BACK TO BASICS

Christianity is often criticized - even attacked - by its opponents as being ethically inconsistent.  Often such criticisms are justly aimed at our hypocrisy, our failure to live up to the demands that we seem to make not only of ourselves, but outsiders.  Other criticisms point out (at times justly) that we are selective as to which "rules" we stress and which we ignore.

 

I do not intend to address hypocrisy here, since I have often done so before.  And I must confess that I have been guilty of this myself.  I will only point out that hypocrisy does not invalidate one's ethical code, but rather serves to validate it.  As it has been said, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

 

But our alleged selectivity is another matter.  Critics seem to enjoy pointing out what is perceived as inconsistency and though they are sometimes correct, often the criticisms are due to an ignorance of what Christianity really is.

 

For instance, one issue that has been at the front of these criticisms lately is Christians' condemnation of homosexual behavior. The criticism usually takes one of two directions.  The first is that while this behavior is clearly condemned as sinful in the Old testament, the penalty required is death by stoning (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), yet only a few, extremely radical Christian spokesmen would advocate this.  This is pointed out as inconsistent.

A second approach is to point out that various Old Testament dietary laws are given as just as binding as the laws on sexual behavior (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 18).  So if one condemns homosexual behavior but eats shrimp or pork chops, he is just as guilty as the one he condemns.

What the critics of Christianity, as well as many of its adherents fail to understand is that the ethical codes of the Old Testament are not binding on, or even addressed to, the follower of Christ.  The law of the Old Testament - the Law of Moses, was given to the nation of Israel by God at the beginning of that nation.  For nearly a millennium and a half the people of Israel were bound by this Law, even though they often - usually - failed to keep it.

And About halfway through this time period, God spoke to the nation through the prophet Jeremiah:  "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.  But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days declares the LORD:  I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.  And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.  For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" Jeremiah 31:31-34 - ESV.

There also were many more promises and details concerning this new covenant and to put them all together and explain them in their historical context would take more time and effort than I wish to expend here.

When Jesus came, he presented himself not only as the Messiah - the Anointed King - of Israel, but also as the Mediator of this New Covenant inaugurated by his death.  At his last Passover supper with his disciples just hours before his death, he took the cup of wine and said:  "This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood" Luke 22:20 - ESV.

So the follower of Christ, whether Jew or non-Jew, is not bound by the Old Covenant.  He is a participator in the New Covenant.  Our ethics then are not derived from the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant) but from the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels and elaborated in the New Testament Epistles.  The Old Testament ethics are often similar, and should be a part of our study but they are not binding.  Many of these ethical requirements are carried forward into the New Testament, but many are not; some are clearly annulled, such as the dietary restrictions (Mark 7:18, 19; Acts 10:9-16; Romans 14:2, 3).  Of course, there is ongoing debate as to some of the details and Christians will undoubtedly continue to have disagreements.

Most of the above should be understood by the critics of Christianity as well as its practitioners.  Ignorance of these basic distinctions has led to unnecessary conflict between Christians and outsiders as well as within the church.

A few more things need to be said.  First, Christianity is not primarily an ethical system.  It is a religion of redemption.  As the promises in Jeremiah 31 tell us, it is about forgiveness and about a work of God on the "hearts" of human beings.

Also, the New Testament ethics are not given for the Christian to condemn others, especially outsiders.  Our attitude toward those with whom we disagree, those who do not follow the ethics that we claim, is to be an ethic of love.

ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH?

A recent action by a Republican senator from Texas has stirred up comments in both the secular and the religious media.  Ted Cruz of Texas was booed off the stage while addressing representatives of the suffering and persecuted Christians in the Middle East.  From the bits of his speech that I heard, it sounded like he was attempting to turn the rally he was addressing into a pro-Israel rally.  While he was speaking of persecution of both Christians and Jews, he received what sounded like a reasonable amount of supportive applause.  But as he continued speaking, his theme kept moving toward the idea of the nation of Israel being the Christians' best hope and the applause became more and more interspersed with and finally replaced by boos.  He ended up walking off the stage with the statement,  "If you will not stand with Israel then I will not stand with you!"

Though this bizarre behavior seemed to defy explanation, many attempts were made.  A few that I felt were well done were:  http://theweek.com/article/index/267993/ted-cruz-and-the-most-cynical-despicable-political-stunt-of-the-year and
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/267950/speedreads-ted-cruz-booed-off-stage-while-defending-israel.

So how do we explain this?  And with whom should we side?  Before attempting to answer the second question, I felt that I needed to attempt to seek Senator Cruz' motives for seemingly shooting himself in the foot, and to figure out why there were those who agreed with him and even condemned his hearers. Many thoughts were given by various bloggers and pundits.

Some attempted to blame his audience by simply accusing them of anti-Semitism.  But a look at what's happening in the Middle East gives the lie to this thinking.  The church there is undergoing horrible suffering under militant Islam.  They suffer for their faith in Christ and not for their political allegiance even though they are mostly Arab peoples.  They are caught in the middle - between Sunnis and Shiites, between Israelis and Palestinian Muslims.  This explanation seems to be simply another case of blaming the victim.

