warrant a "well done." But, if God has gifted me in a certain way, called me to a specific task, granted me a purpose in his family than that changes the way that I think about that moment.

What if we could fully comprehend the enormity of eternity in comparison to this short life? What if we could truly understand the incredibly grand and magnificent nature of God and his purpose for our lives, the scope of his reality as a person, the detail and holiness of his will? When I am caught up in these thoughts, the importance of my own ends appear to me to be dirt pies to his feast.

If God is truly the Creator, if Jesus is truly his Son, and if this Son has truly redeemed us to himself... our lives are truly not our own. I am challenged more and more to understand the radical nature of the gospel and the "all" that Christ asks of us. It has often come to me in the picture of a man with two choices: invest in a stock that grows ten-fold every year, or invest in a stock that time and time again rises and falls. Only a fool would diversify this portfolio. I am challenged to invest everything, every last penny into the Kingdom of God. Not to is a display of an inward belief that this stock may not continue as shown, as promised.

What would the church look like, what would the world see in Christians, if we all lived with the surety of God's realness as though we had literally visited heaven and come back again. When you read, “Amazing! It’s just amazing!,” were you surprised and tickled or did you think, "I can't wait!"? Does the thought of meeting the Lord cause in you fear and doubt or a sense of anticipation? I really believe that the feeling that comes to us with this question is revealing. I'm not talking about whether you or I am really saved or not. It's not a matter of in or out, but a question that forces each of us to examine our belief.

Let us seek to know our God intimately and to actually live in such a way that undeniably represents this belief. Let us pursue the adventure of taking Jesus at his word. Let's quit hedging our bets. Will I seek the company of the elite or the down-trodden? Will I trust God with my money? Will I confess my sin? Extreme? Yes. I am challenged to choose this day whom I will serve.

Written: April 2, 2011

Spirituality

2013-06-03T21:31:00.000-07:00

I recently posted my last Facebook note on a site and welcomed thoughts and criticism. A reader was questioning the idea that there are truths and untruths in regard to spirituality. I had made the argument that because we see that the physical world behaves in a certain way and not other ways - that it is specific, that we have no reason to believe that the spiritual world is any different. True and false statements can be made about mathematics or the force of gravity. These things don't change because I may have a particular preference. But, this person seemed to prefer the notion that spirituality is more like taste... some people prefer the tastes of certain foods, while others may dislike those foods but love other foods.

Relativism is one of the most pervasive beliefs today, and it's not new. We're familiar with "whatever works for you" - it's essentially permission to believe in whatever you find to be meaningful and/or satisfying.

Now, as an actor, I really do believe there are areas of life when a "whatever works for you" attitude can be helpful. What matters in a film is that the story is told well, and for an actor - that he acts well. No one cares whether the actor used the Meisner technique or Method acting. The goal for the actor is that he is able to express the truth of the character. However he or she gets there is less important than that he gets there. Art, in general, can be very subjective. But, when we talk about art, entertainment, food/drink taste, favorite colors yada yada yada, these are all experiential. They have to do with pleasure, entertainment, style. These are things that define you and your personality. The choices a person makes as to what type of cheese he'll have on his burger and the color of his jeans are about what he finds most pleasant, enjoyable and personally appropriate for him. He isn't saying anything about the world. He is telling you about himself.

Now, there are levels of objectivity in art. You won't find much argument over whether a Davinci displays more skill and beauty than a bucket of chili strewn on a canvas. You will still find personal reasons for preferring the other, but we can all even see a level of objectivity in areas like art and taste.

Now, how do we know that "the spiritual" is less like your color preference or taste in wine than it is the physical world or physics? In no way am I trying to argue that our spiritual lives are themselves purely logical, or law-driven constructs. But, what I am saying is that we are subject to spiritual truths in the same way that we are subject to the natural laws or the laws of logic. They just are, whether we prefer them or not. If there really is a spiritual reality and a God, it seems clear to me that this reality must be, as far as we can understand it, even more specifically one thing and not another. And, though we each may prefer to be in relationship with certain types of people, these people are not "subjective." They are who they are and they are not who they are not. We are not free to define other people... one can choose to do so but this has no baring on the reality of who this person is. And, so it is with God. Making some statement about how you think God must be does not change who he is. And, how do we know what people are like? We must get to know them.

We must be personally engaged in some way in order to know someone. And, if we are to truly know God than he must reveal himself to us. This is exactly what he has done. He has contacted us, he is the God who comes down. He not only revealed himself to men like Moses and Elijah, but became a man himself and walked this earth. We can know who he is and what he is like because he has revealed himself to us.

We live in an interesting time. The culture right now is pervasively saying two things:

1. If you can't test it scientifically, it's not real. (essentially, "pics or it didn't happen" for you internet-lovers).

2. Spirituality is about finding a way to live your life that works for you - that helps you to be a better person.

The Christian life is the opposite of the preceding statements:

1. Science and reason are gifts and tools God has given us. But these are methods to certain types of knowledge. When it comes to personal relationship, intimacy and a revealing of self, a sharing of time builds relational knowledge.

2. Life is not about finding a way that works for you, but dying to yourself and surrendering your life to your Lord and God - then, being sanctified and transformed as a new creation more and more into the image of Christ.

The world is believing in two very contradictory things: that everything worth knowing needs to be proven in a lab and that your personal fulfilment is anything that you wish it to be. The first is overly materialistic and rigid while the second is incredibly childish and wishy-washy... almost to the extent that those who espouse it are admitting that there is no spiritual truth, only spiritual taste. And this is easy to believe if you don't believe anything at all, in which case you probably shouldn't be making any judgements.

As much as the modern atheist would like to say that the Christan is living a childish life with an ignorant blind-faith in a non-existent God, the Christian is actually building his life around both the revealed word of God but also what this natural world would logically lead us and show us to be true. He or she does not live in contradiction. It is, in fact, the double-minded "science or nothing, spirituality is a preference" individual who is living in contradiction to what the world around us reveals to be true.

Written: September 26, 2011

The Woman at the Well: More Than Meets the Eye - On John 4:1-30

2013-05-20T03:27:00.000-07:00

The account of Jesus and the Woman at the well is a well-known and often referenced passage among the gospels in the New Testament. It is one of those passages that has a few fairly obvious surface-level takeaways, nonetheless, very significant. If you have heard this story preached on it’s likely that the preacher has hit on a number of different truths we can take from this passage. These include:

Jesus breaks down cultural barriers - Jesus came not only for the Jews, but he is ushering in a time when all peoples can know God through him.
Jesus ignores gender barriers - Jesus reaches out to not only a Samaritan (who Jews despised), but a Samaritan woman - At this time Jewish men were not allowed to speak with women in public, especially on a one-on-one basis. Not only was she a woman, but she was an “unclean” Samaritan woman. She represents many, if not all, of whom Jesus is reaching (non-Jews, men and women, the rejected, the outsider, the “not good enough”)
Jesus claims that he offers eternal life - in the form of “living water” that we may never thirst again. This is life abundant.
Everyone who encounters Jesus has the chance to be a witness of the gospel - Even though it is likely this woman has a dubious past, God uses her in mighty ways as a witness of Jesus and many others come to know him through her testimony. Regardless of our past, gender, age, race, etc., we can all be used by God in mighty ways.

These interpretations of this passage are all true and wonderful in their own right. But, I’m convinced there is an even deeper layer of truth here that has an incredibly profound and life-changing message that has the potential to change forever your understanding of who you are, how you love yourself, and how you are loved by God.

Before we jump into the passage let’s take a step back and look at how this passage is framed within the overall message and themes of the book of John.

The first words Jesus speaks in John are “What are you seeking?” The first words of Jesus in any gospel are not by accident. They inform the reader about the theme of the entire book. Though these words were offered to two men who were very literally following Jesus... they had just heard that this was the guy to check out, and they did. Jesus turned to them and uttered those words, “ What are you seeking?” In a very plain sense this seems like a reasonable thing to say. “What do you want? Can I help you?” But John is full of subtext and symbolism. There’s always more than meets the eye.

“What am I seeking? What do I want?” This is the question that frames our lives. What am I doing with my life? What am I after? Wealth? Friends? Family? Success? To be left alone? We all want something. Jesus’ invitation to these two men was “Come, and you will see.” Jesus invites all those who seek for fulfillment in life to come to him and find out exactly what it is they are truly looking for.

These opening words in John are strong enough to convince me that Jesus wants to answer this question for each of us. But, there’s more. When Jesus is arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before his crucifixion he asks those who confront him, “Whom do you seek?” And again, the first words after his resurrection to Mary in the garden were, “Why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” It is no accident that Jesus utters these words at the beginning of his ministry, the time of his arrest leading to his crucifixion, and at his resurrection. These words frame the sign-posts of this gospel and Jesus’ message: What do you want?

We all desire to live a life that counts. We all want to look back on our lives and say, “I’m happy.” We have an intrinsic desire to justify our own existence, be it through success, wealth, family, relationships or whatever that carrot is in your life. We want to find fulfillment and leave an impression on this world. Jesus knows this about you and he has something to say.

Secondly, and naturally, I’d like to point out that John 4 follows John 1-3. Crazy, right? In John chapters 1 - 3 we actually see Jesus lay out the entire gospel message (see my essay on John 1-3 for more details) in this order:

Need/Thirst for Life, John 1:38 - “What do you seek?”
We find life in Jesus, John 1:39 - Come and see/Follow me.
Jesus brings life to those who are dead, John 2:1-12 Jesus turns water to wine.
Jesus will do this by cleansing us from sin, John 2:13-17. Jesus battles sin in the temple (the body).
Jesus will defeat sin and be resurrected, John 2: 18-22. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
Jesus gives this new life through spiritual rebirth (regeneration), John 3:1-15 Jesus explains how one receives forgiveness/eternal life.
The Gospel is summed up, John 3:16. Seven, the number of completion, wholeness perfection... Jesus tells us the master plan, the title of this great book that God is writing. John the Baptist represents the last of the prophets, saying “He must increase, but I must decrease” (3:30)

This, in a sense, is an introduction to the life, message, and work of Jesus’ entire ministry. If we look at the arch of the book of John this way, chapters 1-3 are a type of introduction or an overview of what’s to come as Jesus’ life and ministry are displayed through the rest of the book. You can almost imagine a film with an intense first 15 minutes where you’re overwhelmed with a ton of action, events that don’t quite make sense just yet... and then it fades to black and the light slowly comes back for the beginning of the rest of the film. The rest of the film will explain all the mystery and intrigue of those first 15 minutes. In the art of modern film, you typically see what is referred to as a “call to action” at around the 15 minute mark. This is when (in a good film) you are dying to see what the protagonist will do. In the book of John, chapter 4 is much like this same beat where we see the protagonist begin to do what he’s meant to do after the scene is set.

Chapter 4 - Enter the Woman at the Well.

Jesus has just left Judea and is making his way toward Galilee and, tired from the journey, stops with his disciples near a town called Sychar, located in Samaria (most Jewish travelers went around Samaria altogether when traveling north from Judea). The disciples take off for town to get some food while Jesus stays at the well alone. This is where we meet the Samaritan woman.

Jesus asks her for a drink and the woman is taken aback because a male Jew has asked a Samaritan woman for a drink. This is a social faux pas on many levels. First, men and women didn’t typically speak to one another in public at all, let alone while alone together. Second, this woman would likely be considered “unclean” to a “good” Jewish man. Anything she touched became unclean, let alone sharing a drink from her bucket (the bucket and water itself would be considered unclean). This would be akin, and even more shocking, than a rich white man to share an ice cream cone with an african american woman in the old south while inviting her up to the front of the bus with him. So, her surprise is expected. She asks why he would ask for a drink from someone like her?

Jesus responds a little weirdly on first glance. He tells her that if she knew “the gift of God” and who he was she would ask him for a drink and he would give her “living water,” which in plain language simply means spring water, or moving water (not stagnant). We are so used to this being a spiritual term, but it wasn’t to her. And, what does the gift of God have to do with anything? At this point we have to remember that this woman has no idea who Jesus is, and we have to read along with this in mind. She isn’t thick-headed. If you were to offer a guy a cup of water and he responds, “Heh, if you knew who I was you’d ask me for a drink! I’ve got better water than you.” You’d probably be like, “Ummm, ok. So, uh, no water for you then? Why’d you even ask me for some?” Jesus looks like a one-upper. Oh you have a one-scoop ice cream cone? Cool. I have a 5-scooper.

But, she plays along. She calls him “sir” and tells him he doesn’t even have a bucket. Where’s this spring water you’re talking about? ‘Cause, you know, there’s this well right here. It’s served our people for generations. And, it’s the well of Jacob! It was good enough for him and it’s good enough for me. Are you better than Jacob? You seem a bit narcissistic.

Jesus responds by telling the woman that if she drinks this well water she’ll get thirsty again. Wow, real life-changer there. That’s kinda the way it works, Jesus. You get thirsty, you have a drink... later on you get thirsty again and have another glass. Jesus is probably coming across as a pretty weird guy to this woman about now. Once again, we read this passage knowing who Jesus is and what he’s really been getting at the whole time, but she doesn’t have any reason to think Jesus isn’t just a guy who’s a bit awkward up to this moment. Then Jesus gets to the point. He gets obvious.

