Defining Terms : The Nature of Faith

It’s no secret that I don’t mind a good debate, I mean I do have a blog and that blog is dedicated toward theology, in a way, I’m asking for it! While I like to think that I have gotten better at holding my tongue by choosing my battles, from time to time I still feel the need to interject some perspective whenever I think I see an error that can be easily addressed. My personal lesson from a recent Facebook interaction is, that if you are going to semi-regularly open your mouth, you need to be ready to defend what comes out of it.

Ultimately I decided to engage in conversation with this Facebook friend, because I love him. At one point we would have considered each other brothers in Christ, sadly that is no longer the case as he is a professing atheist. While everyone is responsible for their own choices, there are some external factors in place that I believe helped this young man leave the faith so easily. So maybe, in some small way, being that I knew him then, and I know him now, I feel responsible for what part I may have played in his poor understanding of Christianity. So, if I can do anything to help I will, and if I can do so faithfully, I hope God will give me the grace to continue.

A DEBATE OF DEFINITIONS

The first thing you must do In debate is establish common ground, you do so by agreeing on the set meanings of the terms and phrases being used in your arguments. In short, you simply cannot have a good dialogue if both sides are arguing from different understandings of the same thing. You have to endeavor to present your opponent’s position accurately.

For the atheist, if a Christian says you misrepresent their perspective, you should be charitable and listen intently, maybe you missed something. If truly intellect, logic and reason is on  your side, then you, above all the worldviews, should desire to have all the correct information at you disposal so that you can apply it to your way of thinking. For the Christian, since in our worldview we are to value truth higher than anyone else, we too must also listen intently to represent our opponents position truthfully, and to search for our own errors honestly.

A DEBATE WITH NO DEFINITIONS IS A SILLY ONE

Jumping right into to our debated definitions of faith is tricky, and it is more important to me that you see how this failure to represent your opponents position will leads us nowhere fast. So to illustrate my point I want to make a bit of a silly example of what this looks like, and during my debate, it felt like…

Person 1: “Jesus was an actual living person.”

Person 2: “Well that is ridiculous, we all know that you think Jesus is really a carrot.”

Person 1: “No I don’t, and my scriptures don’t say that, so please stop arguing against my faith insisting that Jesus is a carrot.”

Person 2: “You can’t just change the definition to suit your needs, that’s unfair, you’re shifting the goal post in your favor.”

Person 1: “I am not, I am simply trying to show you that what you are saying is not actually what Chrsitians believe. I know there are some who may think Jesus is a carrot, but you wont find that in the scriptures, you have to evaluate my faith by it’s actual teachings, NOT what some people wrongfully teach about it.”

Person 2: “Your wrong, Jesus is a carrot and therefore cannot be a person and cannot be God, your worldview and objections have been destroyed.”

Person 1: “No you just destroyed a straw-man definition of my faith that I am telling you is NOT true. You really only tore down your own representation of my argument, not mine. So I agree with you, if Jesus was a carrot, he can’t be a person or God, but I am telling you that Jesus is not a carrot, and biblical Christianity does not believe that.”

Person 2: “Wrong”

As cartoon-ish as this seems, this is certainly how it felt from my perspective. Essentially if you define things a certain way, it changes your perspective on that particular subject. In a debate, if you have one meaning in your mind, and your opponent has another, you must be clear over which definition that you are discussing, or else the conversation will go nowhere. A simple example to use is the dual definition of “orange”, it is both a color and a fruit. If you are hungry and ask “May I have an orange?” and someone hands your a crayon of a particular hue, you had better clarify your definition if you are really trying to satisfy your hunger. Or, if you don’t want to appear rude, you can just eat the crayon.

DEFINING FAITHS

When it comes to faith you can go lots of place for definitions. A continual place my opponents went to was the dictionary, they wanted to crucify the Christians understanding of faith by the dictionaries understanding. But we were not arguing against a dictionary definition of faith, we were supposedly arguing against a biblical definition of faith. The same word was being used, but with two entirely different meanings, like orange

Without laying out every detail of the conversation, what my friend and opponent, hereby refereed to as my “fropponent”, argued against was the idea of “Blind Faith”. He asserted that the definition of Christian faith is the same as blind faith, or faith without evidence. This view of faith is non-traditional, even though the concept is very popular on our current western Christian context, the actual idea is nowhere to be found in the understanding of Christian faith that we see in the scriptures. It is, at best, something that sounds vaguely spiritual enough that people believe it is Christian, like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “spare the rod spoil the child“, and at worst, a false understanding so detrimental to Christian thought, that it gives good reason to people who wrongfully reject genuine faith, based solely on a false idea of this counterfeit faith. In fact I even told my friend that if genuine Christian faith was in fact “blind” and without evidence as he asserted, then I would have no problem renouncing my faith today. He asked me to clarify.

I told him how the picture of faith we see in the bible is not a faith without evidence, but a faith that demands evidence. We see in scripture that YES, faith does require belief, but not an un-reasoned belief. We never see the command to follow something blindly, we are never told in scripture that we should shut of our brains and go with our hearts, we never see a teacher, prophet, apostle or Christ himself say anything without trying to demonstrate its validity. The parables are a good example of this, its Jesus knowing that what he is asking us to believe is difficult, so he tries to break things down in such a way that we might learn to understand it through his eyes.

Furthermore we always see Jesus inviting people to come and “taste and see”. This is his common way of asking them to verify what he is talking about with their own senses. If there was nothing there of substance to verify, even if he was speaking in analogy, why would he invite them to try to verify something that is allegedly unverifiable? Most notably we see this with Thomas, he believes Jesus to be dead, and when Jesus shows up resurrected, what does he tell Thomas to do? He tells him to come and touch his wounds! In other words he wants him to see and even touch the evidence for himself. The entire Gospel of Luke was written by Luke as he interviewed and researched the claims that Christians were making about Jesus. He went and found the evidence and wrote it down. We see Paul, when defending the Resurrection, or giving account to all that he has seen, frequently name people and tell others to simply go and verify his claims by talking to these other witnesses. Unfortunately we are unable to do this today, yet even when we go to the the “go to” passage on faith in scripture, we see that Faith is described as evidence, substance, assurance and conviction.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance(substance) of things hoped for, the conviction (evidence) of things not seen.

“But the bible is hard to understand, I don’t get it!”

I know, so if I may, let me use a parable of my own…

I currently cannot see my wife, we are not in the same room or even the same building right now, she could be doing anything she wants right now. Yet, I have an assurance in what I cannot actually see, I am assured that she is currently not sleeping with another man. Do I know this for a %100 conclusive fact? No. Can I see it with my own eyes? No, not currently. Well then, am I completely misguided to place my trust in my wife? Absolutely not. Even though I do not have %100 proof do I still have good evidence or reason to believe she is faithful? Yep. Could I be wrong? Yes, but the absence of visual evidence does not prove me wrong, nor does this mean that my faith in my wife is “blind”, I still have perfectly good reasons to believe that she is faithful to me that do not require my ability to see her in all ways at all times.

In summary, the idea of “blind faith” is not in the bible, and it is therefore entirely un-christian, and therefore has implications for both sides of the argument.

So Christians, stop using the term, it damages our faith, and if you go to a church that teaches blind faith as truth, find a different church.