Another more plausible explanation is that these Christians are different.  Cruz is an American and reputed to be from an Evangelical background.  The Christians he was addressing and their brand of Christianity have always seemed a bit suspect to American Evangelicals (of whom I am one).  They have strange rituals and customs and dress.  Their faith doesn't seem compatible with our born-again Bible thumping.  It's too "spooky" for us.  So it is easier to question the reality of their faith.

Another possible way of explaining Cruz' actions - though admittedly more cynical - is to "follow the money."  The pro-Israel lobby is undoubtedly much more powerful than this group of suffering Christians and can do much more for the Senator.  Perhaps both of these last two motives were involved in Cruz' behavior.

I'll suggest another possible motivating factor which occurred to me as soon as I read about this.  I confess that I don't know that much about Cruz' religious/theological background, but I do know a bit about the theological thinking of many in the Evangelical world, a way of interpreting the Scriptures that I believe has led many to agree with Mr. Cruz.

A large number of Evangelical Christians hold to a theological system known as Dispensationalism, even though many who hold this position may never have heard the word.  Dispensationalists take pride in "rightly dividing the Word of Truth," in noting the distinctions made in the Scriptures.  To some extent this is an excellent way to interpret the Scriptures.  But sometimes Dispensationalists make distinctions where the Bible is not that clear.  And they also at times carry those distinctions to illogical conclusions.

Dispensationalists distinguish (as do many Christians) between God's Old Covenant people and His New Covenant people, between the nation of Israel of the Old Testament and the Church of the New, between Judaism and Christianity.  They do not see the Church (Christianity) as a continuation of God's promises, expanded to include both Jews and non Jews who believe in Christ.  "So then, know this; that those who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7).

Dispensationalists see Israel as a people set aside until the end times when God will again deal with them.  "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob'" (Romans 11:26; Isaiah 59:20).  And many see the present (secular) nation of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  According to Dispensationalist eschatology (the doctrine of last things) the nation of Israel, scattered for millennia, must be back in their land and undergo seven years of "great tribulation" before Jesus returns.

And this eschatology has led some (not all) Dispensationalists to a strange devotion and commitment to a foreign nation.  Many American Dispensationalists appear to place their loyalty to Israel above their loyalty to their own country.  The nation of Israel is regarded not simply as an American ally in the Middle East, nor even as the homeland of a people who have been homeless for 2,000 years.  Israel in the land is regarded by them as the fulfillment of prophecy.  To disregard Israel is considered to be akin to heresy.

And so we find many followers of Christ ignoring the cries of their persecuted brothers and sisters in favor of a foreign political unit.  And agreeing with Ted Cruz' statements.  Brothers and sisters it ought not to be so.

See:  CONFESSIONS OF A (FORMER) DISPENSATIONALIST
(http://billball.blogspot.com/2013/07/confessions-of-former-dispensationalist.html)

CONFESSIONS OF A (FORMER) DISPENSATIONALIST

I wrote the following post around December of last year, but was hesitant to publish it.  Uni and I had left the church we had attended since moving to Oklahoma.  We were at the time searching for a church home, although I felt I'd be more comfortable staying home on Sundays.  We have since joined a more "traditional" non-dispensational, though still evangelical, church where we feel more at home than we had for a long time.

I was moved to publish this after reading an article by Rachel Held Evans, "Why millennials are leaving the church."  Near the end of the article she stated "these trends are true not only for millennials, but also for many folks from other generations."  This pair of 75+ers can't help but agree.

The following is what I wrote:

Sometimes people grow apart in a relationship, and there are times when this leads to a separation.  For a number of years I have found myself growing more and more distant from a tradition that I have been involved in most of my life.  I have finally separated myself from it, though it has not been easy.

Don't worry; I'm not speaking about my relationship with my wife Uni.  We are if anything, closer to one another than ever.  Rather we have been totally together in this move.  I'm speaking about church tradition.

And don't worry; we're not apostatizing.  We haven't left the faith.  As a matter of fact, I believe our faith has never been stronger.

However, it seems that as we have grown in our faith, we have found ourselves more and more alienated from the church tradition we have been involved in.  We have felt ourselves the objects of discrimination even among long-time friends in that tradition -- and most of our closest friends have been within that tradition.

We have not been the only ones who have moved; we've found that this tradition has been moving as well -- only in the opposite direction.

This tradition is that branch of evangelical Christianity that is known as Dispensationalism - especially as is taught in Bible churches and other closely related churches.

My problem isn't with Dispensationalism as such; I still hold some of its principles as a method of understanding the Scriptures.  My one big disagreement is with its extremes -- especially in the area of eschatology, the doctrine of the last things.  Another disagreement is with where these doctrines often lead to politically.

Dispensationalists believe, as do most Christians, that Jesus is going to return some day to rule on earth in His Kingdom.  However, Dispensationalists have a whole scenario affixed to this belief, some of the details of which can be demonstrated from the Scriptures, some of which are only conjecture and many of which seem pure fiction.  (See the Left Behind series of novels.)

Some of the details which we're told must occur preceding the 2nd coming:

·       The nation of Israel will be back in the land, although in unbelief.

·       A great world ruler -- the Antichrist -- will arise and bring about what is known as "The Great Tribulation" -- a 7 year period during which the nation of Israel will suffer greatly and ultimately be converted.