Hey tells her, “BUT” if you drink of the water that I give you will never thirst again. The water I give will become a spring of water within you that wells up to eternal life. It’s pretty obvious now not only to the reader, but to the woman that Jesus isn’t just talking about types of water, but about something much deeper, and on a spiritual level. The story continues but we need to stop here and rethink this whole conversation up to this point.

Let’s assume you’ve just read this passage for the first time. This is the first time you’ve heard these words, just like the woman. On this first reading, many of the significant truths I listed above are already apparent: Jesus doesn’t care about the rules of who you should or shouldn’t talk to, he ignores social/gender barriers in order to reach out to this woman. He takes an interest in her, etc. But, now we know there’s more happening here. Now we want to go back and read it again, knowing Jesus has used the conversation about water to get to something truly significant. On a second reading we can read into Jesus’ words a bit more.

On this second reading, we notice that Jesus has asked for a drink of water... a handy conversation starter because he wants to use the metaphor of water to lead up to the bomb that he’ll drop in verses 13-14 about him giving water welling up to eternal life. We can see that he’s not only addressing her physical thirst for water, but some kind of “deeper” thirst in her life. A thirst for something that satisfies. He tells her that the “water” she drinks won’t do the trick quite like the water he gives. At this level we can quite safely make the leap that Jesus is trying to address a deep need in her, and in all of us, for the thirst of our hearts and lives to be quenched. Remember the theme of “What are you seeking?” We all have a thirst that we want to quench in this life. We all have this innate desire for meaning, for purpose, for intimacy, for self-worth, to matter, to measure up... to find the answer. We thirst, we yearn for significance and intimacy in life. Jesus seems to be saying that the “well” she uses to quench this thirst will always leave her wanting more. If the thing he is addressing is her desire for “life to the fullest” it’s easy to see how we might fit into that conversation. For many of us, life to the fullest may mean accomplishing your dreams, having a family, being financially successful, living a good life, serving others, expression through art, etc. We go to various wells in our lives to find satisfaction... and when we feel unsatisfied again we go back to the well for more. And, if necessary, we dig deeper until we find more water. Jesus tells her here that only he can satisfy this great thirst in her life.

This is pretty deep stuff. And, it’s true. If we seek a life of fullness, significance, purpose - this can only be found in Jesus Christ. This “second level” of the passage is where, in my experience, we’ve all stopped. Not that this level is found wanting. Discovering the thirst-quenching power of Jesus in our lives is a life-changer. But, there is yet a third level to this passage that changes everything. It doesn’t change the subject, it reveals it for what it is.

As I was reading this passage again and again, I was struck again with the idea that none of Jesus’ words are throw-aways. And, the biggest throw-away of this passage seemed to me to be when he asks the woman for a drink. I kept seeing it as a simple conversation starter, a way to engage the woman so he could really get to what he wanted to say. If she had had a football in her hands maybe he would have simply said, “Pass! I’m going long!” and walked back, handing her the football, saying, “Hi, I’m Jesus... quite the arm you have there. I can give you the football of life if you want it.” But, his choice of words weren’t arbitrary. Nothing he says is arbitrary.

Then it struck me. If Jesus is using water as a metaphor, maybe he’s been using water as a metaphor the entire time. What if he wasn’t using water to simply build up to his announcement that he’ll give her “water” for eternal life? Secondly, Jesus isn’t just a man. He’s God in the flesh. And, though Jesus was a man with physical needs like everyone else, what if in this passage he is very specifically speaking as God to this woman the entire time? Perhaps I need to read the passage in this light. Then this question entered my mind: “Is God thirsty that I can give him a drink?” Does God have a thirst that this woman can quench? Can she somehow satisfy a need that God has in himself? The answer to that is a clear and resounding no. She can’t. It’s also interesting to note that it doesn’t appear that Jesus ever got that drink of water he asked for. So, why did he ask for something he didn’t really want? After all, Jesus is the one who diverted the conversation to spiritual things and ruined his chances at an actual drink of water. Then it really struck me. Is there any example in scripture where God asks his people for something he really doesn’t need or desire? My mind jumped to Hebrews 10, which is about the insufficiency of the old covenant. The author quotes Psalm 40:

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book."

The author then goes on to say:

"When he said above, ‘You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings’ (these are offered according to the law), then he added, ‘Behold, I have come to do you will.’ He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The old covenant system of ritual animal sacrifice for the covering of sin was instituted by God, and yet God himself has told us that he does not desire or take pleasure in it. It also states in Hebrews 10 that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” There’s an obvious connection here. Let’s go back to John 4.

Jesus asks the woman for a drink of water, something he doesn’t expect to get. He asks for this drink from an “unclean” woman who “taints” everything she touches. Water is an important symbol throughout the old and new testaments. It doesn’t always carry the same symbolic meaning, but it often does. In many cases it is actually a symbol of death, punishment, or a cleansing or covering for sin. Water is the instrument of God’s wrath in the flood. It “covers” them and is used as the agent for justice. Jesus turns water into wine (wine being a symbol for life, water for death). Christians are baptized into water (the grave) and rise out of the water as a symbolic gesture of dying with Christ and being raised with him in his resurrection. It seems clearer now in the context of John 4 that water is a symbol for a sin offering or cleansing agent (representational of the old covenant, the Torah, the Law).

God has just asked this woman for an offering of death for life. When the Jews offered a sacrifice before God the offering was, of course, for this sins of the people against God, not God’s sin because he has none. This makes Jesus’ next statement much more relevant and clear. Her next words also become more significant: “How is it that you... ask me for a drink?” The meaning here being, “What can I possibly offer you? Why would you ask me for that?

Jesus responds to her first by saying, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you...” I ask myself, what does it look like when a person really encounters God? I thought of Isaiah in the throne room of heaven. When you meet God you don’t offer him anything. You don’t whip out a gift or a nice bottle of wine. You don’t let him know what you’ve got for him. You are utterly crushed. Isaiah is God’s prophet. If there’s any guy who knew God and had the right to boast about his walk with God in his day, it was Isaiah. And yet when he encounters God he cries, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” The issue between Isaiah and God is his sin and Isaiah knows it. He can’t stand to be in the presence of God - it’s humbling to the point of humiliation. But God, through one of the seraphim, touches his lips and atones for his sin. His sin had to be dealt with and God was the one to offer atonement to Isaiah, not Isaiah to God.

If water is representational for atonement of sin, or covering of sin, Jesus’ words to the woman make much more sense. If she knew who she was standing before, the almighty God of the universe, the creator of the heavens and the earth, she wouldn’t even consider offering him anything, rather she would be overwhelmingly compelled to ask him for this water... for the cleansing of her sin, of her person. And not only is Jesus offering an atonement, but the atonement through “living water.”

As the woman responds to Jesus, let’s remember that this conversation represents something much deeper than what is apparent on the surface... what does this woman represent? She tells Jesus that he has nothing to draw this water with, that the well is deep. She defends her people and her well - Jacob and his sons used this well, as do we. What can you offer that’s better than this? She is defending the Old Testament covenantal sacrificial system, while Jesus is about to usher in a whole new covenant.

Jesus tells her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again...” She is in a never ending cycle that looks like this:

Thirst → Well → Water → Thirst → Well → Water → Thirst → Well → Water → ∞

She gets thirsty, needs to go back to the well, gets more water. She then grows thirsty again and needs to once again repeat the cycle. Let’s take another look at Hebrews 10:

“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

This woman represents the old pattern. Just as sacrifices were offered every year, and this only reminded them of their sin, never perfecting them... this woman goes back to this well time and time again and is reminded of her thirst that is never fully quenched. With this fuller context... Jesus isn’t simply talking about a general thirst that we have to live a full life, as we previously discussed. His purpose in offering us this living water isn’t to make life more fun, to give us the “edge” when going about our day, or even in feeling self-fulfilled. This thirst represents our desire to be reconciled to God through the atonement of our sin. If sin wasn’t in the picture there would be no thirst. Though a thirst to find true intimacy with God may not be related to any specific sin in yours or my life, the fact that we have that unquenched thirst is itself a result of the effects of sin on our lives. Sin has separated us from the source of all that is life and all that is holy. In order to be rejoined to our source of true life and rest our sin must be dealt with. In the Old Covenant this was done, though as a shadow of things to come, through ritual animal sacrifice through the high priest. Throughout scripture it is clear that the wages, the results, of sin is death. If God is life than death is all that is left. But, from the beginning God himself instituted a substitutionary system of atonement. Even going back to the garden of Eden with the first man and woman, God “covered” their nakedness with skins of animals (animals who died to cover them). This continues to be seen in the sacrifices of young, physically spotless animals for the sins of the Jewish people. It is best illustrated as a prelude to Christ in the passover story, where the angel of death passed over the homes of those who were covered by the blood of a lamb.

Jesus, in a sense, is asking us, “How’s that working for ya?” Whatever semblance of peace, rest or resolution men and women felt in the old covenant, they always had to come back for more atonement, more rest, to try again to no avail. Their sin remained.

And this is where it gets exciting. Jesus is changing and has changed all of that with his “but.”

“...but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The “water” that Jesus gives is his own sacrificial substitutional death for our sin. This covering for sin is not temporary. There is no need for another sacrifice tomorrow, or next year, or ever again. While the “shadow” offerings of the old covenant were by the means of a physically spotless lamb, this final and perfect offering is through the means of a morally and spiritually spotless man - and in fact, God the Son himself.

When Christ died for the sins of his people, he put that sin to death once and for all. There is no more wrath of God for that sin. It is finished. It is accomplished. Jesus has fully taken on the wrath of the Father upon himself in his death. And when he rose he conquered death and became the firstfruits of those who would belong to him, his church. And for the believer, we, too, died with Christ that day and rose with him and inherit the reconciled and righteous standing before God that Christ himself has. And, Christ has given us the permanent deposit of the Holy Spirit in our lives. He is our helper, wisdom and spring. And, because Jesus’ perfect atoning work at the cross is final, and because his sent Holy Spirit is a permanent deposit upon the life of those who belong to Him, this living water never runs out... it wells up to eternal life.

Galatians 2:20-21 sheds a perfect light on this: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

A beautiful metaphor behind the well and the spring is also made clear here. The well represents the old covenant temple of God. God’s people would journey to the temple to offer their sacrifices year after year. This woman comes to the well day after day for water. It’s beautiful to see that Jesus does not say the water he gives will become a “well of water welling up to eternal life” but rather a “spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Men build wells, but a spring is a gift of God, not made by human effort. Digging a well for water is akin to seeking obedience to God’s law as a justifier for one’s self (to get the water), as if we could stand before God and say, “Accept me, look what I have done. Look what I have built. Look at this well I have dug.” On the contrary, the law cannot justify, but condemn only. For, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Romans 3:10) On the contrary, harkening back to vs. 10 of John 4, Jesus says that the gift of God is a spring of his own making. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never built a spring. I’ve never worked for it. Spring water is something I simply drink from; I receive it. Building a well entails a lot of hard work and effort, but the spring is something I can purely enjoy. Jesus is telling us that our best efforts for self-atonement are, at best stagnant, water that will never satisfy. Yet the gift of God is pure fresh spring water that can be received and enjoyed forever.

Jesus is the cycle-stopper.

The woman’s pattern/old covenant pattern looked like this:
_____________________________________________________________

Thirst → Well → Water → Thirst → ∞
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Desire for reconciliation/atonement of sin → Temple → Ritual Sacrifice → Desire → ∞
_____________________________________________________________

But Jesus, having fulfilled all righteousness and his sacrificial death, ends the cycle:

SIMPLE:
_____________________________________________________________
Old Covenant Pattern: Thirst → Well → Water → Thirst → Well → Water → ∞
_____________________________________________________________
New Covenant Pattern: Thirst → The Cross → Holy Spirit = Peace and Rest
_____________________________________________________________

IN DETAIL:
_____________________________________________________________
Old Covenant Thirst → Well → Water → Thirst → ∞
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Desire for reconciliation/atonement of sin → Temple → Ritual Sacrifice → Desire → ∞
_____________________________________________________________
New Covenant

Thirst → Cross → Holy Spirit
↓ ↓ ↓
Desire for reconciliation/atonement of sin → Christ in Me → Finished Atoning Work
_____________________________________________________________

Jesus not only offers life to the full - what he offers is true rest from our striving. That well is no longer an external location we must journey to. The water is no longer something we have to draw up. Jesus is offering true rest, not by saying “you’ve done well enough. I accept your offering.”, but by saying, “I have offered myself, I’ve done well. And now you will have my peace, the reconciliation I bring as a gift to you. And, it’s free.”

There’s so much more here, but I’ll be spoiling what’s to come. We’ve only covered vss. 1-14 so far! There’s more! At this point in the passage, whether the woman knows what Jesus is really saying or not, she responds - she wants in. She wants this water. She doesn’t want to have to come back to this well anymore. This is a break in the passage. We’re beginning the second half of the scene.

When we share the gospel with someone, the message of the cross cannot stay an idea. For one to be born again a personal exchange must take place. We’re not buying into an idea... we’re meeting a person. When someone wants to respond to the gospel, it’s always necessary to, in a sense, get personal. We move from “here’s the information” to a person’s life. Jesus has just shared the gospel with this woman and she responds. And, as God tends to do, he gets personal.