Atheist, to argue against the Christian worldview by attacking the notion of “blind faith” is a fallacious argument. You simply dismantle something that is not in the Christian understanding of faith. Therefore, in your attempt to dismantle Christianity, you actually leave biblical Christianity untouched and only dismantle your own staw-man arguement.

A TRUE DEFINITION OF FAITH GIVES US A TRUE DILEMMA

If all of this is true, then my “fropponet” has a problem. He cannot concede his error with the definition of faith without also implying that his atheistic worldview may also be mistaken. After all, it was this definition that lead to his rejection of Christianity, and if that definition is invalid, then perhaps so is his assumption that led to his rejection. At the least, he would have to admit that his assumptions are wrong, and therefore his argumentation based on this assumption is also wrong, and at the most, commit to re-investigate his own thoughts and ideas about his own worldview in light of this new information. As Christians, we should also do the same whenever we assume something wrongfully.

He is committed to his atheism, and I to my Christianity, but where we differ is that I believe that there could be some evidence out there that completely disproves my faith. For example, if I were to find out for certain that Jesus did NOT exist, then to be intellectually consistent, I would have to reject Christianity altogether. I don’t think my fropponent is willing to make the same claim about his atheism. If he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the honest thing to do would be to reject atheism. For him, I don’t know if there is any amount of evidence that could cause him to reconsider the positions he assumes, much more, lead to his conversion. This leads me to believe that the problem in our disagreement is more than just a problem about faith and evidence, but also a problem of the heart.

For more resources on what biblical faith ACTUALLY is, I would encourage you to look at the links below…

Faith Has its Reasons

Blind Faith

Is Faith a Leap like Sam Harris says?

A podcast if you like to listen…

Stand to Reason Podcast

And probably the best summary of the Christian Faith, a book for all of our readers out there…

What is Faith? By R.C. Sproul

Sadly, it would only take a simple google search to show any atheist that the notion of Blind Faith is NOT a Christian one.

 

{Stay tuned as I reflect more about this conversation when we look at the nature of evidence in our next post. If there is anything unclear, comment respectfully and I will try my best to clarify.}

50 Reasons I DO drink

Just a few days before New Years, an opinion piece, or at least what I assume is an opinion piece, because that is all it is, popped up of at the charismatic Christian website, Charisma News. It’s title, “50 Reasons I Don’t Drink” is exactly what it says. Written by a “Pastor” and “Ex-alcoholic”, it begins with a brief disclaimer, followed by a bit of personal experience, then the 50 points. So to begin, I will give a little explanation, my own disclaimer (I talk about sex and guns), then lastly, a point by point rebuttal.

The toughest part about being a Christians is the whole part about trying our best to follow the bible’s instructions and doing our best to let its teachings shape our hearts, and renew our minds. It is often uneasy business. Our author mentions that this issue is “hotly debated”, and in some circles it is, but in the bible it is NOT. Gathering all that we can read about alcohol from scripture, the picture does vary from verse to verse, but when we put it all together we see a very clear portrait about alcohol from the biblical perspective. A portrait I will try to paint as clearly as possible.

The bible allows the consumption of alcohol in moderation. Moderation is not a particular type of alcohol, or number a certain number of drinks. you should or should not take, the only prohibition we see is to not be drunk. Drunkenness seems to be a point of consumption to where self control is inhibited to a detrimental degree. It should be noted that many things can inhibit your self control, including your personal desires and emotions. If alcohol is bringing out those desires and emotions it is merely revealing what is in you heart, the problem is your internal thoughts, it is within you, not the external alcohol. Other than the strict prohibition from drunkenness, the only other prohibition we see is for some clergy members to abstain,  during certain personal oaths such as fasting, and personal conviction. Which is what we have a prime example of in this article, personal conviction. Other than that, this is basically all the scriptures has to say on alcohol in a nut shell.

Personal Conviction can be difficult. It can be very meaningful for you, you can find much to delight about in it, and when that personal conviction is designed to keep you safe from certain sinful proclivities of your own, it can be particularly life giving. This is the case with our personally convicted Charisma author in this article. As an ex-alcoholic, her personal conviction is meaningful and life-giving, and it keeps her from sin that she is specifically bent towards and weak too. So it makes it difficult for her to see why not all Christians see things her way. In matters like this we have the scriptures to counsel us, personal convictions are a great place to have great discussion, but we should never elevate them above what the bible actually says. This is what happens in this article, and this is the fatal flaw in which it’s reasoning is based.

This is where I find my main problem with this article. On the surface the obvious problem is a legalism where we elevate personal conviction to the level of God’s decree. This is a big deal, a real big deal, and something we should never do. However, what concerns me most is a blatant misunderstanding of what sin is, revealing that the main problem is a well meaning Christian who isn’t handling things like a Christian should. Which is according to the bible.

In a direct conversation I am sure our author could quote the correct passages on the nature of sin, but it seems obvious to me that she doesn’t understand them at all, and further more, she doesn’t want to. “This article is not a theological defense on the topic of Christians and alcohol (another article for another time), but it is a heartfelt plea.” If we are not thinking theologically, also known as biblically, then what are we doing exactly? Theology matters, and for the Christian, we look inconsistent at best when our theology doesn’t actually line up with our scriptures, and at worst, we make God look foolish when we think our ways are better than his.

I really do appreciate, and even agree somewhat with the genuine concern she has over sin, but the bible, if we are really Christian, must be considered in all that we say and we do! She seems to think the particular act of drinking alcohol is sinful, or that it causes one sin. This is not the case. Sin comes from the desires of our heart (Matthew 15:19), and our actions are only sinful when they coincide with those desires. I think the most obvious example of this is sex.

Is sex sinful? No, although some act like it is. Is sex sinful in a particular context? Yes, if you are married and have sex with someone that you are not married to, this is a sin. Was it the combinations of external factors that made it sinful? NO, it was the heart of the person who desired to have sex with someone who wasn’t there spouse that made the circumstances possible. Someone who’s heart is not bent towards infidelity id never going to accidentally find themselves in someone else’s bed. In fact if you change the context you can still have biblical sex, and it still be very sinful. So imagine this person is still with their spouse, and still in their own martial bed, but in their mind and heart they are imagining and desiring someone else. Guess what, all the external factors are there, the right person, the right place, but this person is still being and acting with atrocious sinful intent. They are having sex in a biblical context and still sinning! In her original article, our author clearly cannot see the difference between the external actions of sin, and the internal desires of the heart that lead to the external action.

Think of yourself like a gun, and you are loaded with bullets, these bullets are your sin. Just sitting there, you are pretty harmless, but you still have  great potential to fire off that sin at any moment. Your gun, because of its particular sins, can only be triggered by certain factors. For some, alcohol is the trigger that causes their gun to fire, for others, not so much. So for some, alcohol is indeed their trigger, and they should abstain until such a time that they can become unloaded of those particular sin bullets. External handling and self control is always needed, but we shouldn’t full ourselves into thinking that it can “unload” our gun, or that it can “load” our gun in a way that we are not prone to fire.