·       However, before The Great Tribulation, all true believers in Jesus will be "raptured" bodily to heaven and those who have already died will be resurrected.

·       At the end of this period Jesus will return in triumph to reign on earth for a thousand years, followed by His final judgment and eternal Kingdom. 

I am not here trying to dispute these various teachings.  I even agree with some of them, although not with the certainty that I once held.  My problem is the other inferences that are drawn from these, as well as those added to them.

·       A "Christian Zionism" that supports the present nation of Israel and demands that the U. S. government support Israel financially and militarily.  A great part of the pro-Israel lobby is in fact not Jewish but "Christian."  There are even "Christian" organizations that promote sending Jews back to the land.

·       A fear of "globalism," which often demonstrates itself in a sort of pro-American isolationism.  After all, President Obama may not be the Antichrist, but he's setting things up for his coming and acceptance.

·       A hand-wringing fear that our "Christian" nation is sliding downward into a "last days" immorality, which also is setting matters up for The Great Tribulation.

Though many Dispensationalists are rational, educated people, there seems to be an underlying fear among many, promoted by TV preachers and the social media.  Many seem to live in some sort of alternate reality.

All of these beliefs are somehow tied to the politics of the right.  The irony is that if we hold to a core belief that Jesus is coming back we should have nothing to fear.

So I must say goodbye to this tradition.  I still have many friends who are Dispensationalists, with whom I hope to remain friends.  We are brothers in Christ.  However, I also have lost a few friends and feel estranged from some.  What  seems sad to me is that most of this estrangement is not due to my theological views, but to my political views (or lack of the same).

JESUS IS COMING

Though I first heard the Gospel when I was in about the second grade, I never set foot in a Bible preaching church until I was in my late teens.  I was not too surprised to hear the same message from the pulpit there that I had heard years before from a rural school missionary.

But one thing did amaze me about that little church -- one thing I heard that I had not heard before.  It was that Jesus is coming back!  I had known that He had died and risen and gone up to heaven, but somehow I'd missed this important claim.  It sounded strange to my skeptical ears and it seemed even more strange that these folks believed it -- sort of like believing in space aliens.

As I came to a clear faith in Christ and began to grow in knowledge of the Bible, I became a solid believer in what is known as "the Second Coming."  The Bible taught it and Jesus Himself had a lot to say about it.

I read books, studied and learned many terms associated with the Second Coming and learned how to sprinkle them around in pious conversation:  the Rapture, Tribulation, Millennium (though it took me years to learn to spell that word) and Antichrist.  I also learned the various views -- the pre-, post-, a-, mid-, pan-, etc. and how all the views not held by the Scofield Bible notes were wrong.

I also learned to look for the "signs of the times" -- signs which point to the nearness of His coming:  Israel as a nation back in their own land, an "apostate church" (i.e., those who disagree with us), a Communist conspiracy, the Soviet Union, the European Union, along with hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.  There were always new signs.  Every crisis in the Middle East, or for that matter anywhere in the world, was subject to intense scrutiny, scanning of the Bible and all those books for some coordination.

Is this what it's all about?  Were we given the promises of Christ's return just so we could amuse ourselves with the intricacies of the details?  Or perhaps use them to scare people into the Kingdom?  Or is there more to this belief than that?

I'm not trying to belittle or discount the study of Eschatology (the doctrine of last things).  I have studied and taught it for years and hold to some (to me) clear positions, though I'm a lot less dogmatic on the details as I used to be.  And I must confess I've become more and more skeptical of the "signs," especially since I've seen some of them disappear during my lifetime.

But the New Testament not only tells us that Jesus is coming back; it not only gives us some of the details and many of the signs to look for; more importantly it gives us instructions concerning our behavior in light of these truths.  And the first commands are given by Jesus Himself, especially in His "eschatological sermon" on the Mount of Olives, a brief time before His death.

The first thing we need to realize is that we cannot know for certain when Jesus is coming back!  Though the past two millennia are littered with predictions that have failed, whether from kooks or cultists or supposedly reputable scholars, in spite of all our studies and speculation we just can't know!  In fact, Jesus told us so!
  "... you don't know what day your Lord is coming" (Matthew 24:42).
  "... you don't know the day or the hour" (Matthew 25:13).
  "... you don't know when the time is" (Mark 13:33).

And especially note this one:  "But concerning that day and hour, nobody knows -- not the angels of heaven, not even the Son -- but the Father alone!" (Matthew 24:36)

Jesus said that He Himself didn't know!  So what makes us think that we can?

And some of His imperatives in view of His coming:
  "Watch out that no one deceives you!"  (Matthew 24:4)
  "See that you don't get shaken up! (by supposed signs)  (Matthew 24:6)
  "... learn ... know ..." (from the signs)  (Mark 13:28, 29)
  "Stay awake" (because you don't know the time)  (Matthew 24:42; 25:13; Mark 13:33, 35, 37)
  "... straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is getting closer!"  (Luke 21:28)
  "Be ready,"  (Matthew 24:44)

Throughout the New Testament we find bits and pieces -- hints -- about Jesus' return.  As good systematic theologians we attempt to assemble them all together along with passages from the Old Testament to form a coherent doctrine.  We should do this, but not so that we can appear well taught and erudite.  Every passage is given for a purpose.  But that purpose is to increase own desire for His return and to cause us to adjust our lives accordingly.