Though I desperately want to, I won’t walk us through this next section three times as I did with vss 1-14. But, I do want to demonstrate how this “old-to-new-covenant” interpretation of this passage not only explains an otherwise awkward and confusing dialogue, but brings deeper significance to moments which seem a bit random. Sometimes when we read scripture, whether it’s one of Paul’s letters or an account from the life of Jesus, we sometimes can’t help but think, “Where did that come from?” Jesus (or Paul) sometimes says things that seem completely out of left field. What I’m discovering more and more, especially in the book of John, is that nothing is out of left field. If it seems to be, we just need to look deeper until we see it. The conversation we’ve just looked at is one of those occasions, as is the second half. Let’s look at it, once again, at face value.

Jesus and the woman have had a profound conversation and Jesus immediately tells her to get her husband. This isn’t too weird - in this day and age she would likely want to tell her husband about what has just happened so that he could play his part in this new idea she’s bought into. The woman, though, responds saying she has no husband... but Jesus knew that (he’s doing it again - asking for something that doesn’t exist). Jesus tells her he knows that she has had five husbands and she responds saying, “I perceive that you are a prophet.” Jesus has appeared wise and sage-like so far, but he hasn’t gone psychic on her yet. She understands now that Jesus is a prophet of God. She then decides to ask him about which mountain is the true mountain of worship - this mountain or the one in Jerusalem? Jesus responds with something about a time coming soon when we won’t worship God in either place. He kinda dogs on her a bit next by telling her she doesn’t even know the God she worships, but the Jews do. What? Then he throws out a whopper about how “true” worshipers, soon, will worship God in spirit and in truth... whatever that may mean. She asked about which mountain we should worship on, that’s it. He goes on to say that God is spirit (which she knows) and he needs to be worshiped in spirit... ok? I guess that kinda makes sense, but it’s a bit vague... even for the present-day Christian reader. You can tell she doesn’t fully get it yet either. She ends the conversation by saying, “Welp, anyway... I know the Messiah will explain all this stuff when he comes.” Jesus then tells her that he is this Messiah.

Many of the same common spiritual truths are arrived at in the same way as in the first portion of this passage. Jesus demonstrates his divine knowledge in knowing about this woman’s past husbands. He also hints at a time soon coming when all peoples will worship God in truth, regardless of where they live - they won’t have to come to Jerusalem at all. There will be no “wrong or right” place to worship God. As Christians, we recognize what Jesus’ work on the cross brought this about. When he talks about people worshiping the Father in spirit and truth, this makes some sense to us - it’s not about dos and don’ts; it’s not about where you live or where you worship, but about worshiping God in spirit and truth, for who he truly is. These are all true and significant things to recognize and celebrate. But, once again, the “third level,” as we’re calling it, brings a deeper meaning to this passage... as well as explaining some of the oddities. Let’s begin again in vs. 16, reading it through as we did the first passage from this level of God-meets-human.

When a person is convicted of his or her sin and responds to the gospel, God, through the Holy Spirit, exposes us. This isn’t a moment of shame or withdrawal, but of letting go and of confession. When one makes Jesus the Lord of their life, God’s love and his gift of atonement to us are the tip of that spear that pierced our hearts, but this is accompanied by the shaft of that spear - truth. We understand who we are... we understand our sin. We understand our great need for a savior - a savior who knows our sin and yet still, in love, makes provision for us. This is what we see unfold here.

When Jesus tells the woman to go get her husband, he is bringing up an embarrassing fact about her life - this isn’t an area of comfort for her. We don’t know anything for certain about these five husbands except for what is in the text. We often, with much conjecture, assume that this woman has been married five times and has been divorced five times (either for infertility, affairs, or not measuring up to her husbands standards - either way, she’s rejected). But, there is another interpretation of her history that fits quite well with what is emerging as the theme of this passage as a whole. It is equally possible that this woman has not been married five times, but that she has had five husbands. That is, she has had five affairs with married men... and the man she is currently with is not her husband. She is having an extramarital affair. She is seeking a covenant relationship (marriage) from outside the covenant. This woman is a Samaritan. She comes from a people who have branched off from the Jewish people and faith. They are a people who claim to know God, to worship him, and yet do so from outside the covenant relationship that God has with Israel as his people, as his bride. In the same way, she represents a people who seek relational intimacy with a God they are not in covenant with, just as she seeks relational intimacy with a man who is not married to her. This isn’t simply about a woman who can’t keep a man, but a woman who is seeking a God she doesn’t know in a way that doesn’t bring true union.

When Jesus recognizes her unmarried status, she fully understands that this man must be a prophet. Have you ever asked yourself, “If I could ask God one question, what would I ask?” Well, this is her moment. She’s now in front of a prophet of God and what is the one question she asks? She asks about which group of people worships God correctly. Are you guys right or are we right? Who’s in right relationship with God here, you or us? Honestly, if I were her, this would not be the question I’d ask. She could have asked any miriad of things... but she asks this one question that fits right in line with our theme. And, her question mirrors the well illustration. She goes to the well to quench her thirst, just as the people go to the Temple for worship and offerings. She is asking which Temple, which location, is the right one... where do we meet with God? She again appeals to the tradition she comes from - “our fathers worshiped on this mountain.” She tries to defend her system. And yet she’s curious.

Jesus responds by telling her a time is coming when she will neither worship him on “this” mountain nor in Jerusalem. Jesus is being a bit subversive as he tends to be. Though, he does answer her question quite explicitly next: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” He essentially tells her “you’re wrong and we’re right.” He tells her flat out that her people are not the covenant people of God. They do not know the one they worship. And it is here that we see the second “But” of Jesus in the passage... a turning point that mirrors and illustrates the first.

He tells her “that an hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.” As Christians it’s easy for us to read this and assume we pretty much know what he means there... you know, God cares about the heart, not what building you’re in. This is true, but it’s not what he’s saying. We’ll remember that the theme-words for the first section of the passage were about water and the well or spring, but now Jesus has switched to using different language. At first I was thinking, “Come on! Use the same words! Don’t confuse me!” But, by changing his language from “type” or illustrative words to the real thing, he’s showing us the connection to what he was saying the first time around about the water and the spring.

If we go back to vs. 14, Jesus says that whoever drinks of the water he gives will never thirst again. If this water represents his atoning work on the cross and his death as a covering for sin, he’s tying our thirst into our need for justification, a justification that is provided by him alone. And, later in this same verse, he goes on to explain that because of this justifying work on the cross that reconciles us to God, “in him [in the believer] a spring of water welling up to eternal life” emerges. If the well was the location for the still water, the believer is now the location of the living/spring water welling up to eternal life. If the well represents the old covenant temple, the body of the believer is the temple for this spring of water. This is consistent with our understanding of our being the new temple of God. Ok, we’re tracking here. So, why the shift to truth and spirit in vs. 23? Jesus has just explained that through him we are reconciled to God and made alive, which is manifest by a spring of water within us. Just one chapter prior in John, Jesus has taught that one must be born again to see the kingdom of God, not of flesh, but of water and spirit. We are born out of, given new life because of, living because of the death of Christ (the water) and made alive by the Spirit. There is a one-to-one correlation between the metaphor of water and atoning death. What about truth? Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). When Jesus describes that the Father “is seeking” a people who will worship him in spirit and truth, he is describing those who belong to Jesus in the new covenant. We worship in spirit because we have the indwelling of the the Holy Spirit (the spring - which flows eternally and forever confirms life) and in truth because Jesus is truth. And both of these are made manifest through the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. “God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” In the same way that we understand that Jesus lived the life we ought to have lived, but couldn’t, and died the death we deserved, but didn’t have to... The Father can only truly be glorified fully in the type of worship that the son can give. And, we can worship him in spirit and in truth because Jesus did... and we have his righteousness, his truth. We worship God by his Spirit through Jesus Christ.

This whole passage is not simply about an encounter Jesus had with a woman which changed her life. This passage is about the changing over from the old covenant to the new. It exposes the inability for any of us to make ourselves right before God.

The biggest mind-blower in this passage for me was this: I’ve always thought about the “life to the fullest, life abundant” that Jesus talks about as my living the life I’ve always wanted. Sure, I want it to be a Godly life, but I want it to be about all the things I have wanted - significance, influence, success, legacy. Those things are my version of physical thirst - things I try to pull up out of that well. These are things which everyone I’ve ever known have sought for the means of their satisfaction, I’ve never even heard of another type of thing I may be truly seeking. The problem with this understanding is that this is not the life I have. But, if Christ brings this life abundantly, why don’t I have it? Why do Christians suffer? Why am I not the success I want to be? How do we explain depression in Christians? If I choose to view the life-abundant as a zesty-life, my theology is at odds with what seems obviously true. My life isn’t always zesty and amazing. I’m left asking myself a question that can only have one of two possible answers: either I’m not saved or I’m doing something wrong (because I’m supposed to have a different kind of Christian experience).

But, this all assumes that when Jesus promises to quench our thirst in a way the world never can, that he means it in the way I’ve just described. But, if this thirst that he quenches is actually our need for reconciliation through his atoning work on the cross, it all fits. The problem isn’t a lack of self-fulfillment, the problem is sin. The problem is a broken relationship with God. This is why Jesus promises a spring within us welling up to eternal life, not a fun life. This theological observation may make some of you say, “hmmm, that’s good.” But, it likely doesn’t feel like a life-changing revelation. But it is... it is a paradigm shift, not only for a non-believer hearing the the gospel for the first time, but also for the believer who often feels like his life just isn’t working out the way he thinks it should.

As I was pondering this idea I was struck with what, to me, is a life-changing truth:

I will seek to justify myself before God using the same object I use to justify my life in my own eyes.

Let me flesh that out. What is that thing (or things) in your life that make you say: I won’t be happy until I have X; I’ll be disappointed in my life until I accomplish X; I’ll feel like a failure if I lose X; If only I had X; I will refuse to feel good about my life until... I know I have fill-ins for those Xs. Deep down inside we all have this desire to justify our lives to the world and to ourselves. No one wants to feel like a waste of space, like they’ve wasted their lives. We want to live extraordinary lives. While I think there is a root of good and of truth in this desire, we look for the answer in the wrong type of thing. Not just the wrong thing, but the wrong type of thing.

Here’s what gets me. Not only do we us “X” to justify our lives to ourselves, but also our lives before God... these are things that place conditions on whether we think God is happy with or disappointed in us. If the most important thing in your life is your career, relationships, having children, getting married, making money, achieving your goals, etc. you will be hard-pressed to find any sense of peace and rest in your life until you have attained those things. And, once you do you will be disappointed. This disappointment doesn’t arise because any of those things are bad, in fact they can all be very good things. You are disapointed because these are not the type of things that quench the thirst you are feeling. It’s like trying to hammer in a nail with a wink of your eye, or trying to paint a picture with a paper airplane. Maybe this thirst you and i have is for something much deeper.

I will continue to fail in justifying myself before myself. I don’t think I’ll ever be completely satisfied by my thoughts, my behavior or my achievements. I also know that I’ll never measure up to God’s perfect standard for my life. He is holy and I am not. It won’t happen.

But, you know who’s life does measure up? Jesus’ life. As Christians we can celebrate the truth found in Galatians 2:20 - let’s look at it again:

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

My life is no longer my own. I died that day with Christ at the cross. It is no longer my life that I live, but Jesus is living a life through me. I can be ok with myself because my life is no longer defined by how well I measure up, but by how well Christ’s life measured up... and he lived it perfectly. Likewise, this same Jesus is the one who has fully reconciled me to the Father. When he considers me, he considers the perfection of Jesus Christ. I am ok with myself because my life is now christ in me, and I am ok with the Father because the Father is fully pleased with his son, Jesus Christ - and I am in Christ. This is true rest. This is where peace is found.

No longer are we bound by the pressures of measuring up. My hope is that I can press into this truth more every day. This means that I can let go. What would it look like for you entire sense of wholeness, peace, and identity to be wrapped up in the perfecting work of Jesus Christ - based on his gift, not your work. It means placing your own expectations for yourself that provide self-worth on Jesus and saying it is finished.

John chapter 4 isn’t just about how Jesus reached out to a woman he met at a well. It’s about a paradigm shift from the old covenantal sacrificial system to the new covenant under Jesus Christ, a covenant of grace, substitution and ultimately true peace.

Written: March, 2012

Worldview, Politics and Our Recent Election

2013-05-20T03:25:00.003-07:00

I believe this is my first post of this political season that has had anything to do with politics. I certainly have things to say, but, as we all know, facebook isn't always the best place to share our thoughts. In many ways it's a great place. We can all express our opinions freely and have the opportunity to get feedback. But, we all know expressing our thoughts here doesn't always prove fruitful. More often than not, those who agree with us continue to agree and those who don't continue to disagree... we usually fail to persuade those who disagree, but do succeed in creating more division and tension.

No one likes division. But a simple fact of life is that where there is freedom people will disagree on issues. This is normal and healthy. The difficulty is to dialogue intelligently and in an understanding way. We're all tempted to think "only an idiot would think..." and "it's obvious that [fill in the blank] is the right view."

What's interesting is that the vast majority of us agree on most things, we just have a different idea of how to get there. Both political liberals and conservatives want a flourishing, secure, free, vibrant, unified, strong and economically successful democratic nation. We want jobs. We want our kids to have a future. We want liberty. Those are givens, right? Even though there are a few moral and social issues that divide us, we agree on 90% of those too: murder, theft, basic human rights, lying, cheating, loyalty, family... most moral and social issues are not debated. There are only a few that truly divide us (at least politically).