So while I see the value of her conviction for her and others like her (it keeps her trigger from being pulled), for me, a guy who has beer in his fridge that he really enjoys that he bought on vacation last year and still hasn’t drank. A guy who’s last beer consumed was two weeks ago at a friends house with a group of guys from my church. A guy who’s first drink ever was when he was 28. I simply cannot see the value for me. I think it is obvious that whatever sinful bents I have, and there are plenty, alcohol is not the trigger to my loaded sin gun. For others it is, and they may very well need to abstain, and the fact that I don’t does not make me any stronger or weaker or better than any other child in God’s kingdom, and neither does abstaining make anyone better. In fact, if alcohol can easily undo your Christians character and witness, then perhaps you are the weaker brother.

For the Christian, God’s law is where we need to debate, not over its validity, but over submitting to its understanding, and holding to its clear teaching that we may abstain not from alcohol, but from sin. This is where our fight should be, in the depths of our guts where our sin is hiding. If we are a gun loaded with sin and potential harm to ourselves and others, then our hope is that we would learn and grow and that over time, God, through His Son, and by His Spirit, would gently unload all of our chambers from their sin. Then and only then could we experience the freedom he has intended for us. The ultimate goal for a Christian that struggles with alcohol, is not that he would never drink, but that the underlying sinful desires that are triggered by drinking would be eliminated.

Hopefully I made a clear picture, sometimes I find it was much more clear in my head, and not so much in my typed words. If the picture is as clear as I hope, then we can see what happens when we apply a biblical understanding of sin to these 50 points. IF anything, maybe you’ll see how personal experience cannot be the test for corporate truth. It quickly disintegrates to personal truth versus personal truth, which gets us nowhere, except to show why truth must ultimately be objective rather than subjective.

50 reasons why I don’t drink vs 50 reasons I do

Her points in bold font vs my points in italics.

1. I can’t be sober-minded if I’m not sober.

Well I’m sorry to hear that, I can, so we ought not elevate out personal struggles and experience to the level of norm for all Christians. Maybe you are drinking too much when you drink, a clear violation of the prohibition not to be drunk. You should search your heart and see what underlying motives cause you to drink to such excess. Or maybe you are particularly sensitive, you may have some underlying medical issues and need to speak to a doctor. If you are overly sensitive, you should exercise caution around alcohol, which sounds like you do, so good for you!

2. Alcohol has an assignment: destruction.

Is this from scripture, the surgeon generals warning, a health and fitness blog or personal opinion…something?

3. Alcohol is a depressant. Anything that depresses should be avoided at all costs.

I have never been depressed after drinking alcohol, so maybe this is NOT true for everyone, and to act like it is is an unfair representation. Also I don’t know if ANYTHING that depresses should be avoided, sometimes I become depressed and grieved about particular issues, and it causes me to seek the Lord’s counsel with more intensity. Now if someone suffers from clinical depression, they ought to maybe exercise some caution, although in some cases, alcohol can be consumed with Joy according to Ecclesiastes 9:7, but why bring the bible into this now, after all, you did not use it in your original post.

4. I don’t want to make my brother or sister stumble in the name of exercising my “Christian liberties.” My choice to drink could lead to someone’s demise.

So we are no longer personally responsible for our own sin? That’s a relief! Now instead of “The Devil made me do it!”, I can say “You Christian liberties made me do it!”

5. Alcohol skews my judgment.

Not mine.

6. Alcohol leaves me worse, not better.

Not me.

7. What I do in moderation, my children will do in excess.

Not true, I drink way less than my parents. On the other hand, if this is true, then I can be a moderate bible reader and my kids will do it in excess, man my job just got easier!

8. Even the unsaved know I shouldn’t drink. Bible in one hand, beer in the other—any lost person could point this out as a confusing contradiction.

I’ve been able to have many conversations rich in the gospel because I was willing to go to the local pub and have a beer with my neighbor.

9. Alcohol doesn’t bring others closer to the Lord when they see me drinking, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

10. Alcohol doesn’t bring me closer to the Lord when I drink, but further away.

See my response previous to this one.

11. I want to be fully awake and ready for the return of Christ, not drowsy, sluggish and fuzzy.

Good thing Jesus is faithful, and when he returns he will be faithful to receive all that he has saved in-spite of their mental ability at the time or whether or not that mental ability was impeded by a substance. Should a Christian on pain meds post surgery also avoid those medications that help them recover if they make them drowsy or sluggish, just in case Jesus returns?

12. Show me a family for whom alcohol has made a positive difference in their lives. You won’t be able to.

Mine! As I said before, many conversation because I was willing to share a beer, some of those with my own father. Also my favorite drinking partner is my wife, it helps us get all snuggly on the couch after the kids are in bed

13. I have never heard anyone say, “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike!”

* makes a gun and tonic, drinks it* “Wow, that gin and tonic made me feel so Christlike”

14. I want to avoid all appearances of evil.

Then don’t! Wait, how is alcohol evil again? Verse please!

15. Alcohol makes it much harder for me to practice the fruit of self-control.

I’m sorry to hear that, then maybe you should abstain from alcohol and ask God to search your heart for the underlying sins that cause you to loose the fruit of self-control.

16. Alcohol causes me to lose my filter.

Sorry to hear that, maybe you need to learn self-control of your tongue, and not just alcohol. If your sin is a loose filter, gossip or a sharp tongue, then alcohol doesn’t cause it, it reveals it. In that case, praise God for using alcohol to reveal your weakness, now you can zero in on it a prayerfully fight against it.

17. Alcohol is a legal mind-altering drug.

Whoa, then I must be drinking wrong, I have never had my mind altered

18. Alcohol is addictive.

Did you see the bit where I still have beer in my fridge that I bought a year ago? IF it was addictive I think I would of drank it by now.

19. Alcohol is a numbing agent for pain and sorrow only Jesus can heal.

Right, using alcohol to fill a need only Jesus can is a serious problem. This would be treating alcohol like your savior, but alcohol does NOT cause this sin, it reveals it. Also, I have never used alcohol to numb anything.

20. Many regrets are associated with alcohol. (I can give you a whole bunch!)

No regrets are associated with alcohol, (I can give you none). Your experience vs my experiences

21. No one has ever said, “If only I had taken a drink, things wouldn’t have gotten out of control.”

Right, cause that is a ridiculous statement.

22. Alcohol causes me to act in ways I normally wouldn’t.

You would normally act that way given the right set of circumstances, so yes, you should avoid those circumstance, but you should also understand that your weakness is not caused by those circumstances. Your problem is still very real even without those circumstances.

23. Alcohol kills brain cells.

Not if you are drinking biblically (in moderation)

24. Alcohol is a counterfeit and provides a false peace.

Right, but alcohol is not the problem, its that we are worshiping alcohol like a god. Alcohol is no more to blame than the Golden Calf in the wilderness.

25. The Bible says that no drunkards will enter the kingdom of God. Being drunk starts with one drink. I don’t want to see how far outside the lines I can color when eternity is at stake.

-_- I’ll just continue to believe that God will be faithful to save me, I’ll place my confidence in his ability to keep his covenant. *sips more of that gin and tonic*

26. Alcohol is a waster—money, gifts and talents, destinies and so on.

Then pretty much anything can be a “waster”, again, its not a problem with the “thing”, but with the heart of the person using that thing.