"We know that when He appears, we will be like Him because we will see Him just as He is.  And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself just as He is pure" (1 John 3:2, 3).

"Therefore beloved ones, since you are expecting these things, be earnest to be found by Him in peace, without spot or blemish" (2 Peter 3:14).

"The One who testifies these thing says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly.'  Amen!  Come Lord Jesus!"  (Revelation 22:20)

I AM

 

And Moses said to God, "When I go to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, 'What is His name?'  What should I say to them?" (Exodus 3:13)

And God said to Moses, "I am who I am!" and He said, "Thus shall you say to them 'I AM has sent me to you!'" (3:14)

And God said further to Moses, "Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Yahweh the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you!'  This is my name forever and this is how I am to be remembered to generation on generation!" (3:15)

When God revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush, He gave His name as Yahweh (translated LORD in most English translations).  The word is related to the words "I am" (Ehyeh) in the previous verse, a form of the verb "to be."  The name has been understood in various ways but is generally understood to mean something like "the One Who Is" or "the Eternally Existing One."

Though the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament translation ca. 200 + BC) uses the word "Kurios" (Lord) to translate "Yahweh" in verse 13, it translates "I am who I am" as "Ego Eimi Ho On" or "I am the One Who Is."

Why is this important?  Because the words Jesus uses when He say "I am ..." are those two words, Ego Eimi.  If He spoke them in Greek, the any of His contemporary Jews who were familiar with the Septuagint would immediately understand that He was in some way claiming kinship or even equality with Israel's covenant God, whose Hebrew name Yahweh was never even spoken.  His disciple John, the author of the fourth gospel certainly had that understanding.

In a previous post, IS JESUS REALLY THE ONLY WAY? I attempted to deal with Brian McLaren's faulty and (I believe) deceptive exegesis of John 14:6.  I said, "Even if his “exegesis” of John 14:6 were correct (it’s not) and Jesus was not claiming exclusivity here, McLaren would still have to contend with the vast number of claims Jesus made elsewhere.  There are other “I Am’s” in John’s gospel.  Is McLaren capable of explaining away the apparent exclusivity in all of these?"  I don't know if McLaren ever tried to deal with these or not, but I felt I needed to say a bit about them.

Jesus uses the combined words Ego eimi (I am) in John's gospel 23 times by my count.  He also uses the word eimi by itself or in slightly different combinations another 22 times.  [The verb can be used without the pronoun in Greek.  The meaning is still the same, only without the emphasis.]  A few samples:

"The woman says to Him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ ...)'  Jesus says to her 'I am -- the one speaking to you.'" (John 4:25, 26)

"Jesus said to them, 'I am the Bread of Life.'" (6:38, also verses 41, 48, 51)

"Again then Jesus spoke to them saying, 'I am the Light of the World.'" (8:12)

"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I'm telling you, before Abraham came to be, I am!'" (8:58)

Jesus says to His hearers and followers, "I am the Door" (10:7, 9), "the Good Shepherd" (10:11, 14), "the Resurrection and the Life" (11:25), "the Way and the Truth and the Life" (14:6), "the True Vine" (15:1).

"Jesus ... says to them (the mob in the garden), 'Whom are you seeking?'  They answered Him, 'Jesus the Nazarene.'  He says to them, 'I am.'  ... When He said to them 'I am' they drew back and fell to the ground." (18:4-6)

When John records that the mere saying of the two words is enough to knock Jesus' assailants over he seems to imply that there was divine power in the words themselves.

Jesus is claiming in these sayings more than that He is the only way to God; He is claiming that He is God.  I don't see how one can deny that He is making that claim.

His use of the phrase "I am" itself takes us back to Exodus 3.  As Yahweh revealed Himself to Moses, so Jesus is revealing Himself as that same "One Who Is."  The above reference to His existence (in the present tense) before Abraham, seems to be a clear claim to Deity.  The references to light, to resurrection, to life all carry us back to the God who revealed Himself to Israel in the Old Covenant.  The claim to being "the Good Shepherd" takes us back to the 23rd Psalm -- "Yahweh is my Shepherd" as well as to the prophets and Psalmists' words of Yahweh that He Himself would shepherd His people (Isaiah 40:11; Micah 7:14; Psalm 28:9, 80:1).

To detail all the Old Testament references in Jesus' "I am" sayings would require a thesis, but I hope I have shown enough of them to demonstrate that Jesus was clearly claiming not only that He is the only way to the Father, but that He Himself is God in the flesh.

In John 10:30, Jesus makes His claims clear using the plural form of the same verb "I and the Father are One."

IS JESUS REALLY THE ONLY WAY?

Though some may think of me as an opinionated, narrow-minded curmudgeon, I tend to judge myself as a bit too open-minded.  I attempt to be open to and tolerant of new ideas held by others, even though I frequently disagree with them.  However, by being tolerant I occasionally find myself in the intellectual company of those whom at second glance I might judge to be heretics.  (I know that’s a bad word, not to be used today, but in some cases I can’t think of a better one.)