How can we explain why Americans, who want so many of the same things, disagree so strongly about ideas in the following two categories?

How best to achieve and maintain liberty and freedom.

"Fringe" moral and social issues. By "fringe" I don't mean unimportant. I mean those issues that don't seem as fundamental and/or clear to us as issues - like murder, theft, right to property, lying, cheating, etc.

The thing is, it is fairly simple to answer this question. The answer lies in the "why." The reasons why you believe liberty and freedom are absolutely necessary and worth dying for are certainly going to affect how you think these things are achieved and maintained. The reason why you believe certain things are good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, righteous or evil will determine what you believe fit into those categories. And so the truly profound question we can ask ourselves is: what is it that provides our why? What justifies it? What explains it? Where do yours and mine come from? And, if our whys truly lead us to different conclusions, and if our whys are the basis for our conclusions, it seems obvious that this is the most profound and fruitful arena of discussion.

I've just been very wordy in my attempt to get us to this point - does your why justify your what and are your whats consistent with your why? If one’s framework is consistent they will align; but, if they do not I think it is fair to say one needs to look at his or her why a bit more closely. I have to ask myself this same question.

So, what does this have to do with the election? Everything.

Worldview -

A person's worldview affects everything. Whether you know what your worldview is or not, you have one. I have one. We all have one. The issue is whether it's coherent and well-thought-out. If a worldview is coherent and justified it will also provide coherent and justified reasons to take specific stances on specific issues. If a worldview is an incoherent hodgepodge of assumptions and assertions (true or false ones)... it's much more likely the stances taken based on this worldview will be: a. unjustified, and b. inconsistent. These stances will be unjustified because the worldview in question won't have the ability to give absolute "oughts" to any particular issue. And these stances will be inconsistent because this deficient worldview by its very nature of deficiency cannot provide a coherent and holistic description of reality and why it is the way it is.

Here's an example of what I mean:

A Deficient Understanding of Gravity:

Observation: Things fall to the earth

Conclusion: All things fall to the earth. The earth attracts objects. As far as we could know, everything in the universe is likely falling toward earth.

A Coherent Understanding of Gravity:

Observation: Things fall to the earth > Study > Large Concept > physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses.

Conclusion: Things fall to the earth because the things we observe in our daily lives have much smaller mass than the earth... thus, they will “fall” towards the earth. But, knowing that the gravitational force on earth is an example of the laws of gravity in action, we can also conclude that small things will "fall" toward any planet or large body.

This example helps us to see two things:

Both the people who hold the deficient view of gravity AND the people who hold the coherent view of gravity are going to agree that things fall to the earth. 95% of the time in our daily lives these two groups of people will come to the same conclusions about the same questions regarding gravity. But, when the conversation gets fringy (we start asking questions about gravity outside the earth)... this is when the incoherence of the deficient view will manifest and differences of view will be clearly seen.

People who have insufficient reasons for their views are still often correct about what we all see and hold to be true. But, when hard-pressed, their reasons for their views won't hold up to the challenge.

Bringing this back to the concept of the "ought" we can say that an object "ought" to fall to the earth because we know that physical bodies attract each other. A person who has deficient view will agree that an object falls to earth, but can only tell you that this happens and not why. Of course we don't really think of "oughts" when it comes to the laws of physics... but I think the point is illustrated well in that arena. The true "oughts" and "whys" that we care most about have to do with morality/ethics and, in this case, methods of achieving and maintaining liberty and freedom.

Understanding the whys for the oughts is essential. If we have poor whys, we are all left picking low-hanging intellectual fruit, e.g. things fall to the earth. Murder, theft, lying, cheating... these are low-hanging moral/intellectual fruit. It's plain to see that these are poor behaviors. We don't disagree on these issues in the same way that we do agree things fall to the earth. Social moral issues like abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and the like are where we tend split. And this is because it is here that things become less obvious. They will be more obvious to individuals who have a coherent framework in which to place them, e.g. gravity as a concept, not just an earthly observation. It is when we approach issues like these (as well as other liberal/conservative political/fiscal issues) that the coherency and sufficiency of a worldview is tested.

My goal is to be sensitive here, but honest. Let's use abortion as an example as we look at it from two different worldviews. We all have unique perspectives, but I'll have to generalize for the sake of the argument. I'll use the gravity illustration alongside it.

Issue: Falling of Object to Earth

We all agree (low-hanging fruit): Things fall to the earth

Larger Concept: Division occurs here

Some think it is the earth itself that uniquely attracts. This will lead to different fringe conclusions.

Others know that the earth's gravity is an example of the laws of gravity. This leads to different fringe conclusions than the first view.

Issue: Abortion

We all agree (low-hanging fruit): abortion is not ideal and ought to be avoided if possible

Larger Concept: Division Occurs here

Some believe abortion is wrong because it falls under the category of murder. Leads to different fringe conclusions.

Others simply think it ought to be avoided when possible. But, there are times when it is acceptable. Leads to different fringe conclusions.

Possible Naturalistic Secular/Liberal Worldview Stance on Abortion:

Stance: Abortion ought to be avoided when possible. But, it is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Reason: We value human life in general, and this includes that of the unborn child. We ought not to end life if avoidable.

Likely Justification: Life has value and is worth preserving when death is avoidable. But, the "value" of a fetus is likely less than that of the mother if one must choose which to preserve. We "know" that the mother is a living person. The "life" of the fetus is slightly less clear and the obvious choice is to preserve the threatened life of the mother (in cases of danger to mother in pregnancy, for example).

Fringe Implications:

It is, at the very least, sometimes acceptable to abort a fetus (various circumstances would apply).

It is the choice of the mother (and perhaps a doctor in some circumstances) about what is the best option to take concerning her own life and that of the fetus/unborn child.

Because it is widely accepted that murder is morally reprehensible and that abortion is not always reprehensible, abortion should not be considered murder. To conflate these would be inaccurate in some way. The life of the fetus is, in some way, not equivalent in value to the life of the mother. If it were, we would not view abortion as acceptable in almost any circumstance.

Possible Conservative Christian Worldview Stance on Abortion:

Stance: Abortion ought to be avoided entirely.

Reason: We value the life of all human beings, including an unborn child. All human life is worth protecting when possible.

Justification: Human lives are ultimately valuable and worth preserving because we have inherent value endowed by our Creator. If we are made in his image and created by/for him, it is not our decision to make regarding whether an unborn child has the right to live or not. Human rights apply to the unborn child because he or she is a human being. This human being's developmental stage is irrelevant to the inherent rights and characteristics it has as a human being.

Fringe Implications:

It is likely never morally acceptable to abort an unborn child (there may exist very rare exceptions).

It is no more the right of the mother to abort her unborn child than it is to kill her two-year-old child. The value does not lay in the age of the human being, but in the fact that it is a human being.

Because the unborn child is a human being and murder is the unjustified/unlawful killing of a human being, the abortion of an unborn child is murder, and thus morally reprehensible. Circumstances relating to how the unborn child was conceived or whether he/she will have disabilities does not disqualify the unborn child from being considered a human being any more than these same circumstances would disqualify an adult or infant from the same identity.

This is an example of two types of people who both agree that it is better to avoid abortion when possible. Yet, we can clearly see that because they have different justifications for their respective stances they end up disagreeing on the finer points of the issue - when it gets to the larger concept. The larger concept here is the value of life and how this value is justified. Where is the why found in the value of human life? I didn't provide an in-depth look at this in the points above. And, even though the points given were fairly meaningful, if we aren't able to understand the most fundamental of foundations for our views we will continue to talk past each other. It is only when we get to this fundamental layer that we can at least finally say, "I agree to disagree" in a meaningful way. I briefly explained the justification for the "conservative Christian" view but did not add much in that way for the "secular liberal" view. But, this was not an accident. To put it bluntly, it does not have one.

The naturalistic secular-liberal worldview represented above started in a place where we all agree: human life has value. It is tempting to consider this a foundational place to start. But it is not. The naturalistic liberal worldview cannot give a coherent justification for the inherent value of human life. It can only describe it, much in the same way that any person with eyes can describe to you that things fall to the earth. It's accurate to a point, but it is incomplete and comes with no justification. And if it has no coherent justification we cannot be expected to subscribe to its conclusions or expectations. As you probably know, I am a Christian and I believe the Christian worldview to be true and accurate. But, at this point I am not even trying to argue for the truth of Christianity at all. We're talking about worldview. In a liberal, secular, and naturalistic understanding of reality there can exist no ultimate or absolute good or evil, right or wrong, righteousness or evil... only what is. It is not right that human beings survive as a race, we simply prefer it. It is not truly wrong if a human life is taken, we are simply troubled by it. And we can know this how, you may ask? We can answer this quite simply. For something to be absolutely right or wrong it must comport with or violate something absolute. When a life is taken, what absolute is being violated in a naturalistic worldview? There can be none. The most you could say is that the taking of a life is wrong because we: a. Have agreed that it is wrong, or b. Generally don't prefer to have our own lives taken from us. So, in this case, the taking of another's life is not wrong because it violates a moral truth, but that it ignores the preferences of others (specifically the preference to continue living).

Let's go there. Are we as human beings obligated to comport to the preferences of others in all circumstances? The obvious answer is no. But it is natural to say that when it comes to killing we ought not do that thing. But the question remains, what is it that truly puts killing into a unique category that ought to be respected and honored absolutely, as opposed to being forced to wear red shoes because everyone prefers you in red shoes. One can go as deep as we can possibly go into this secular naturalistic worldview and still not find an answer other than "It's just wrong" or some variation of "I don't like it." Empathy is the lord of this view. As much as I may agree with many of the conclusions of this worldview, it greatly lacks sufficient justifications for holding them. There is no why, and so the whats will be unjustified, incoherent and inconsistent.

Let's apply this logic to the abortion example above and then come back to how this relates to the election and politics in general.

Because the secular liberal (and, again, specifically naturalistic) view on abortion cannot even justify the absolute value of human life, the problem is not that its whole argument breaks down, it is that it does not take its view far enough. If the true value of the unborn child cannot be justified, why do we place any restrictions on abortion at all? The simple fact is that we all recognize that abortion is, at least in some way, an unfortunate thing. But if it is unfortunate, and even regrettable, why is this the case? If the life in the womb is not inherently and ultimately valuable, an abortion would not be unfortunate. And, the very fact that the vast majority, if not the lot of us, believe it is unfortunate speaks to the actual value of the unborn child, which the naturalistic worldview cannot account for. The only possible reasons it may offer for the "unfortunateness" of the act is some sort of familial/emotional/biological attachment to the child, not that the act is a violation of a true absolute wrong. The most logical implication of this worldview is that we ought not restrict abortions at all, and even to discourage them is to encourage something which is unjustifiable (the preservation of individual lives, even at great cost). The problem with this is it just doesn't sit right with any of us. Perhaps it is because the views that follow from a secular naturalistic worldview do not comport with reality, and thus should be abandoned. Although, it would be entirely consistent for a naturalistic secularist to simply agree that there ought to be no constrictions and carry on. The problem is that this seems wrong... and we're left asking why.

On the other hand, we can look at the conservative Christian worldview's stance on the subject. My argument here though, again, is not to prove Christianity true. It is to argue that it is the type of worldview that is sufficient to offer proper reasons and justifications for the why. If it is true that there exists a personal and eternal God who has created us, He is, by definition, the absolute standard for morality and ethics. Any system of morality we may or may not have would be contrasted with the inherent standard of the creator of the system we call reality. And, if this God has made known to us his moral law, his character, and ultimately the reason we exist, the reason why life is valuable... we have a standard and worldview with which to make judgments based on the created purpose for life. In the end, I believe Christianity provides the only worldview capable of both explaining reality accurately and justifying what we know to be true about morality.

Using these two worldviews (of course there are others) we are left with two options:

Nothing is truly right or wrong, only what we prefer or don't prefer (for whatever reason is given).

There does exist true and absolute right and wrong.

If the second view is true, it is in everyone's best interest to pay attention to these absolutes for a number of reasons. If the first view is correct, there are yet two more options which follow:

Live as though there are absolutes, even though there are none and they cannot be justified.

Live according to the implications of this worldview: there are no true moral absolutes and I am absolutely free to do what I please without justified judgment or restriction from others.

It is obviously true to us that this second option of naturalism is untenable and unlivable. I challenge you to think of a single person you have ever encountered that truly holds this view. This leaves the first option under naturalism, the idea that there are no absolutes but we ought to live as though there were. This is an example of that basic and fundamental level which I believe we all need to come to regarding each and every one of our views on any issue. This is the level at which we can possibly say, "I agree to disagree." The problem is that this naturalistic worldview, which many hold, is clearly deficient. It does not validate our most treasured values nor does it justify them. It is here that we can then ask, is this view worth holding?

Bringing the abortion illustration full circle, we can ask ourselves which worldview both accurately describes and justifies our emotional and moral grounding in the value of life (and the limits, or lack of limits, that follow from it). The challenge to you and to me is to honestly ask whether the worldviews we hold are capable of providing sufficient reasons and justifications for our views. And, secondly, to ask whether the views we hold follow from a substantive and comprehensive worldview at all.