27. Alcohol leads to really bad behavior. It is a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes.

Let go back to my bullet analogy. Their chambers are filled with violent bullets, alcohol is the trigger. They still have issues with violence with or without alcohol. Your point also works both ways. Alcohol is NOT a factor in 50 percent of violent crimes. Do you know what is a factor 100 percent of the time? Sinful people who need redemption.

28. Alcohol distracts and derails you from living the victorious life for which Christ died.

Alcohol helps me celebrate my victorious life! *sip*

29. Wisdom is the principle thing that I need to pursue at all cost; alcohol makes me stupid.

Yeah, you should definitely see a doctor and continue to abstain. I don’t know you, so I can’t attest to this fact, but in your article, your poor understanding of scripture makes you seem foolish. Also Christ is the principle thing we should pursue at all cost.

30. Alcohol has ruined many, many marriages.

Those marriages may still be together if we only got past the external abuses of alcohol and really got to the heart issues underneath those failing marriages. In a way, alcohol is only the tip of the iceberg, the bulk of the problem is underneath. Also, did I mention that my wife and I get all snuggly after a few drinks? Being Snuggly is good for marriages. *makes wife a gin and tonic*

31. The only influence I should be “under” is God’s.

Which is why I don’t let alcohol influence me or drink to such excess that it does.

32. The Bible tells me to be alert; alcohol delays my reaction time.

Okay, sometimes playing around all day with my kids makes me tired which delays my reaction time, should I stop playing with my kids?

33. If I don’t start drinking, I’ll never have to stop.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

34. Alcohol severely tarnishes my testimony.

Wow, we must live in entirely different context.

35. Don’t want your teenagers to drink? Yep, same reasons apply to you.

Nope, same reasons don’t apply, the only reason I don’t want my teenager to drink is that it is illegal for them. If I see certain characteristics in my children that give other reasons for them specifically to abstain, then I will address them with my child biblically.

36. God is holy; alcohol is not.

I’ll take “Things not ever said in scripture” for 1000 Alex.

37. Alcohol and prayer don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, Praying and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

38. Alcohol and Bible study don’t mix.

Hey, lets stay on topic, bible study and drinking is different than if we should abstain all together.

39. Alcohol lowers my resolve to resist temptation.

If abstaining helps you resits, then great, and maybe others should too, but for me alcohol is not a factor, and it is not normative for everyone.

40. Alcohol = Brokenness (broken lives, health, dreams and so on)

Scripture citation please.

41. When the world sees us drinking, it sends the message that Jesus isn’t enough.

The “World”? Apparently you do not understand the cultural or missional implications of your opinion.

42. Moderate drinking? How about moderate pornography or moderate heroin use or moderate lying or moderate adultery?

How about moderate bible reading? I kid, but seriously your examples are setting up a straw-man argument. Specifically with adultery, adultery is the result of sex used sinfully. As we already covered before, sex is NOT a sin, sex with someone that is not your spouse is.  There is no such thing as moderate sin, drinking is not a sin, excessive drinking, also known as drunkenness, is a sin. So your example should say “Moderate Drunkenness?” There is no such thing because if you’ve already moved to drunkenness then you are already sinning, same thing with pornography and adultery. Is it a sin to be moderately aroused by your spouse? No, but this is they type of fallacious argument you are using. 

43. Christians are called to live a life of total surrender and separation from the world.

Yes, even in the way they partake of alcohol.

44. Alcohol makes me forget. It can make me forget that I am married, that I am saved and so on.

What the what? You have much bigger issues than alcohol.

45. “I don’t get drunk. I only have one or two drinks.” If they didn’t affect you, you would drink soda.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, soda in excess can have adverse affects too.

46. I should never look to the glass or bottle for joy, which can only be found in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, but I don’t not find my Joy in drink, I express my Joy in Christ with a drink.  “In Christ God has atoned for all my sins! Cheers and Amen”

47. Alcohol fills my mind with impure thoughts.

No, alcohol reveals them.

48. If it could hinder my faith walk or love walk or dishonor the lordship of Jesus Christ, I need to forsake it.

Everything potentially has that problem, so should we forsake everything that God has given us? Surely not if we are using it properly.

49. Alcohol doesn’t help me run the race that Jesus has marked before me to finish with more accuracy. It does the polar opposite.

Do you got a verse for me yet?

50. For any argument that tries to justify Christian drinking, there are at least 50 other reasons not to. The writing is on the wall. It’s not God’s best for Christians to drink.

I don’t care what wall the writing is on, or how many counter arguments there are, if it is not in the bible and we are not talking about what a Christian should or should not do, we are merely talking about personal experience and preferences.

Bible Say Wha?! Genesis Chapter One

The aim of this series of blogs is simple. To figure out what the Bible is plainly saying. It is not meant to be definitive nor complete, but just plain. The bible is complex, that much is certain, and so is our reading and understanding of it. Often times I think our aim is either too high, or too low, and both sides end up missing what is right in front of us. So I hope to hit somewhere in the middle and offend everyone at the same time by asking “What’s the big deal?” If only one thing is to be pulled from this text, what is it?

BIBLE SAY WHA?! Genesis Chapter One

What does it say?

Like any good story, the bible introduces us to its main character early on, that character being “God”. We are also simultaneously given a frame of reference, “the beginning.” Now whether this beginning points to a specific time and date is unclear, there is a lot of debate around this, and while I think it’s important to talk about those things, it obviously is NOT the MAIN thing this text wants us to know. So the WHEN? of the beginning, nor the WHAT? of the creation, seems to be the main thin in this text. So then, it would seem that the WHO? is the main thing, and if you were to ask me to place theses things in order of importance, I would say that the least important part is the WHEN, followed by the WHAT, and finally, most importantly the  WHO.

This text then is about God, who at some time in the past, created everything.

So how did I come to that conclusion?

I’m glad you asked! Lets say you had no knowledge of the bible, or any thing that anyone had told you about the bible, you just happened to find this book, opened it up, and read from the beginning. You then think to yourself “What’s the big deal?” I would argue that whatever is given the most detail is what the passage wants us to know the most. This passage does talk about the beginning, it does talk about creation, but it talks mostly about God, which would then make Him the most important object in the text.

In this passage we do learn some interesting things about creation, specifically the “WHAT” it was that was actually created.  We read about the heavens and the earth, the light and therefore the night and day, the waters and the land, vegetation and seeds, stars in the sky, fishes, then livestock, then man. However, while this is specific, its not very specific, it seems very broad in its scope and leads to other very good questions.

Were all the different types of fish created, or just enough fish with enough genetic diversity to then eventually produce the variety of fish we now have? Same goes for the beast, and the vegetation. Was the earth in the shape and form that it is now? Were the mountains the same then as the are now, were the plains and valleys and regions generally the same?

Most likely not. Therefor there is no reason that a Christian can not trust the majority of scientific discovery that gives us a potential glimpses into creation’s early history. In fact the science vs faith dichotomy is a false one, but I digress. There is no need for someone who believes the bible to shun science, the only time we should be suspect is when someone tries to uses scientific discovery to rid of us of the main thing in this text, God. When it comes to the time frame of this creation account we don’t have many specifics, so it doesn’t matter if science says the earth is 6000 or 60 trillion years old, or that all of creation happened over long periods of time, or in an instant, the bible is fairly quite on the matter. What does matter is if someone would then suggest that this “science” is  evidence that there is no God at all, because again, the WHO is more important to the WHEN or the WHAT, and the bible is most certainly NOT quite about the WHO. So we can accept what science reveal and still believe in the bible….shocking, I know.