I wrote a couple of posts a while back, reviewing and interacting with the writings of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, leaders in the emerging/emergent church movement.   Though I disagreed strongly with their writings, looking back I feel that I was a bit naïve.  I simply interacted with the articles using what seemed to me to be logical exegetical arguments.  I did not question their motives.

But having found out a bit more about these men, I believe that they need to be pointed out as purveyors of doctrines that deny the foundation of biblical Christianity; they are not simply misinformed or poor exegetes.

Recently a friend forwarded to me some further information on McLaren and Bell, along with an article by McLaren entitled, A Reading of John 14:6, dated 2007 (brianmclaren.net).  McLaren is not simply an author and preacher in the emerging/ emergent church movement; he is a board member and instructor at Mars Hills Graduate School in Seattle, now known as the Seattle School of Theology, a bastion of emerging/emergent theology.

I had originally planned to go through the article, dealing with what at first appeared to me to be faulty exegesis, but as I read, re-read and re-re-read, I kept finding myself more and more befuddled by McLaren’s spin.  The article is a bizarre mix of faulty exegesis, faulty logic and worst of all, faulty theology.  Dare I call it just plain heresy?  Dare I question the author’s motives?  Anyway the following thoughts aren’t meant to be a point-by-point discussion of the article, but they are an attempt at a rebuttal.

The text that the article is concerned with is John 14:6:  “Jesus says to him (Thomas) ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.”

This text has been understood by many – I would say most - readers as a clear statement by Jesus that He is the only way to God.  And a clear corollary to this statement would be that there is no other way to God.  Ah, but this is not the way it is to be understood, says McLaren!

“It is one of the questions I am asked most frequently, ‘Do you think Jesus is the only way?’ … The question raises another question, actually:  ‘The only way to what?’”  After this he goes on to tell us that there are many ways:  Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Freud, televangelists.  Of course, each way ends up at a different destination.  “But if you are asking about the Kingdom of God coming to earth ...,” then, of course, all these others “will step back and Jesus will step forward.”

McLaren is very clear that he doesn’t like the “idea called the ‘exclusivity of Christ.’”  In order to refute this horrid doctrine, he chooses to rephrase it in his own words (the “straw man” argument).  He can’t out and out say that Jesus is not the only way to God.  He rather caricatures those who believe this “idea” as really being more concerned about Jesus being “the only way to avoid burning forever in hell …,” that the “idea” really means that “all who do not consciously and decisively accept Jesus as their personal savior will burn forever in hell.”

McLaren seems to have a fixation on the idea of eternal punishment which apparently is why he keeps introducing it here to convince us that this was not what Jesus was talking about in this passage.  I agree Jesus wasn’t.  He was talking about His being the only way to God!

McLaren keeps reiterating his straw man arguments.  He brings up Thomas’ question in verse 5 and informs us that, “It’s clear he is not asking anything like ‘Will people who have never heard of you go to heaven?’”  And then he goes on to inform us that Thomas was not thinking of all the other people of various religious persuasions.  He tells us that Jesus’ words in John 14:6 “are not intended as an insult to the followers of Mohammed, the Buddha,” etc.

It’s apparent that McLaren’s main concern is that if we believe that Jesus’ claims are exclusive, if Jesus really is the only way, then others will be shut out.  He wants us to believe in an inclusive Jesus, a nice guy Jesus, who accepts any and everybody (excepting, I suppose, those narrow-minded bigots who believe that Jesus really IS the only way to God).

A few words about McLaren’s argument, which I believe are characteristic of much of the emerging/emergent movement:

·        It is arrogant, even Gnostic.  Though inclusivity is almost a mantra, it is itself exclusive.  He holds himself and his knowledgeable associates above those who are “…perfectly in synch with the general cluelessness of the disciples.”

·        It is dogmatic while trying to sound anything but.  This I believe is symptomatic of the soft view of truth associated with the postmodern thinking of many in the emerging/emergent movement.  His qualifiers:  “It’s far more likely …,” “… which seems to suggest …”  “It’s as if …” may sound like he is trying to avoid dogmatism, but they hide his real dogmatic agenda.

·        Even if his “exegesis” of John 14:6 were correct (it’s not) and Jesus was not claiming exclusivity here, McLaren would still have to contend with the vast number of claims Jesus made elsewhere.  There are other “I Am’s” in John’s gospel.  Is McLaren capable of explaining away the apparent exclusivity in all of these?

·       Similarly McLaren’s fierce opposition to those who speak about hell seems to run into the problem that Jesus spoke frequently about hell – in fact, more than all other New Testament writers combined.

·        McLaren stands opposed to 2,000 years of biblical understanding.  Though this does not necessarily mean he is wrong, it would seem that this would at least temper his arrogance. 

McLaren’s contradictory footnote, though it sounds pious, shows what his real theology is:   “By the way, it would also make me want to scream if you misread what I’m saying to mean, ‘It doesn’t matter what you believe. Anything goes. God doesn’t care.’ That would be equally ridiculous! By looking at what Jesus cares about, we see what God cares about, including what makes God angry: carelessness towards the poor and vul­nerable, putting religious rules over relationships, complacency, a lack of compassion, and so much more.”