I've simply used the issue of abortion (could I have picked a more controversial topic?) as an illustration. It may be clear how my argument relates to social moral issues, but what about politics in general? What does this have to do with how best to achieve and maintain liberty and freedom? First of all, achieving and maintaining liberty and freedom can mean a lot of things... what I mean by that question is this: do we best achieve this goal, generally, through a traditional conservative approach (less restriction, smaller government, lower taxes, etc.) or through a more liberal approach (more restriction, bigger government, higher taxes, more government programs, etc.)? And what does a worldview have to do with this? Right out of the gates it seems clearer to see how my previous argument applies to outright-moral issues than it does to this side of politics that has more to do with taxes, fiscal strategies and government regulation.

I am not going to go into this side of the political equation quite as in-depth as with the other. But let's dig in. The Declaration of Independence is a great place to start.

Politics -

Our country was not founded by individuals who had ambiguous worldviews. I am not going to argue that they were all die-hard evangelical Christians. That simply isn't the case, though many were Christian. Let's take a look at the reasons and justifications the founding fathers gave for human rights:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The foundation and justifications for the rights and powers we hold dear are clearly and unavoidably grounded in "the..Nature's God entitle them" and regarding the self-evident truths, that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." We must start again at the foundation, where our founding fathers were wise to begin. The very reason that we have unalienable rights is due to the fact that they are endowed to us by a type of entity who has the ability to endow such things. And it is only because this endower is eternal and unchanging that these rights can be rested upon. For if these rights were only endowed by other men or governments, these men and governments may pass away and with them our endowed rights. By very definition they could not be considered unalienable.

unalienable

- incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

-intrinsic, intrinsical - belonging to a thing by its very nature; "form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey

Man is incapable of truly taking away something which belongs to a person by his or her very nature. Nor can he add something. It is a logical impossibility. It is an absurdity. And it is only within this theistic framework that these endowed rights can exist in the first place. And so, to talk about what rights we deserve or don't deserve, and what we consider to be violations of these rights, cannot be properly addressed without understanding where these rights come from. To do so would be akin to discussing where we ought to drive our wheelless cars.

The purpose of our government is to preserve and secure, among others, the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that have been endowed to us by our Creator. Two things become clear now:

To deny the existence of a rights-endowing creator is to take the legs off the chair you're sitting on (to deny the justification for your rights). These are not only the rights you fight for, but the rights you use while you fight for them.

Our country's entire perspective on liberty, justice, democracy and the rights of its citizens is founded upon the concept that we are created and endowed with these rights by this creator.

Whoah! This sounds a bit too close to a violation of what we commonly call the Separation of Church and state! This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the amendments. The concept of the separation of church and state is found in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's also worth reading this next summary, which puts it better than I'd likely fair.

"In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion."

It's clear to see a few things here:

The "separation of church and state" is simply the idea that Congress cannot make "law respecting an establishment of religion," nor can it prohibit people from belonging to or exercising their own faith...

Jefferson's main concern was not that Religion ought not affect government (to protect government from religion) but that " government is not to interfere with religion," that is, the intent is to protect religion from government restriction.

So, it is clear that the foundation for the rights of American citizens is grounded in a creator, and that this does not reflect a violation of the "separation of church and state" as defined by our founders. Why did I bring this up? To further solidify the fact that our precious rights come from what most people would call a "religious" origin and, secondly, that this is not a bad or dishonest thing; in fact it's the very line of reasoning our founders used to establish our rights and found this country. Our founders came to the what of unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because they had a why capable of supporting this structure, and only because their why necessitated this structure. These rights do not only follow from this worldview, they emanate from it. They scream to be realized.

In contradistinction to this worldview, there is the liberal-secular-naturalistic worldview. My point is not that people who live out this naturalistic worldview don't desire for men and women to possess these same rights... in fact, they probably have a better reputation today in regards to the fight for individual rights. And yet, their worldview itself offers no justification or concrete reason why we should possess these rights. They are right to fight for them, and we'd agree on this, but the foundational why is completely missing. It is not only the case that specific individual human rights do not follow from this worldview, but they will often be inconsistent with this worldview. And yet, naturalists persist in this cause (rightly so).

Let's look at an example:

Human Right: Freedom of Speech (found in the 1st amendment to the constitution)

Liberal-Secular-Naturalistic Worldview of Man:

Man is a highly evolved and intelligent animal who came to be so through mutation and adaptation over millions of years through the processes of evolution/natural selection.

Man was not "created" by an intelligent creator.

The chief "aim" of man, and of any animal, is survival (and those animals which pass the test of natural selection do so): survival of the fittest.

It follows that the chief "aim" of any government ought to be the preservation (survival) of its people. This is consistent with the overall worldview of man's purpose.

The question is now: does freedom of speech emanate from this worldview? Does this worldview justify this freedom? (We will all recognize that expression of speech like libel, slander, copyright infringement are exempted)

Scenario: American citizen wishes to express views (views which are protected by freedom of speech laws) which promote ideas with the likely result of disunity, perhaps revolution (and with it much death), perhaps even philosophical ideas that may cause other men and women to wish not to survive.

Scenario in Naturalistic Worldview: Because the most ultimate "good" of naturalism is survival, the individual's rights must be measured against the survival of the group. If at any time the survival of the group is threatened (even legally) by an individual within it, it follows that the survival of the group is enhanced by taking away this individual's right to publish these materials. This worldview does not possess the ability to justify the protection of individuals' civil liberties at the cost of the larger community. And yet, members of this worldview do so (rightly). The appropriate question is why should these individuals not seek a worldview that justifies their values?

Conservative Christian Worldview of Man:

Man is a unique creature among animals. Though he is an "animal" in the strictest sense, he is a creature made in the image of his creator for a purpose.

He is endowed by this creator with specific value because he belongs to and was created by Him. This creator has made known to us that he values us not only as a group, but as individuals made in his image.

He is endowed by this creator with certain rights according to the moral laws and character of the creator.

This moral law is eternal because it reflects the nature of the eternal law maker.

Scenario: same as above (freedom of speech)

Scenario in Conservative-Christian Worldview of Man: Though a person with this worldview will very likely pursue and value survival, this value is inherently subordinate to the ultimate "aim" of man - to know, love, and enjoy God. Because this is the ultimate why of this worldview, all other whys will emanate from it. If this creator God values human life on an individual level and seeks to protect this life (commandment against murder, among other things), and if it is also true that persons subscribing to this worldview seek to love and respect this God, they will also seek to protect that which God desires to protect. It follows from this worldview that each individual has inherent value, even outside the scope of his positively contributing to or detracting from the survival of the larger group. It follows, further, that no person or government ought to squelch or undermine the value or rights of any individual, regardless of the circumstances (within the law). And so a conservative Christian is acting consistent with her worldview when she seeks to protect the human or civil rights of others, regardless of whether she agrees with how this other person chooses to exercise these rights. This is the power of law in action, specifically law built on a solid foundation.

Members of either of these two worldviews value civil and human rights. The key distinction, though, is the conservative Christian worldview dictates that these rights are inherent and endowed to every human by our Creator, while the liberal naturalistic worldview only possesses the faculties to say these rights are endowed by our government or society. It follows from the former worldview that the primary job of our government is to recognize and protect the rights of its citizens that they possess by nature, while the latter must establish and create them. It follows, further, that a government based on the first worldview does not have the power or authority to create or remove these rights, only to recognize and protect them, while the second must create them and thus has the inherent power to remove them.

It follows naturally from the conservative Christian worldview, then, that our government ought to limit itself to the promotion and protection of its people's safety and inherent rights. It ought not go further because it is not the type of thing that has the authority to take it any further (knowing it exists to protect, not create). But, it does follow from a secular-naturalistic worldview that the government ought to take the role of "endower," and not simply protector. For who would provide these rights if not our government (by government we mean a representative authority of and for its people)? And, as I pointed out regarding the implications this view brings regarding abortion rights, the problem is not that the liberal naturalistic argument simply breaks down, it is that it does not take it far enough. It would be much more consistent for a people who desire a government based on naturalistic tenants to stop pretending these tenants are something like what we call “sacred.” It would be much more consistent to affirm that its citizens only possess individual rights when these rights are expressed in a way the government desires. And, if any individual poses a threat to the greater good of the survival of its society, even in expression of philosophical ideas, to either eliminate this person are strip him of his basic rights. The current of this worldview is to give the government more and more power to define what is good and worthy of protection, even if this government is an elected body. And, the more power this governing body has to define what our rights and “goods” are as a society, the less our individual rights will count or be protected. This government body, which again, by definition, would be the endower of rights, would be right to possess this power. The logical endgame for a government based on naturalistic tenants is absolute power over its citizens. Not only power to do “good,” to protect, and promote survival... but to carry out whatever it deems necessary to accomplish these things - the reason being, it cannot base any of its promoted values on anything justifiable other than survival. To do otherwise would be inconsistent.

“Whoah! This sounds extreme!”, you might be thinking. “No American believes that!”, you might be thinking. I have two responses to what you may be feeling at this point:

There indeed are individuals who believe in this way.

You’re also right: the VAST majority of us don’t truly desire the kind of government or nation I just described.

Therein lies the problem:

Liberal-secular=naturalistic individuals who have this sort of perspective on government are actually thinking in a much more consistent way with their worldview than those who do not share these same radical governmental views.

We know that the VAST majority of those whom we’d accurately and fairly call secular liberals do not hold these extreme views. Their views do tend toward the left, they do tend to promote a bigger, stronger, more powerful government... but not to the extent I just described. The problem is that they ought to if they want to live consistently.

This immediately strikes us as over the top, too extreme. You’d be right to think so. If this type of government is not what we desire, why hold to a worldview where this type of government follows from its foundational assertions? You must ask yourself which you are more committed to: your worldview or your individual social/moral/governmental views on particular issues...

If you are committed to a naturalistic secular liberal worldview, I challenge you live it out to the fullest and don’t hold back. Stop pretending that life is sacred - it is not. Stop pretending that your individual human and civil rights are inherently yours - they are not. Stop trying to limit the power of the government at all if you believe it is our best hope for survival and flourishing. Stop pretending that anything at all fits into the categories of absolutely right or absolutely wrong - these categories are imaginary. Don’t call murder evil, simply call it a crime.

I doubt that you, the reader, are interested in doing any of those things. The challenge then is to ask yourself why? It seems wise and prudent that you pursue a worldview that leads to conclusions and views that you can both justify and hold in consistency with your worldview.

Likewise, if you are committed to a Christian worldview, I challenge you also to live it out to the fullest. Have the guts to call what is evil evil and what is good good and know why you do so. Ask yourself whether your views on morality and government emanate from and are consistent with the Christian worldview or with a naturalistic-secular worldview. Do you take your cues from the revealed word of God or from a secular culture which cannot provide a solid foundation for the views it holds?

My two-part thesis here is this:

A consistent Christian worldview leads to a conservative political perspective. And, a consistent naturalistic secular worldview leads to a liberal political perspective.

The logical outcome of a naturalistic-secular worldview produces a governmental system which must enforce values it cannot justify or rightly uphold (if it is a free democracy).

The first point won’t be a shocking announcement to anyone (whether you agree with it or not). But, what we typically don’t do is take these perspectives to their logical extremes.

Perhaps the most surprising thing that many liberal naturalists could stand to learn is that, for the Christian, it is actually desirable that we live under a “secular” government. This is a good thing. By secular government we mean a government which does not promote or prohibit any specific religious faith or practice and which operates in a fashion of “separation” from any specific religious faith. But, and here is the caveat, if we hope to live in a nation with rights grounded in a solid worldview, this secular government must ground itself on one which is theistic (and specifically one which holds that God has revealed himself to mankind). You’ll notice this is exactly the type of government that our founders established. It is not a theocracy, nor do we wish it to be so. But it does recognize that which offers a firm foundation for our liberty.

It ought not be the desire of American conservative Christians to seek to make this an official “Christian nation.” But, rather to promote and vote in ways that are consistent with the eternal values and truths we hold to be true as Christians, and upon which we believe this country finds its foundation. It is poor thinking to believe that a country based on certain tenants would be wise to abandon the foundations which support them. And this is precisely what the average liberal-naturalist desires to see happen. If our country continues to deviate from the justified foundations which provide our liberty, we will soon cease to have it in any meaningful sense.

In this election we had the choice between two major candidates who both espouse a Christian worldview. Though Mitt Romney is a Mormon (and I personally do not consider Mormonism Christian - that’s another discussion), his worldview type is similar in many ways to classical Christianity in that most of the same values emanate from it. Though I would disagree with Mitt Romney concerning the truths of his faith, I would likely agree with him on any specific issue that will face our country because my impression is that his political views (at least those he ran on) are consistent with his worldview.

On the other hand, Barack Obama, who also identifies himself as a Christian does not hold political views which I believe are consistent with the worldview he espouses (for reasons detailed in my previous arguments). This causes me to wonder about the answers to two questions concerning him:

Does Barack Obama truly hold a Christian worldview (or at least one consistent with its values and beliefs)? And, if Barack Obama does hold a Christian worldview, why is it that his political views are inconsistent with this worldview?

Does Barack Obama not hold to a Christian worldview? If not, why is it the case that he claims to?