We should also note that the opening of Genesis is written as a poem, so we should consider that there may be some artistic license to the creation story, and therefore a strictly literal interpretation is NOT necessary to believe in this text or affirm that it is true, although this does NOT mean that the poem is not literal or at least partly literal either. Either way, it still does not shed as much light on the WHEN or WHAT aspects of creation, over the WHO of creation. Keep in mind that it does seem to zoom in a bit more in chapter two,  giving us more specifics, but still, the WHO of the creation story is still at center stage.

Ultimately then, the WHO should be our main focus.

To emphasis this, I was photographing a wedding at a small church about six years ago. On a small table in the lobby was a pamphlet about the different alternating theories of the creation account. Now we aren’t going to dive into this too much because our aim is the MAIN thing, and as I’ve already stated that I think the main thing is the WHO, not the WHEN of creation, but in this pamphlet it presented some of the different schools of thought including the “gap theory”, “day age view”, “theistic evolution”, “poetic framework” view, and the “literal” view. I’ll give some credit to the makers of this pamphlet, they did a very good job explaining the different views correctly, but then towards the bottom of the page, the bias began to show. The pamphlet boldly declared that any interpretation of the days of creation other than the literal interpretation was a compromise to God’s word and we cannot allow these compromises in the church!

To which I thought “Really?”

If I handed you Genesis chapter one and simply told you that this is a poem about how everything began, could you possibly find enough information from this chapter, and even the next chapter, to steadfastly determine that this is the only right way to understand this text? Me neither!

In fact the only detailed specific thing in this text is again, the “WHO”. When we read about the “WHEN”, all we know for sure about it, is “WHO” was there. When we read about the specifics of the “WHAT”, we get a little more detail, but the primary detail we read is that it was God “WHO” created it. There is much more detail about God than anything else in this text. We read that he has a Spirit. We read that he has a voice and that he speaks. We read that he has an image and a likeness. We read that image reflects some mysterious “our” suggesting that this God has some sort of diversity in himself. Granted it’s not a very clear picture of WHO this God is, especially the “our image” and “our likeness” bit, but it’s much more detail than we get about anything else, and as such, it is probably where most of our attention should be, not just in this first chapter, but in the whole story.

Lastly we do see a second “WHO” show up at the very end of this text. We see ourselves, or man. The main WHO, God, brings a LITTLE WHO, man, into his creation. We see that the MAIN WHO, gives us LITTLE WHOS dominion over all that he has made, and that the LITTLE WHOS are also a part of the WHAT of creation, the only thing not created in this text is the one WHO does the creating. Man and creation are linked, one is not above the other, they are made to live in peace together. God sets us up in an order or a relationship with Himself and with His creation. “You take care of the creation, and it will take care of you, and I will take care of both of you.”

Which is very beautiful, but it is not the whole the story. We know that this is the setting that tension will eventually be introduced into. This is the setting of peace we were in, and the Bible, as a whole, is a story of how that peace was destroyed, and how that peace was restored. The destruction of that peace can easily be summarized as the LITTLE WHOS think they know better that the BIG WHO. It is not us versus evil, its us versus God, from that single inversion all tension, unease, evil and suffering would flow.

However, we are not that far into the story just yet, so in true cliffhanger fashion, I’ll have to leave it there for now.

In summary this specific chapter of the bible is about WHO God is, and WHO we are in relationship to him and in relationship to WHAT he has created. The “WHEN” of the whole deal is a side-note at best, and this should set the frame for the rest of our investigation into the scriptures. The big deal is always going to be God. So if you are a Christian, plant your flag and stake your claim around the WHO of this passage and not the WHEN or the WHAT. In as far as we have traveled into this book, God is the main player, initiator, creator and driving force in this story. He is the most important piece, in fact the only piece that matters, because without him there are no other pieces for us to even think about. So then, for you, personally, that is the question. “Is God the only most important piece in your life, because without Him, none of the other pieces matter?

To be continued…

BIBLE SAY WHA?! The Nephilim.

Recently my pastor asked me to cobble together a blog post on the Nephilim. My church had started a series going through the book of Genesis, and there is simply NOT enough time on a Sunday morning to address all the potential questions that Genesis raises. Recently, my friend, Kris Van Houten and I talked about a few of the questions surrounding creation an the apologetics class, (you can hear us discuss them in the audio from Session Two). However, issues about creation are not the only difficulties found in the first 15 chapters of Genesis.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes we come across difficult texts, it will happen to all of us at some point. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledges that the bible can sometimes be tricky, while commenting on Paul’s letters, he says “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand…(2 Peter 3:16 ESV)” So if some parts of the bible fill your head with more questions than answers, take a deep breath, give yourself a bit of a break, and show yourself a little grace. Now notice I said “take a bit of a break”, not “give up” entirely .

So, with all of this in mind, let’s take a little look at a tough set of verses in…

Genesis 6:1-4 ESV

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

A text that is difficult to apply to your life is one thing, a text that is just weird, is another! This text is just weird.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Preceding these verses we see that humanity is growing and sprawling. Genesis 5 shows us this using highlights from the families of Adam and Eve, and their offspring. Specifically Adam’s son Seth. Then, before that, in Chapter 4 of Genesis, we see the story of Cain and Abel, followed by the beginning of Cain’s offspring, who was another son of Adam. One thing that may be important to see here, is that God’s covenant to reconcile the world always happens through families. This isn’t the last time we will see God’s covenant family divided by sin. There are lots of examples of this, but the most obvious would be Isaac and Ishmael.

So from there we have two separate sets of people groups, from the same sinful parents. We don’t know exactly how long has passed, or how many generations have gone buy. You can add up the numbers from the list of families and get a rough idea, but some suggest that the the genealogies listed are not complete, but just highlights of certain people. What is clear though, is that it has been long enough for tribes and cities to form, and that enough distinction in the bloodlines has happened that we are able to tell the different kinds of people apart. That is the basic set up. Then, after these strange 4 verses, we see God’s patience run out with all of humanity’s wickedness.

Genesis 6:5 ESV

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I will talk about what the “Sons of God”, “daughters of man” and “nephilim” could possibly be, but more important is the point of the text, and if you don’t like reading and other nerdy stuff, I will give you the point up front, and if you want some “extra credit”, you can keep reading after “The Big Idea !!!!!”

THE BIG IDEA !!!!!

Notice that Genesis condemns all of humanity, both Seth and Cain’s descendants. Both the good son (Seth), and the bad son (Cain), are guilty of sin. These four odd verses in Genesis 6,  are then primarily used to demonstrate the span of evil that has entered all of God’s perfect creation through sin.

As I mentioned before, we see humanity growing, clustering together in groups and even cities, even to the point that these groups start to become distinct from one another. These verses demonstrate, that no matter who or what they are, all people, and all created beings have been damaged by sin. Essentially, everything that is created is affected by “The Fall”. Whether material or immaterial, tangible or intangible, sin has messed it up. (Kris and I talk about this a little in one of the apologetic sessions, so go check them out!) The only thing that would be left unaffected by sin, would be something that is eternal, and not created. The only thing that fits that “not created/eternal category is God. So the conclusion we should definitely see and hold to from these verses, is that everything that is not God, is at this point in redemption history, completely corrupted by sin, and apparently God plans to do something about it!  The rest of the details, no one can say for sure.