He has been spending page after page attempting to convince us that it really doesn’t matter what you believe about the person of Jesus, except that He is not the only way to God.  It’s “what God cares about,” the ethics of Jesus, not His claims to exclusivity, that are important.

If we buy into McLaren’s argument, we are left with a Jesus who is not the only way to God, but simply a great moral teacher.

I have to give McLaren and his associates credit.  He has found a neat way to avoid the exclusive claims of Christ.  He has no need to do as Thomas Jefferson and many others have done, just rip all of Christ’s claims out of the Bible.  He has no need to see Jesus as a good but deluded man.  He can instead, by exegetical legerdemain demonstrate that Jesus’ claims weren’t actually claims to exclusivity at all!

“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who doesn’t believe in the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath abides on him” (John 3:36).  I wonder what McLaren does with this verse.

THE INTRUSIVE GOD

Some thoughts on a few thoughts gathered from various sources:

“In the beginning God…” – Moses (Genesis 1:1), ca 1450 BC

 

“…the infinite abyss (within man) can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.

Man is obviously made to think.  It is his whole merit; and his whole duty is to think as he ought.  Now the order of thought is to begin with self, and with its Author and end.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees, ca 1660 AD

I have always been, I suppose, somewhat of a philosopher.  I suspect that all of us are to some extent, even though most of us have had little, if any, formal schooling or even reading on the subject.  As Pascal tells us, we were made this way – “made to think.”

I recall as a child sitting off to one side in our living room in the evenings, listening to the conversation of the adults.  My father and my uncles and their friends would sit for hours discussing the great issues of life.  The conversations would, actually get quite deep and cover a wide range of heavy topics – especially after they’d had a few beers.  And the deeper they got, the more likely God would intrude into the conversation.  I’m not speaking of what we would call “religious” discussions.  They were, as I’ve implied, quite philosophical.  Nor am I simply talking about the occasional use of His name in oaths.

I started reading quite young and before I entered high school I had devoured, besides westerns and science fiction, a number of the classics as well as works of historical fiction which were popular in that day.  And again in my reading, there would be God, intruding uninvited as it were.

He’s always there!

Scholars and scientists have studied and attempted to ascertain what makes man (or humankind) different from the other creatures, especially the higher animals, such as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans which we are informed, are our “cousins” and with which we share 98% of our DNA.  Without getting too deep into anthropology or theology, I’d like to oversimplify by saying that God has put into us – humans – the consciousness of Himself.  He has not done so with His other creatures.

It makes little difference whether we are educated or uneducated, whether we refer to ourselves as Christians, pagans, Atheists or whatever; God is always intruding Himself into our thoughts.  He is inescapable.

“… (a man) sets for himself trees of the forest; he plants a fir and the rain makes it grow.  And it is something for a man to burn.  He takes from them and warms himself; he builds a fire and bakes bread; he also makes a god and worships it; he makes a carved image and falls down before it.

Part of it he burns in a fire; on this part he roasts meat, eats and is full; he also warms himself and says, ‘Ah, I’m warm, I can see the fire.’  And the rest he makes into a god – his own carving.  He falls down before it and worships it; and he prays to it and says, ‘Save me, for you are my god.’” -- Isaiah (44:14b-17), ca 650 BC

“…men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness, because what can be known of God is revealed among them, for God has revealed it to them.  For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being comprehended through the things He made, leaving them inexcusable; because though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or thank Him, but became futile in their reasoning and their senseless heart was darkened; claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image of corruptible man, and birds and four-footed animals – even snakes.” – Paul (Romans 1:18-23), ca 56 AD

According to Paul, the one who worships idols – false gods – does so not because of lack of knowledge of the true God, but because of deliberate choice.  Though elsewhere he speaks of the ignorance of these worshippers, it is apparently a chosen ignorance.  God has revealed enough of His attributes in nature to be able to demand worship of Himself and to hold inexcusable those who do not do so.

Paul doesn’t discuss the “why” of man’s rejection of the God revealed in nature, other than what appears to be pride – a supposed wisdom which is anything but that when it comes to one’s perceptions of God.  Paul calls it elsewhere “the wisdom of the world.”  (See:  JESUS FOR DUMMIES.)

Could idolatry also be motivated by fear – fear of facing the truth about who God is?  Certainly what I have seen of various religions has seemed to demonstrate that fear.  The rituals of paganism can bring comfort and relief from fear.  By fulfilling religious obligations one can feel protected from having to think about the God who has revealed Himself and of any obligations one might have toward Him.

I might also add that present day idolatry does not necessarily involve the worship of objects, animate or inanimate.  It may also involve the worship of ideas – the creation of a god in one’s own mind.  How often when speaking of God have I heard a remark something like, “That’s how you think about God, but here’s how I like to think about Him”?

What about Atheism?