These two questions leave me with answers that are both unsatisfying. If the answer to the first question is yes, I’m left with a candidate whose political positions are inconsistent with his worldview. If the answer to the first question is no, we come to the second question. And, if the answer to this second question is yes, then I’m left with a candidate who has intentionally misrepresented himself and I cannot trust.

Here’s the thing, I like Barack Obama. He seems to me to be a good guy. He’s likeable, intelligent, and charismatic. He has a great sense of humor. And, I truly and honestly believe that he wants what is best for this country. The problem is that I don’t believe his answers about how this is accomplished are consistent with his worldview, and if he possesses a different worldview than the one has espoused than he has mislead us all. Though he espouses Christian beliefs, he operates as if secular naturalism were true. I cannot vote for a leader for this country who is either a known liar or who unapologetically promotes values and policies that violate truths of his worldview. He is either untrustworthy or inconsistent. He doesn’t strike me as untrustworthy, merely inconsistent.

Though I disagree with Mitt Romney on many important life questions, I believe that he would have promoted policies and values that are consistent with his worldview and mine.

I will end this absurdly long essay with the challenge I presented earlier to both conservatives and liberals alike:

Ask yourself if your worldview provides a sufficient and accurate why for your whats.

Ask yourself if your whats are not only consistent with your why, but does your why demand them.

If you find that your whys and whats are consistent - don’t hold back. If they are inconsistent, I think it’s time to reevaluate both your worldview and your stance on both: a. specific issues, and b. politics in general.

It is only when we get to this fundamental level of worldview, the level that informs and determines our thoughts on how things ought to be, that we can finally say, “I agree to disagree” in respectful and meaningful way. Only at this level can we truly say, “I understand where you’re coming from.”

Thanks so much for reading. I welcome your thoughts.

Paul Moorhead

Written: April 27, 2013

Notes and Caveats:

I understand that many people fall somewhere in between these two categories of “liberal-secular naturalists” and “conservative Christians.” This goes without saying. But, all of these “in-between places” will borrow from either one extreme or the other, creating a sort of middle. And, if one finds himself in the middle, it’s very much liking standing at the top of a pointed hill. You’ve got a leg standing on either side and a mountain poking you in the groin. It’s natural that at some point you will slide down one side or the other.

I also understand that many Christians are not “conservative.” In no way am I arguing that politically liberal Christians are not truly Christians. My argument, though, if I can be this bold, is that their “political liberalism” is, in most forms, inconsistent with classical orthodox Christianity.

It also goes without saying that Christianity is not the only religious worldview that we must consider as a theistic foundation for a form of government/society. This would be another discussion. Christianity, though, is the most relevant religious tradition to examine regarding faith and politics in the U.S. I also happen to believe it is the only consistent, coherent and truly justified religious tradition (in essence, true). That, too, is another discussion. But I will say this: in my opinion, all other major religious traditions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) lack both the evidence to be strongly considered and the consistency to cling to. I exclude Judaism in this list because Christianity is a continuation of the Judaic tradition.

Sometimes Seeing a Stranger Smile Can Make All the Difference

2013-05-20T03:11:00.001-07:00

Today I wrote an update on Facebook: "Sometimes seeing a stranger smile for no reason makes a difference."

I was in the grocery store buying some lemons, yes some lemons. My favorite meal of four artichokes was on the stove and I realized I didn't have enough butter four my dipping sauce (very necessary)... this is one of the perks of living across the street from a grocery store - you can leave and be back in five minutes before your meal is over-done.

I was standing in line and two gentlemen were shopping near the end-cap of the isle behind me. One looked about 40. Very LA looking. Looked like a cool dude. And standing arm-in-arm beside him was a man who looked to be his brother, maybe slightly younger. The man's brother, we'll say, had his eyes mostly shut. His head was weaving back and forth, Ray Charles style. It was difficult to say what condition this man had, but he surely had one.

For some reason he had my full attention for about 10 seconds. As he weaved his head back and forth, every few seconds a pleasant smile came across his face. I don't know why. My first thought was that this guy really enjoys being out and about with his brother. He really seemed to be happy to be out shopping, soaking in the vibe of this store, seeing people, he seamed to be, simply put, present. His smile brought a smile to face and I envied him.

I realize these words actually may offend someone. I don't know his condition. I don't know about the things this man has and will miss out on in life. I don't make light of what the hard aspects of his life are. But there was real joy, contentment and peace on his face. And, I think he has a great gift in that.

I've had a bit of an up and down few weeks and seeing this man smile brought some peace and a smile to my own face. It was a reminder that life can be simple. There are so many things to be enjoyed, even the end-cap of a grocery store. The companionship of a friend or brother. The light on your face.

I was reminded that though we face hardships, stress, things not turning out the way we hoped... there is a simple beauty around us that is poised and ready to bring smiles if we'd just close our eyes a bit and soak it in.

Thanks stranger-dude.

May 15, 2012

The Person of the Holy Spirit

2013-05-20T03:10:00.002-07:00

The more we come to know the holy spirit as a person the more we come to know God. The Holy Spirit is not a "force" or a "feeling." The Holy Spirit is not a sense. He is not a "will." He is not a medium. He is a person.

The trinity truly is a marvelous and mysterious thing. It's easy to think of the Father as a person with a personality. It's easy to think of Jesus as a person with a personality. But, I think we often naturally think of the Holy Spirit as the will of God. It's easy, even, to think of the Holy Spirit as a kind of aura of God, like a gas or light shining from Him. This is not SO off-base that it is absurd, but the more we come to know God as he truly is the more we will truly know and enjoy him.

There have been countless illustrations of the trinity given throughout the centuries. We recognize that there is a sort of hierarchy within the Godhead. We typically think of the order as the Father, Jesus then the Holy Spirit. They are ontologically equal but functionally unique.

It is clear from scripture that as Jesus walked this earth he did only what he saw the Father doing. He sought to glorify and emulate the Father. It is also clear from scripture that it pleases the Father to glorify the Son and put all things under his authority. There is a loving and glorifying union between the two... and we can easily see the Holy Spirit as the light or love flowing between the two. But, I think it's more accurate to truly see the Spirit as a person, as scripture describes, saying "Have you seen this!!? I love this! Have you seen the Father? Have you seen Jesus? This is the best!" The spirit's role is to bring glory to Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit has been in eternal communion with the Father and the Son. He is so enthralled with the glory of God that his sole mission is to bring attention to it and to enable others to testify to it.

What if, rather than identifying the Holy Spirit as a "force" within you that urges you to be good, you saw him as someone who has spent eternity in the presence of Jesus and the Father and is so amped about the whole thing that he wants nothing more than to show you what it means to see them as they are and to know them as he does.

Though this may be a crude analogy, it may help a little. Have you ever been so excited about a movie, song or a musician that every single chance you had you urged others to experience what you have experienced? Let's settle on a song. This song has so moved you, the performance so exceptional that not to share it with others would almost be painful. You actually feel offended if others don't like it because it's so good. It's just that good. You urge others to listen, you explain the story of the artist, the lyrics, the moment that just throws you over the edge. You love it and want others to love it too.

The Holy Spirit is Jesus' biggest fan. Jesus is the Father's biggest fan. The Father rejoices and takes great pleasure in bringing attention to his Son. It's this amazing dance of love.

I urge myself and you to stop seeing the Spirit as merely some kind of conscience but a person who knows the truth about you and about the reality of God... because he is God. His passionate love for you dictates that he will draw you into a fuller and more passionate knowledge and enjoyment of Jesus Christ. Listen to him. Cherish his words. Cherish his guidance. Cherish everything he says. He knows. And, excitingly, he not only testifies to the truth of Christ, he empowers and guides, he reveals, he changes us, he dwells with us.

Imagine your favorite musical band. The lead singer and guitarist, the bassist, and the drummer. Honestly, I don't know which one the HS is. He comes to your house and talks with you for the rest of your life about this music you love which he has produced.

April 27, 2012

Let's Abandon Love

2013-05-20T03:08:00.001-07:00

Love is the root of all sorts of evils.

Love causes war.

Love causes death.

We need to let go of love.

It's incredible to me that we live in a world where people continue to love and place value in love. Love is an ancient and archaic notion that our earliest ancestors used as a way to form groups, culture, to come together. Perhaps there was a time when love truly was necessary for the survival of the species. After all, doesn't love help us to procreate? I'm not saying that love has never, as foolish and ridiculous as it is, served some kind of purpose. But, can we please admit that it doesn't exist, never has, and should be abandoned in favor of reason?

How many people have died because of love? Millions. We could look to countless examples that prove the point. How many stories have you read in the paper about the murder of some innocent man or woman who's ex could not live without them? Blame love. How many mothers are missing out on what could have been an exciting and rewarding life of career success and luxury because they've chosen to get married or have children out of some archaic desire to love someone to the detriment of what we all know truly matters?

Romeo and Juliette - even our greatest and most beloved fiction is glaring with the evils of love. Love leads to death. Blame love.

Love can even cause war. European countries have stupidly gone to war over marriages. The Trojan war (whether totally accurate or not, it's not the point) is another example of the evils of love.

Even if you find comfort in love, you can keep it. I'd rather live a loveless life than live in some kind of deluded fantasy. I'd rather live in reality. Whether you claim to feel love (which I doubt) or not is irrelevant. It doesn't exist. Your brain may fire its synapses in some clever way (thanks to evolution by the way) and you may think this is love, but it is not. And you're a fool if you believe it is anything other than just that - vestigial electrical impulses that evolution, had it a mind, would have been wise to release us from centuries ago. I challenge you not to be a slave to what your parents taught you, or to what their parents told them, and theirs before them... about this silly and destructive fantasy called love.

Think of it. A world with no broken hearts. A world where no one loses their life over the love-based jealousy of an ex-lover. A world where every individual isn't bogged down and enslaved by their delusions of emotion but are free to pursue their dreams, their gifts, all their aspirations - and, no one to guilt you into believing you've "missed it" or have neglected any of the emotional leaches in your life.

It's time to abandon love. I know you're family told you it was real. But they're deluded too. I know you may feel like you've lost a sense of belonging... but it will pass. You'll eventually see that you're now free. The guilt you may feel for a short time regarding the "sins" (I wish there was a better word) of self-actualization and shedding the bonds of burdensome relationships will go away as soon as you realized they are only there because you've convinced yourself that you MUST feel this way. You don't. Love isn't real. It doesn't exist. It causes pain, death, heartbreak, loneliness, and even war. But it starts with you. Let it go.

Love MAY exist. But no one has or ever will prove it. So, why not live as if it doesn't exist? It's the rational thing to do.

Written: March 9, 2012

Can the Pot Call the Kettle Black?

2013-05-20T03:07:00.001-07:00

I've decided to write about something that's been on my mind lately concerning an apologetic argument often used in response to a specific objection to Christianity. I listen to a podcast called Stand to Reason now and then, hosted by Greg Koukl, which is very good. A few weeks ago this objection came up on his show and Koukl gave the typical response - I do think the response he used to the objection "works." It's logical, but I find it rather unsatisfying and I think most people who hear it do as well. And, it's an example of a larger question concerning truth. We had our first session of an apologetics course at our church this past Sunday and the same question was posed. It goes a little something like this:

Objection: "Christianity is so judgemental. You shouldn't try to tell others what to think, believe, or how to behave. Just let people believe what they like if it makes them happy. You shouldn't try to change other people's minds."

Response: "You are doing the very thing you accuse Christians of wrongly doing. You are actually trying to change my mind right now concerning what I think and believe. You, in fact, are being judgemental of myself and Christians by trying to change our behavior. If you don't think people ought to try to change other people's minds, why are you trying to change mine?"

Pretty logical right? It is. I don't think the response fails. It is perfectly sound. However, I don't think the response speaks to the actual heart of the objection and thus can be rather unsatisfying to the objector.

Allow an illustration:

Bob is a very judgemental person. Everyone knows it. All he does is put people down, try to correct them whenever possible, has a disagreeable personality. He's not a kind person and everyone knows it. No one would argue tha Bob was not a judgemental type of guy.

Alice, however, is a very kind, forgiving, patient, mild-mannered, non-judgemental person. No one would disagree. She genuinely seeks the good of others and hopes for their good.

Now, let's say Alice is friends with Bob. Alice cares about Bob and his well-being and knows that if Bob continues on this way he's likely to ruin his relationships. It's one of those "someone should talk to him" kind of situations. Out of love for Bob, Alice confronts him and says, "Bob, I need to tell you that you come across very judgmental. I myself think that you're a judgemental person and it's ruining your relationships. I don't mean to attack you, but out of friendship with you I thought it would be right to let you know that this is a problem and I hope to do everything I can to help you grow out of this."

What if Bob's response to this was this: "Well, you're judging me right now! How dare you accuse me of being judgemental! You're doing the very same thing! You're inconsistent."

Just stepping back a bit, I don't think any of us would agree with Bob here. We can simply use our common sense to see that Alice isn't being judgmental, she's merely making a correct judgment, or observation based on what she sees to be obviously true. That fact that a person makes a single judgment based on the obvious facts does not make this person judgmental.

Back to the real objection at hand.

Though the above response to the objection about Christians (or, Christianity) being judgmental is logically sound, I think it can come across a bit like Bob's response to Alice. And the plain fact is that valid arguments that don't convince anyone fail to be helpful, however sound they may be.