EXTRA CREDIT

For those of you nerdy types who want a little more detail, kudos for you! Keep in mind however, that what follows is what we would call an “open-handed” issue. That means, that no matter what you believe on this point, it is NOT a point that would either affirm or deny someone’s salvation. You can believe any of these views any still be a very orthodox and true Christian. What IS for certain is what I have already addressed under the “BIG IDEA” heading.

There are many, including theories about aliens, views on who the players are in the beginning of Genesis 6. (Sons of God, Daughters of Man, Nephilim) However, only two are on a popular level, or commonly used, so these are the only two I’ll address.

(View One)
1. THE ANGELS DID IT!
This may be the earliest view I could find, but the second view isn’t much later in date to this one.

Essentially, this view claims that the “Sons of God” found here are fallen angels, the Nephilim are thus the offspring of these fallen angels with human women. This would explain their “renown” and super human like abilities. God was not pleased with this new Giant creature (nephilim translates most closely to Giant ), and getting rid of them was his primary motivator for the “Great Deluge”, or as we call it, “The Flood.” God’s intent was to wipe out this abomination and those who created it as a sign of His Justice, and also His mercy.

There are some extra biblical sources that shed some light on this theory. Extra biblical means a source outside of the bible. Historically, the Jews do not, nor do Christians, view these books as “inspired” like scripture. They would consider them valuable religious writings. For example, today we may recommend a book by John Piper, and say this book is valuable for teaching, but it is not on the same level as scripture. This means that these extra biblical writings are cool, helpful, interesting, but are not infallible like the bible. They, like all other religious writings, must submit to scripture.

Phew! That being said, there is a very neat bit from one of those extra books called the Book of Enoch (Noah’s grandpappy).

“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it…”

Remember, this IS NOT authoritative at all! It’s just interesting.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO “WHA?”

1. You want me to believe that angels had sex with women?

A) No, I want you to believe that Jesus Christ was God in flesh, lived a perfect life, was murder as a traitor, buried in a tomb, rose three days later. Thus dying for all the real traitors, you and me, and offering us new life and forgiveness if we would place our hope and trust in him.

What you believe about Jesus is infinitely more important than what you think about the Nephilim.

B) But now that i mention it… looking at what we believe about Jesus makes the idea of this first view of the Nephilim seem a little less far fetched, doesn’t it? If God can die and rise, why can’t angels mix it up with people?

C) Imagine heaven. Do we live and dwell there with angels? It would appear that we one day will live in the new creation with Jesus, as well as all sorts of heavenly creatures. So it is possible to assume that maybe, at the beginning, before sin messed everything up, that angels and humanity had some sort of relationship. Not necessarily a sexual one, but as my wife, Mary, points out, I married an angel, and we have six kids, so take that as you will.

D) John MacArthur makes two points of clarification that make this view a little more believable.

D-1) That the Nephilim are NOT a race of people, but a type of people. That is, that these relationships produced a particular type of person who was strong, brutish, prone to war types.Think Attila the Hun, or Goliath. He suggest that the Nephilim were not some new creation in some weird crossbreed scenario, but a particular kind of wicked people. I’m not saying that’s true, but that’s his take.

D-2) Secondly, that the Demons (fallen angels) were not physically having sex with women, but that they possessed men, who then had sex with women. Then the offspring from this “demonic” union would be even more evil. I don’t know about you, but this is a little more believable for me. Again, this is John MacArthur’s take.

Keep in mind that demons don’t often act in extraordinary ways like in the movies, often they are very ordinary. So for example, if I were counseling a young man who was sleeping with his girlfriend, impregnated her, had no intentions to marry her, or to raise his family according to righteousness, and was most likely going to continue this pattern with other women. I would describe his actions as demonic, just ordinary. After all, it’s obvious that he isn’t playing for Jesus team, and if you’re not on team Jesus, you are on team Satan.

Again, IF this is the case, it might be possible that these demons possessed the already wicked men, these men then, would in turn, produce an offspring that would multiply that wickedness on the earth.

(View Two)
2. WE DID IT! (HUMANS)

So remember at the very beginning of the blog when we looked at Genesis 4 and 5 as set up for Genesis 6? Me neither, I’ll wait why you go read it again….

In that setup, we see two distinct bloodlines that come from Adam. The Line of Cain, who we could call unrighteousness, and the line from Seth, who we could call the line of the covenant. This second view asserts that the “Sons of God” were men from Seth’s line, and the “Daughters of Man”, were from Cain’s line. They coupled together, and from that we get this sort of bastard offspring, the Nephilim. (Pardon the use of “bastard”, please notice that I use it with the correct intention, not as a curse word.)

OKAY SAM, THIS ONE MAKES MORE SENSE, I GUESS, BUT STILL, “WHA?”

I know, while on the surface it’s a little easier to go with, at least there are no Angels in this one, but it still has a lot of questions. Of those questions, I’ll try to answer the few that immediately pop in my head.

1.How do you explain their supernatural strength?

A) In one word, Samson. Samson had supernatural strength from God, and it’s not to far fetched to assume that maybe Seth’s line, the righteous offspring, had some supernatural abilities that could’ve been passed down to their offspring.

2. What makes Seth and his kids so special?

A) In themselves? Nothing. By God’s grace? A lot. One of the overarching motifs in scripture is God keeps his covenant when we don’t keep ours. You can literally trace that covenant through the bible. Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David, David to Christ, Christ to fullfilled! This covenant is passed through families, which is what God was wanting all of us to be in the first place. So it’s through Seth’s line that the covenant is passed from Adam to Noah, not because he was particularly good, but because God chose him.

Fast forward to the New Testament, Christ’s lineage is traced all the way back to Adam by way of Seth’s line. This demonstrates that God has kept his promise to us since Adam fell. That my friends is pretty awesome. Like seriously…AWESOME!

3. Why is God all butt hurt that they took wives from Cain’s line?

A) God has always strived to keep us (his people) set apart from the world. Through out scripture, we see God, and Christ, warn us about mingling, especially romantically, and even more so, in marriage, with unbelievers. He knows that the influence that a husband and wife have over each other is powerful, and that according to his purpose, the influence should be for mutual godliness. This purpose is broken when one is an unbeliever, the influence for godliness is ruined. That’s why at The Village, if you asked us to marry you, and your significant other was an unbeliever, we would not perform the ceremony. In fact, I rebuked a young man in a community group for even considering a romantic relationship with an unbeliever. What is demonstrated when we ignore this command, is that we think we know how our relationships work best instead of God. Now do you really think you know better than God? Me neither, let’s move on.

4.) So should we cut ourselves off from all contact with unbelievers?

A) Whoa! Slow down there. Obviously Seth and Cain’s line lived in close enough proximity to where they could see each other, and were aware of each other. So no, total withdraw is unnecessary, and we never see God command it. What is necessary is wisdom, and that Christ direct all of your relationships, even if it’s with an unbeliever.

SO EITHER WAY, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEPHILIM?

It would appear that God destroyed them in the flood, some suggest that this may of been God’s primary goal.