 

“I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself.  I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself:  I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy be the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief.  It’s that I hope there is not God!  I don’t what there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

I am curious, however, whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God – anyone who, whatever his actual belief about the matter, doesn’t particularly want either one of the answers to be correct (though of course he might want to know which answer was correct).” – Thomas Nagel, The Last Word, 1997

Could the Atheists’ rejection of God also be influenced by fear?  The words of Thomas Nagel would seem to strongly imply that possibility.  Mr. Nagel is quite honest and his confession shows his vulnerability.  I suspect that one day he may open his mind to the existence of God.  As Jesus once said of a perceptive scribe, he is “not far from the Kingdom of God.”  But those “angry Atheists” – Dawkins and company.  Could their angry arguments be the rantings of a disguised fear – disguised even to themselves?

And then there are those of us who claim to know God.  I fear that we too sometimes seem to be doing our best to avoid Him.  We try to protect ourselves from thinking too deeply about Him by getting wrapped up in religious or legalistic – even “theological” thoughts and activities.  We try to wall Him off into a corner of our lives and minds, but it seems that He always seems to punch His way through our barriers and intrude Himself back into our thinking.

So if God is going to intrude into our thoughts, with or without our permission, perhaps we would do well to pay attention to Him, to cease fleeing, to start listening and to allow His thoughts to influence ours.

 

“You awake us to delight in Your praises; for You made us for Yourself and our heart is restless until it reposes in You.” – Augustine of Hippo Confessions, ca 400 AD

PACKING IT ALL IN

When I taught theology in college, I would attempt to illustrate a theological system by drawing a suitcase on the board.  (Those were the days before PowerPoint.)  The suitcase, I would explain to my students, represented our theological system.  In it we would try to “pack” in a neat order, all of our essential clothing – biblical and other necessary data.

Unfortunately, however, the suitcase seems never to be able to contain all the articles of clothing.  So I would then draw a sock or two (or three), a pair of boxer shorts, a necktie, all hanging from the closed suitcase.

“What do we do?” I would inquire.  “You want all these items packed for your trip.”

One answer might be, “Open it up and repack it!”

So with a few swipes of the eraser I’d wipe out the offending articles.  Then I’d immediately draw some different ones hanging out in other places.  “Looks like it didn’t work.  When we get these all packed in, others pop out.  What next?”

Another reply would be, “Just take out those items that don’t fit and leave them home.  You can probably get along without them.”

“But if I open it again, other things might fall out,” I’d reply.

The discussion would continue, but when I saw that it might be getting boring, I’d draw a pair of scissors and with my eraser, snip off the protuberances.  “There!” I’d exclaim.

I’d then explain that many of us build our theological systems in the same way that we pack our suitcases.  As we study Scripture and as we observe the world around us, we are confronted with massive amounts of data, which we attempt to fit into our worldview or theological system.  But it doesn’t all seem to fit!  There always appear to be loose ends – some Scriptures or some of the events we observe around us.  So we may open up our system for reexamination, but often when we resolve some mystery or reconcile some seeming contradiction, other questions appear.

So what do we do?

We can leave out those items that “don’t fit”; we can simply ignore those questions that trouble us and behave as though they did not exist.  From my lifetime of study, reading and observation, I’ve come to the conclusion that those nice neatly packed systems do just that – the systems that claim to have all the answers.  Not just the heresies but even “orthodox” systems such as Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.

We can continue “packing” and “repacking,” recognizing that we’ll never be able to get all our stuff in.  I believe this is something we ought to do regularly.  We must continually examine and reexamine our systems and our interpretation in the light of the Scriptures.

But I believe we need to learn to be content with those loose ends.  We need to recognize our ignorance.  And not ours only, but the ignorance of those experts on whom we are tempted to rely.

Last week, we were confronted with a horrible evil, the mass murder that occurred in a theater in Aurora, CO.

A well armed and armored gunman entered the theater, massacred 12 people and critically wounded many others.  This happened within 15 years and 15 miles of a mass shooting in a school and just short of a year after a massacre of 70 young people in Norway.

At the same time that we were mourning over the horrors of that night, we comforted ourselves with the reports of great acts of heroism.  Young men died when they deliberately shielded their friends and girlfriends from the killer’s bullets; a teenage girl attempted desperately to give CPR to a dying child.  These are just normal human beings who somehow exercised great courage.  Was the perpetrator of the crimes also just a normal human being?

The news media, as well as the social media, were filled not only with attempts to explain the actual events that occurred, but also with attempts to explain why these events occurred.  I need not review what was said.  I couldn’t.  So many comments by so many – some wise, some downright foolish.

And we realize that the events in Aurora are not unique.  Events such as these occur almost daily somewhere in the world:  In Syria, Iraq and other war-torn nations in the middle east or Africa; in our larger American cities:  Chicago and New Orleans.  Nowhere is there safety.  Everywhere there is violence.

So how do we who are believers fit all these things into our system of belief?  How do we “pack our suitcase”?

We believe that God is sovereign, that He is all powerful, that nothing that occurs is out of His control.  We also believe that God is good, that He is love.  We believe what Paul says, “We know that to those who love God, He works all things together for good, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).  And these horrible events continue to occur.  Evil exists!

I had planned to write something here about evil, about the fall, about the nature of humankind, created in God’s image and fallen yet retaining something of that image.  That would help get the suitcase a little more neatly packed.