I think at the core of the objection is a misunderstanding, and to simply answer the objection without discerning what is really at stake won't be a complete answer.

The core of the objection makes at least one if not all of these unjustified assertions:

1. "There really is no spiritual truth."

2. "Even if there is spiritual truth, no one can know it. So don't rock the boat for someone if they're happy."

3. "Even if there is spiritual truth, it's not important to know it. Just let people believe what they want because it doesn't really matter in the end anyway."

4. "I know that Christianity is wrong. So, I don't like the fact that your try to convince others of its truth."

Though a similar objection could be made about non-religious or non-philosophical claims, we're dealing with a spiritual matter here and we'll simply stick with that.

Let's flesh these out:

"There really is no spiritual truth."

The very fact that the objector is opposed to others trying to proselytize strongly implies that he/she doesn't really, when we get down to it, believe that there really is something that is actually "true" spiritually at all. If he did, then he would be more concerned with discovering what truth is, not being annoyed that some people claim to know it. If he did believe in truth, he would likely be open to hearing what people espouse and if he found what he believed to be spiritually true, he'd be much more likely to dialogue with others about his and the other's worldview, hoping to share the truth with others who are misinformed (unless the truth doesn't matter, which we'll get to).
The objector is also claiming to know more than the Christian (and perhaps he does). The very fact that he objects to the Christian "judging others' beliefs" implies that the his own belief is more correct (and in the correct belief, no on else's belief is wrong... which doesn't make much sense).

2. "Even if there is spiritual truth, no one can know it. So don't rock the boat for someone if they're happy."

Simply by asserting this point, the objector is actually claiming to know the spiritual truth, namely that it doesn't exist. This is similar, in a way, to making a claim like "there exist no red baboons." The person would have to have total and exhaustive knowledge of every baboon to know that absolutely none of them are red. To claim there is no spiritual truth is to both claim superior knowledge of spiritual matters (or truth) and also that the objector knows this for certain (which is impossible). If there were spiritual truth that was unknown to the objector, he is in no place to know whether it exists or not.

3. "Even if there is spiritual truth, it's not important to know it. Just let people believe what they want because it doesn't really matter in the end anyway."

This assumes two things: 1. The objector knows enough about spiritual truth to know that knowing this truth does not matter (or else he would want to share it). 2. The objector has superior spiritual knowledge than those who follow Christianity. The person needs to justify how he knows what is true spiritually and also why it is the case that knowing this truth does not matter.

4. "I know that Christianity is wrong. So, I don't like the fact that you try to convince others of its truth."

This is probably the strongest "from the gut" reason for the main objection that Christians ought not try to convince others of the truth of Christianity. It implies the objector knows that Christianity is false, though they haven't demonstrated this. They are merely arguing that they do not like it and that "no one is right." And, if no one is right about God than it doesn't matter which of the false religions you belong to... because they're all false. The objector is implying that he/she somehow knows that Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is false to the degree that he will defy anyone to espouse it.

Up to now we've really only just touched on the framework of the objection and answer, but haven't delved into the full answer. I hope to have demonstrated that the objection implies one or more of the above problems inherent in the objection... but to get to the true heart of what the person is feeling is just as important. The person making this objection is most likely feeling something like this: "I may not know everything about God, or even Christianity, but I do know that if there were a God he wouldn't be judgmental and the fact that I find Christianity to be judgmental shows me it's obviously not true. It's obvious to everyone that we ought to be tolerant and respectful of others' beliefs, especially if they seem to be happy and their beliefs aren't leading them to hurt others. I'll respect your beliefs right up to the point where you start trying to tell other people what they should be believing - that's when you cross the line and I'm willing to call you out on that."

The objector truly feels that his objection is good. Not just logical, but caring and kind. He wants people to be happy. This is where the problems with his objection come in. He assumes that either God is unknowable (and that anyone who claims to know him is a fool) or that knowing him as he is doesn't really matter too much, it's just about being a good person.*

But, let's assume for a second that God is truly real and that he has spoken to us, that he really has revealed himself to us and told us who he is. Let's also assume that he has shared with us that he greatly desires that we know him... in fact, that he created us to know him intimately. Let's also assume that he's shown us that sin is a big deal, and that if our sin against him is not dealt with, we will remain outside of fellowship with him for eternity. This would matter. This would matter a great deal. And, for a Christian to live a life believing that this is the case, but dares not tell others about their creator and his great love for them would not only be irresponsible but cruel.

If I had friend with a terminal, yet very treatable disease, and he was both unaware of his disease and about the cure... would it not be wrong for me to neglect to tell him about it because I know it doesn't care much for hospitals? He may kick and scream, he may even say "stay out of my business." But, if I actually cared for him I would rather "rock his boat" or offend him than let him die. Though Christians don't in any way claim to be responsible, as it were, for others' trajectory, we do believe that Jesus has come and is the giver of life. That he has provided himself as a reconciler between us and God. If Christianity is indeed true, this is amazing and important news.

I hope that the skeptic understands that for the Christian to value another's comfort or ignorance, his aversion to conflict or of being offended is worth considering, but weighed against the amazing revelation of God in Jesus Christ as a giver of life... the decision is easy. I'd rather tell you something that's true even if you don't want to hear it, than let you continue on without knowing who God is.

Whether the objector comes to a belief in Christianity or not, I hope that he will at least see that for the Christian it would be wildly inconsistent, bizarre, and frankly cruel to withhold what he believes to be true.

Lastly, I think the most off-putting part of the original response to the objection is what we saw in the Bob/Alice illustration. To simply call out someone for being judgmental does not make the one doing the confronting judgmental, only that he has made a judgment. To be judgmental and to judge rightly from time to time are two different things. We intuitively know that to identify a fault by using the means of the thing the fault abuses is not to fall into the state of being a similar abuser. In this case to identify a set of beliefs as judgmental is not necessarily judgmental in and of itself. The true resolve to this dilemma is found by truly looking at the content of the "judgmentalism" that the objector accuses the Christian of possessing.

Christians are certainly not meant to be judgmental. I would never defend our "right to be judgmental." This is not the point. But any time one knows the truth about a matter, he is in a position to identify things that are true and false about that subject.

Take math, for example. If I were to encounter a person who believed 2 + 2 = 5, I would be right to correct him and show him 2 + 2 in fact equals 4. For him to say, "you're being judgmental!" would be silly. I'm simply correcting a false understanding of what is actually true. If the truth of a matter is in fact revealed than were are able to know it and identify non-truths related to it.

If God truly exists than he is what he is and is not what he is not. It is logically impossible for two individuals to say opposite things about him and both be correct. And, if God has revealed his characteristics to us than it is more than logical that those who do not understand him as he actually is are in error. A person with a correct understanding would not be in the wrong to identify the error and seek to share what is true (just as in the math example). There is no arguing with this logic, the only question that remains is has God revealed himself to us? This is a question worth asking and would launch us into that topic, which we can't cover here. But, we must admit that if he does exist he, of course, is free to reveal himself to us. We must simply seek to understand if and how he has done so. And so, the objector we began this essay addressing, I hope, will consider that this is the true question.

*If the point of a religious faith is to make someone a nicer/kinder/better person for the benefit of humanity, than it would indeed be true that "whatever works for you" would be a very good perspective. If you are encouraged to be a better person through Buddhism, go for it. If you're just fine as an atheist, go for it. If it's through Christianity - that's fine. But, as Christians, we do not believe "being a good person" is the purpose of life. It's not the goal. The purpose is to know personally and glorify our creator. It is to be in relationship with him and to serve him and others to his glory. But, we also believe that sin has drastically affected the whole scenario and that reconciliation has been made through Jesus Christ alone. That's why it's a big deal that we talk about Jesus.

Note: I wanted to include a brief note about hell in the essay but felt like I'd be forcing it in where it didn't fit. So, a short note about that here -

Much of the "judgmentalism" that people see in Christianity has to do with the concept of hell and sin. And, I can understand why. Most of the "stop judging me!" sentiment comes from the fact that a person may feel judged by a Christian/Christianity when they are told that they are sinners and are heading for an eternity in what we call hell. As noted in the essay, this is what we've seen revealed to us through scripture and the life of Jesus and understand it to be true. And so, to ignore or neglect this would be dishonest and inconsistent for the believer.

But, to address the sentiment felt by the the person feeling judged: No Christian is in the place to judge you from where they stand - the authority to do so is not theirs. But the Christian does feel a desire to take God at his word and share the news with others. We live in a land of laws. It would not be "judgmental" to tell someone who has just stolen a car that this is breaking the law. It's just a fact. We believe, also that God has revealed his law to us as well, and that we have all broken it but are able to be forgiven and reconciled to him. The desire is simply to share what we believe to be both true and very important.

Whether a person comes to place of recognizing God and his word to us is another matter... the answer to whether God has spoken and revealed these truths to us the true question.

Written: April 25, 2012

Irresistible Grace

2013-05-20T03:06:00.000-07:00

OK, I know this is played-out. You probably already have a strong position. But, hear me out. Let me just get this out there - I'm reformed in my Christian doctrine. I subscribe to the doctrines of grace. But, I still love to engage and listen to both sides. I've just been watching a debate between a Calvinist and non-Calvinist and I cannot get away from one simple idea that, in my mind, is the deal breaker.

The classic Calvinistic position is that man cannot choose salvation of himself - he is incapable of doing so because he is dead in his sin. Dead men cannot choose life. Just as Lazaras could not yell out to Jesus to resurrect him, man cannot reach out to Jesus to be regenerated into life. The classic Arminian position is that God has given prevenient grace to all men and have been gifted the ability to believe on Jesus for salvation. They would still say that salvation is a free gift of God to those who believe, but it is ultimately up to the free-will individual to choose God, to choose Jesus and declare him Lord. I absolutely believe both "reformed" Christians and "arminian" Christians are Christians. This isn't a debate about who's in or out. BUT, I do believe that this is an important distinction, both about ourselves and about God.

When I listen to debates on this subject I can truly relate to some of the emotions and perspectives of the Arminian. I really can. Left up to me, I'd probably be an Arminian. But, when I read scripture I cannot see that this is possible. Now, let's not make the mistake of saying reformed Christians believe the Bible is Calvinist. I simply believe that what we call "reformed" faith is what the Bible espouses. I believe this because the Bible is clear about it. To examine the whole of the issue is too ridiculously large to cover here. I just want to address one facet of the discussion.

I find, correct me if I'm ignorant here, that most of the people I hear argue against Calvinism do so because of a strong attachment to a certain philosophical perspective - namely, in their own free will and right to choose in all things. Of all the 5 points of TULIP, this is often the biggy (Irresistible Grace - the "I") that non-Calvinists most vehemently object to. This is what gets me excited. I don't think many people follow this rabbit trail deep enough.

To the arminian I say this: If God equally calls all men to himself, if he prompts all men equally with the Holy Spirit, if Jesus has reached out equally and fully to all men on the planet and offered his gift of life, what is the factor that determines whether this gift is accepted or rejected? I cannot find a way to think of any answer that could be offered than that the other factor is the man. And, it follows to ask, what is in any particular man that he would accept the gospel while his neighbor does not. Is he smarter? Is he more spiritually aware or softer-hearted? Let's say that he is. Is this of his own doing? Did this man choose to be a soft-hearted and spiritually aware person? If so, how was he able to do this?

Does the man who was daily beaten by his religious "christian" drunkard of a father, the son of divorced parents, the child who grew up in poverty and is abandoned by this same father have an equal inner ability to make a decision for Jesus than the boy who grew up in a safe and loving home to believing parents who accurately modeled God's love for their child? Does this first man who has been abused and abandoned by what he knows as "father" and what he associates with Christianity and who will likely despise any father or faith have the same free-will choice as the latter example? It seems very plain that much of what we call choice is an illusion. We have all benefited or been harmed by our experiences, not to mention the fact that we all have certain genetic predispositions.

I cannot believe that a person who is born with a genetic predisposition towards anger and coldness, who then is abused and poorly raised and given a terrible example of Christianity can possibly posses the same degree of free-will choice as one who has not suffered from these same detrimental experiences. No man, and I mean NO MAN, can claim that there is something special within him that has enabled him to understand the gospel, repent and follow Jesus as Lord of his life because of anything within him. We can look at countless examples of people who have lived such incredibly difficult and tumultuous lives who believe in Christ and likewise just as many who have lived privileged lives who were brought up in Christian homes who do not possess faith.

The Arminian believes that we cooperate with God in our salvation. He makes a move and we make a move. Moves are necessary by both parties. If 1 equals salvation and 0 is rebellion, we can look at it this way:

Arminian Perspective:

1 (God) X 1 (Person who chooses Jesus) = 1 (Salvation)

1 X 1 = 1 (Salvation)

1 X 0 = 0 (Non-salvation)

The differences in the Arminian equations are the person, valued at either 1 or 0. The Arminian believes that God offers his "1" to ALL persons. The obvious difference in the equations is the person being a 1 or 0. To the Arminian, it is up to the person on whether he will cooperate with God to create the outcome of 1 for salvation. He can be a 1 or a 0 by his belief or unbelief.