DO WE HEAR ABOUT THEM ANYWHERE ELSE IN SCRIPTURE?

Sure, kind of. Remember, the word translates most closely to “Giant”. So we see the word reappear, but it does not necessarily refer to the same Nephilim that existed before the flood. All Nephilim are giants, but not all giants are Nephilim.

One particular instant is recorded in Numbers. Joshua leads the Israelite people to the promise land. He sends in some spies to check things out. They return saying the city is full of “Nephilim” and report that they can’t take the city.

I think the most likely scenario is that the people were NOT the same Nephilim, but that they were so impressive and imposing enough to scare the spies, so to emphasize their point, they used the word “nephilim” to stress how hopeless they thought the battle would be. This is similar to today. We may look at a particular athlete and say “that guy is a beast!” We don’t literally mean he is a “beast.” Jesus uses a similar way when describing “hell” to a group of people. He describes the actual garbage dump that was outside of town. All the waste from the city was brought there, as well as dead bodies, and set on fire. Now of course Jesus did not mean that the garbage dump outside the city WAS hell, but rather that hell WAS as bad as that dump.

There are some other places in scripture that may or may not be talking about the same Nephilim that we see here in Genesis 6, but I have to leave some of the work to you. So go trace down those leads, tell me what you find, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

Okay family, I think I covered most of the basics. Ask a question and I’ll try to lead you down the right path. I’ll post some links below that might be helpful. Remember that the big deal with these four odd verses is not so much the specifics, but the point of the verses….

WHAT WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THIS STUFF.

1. That sin had literally messed up everything.
2. That humanity was hell bent on continuing in their fallenness.
3. That in spite of all of this, God preserves and keeps his covenant with us.

R.C. SPROUL (WE DID IT)
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/nephilim/

JOHN MACARTHUR  (ANGELS DID IT)
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-254/demonic-invasion

DOUG WILSON ON NEPHILIM (A VIDEO, YAY! NO MORE READING)
Ask Doug: who were the nephalim?: http://youtu.be/RLiOqUR5Ma0

ANSWERS IN GENESIS (ESSENTIALLY SAYS WHAT I JUST SAID BUT WITH A COUPLEMORE VIEWS AND THOUGHTS EXPRESSED, AND I’M SURE MY BEARD IS BETTER)
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/battle-over-the-nephilim/

WWW.CARM.ORG (CARM IS GREAT FOR QUICK WIKIPEDIA TYPE INFO ON THESETYPES OF TOPICS)
https://carm.org/what-are-nephilim

Five quick reasons I’m not a Universalist

After a recent conversation with a friend on the topic I decide to blog out some quick thoughts on Universalism. Honestly I would love Universalism to be true, but given critical thought it doesn’t hold water, here’s why…

1. Universalism diminishes the Cross.

I suppose a Universalist may claim that it actually magnifies the cross, suggesting that the more people that are saved, the better. However, the cross isn’t valuable based on its reach, but on its cost. It cost Jesus his life, and this makes it a treasure without equal. The cross is free, but not freely applied to all. If it we’re freely applied to all its value, or more specifically, it’s cost, is nothing more than a nice display or a kind act. In this view, the cross is more akin to a party favor, sure it may be a very nice favor, and maybe your name is engraved on it, but the fact that everyone has one makes it worthless.

2. Universalism does not free us from our love of self and thus our sin.

Going back to the free, and valuable gift of salvation. Salvation does not only save us from the penalty of hell, but from ourselves. By giving us new hearts and desires, salvation removes us from the center of all of our motives, and places Jesus in the center as savior. If Universalism is true, then there is no need for the work of salvation to take place in the hearts of people. We can go on being completely full of ourselves, and unaware of God’s glory and holiness, and somehow, in the end, all will be saved regardless. The only way that Universalism can be true is if sin is not a damming, and damaging, as God, in the bible, makes it out to be. Sin is a big deal. On that note…

3. Universalism diminishes sin.

There is something in US that sees sin as merely making a mistake. So when we contemplate the idea that God would send someone to hell for a lie, we are rightly upset. The punishment, in our view, does not match the severity of the offense. The problem is a misunderstanding. The severity is not simply in the offense, but who it is against, that determines the scope of the offense. So I may lie to my children, and they don’t hold much sway or authority over me, they may be upset, and maybe I need to make amends, but not much else. However if we move up in relational authority to my wife, I lie to her, and she may see fit to divorce me. I lie to my employer and I may be fired. The offense is measured against who the offense was against, not the act itself. So maybe I work in the government and I lie, and by lying betray my country, well I may be hung for treason. So I lie against God,  and I’ve committed more than just mere treason, but severe cosmic treason against the one who has all authority and power. Jesus did not die to cover our mistakes, but to restore us from our place as traitors and enemies, to sons and daughters. Sin is serious, Universalism makes sin small, and by making sin small, the cross small, and by the cross, the saviour small.

So let’s go back to my wife. I confess to you that I lied to my wife, and you think “No big deal, even the best people of us lie to our spouses a little.” Then I begin to describe my wife’s character. I explain that she has never lied to anyone before, not even me, in fact she has never done me wrong she has only ever served me and sought good for me. When I fail she is kind and forgiving, and never holds my past failures against me. I never have to ask for anything because it’s like she knows what I need and already has it prepared for me, but she allows me to ask anyway because she knows how much I benefit from talking with her.

Well, all of the sudden my lie does seem a little worse. Then if the bible is true, and God is like my wife in this analogy, I didn’t just lie, I cheated, and cheated, and broke promise, and failed to keep my oaths, and cheated repeatedly.

4. Universalism diminishes biblical teaching, specifically the teachings of Jesus himself.

To make Universalism work you have to isolate parts of scripture and extract them, from the whole in order to make them seem to say what Universalism says. You are going to have to prostitute the bible to make it appear to promote universalism. And not some vague teachings, but the actual teachings of Jesus himself, who taught and spoke more of hell than anyone else.

5. Universalism undermines God’s role as judge and destroys justice.

The bible is clear, that in some form, God will judge, and his judgements are perfect. Without a judge we are without hope, it through God’s righteous judgements that we know what needs to be redeemed, and that he plans to do something about it. If unviversalism is true then all of God’s judgement are not the establishment of truth, by merely angry ranting that we aren’t doing things His way. Universalism is a weak view of God’s perfect character. Why make decrees and precepts if ultimately your plan is to overlook them? And if God is a judge who overlooks his own law, he then is, by definition an unjust judge.

These are not the only reasons, but they are the first five that ran through my mind, there are many more. I want to end with two points from a pastor friend of mine.

1) If God himself is actually a universalist, then we have no idea who God actually is. We can know God because he has revealed himself to us in Scripture. With all the sin, judgment, and hell talk in the OT and NT, Scripture is pretty clear that God ISN’T a universalist. Universalists at best have to pit God’s words against one another, and at worst end up disregarding the Bible as in large part / as a whole. Without any reliable self-disclosure from God himself about who he is or what he’s like, all we’re left with is our own shoddy, individual guesswork.

2.) If we believe that life and God matter, then we won’t be universalists. Universalism means that all people are currently / eventually acceptable before God and his presence. This turns what we say, do, think, and feel into something cheap because it treats God’s holiness, glory, word, etc. as something cheap. “It doesn’t really matter what I’ve said or who I am or how you live your life; all that’s required of you to enjoy my presence is to die.”