Yet I realize that even if I did so (and I’ve done it many times), there would still be articles hanging out of the suitcase.  There always will be – at least until the Lord returns.  As Paul says in his great love poem, “Now I know in part, but then I will fully know, just as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12b).

As for those matters we do not and will not understand, faith allows us to live with them.  We believe because of the truths we know, those that are clear to us.  And faith allows us, even forces us, to trust where matters are not that clear.

I want to thank the members of the Beholders’ Sunday school class for the insights on these matters that were shared this past Sunday.

A NEGLECTED DOCTRINE

“Original sin is the one Christian doctrine that is empirically verifiable.”

(attributed to G. K. Chesterton) 

Last week a friend sent me the following e-mail:

‘I heard on the radio this morning that Sandusky was sentenced to life in prison. In the background I could hear people cheering and was reminded of your post concerning people cheering for the number of executions in Texas. In this case, I suspect that the cheering crowd was comprised mostly of people on the left of the political spectrum, or at least a good mix of both.

I will accept that he is guilty and that the punishment is appropriate, but I feel no elation in any of this. Why do you think we are so 'bloodthirsty'? I don't think the Bible indicates we should act this way (I know you will correct me if I am wrong). Should the church be taking a stand on this behavior?”

I replied that I agree with his comments, but had never really thought about whether the church should “be taking a stand” and said I’d “think on this one awhile.”

I also mentioned that I had published a few posts on these topics before:  VENGEANCE, WHOSE PREROGATIVE? and BLOODLUST?.

There is more to this matter, however, than simply seeing this sort of behavior as an ethical problem, to be addressed as a series of “you oughts” and “you ought-nots.”  I believe it’s a symptom of our lack of understanding of the above mentioned doctrine.  In fact, I believe this neglect lies behind much of our twisted thinking today.

The doctrine of Original Sin along with its sister doctrine of Total Depravity is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.  Its basis is found in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  It is found in some form in nearly every creed or doctrinal statement of nearly every denomination. (See:  WHAT HAPPENED? and GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS).

This doctrine teaches that the whole human race is in some way corrupt, that we have inherited this corruption from our ancestors.  It means that we are sinners by birth and sinners by practice.  It does not mean that everyone’s sins are the same as everyone else’s.  But it does imply, I believe, that we are all capable of evil acts.

Our modern thinking rejects this teaching.  Today we like to think in the categories of pop psychology and pop theology.  We like to think that our greatest need is more self-esteem.  We have TV preachers telling us that God is some sort of Cosmic Grandpa who just wants us to be happy.  We have secular gurus telling us similar tales.  We’re not so bad.  We’re nice.  God’s nice.  He just wants us to be happy

I realize that I am oversimplifying.  Forgive me.  But this doctrine is, in the minds of many, something to be relegated to the Dark Ages.  It doesn’t dovetail well with the doctrine of progress.  It contradicts the idea that “every day in every way we’re getting better and better.

Nor does it fit well with the doctrine of a glorious past, of a Christian America.  It contradicts the idea that everything is getting worse and worse and that we can somehow restore this glorious past whether by political action or evangelism.

And this doctrine contradicts our concept of “the other,” which we’re told has been around since prehistoric times – the belief that there are good guys and bad guys; and, of course, the other guys are always the bad.

There are, of course, many who claim to accept this doctrine as true, who recognize that the human race is made up of sinners.  I would place myself in this group.  But if we really

believe it, do our actions demonstrate that we do?

·        When Jerry Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse of boys, we cheered.

·        When the reports came in about the death of Osama Bin Laden, we cheered.

·        When the reports came in about Saddam Hussein, we cheered.

·        When the governor of Texas was questioned about the fact that more people have been executed under his watch than under any other governor in modern history, we cheered.

The list could go on ad nauseam.

Why do we cheer?

We would, I am sure, give our own particular reasons for the cheering.  Most of them could be boiled down to the fact that we feel these persons committed despicable acts and deserved whatever punishment was meted out to them.  Justice is being done.  But I also suspect it is because we know that we would never do such things.

Or would we?

We might say that we’ve never done anything like the horrible things these persons have done.  We’ve never even been tempted to.  I’ve never raped young boys, blown up buildings, gassed my own people.  I’ve never even been tempted to.  So it’s easy to condemn those who have done such things.

But I have lusted.  I have probably been angry enough to kill someone.  We all have!  And Jesus says that to do it in my mind is the same as doing it in my actions.  And many of those who cheer have committed these things in more than just their minds.

I suspect that the main reason for our cheering, for our “blood-thirstiness” is that we are unable to see ourselves in those we condemn.  Though we may not have committed these atrocities, we are capable of similar – if not the same – acts.  We don’t understand the doctrine of original sin.

Yes, some acts are more sinful than others, some, like those of the people listed, are downright evil.  But what am I capable of?

When the New Testament lists the sins that people are guilty of and capable of, it includes not just the horrible acts, but even those we may feel are not so bad.   And these lists are given, not so that we can condemn any and all whom we find in the lists, but so that we can see our need for the Savior.

“… all sinned and are coming short of the glory of God, being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23, 24).

If we don’t understand sin we’ll never understand grace!  Christ died on the cross for the sins of people like Jerry Sandusky, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.  He died for my sins.  Who am I to cheer over the justice they receive?