Reformed Perspective*:

IF 1 (God) THEN 1 (Person believes) = 1 (saved), where God's "1" is his election and man's "1" is his repentance/belief

(1 --> 1) = 1

(0 --> 0) = 0

In the Reformed perspective, it is not a matter of offering your "1" value to end up with a salvation result. It is an if/then scenario. If God elects for salvation, if he draws one to himself than he gives the person life that he may have belief. There is no belief unto salvation without God's initial act. We are only able to "then" after God's "if" act. And, this is because we are all inherently "0s" in this illustration.

There is a huge difference between these scenarios. My object here is not to guess at who's saved and who's not or any such thing. But, the answer to the question of whether it is in man or in God that anyone is saved is a truth of enormous gravity. To the non-reformed the answer can be nothing but that it is in man. Some men have the capacity due to whatever has lead them to be who they are (by chance?), that they find themselves in a unique moment in life where all the factors line up - they are soft hearted to respond, they have been given the gospel, they make a choice based on their own evaluation of the gospel message and choose life. They might argue that the spirit was working on them, but isn't he equally working on all others as well? So, why you and not another? It seems there is reason to boast or at last take credit for your faith-decision in this scenario.

To the reformed, there is zero claim to your repentance, but it is a direct and absolute result of the Holy Spirit's conviction. The Father draws the man by the Spirit and is convicted of sin and is drawn to repentance and faith. There is nothing in himself that distinguishes him from any other man that he can say, "I came to the decision because..." other than that the Holy Spirit has brought him to life.

*The following scenarios do not exist:

(1 --> 0) = 1 (The Father draws a person to himself and the person resists but is also saved)

(1 --> 0) = 0 (The Father draws a person to himself and the person resists - is not saved)

(0 --> 1) = 1 (The Father does not draw a person to himself and the person believes and is saved - a person will not believe without being drawn by the Father)

(0 --> 0) = 1 ( The Father does not draw a person to himself and the person does not believe, but is saved)

Written: October 19, 2011

30. Now what.

2013-05-20T03:05:00.001-07:00

I'm fairly convinced 30 is the beginning of true adulthood.

I just turned on a song that somehow brought up some emotions/memories from my early twenties. I first thought of the simple joys of being child. Those sweet moments of simplicity and contentment, free of ambition or want. Just being. I also remembered my very early twenties when I caught a glimpse of the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood. There is a certain sadness in losing your youth, but I remember thinking of the beauty of the depth ahead of me in realizing the enormity of what it is to explore and experience adulthood. You leave many childhood experiences behind, sadly, but you begin to step into the depth of what is truly available to us in life - through the pain and depth of what it is to be human you begin to understand the true cost of joy and beauty, pain and suffering, contentment and desire.

I also just now had a flash of my 20s as a whole. Our 20s are an odd decade. Some experience wild early success. Some dredge on in the struggle. Many of us exist here in some kind of in-between stage of wantonness. In some ways it's a time when we step out of the front stoop and the sun begins to beet down upon half of our body, half still in the doorway. We begin to understand a bit of what the world is, but half of our being still has a foot on that familiar hardwood floor. We project the dreams of our youth into that ray of light and wonder what it will bring. This is our 20s.

At 30, I now feel I am beginning to feel that second foot leave that hardwood floor and fully join the other on the pavement. Idealism must meet reality. Upbringing confronts experiences and mistakes. Hope meets the past and you begin to equalize.

There still exists a huge journey ahead, but I begin to feel the shackles and scales of false premonitions and shallow desires fall away. At 30, I think many of us finally realize I am no longer home and I must understand what my new home will be. It cannot be what others say it must be. It cannot be what I thought it may be. It must be what I know it now to be. I am now standing on that stoop facing the world and it is all before me. I am one man. I have gained and I have lost. Everything is potential or kinetic - I must become kinetic.

Written: October 15, 2011

A Person

2013-05-20T03:01:00.002-07:00

I think this may be the closest thing to a "proof" for the existence of God I've ever thought of on my own. It's not a proof in the classical sense, but to me it's a strong intellectual and emotionally satisfying way to consider God's existence. I'm sure others have thought of it (if it's a good idea), or perhaps not (if it's a bad one).

When a sound-minded person is asked what the most important thing in life is the answer is almost always relationships or people. Though many of us chase after money, success, power or a picket fence, deep down we all know the thing that has the most power to dramatically change one's life is a person. Persons matter. Whether it's a spouse, a friend or a relative we all put this highest of value on a person to give life significance. We crave relationships. We crave intimacy. We desire other things, but deep down this is what we want.

If we are indeed spiritual beings, what would make anyone think that one's spiritual significance would likewise be found in anything but a person? We are not satisfied and made whole by philosophies or worldviews. Neither are we satisfied or saved by kindness or karma. The thought of men or women in general does nothing to curb loneliness or desire for just one to be close to. C.S. Lewis (In Surprised by Joy, I believe) talks about how we are made with hunger and we find food, we thirst and drink water, we grow tired and are able to sleep. We are made with desires that are meant to be satisfied in some way. He does an incredible job of illustrating that our earthly cravings are in-and-of themselves real but that they also have a spiritual and heavenly significance... they are a shadow of a deeper craving. I believe this deepest of cravings is found in the person-hood of others and thus the person-hood of God.

We do well to remember that this world is not arranged the way it is by chance. I whole-heartedly believe that seeds, harvests, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, or even fruit were not merely convenient tools for Jesus' illustrations and parables. I don't think he ever thought to himself, "Oh! That would make a great illustration for the way God is! I've gotta use that one!" He shows us himself in the very fabric of this physical universe and its beings - the very seasons themselves, our foods, the sun, water, the way a plant grows... it all points to a person and a relationship. Jesus was able to talk of these things in spiritual ways because this is how they exist in the totality of reality. And, the pinnacle of God's creation, we are told, is man. He breathed his spirit into man and woman. Though we find great satisfaction in our work, in food and rest... we find true peace and significant in relationship. I don't see a much clearer illustration of how we can be most satisfied spiritually (it's tough to find another word than "spiritually" - what I really mean is absolutely, in total eternal fullness).

God must exist and he must be a person. "God" cannot be many gods. He cannot be a force. He cannot be some kind of conglomeration of human thought or intellect. He must be a person. Nothing else makes any sense with what we see to be true in this reality.

Secondly, and somewhat separately, we also observe absolutes in this world. 2 + 2 = 4. Gravity exists and behaves in a specific way. There is a speed of light. The laws of logic or universal. There are true and false things that can be said about anything that truly exists. I cannot make up my own version of gravity and expect it to behave as I have decided it does. I cannot will 2 + 2 into equally anything but 4. I do not have the power to decide what the objective truths of the universe are. Similarly, I cannot decide what is true spiritually. And though I may have particular tastes in food and what makes a personal likable, I cannot in anyway determine what must be true about God, the gods, or whatever it is the creator is.

If the physical universe behaves in specific ways and also that true and untrue statements can be said about it, that it is not about what "works for me," what would lead you to believe that the spiritual reality is any different? There must also be the true and untrue if we are to make any sense of this world.

These, again, are obviously not full-proof arguments for God... but they are extremely convincing to me. I guess they can be summarized together in this way.

1. We find the most satisfaction in person

2. We desire spiritual satisfaction

3. Our spiritual satisfaction must also be found in person

a. The world behaves in certain and specific ways (objectively)

b. My opinion about what is or should be true does not change that truth (pertaining to the physical world)

c. If there is a "spiritual" reality, one has no reason to believe it would behave any differently concerning objectivity

Written: August 29, 2011

Boring Christianity

2013-05-20T02:59:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of listening to Francis Chan today at an event in Los Angeles - it was a prayer breakfast for the Mayor. The event was really wonderful, full of good music, prayer for the city and those in leadership, and meeting new people. Many men and women had the chance to pray or share a quick word, but we were fortunate to hear from Francis as he shared the message.

I know of Francis Chan like many do. I'm a "reformed" guy and so how could I not? But, I'm really not all that familiar with him. I haven't listened to his podcasts, haven't read his books - I just know him by reputation. He has been a slightly controversial figure as of late as he recently stepped down from a thriving church to follow what he believes God is calling him to next (among other things). But, what I can say about him now is this man is an example of a man who loves God with an excitement and passion we rarely see from many figures we look to.

This was a prayer breakfast so, naturally, he spoke on prayer... kinda. Early in his sermon he told us how he had always thought there was a disparity between the radical nature of the Word of God and what he found at church. Everyone seems OK, he thought, so this must be normal. Now he finds himself at a place in his life when this isn't good enough. He told us that he doesn't care now about offending anyone, he doesn't care about being politically correct, he isn't afraid to tell it like it the Bible tells it - aggressively.

He spoke about concepts like, "God doesn't listen to all your prayers, or every one's prayers." He spoke about a God who is shrouded in light. He spoke of a God who is often annoyed by the "praises" of his people who worship him with their lips but who disregard his commands, a God who takes not delight in empty fasts. He spoke about a God who loves and delights in those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter those in the elements. It is then that this God says:

"Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I." (Isaiah 55)

People were "amen-ing" and "uh huh-ing" Francis all the time he spoke. It was very moving. But, the funny thing was this man was saying things that probably made more people in that room uncomfortable. He sounded fanatical.

I am only 29 years old. I haven't been around for that long... but I sense a change is happening in God's people. There are many men, men like Francis, who have been re-captivated by the awesome beauty, majesty, and sovereignty of our God - and they celebrate this God and would despise a life comprised of anything other than total and utter dependency, worship, obedience and intimacy with this God. Nothing else matters! Nothing else can satisfy this thirst we have. And there is no message more radical than that of the life and words of Jesus.

This Jesus we worship is more radical, I think, than any of us will ever understand. He does not wait to be invited to be the Lord of your life, He is already the Lord of all things, the King of Kings. The Father has given all things to him. There is not a breath of air you can take that is not granted to you by this Jesus. This Jesus demands nothing less than every single ounce of marrow you have to offer, not in oppression, but in life. If you are not experiencing the pervasive explosion of the power of God, than you may not know him. If you have asked a little Jesus to be a part of you life as you pursue your ambitions, you may find that you have been praying to a figurine. This Jesus who commands infinite galaxies in their paths desires to have intimacy with you. This God you pray to has absolute power and an absolute will to give life. This God is terrifying in power and holiness. And, he has created you to participate in His glory. Christianity is as boring as a volcano exploding out of the side of a tidal wave in a hurricane.

I have been more prompted than ever to dig in. To really dig in with both feet, to take God at his word, to believe these things Jesus has taught us about radical life. Let us come to know this God more and more. What an incredible journey we have before us, one that will last for an eternity.

Written: March 6, 2011

What Glory

2013-05-20T02:56:00.001-07:00

We had our first meeting of The Forge tonight, Ecclesia's new meeting of men. I was humbled and honored to be able to share what God has been doing in my life and to speak of the absolute astounding glory of Jesus Christ - the true man.

I am overwhelmed with the love and compassion of God. It is totally absurd and astounding that God chooses to give himself to us as he does. I have so many times in my life forgotten and taken my eyes off our King. This King of ours, the creator of all things, the author of reality, the author of life and joy has called us by name. He has sought us out. He has sought us out that we might have true life in Him, to know his peace, to receive his peace freely.

I am so excited about what God is doing. God is always moving, always changing us, always pursuing us. What glory we partake of! May we be in awe of the majesty of our God.

Our God has asked us what we seek and he has answered. He has asked us where we have gone, and come to us. He has pursued us. And he comes to us with life. He comes to us with abundance. He comes to us with all that is good. He comes to us with himself.

May we never lose sight of what life is. Life is knowing God and his son Jesus Christ. We find ourselves in him and he desires to be with us. The God of the universe calls you by name and desires to make his home in you. What glory!

I am so encouraged by the heart of the men at Ecclesia to know their God, to discipline themselves in all things that they may glorify our God with their lives. I am more than excited to be a family with you men. I am more than excited to walk together as a band of brothers as we celebrate the wonderful God who has drawn us to himself. What Glory.

Written: February 14, 2011

Submission

2013-05-20T02:50:00.005-07:00

Thomas a Kempis: “To have no opinion of ourselves, and to think always well and highly of others, is great wisdom and perfection.”

Just as the currency of our relationship with God is worship, the currency of our brotherly relationships is service and self-denial, or submission. We were made to worship our God and serve our brother. How often as men we seek status and the benefits of what we've worked so hard for. We deserve this and have earned that. We are hurt to the core if others do not recognize our greatness in some area. These things we see creating our identity suck away our capacity to “think always well and highly of others.” If my ambitions have taken me to wealth and status, and if this is where I find my identity, how am I free to think well and highly of those who do not have the same level of wealth and status? Will I not look down on or pity them? Christ calls each of us to lose his life in order to save it. He calls us to lose our self-identity in order to find it. This isn't a call to “not-succeed,” but a call to lay down all that we do find ourselves with to worship God and serve our brothers.

How often we try to use God’s principles for our gain, not emulate the “laying-downess” the Christ modeled! And, even as I read on my gut is saying, “I want power. I want leadership. I guess I need to serve and submit to get it!” This is also wrong! We shouldn't be taking Jesus’ example as a 12 step program to achieving power and greatness! We are called to serve and submit out of love and obedience, not to achieve for ourselves some sort of piety-generated leadership status. Only, let us serve others and the Lord in order to model and obey Christ. Jesus left perfect glory and status in order to save and serve, but we try to serve to attain the greatness. This is our fault.

Written: December 23, 2010