Even if he would believe (like Rob Bell does, I think) that sin is punished after death but that the punishment isn’t eternal, it still leaves the sinner unchanged. Our hearts would still be unregenerate, bent towards self instead of God. Thus, sin really isn’t dealt with, God seems relatively ineffective, and heaven / eternity sounds way less appealing.

Nehemiah : A Better City : Chapter 5:1-13

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

Nehemiah : A Better City

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

There are poor and there are powerless, to contrast, there are rich and powerful. There are those who press and oppress, and then there is justice. In general there is a sense of justice, of righting wrongs, and helping those who can’t help themselves, in all of us. Especially if we think we are the ones who aren’t receiving what we think we deserve. We all have our ways to seek justice, and we make much of our causes, and our leaders, and our attempts to obtain it, but none of us really get there.

Three points on justice

1. Justice is not always black and white. Its not clear who is in the wrong, and sometimes we find ourselves swayed, and end up doing evil thinking we are doing good.
2. Batman is not real. There is not a superhero, some human who is incorruptible fighting for justice. No Robin Hood robbing the rich to feed the poor.
3. However, if there is a God, he certainly cares about justice.

So…

God opens our ears to LISTEN for injustice, to WRESTLE with its effects, and to ENGAGE it as an opportunity for joining Gods renewal. (We will see Nehemiah do just this in today’s focal text.)

LISTEN (hear them out)

“There arose a great outcry”…even the wives are upset, and the cry isn’t against an outside force, but against their own kinsmen. They list their complaints and Nehemiah LISTENS to every one. They can barely make it. The taxes are harsh and their resources, even their crops are being borrowed against. Their children are forced into slavery to help feed the family and pay off the debt. What should we be listening for? The cry that things are not as they should be. That is the sound of injustice, things that are not as they should be.

WRESTLE (evaluate)

“I was very angry when I heard…I took counsel with myself”. You are allowed, even encouraged to be angry at injustice, if you are not, something may be off in your heart. However, that anger has to be tempered by the holy spirit through prayer and truth. If your only counselor is yourself that’s not good, but at some point we need to be able to sift through our emotions and thoughts, up against the thoughts and love of God, that we may apply that same love to others. Take your anger and ask What would God have me do with this anger in this situation?

ENGAGE (How am I positioned to affect change in this situation?)

Nehemiah has considerably more influence and means than you, but its not about the amount of influence you have, but how you effectively use what influence you do have. Nehemiah confronts the oppressive leadership and leaves them speechless. He then calls them to restore what has been broken. He gathers a community that will reflect the true character of their God. Sometime the community may be your church, sometime that community will be you and your spouse, sometimes you may be alone. No matter the number, we are to make our community reflect the kingdom of God. There are no slaves in Gods kingdom. No debts because he has paid him. No burden of harsh taxes cause God does not need our wealth to sustain his rule.

Nehemiah, is very practical, but serves an even greater purpose than just its application. Nehemiah serves as a shadow to point us to Jesus. Jesus, who heard us and LISTENED to our cry. He WRESTLED and fought against our oppressors, resitting even our ultimate enemy the serpent, succeeding where we have failed. Through his perfect life everything that was wrong has been made right, and sealed as a blood oath on the cross, our debts have been paid, and the undue burden of our sin removed never to be held against us again. Now Jesus ENGAGES all who are left wandering. Uniquely positioned on a throne over all the universe, he guides his redeemed people, the church, to seek their lost brothers and sister, and to gather them back to the city of God.

Sermon Lab Matthew 8:18-22

So here’s the deal. I’ve been on this personal journey for a bit. Essentially, as the small church plant my wife and I attend grows, so does the need and opportunity for leaders. At The Village we take leadership seriously. For a long time I’ve felt a leaning in this direction, specifically in the area of preaching and teaching. In just under two months, (actually now that I think about it, I probably wont post these until after the event) we will be hosting a preaching lab. Just under twenty men will gather, five will be selected to present 12 min mini sermons, that will then be critiqued by a panel of four pastors, Two within the Village, two outside the Village. Its incredibly exciting, and I am one of the five “lab preachers.” Assigned to me is Matthew 8:18-22

Because I love you, my notes are going to be posted here. If they seem brief or incomplete its due to the 12 min time limit. What’s difficult is boiling down the sermon to only its necessary points. No extra examples, very little practical application, just the idea, and the challenge, and the gospel, all while trying to still be engaging.

Mat 8:18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side.
Mat 8:19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
Mat 8:20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Mat 8:21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Mat 8:22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

THE CONTEXT

Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, he’s not there just yet, and at this point he hasn’t really ruffled too many feathers. His fame and popularity are growing as he passes through these smaller towns serving, teaching, and performing various miracles. During his trip we see this meeting with two would-be followers, who apparently miss something that is critical to what it means to follow Jesus, and we are going to see Jesus push back on them a bit, and as Jesus pushes back on them, he also pushes back on us.

What I want to do first today, is explain what the text plainly says. That is, what, on a surface level is it saying? Then I want explore with you what the text means as it applies to us today. To look for the meaning underneath the surface if you will, to see what the text might reveal about our hearts today.

TWO DUDES

The first dude is pretty excited about the notion of following Jesus, he says “I will follow you wherever you will go.” Jesus pushes back a little and tells the man that he has “no idea what hes asking for.”(paraphrase, I’m going to paraphrase a lot for the sake of time) “The foxes and the birds do their thing and get to go home, I do my thing and I don’t get that sort of luxury”. Plainly Jesus is saying that following Jesus is not all rainbows and sunshine, its not a “have your cake and eat it to” type of scenario, it is at times, in fact difficult.

Dude number two, at the notion of being a follower of Jesus, essentially tells Jesus that now is not a good time for him. And guess what, I know its a funeral he’s talking about, but without getting into all the speculation and nuance as to why this isn’t a big deal. Can we just skip ahead and quickly agree that no matter what you got going on, if Jesus calls you to follow him, that whatever Jesus ask is probably more important? Jesus is expressing to the second man, that he apparently, by passing up the offer, even if only temporarily, that he doesn’t know what he’s missing out on.

That is you plain meaning. This is pretty much what the text is saying on a surface level. Following Jesus is difficult, but at the same time worth it. However, we still need to get to the heart of the text and find out what Jesus is trying to reveal to us today.

DIGGING DEEPER

These two men make different assumptions about following Jesus. In Jesus’s view, they apparently miss what following Him is all about. Something crucial is missing in their understanding, and some faulty desires are lurking behind their hearts. That being said, the bible says a lot about following Jesus, and you should take some time on your own, and read those verses, but for our purposes today, we only need to look no further that just a few more chapters in Matthew.

Twice in the gospel of Matthew, in ch 10:38, and ch 16:24, Jesus will lay two foundational elements for what it means to be a follower. He says this, paraphrased “if you’re going to follow me you need to first deny yourself, and then, take up your cross” to paraphrase the paraphrase, “you need to not be about your business, but be about my business, your desires should bow to my desires.” Jesus makes this point twice on two separate occasions, which means we should listen closely, and in his encounter with these two men we see it play itself out in two different ways.

SELF DENIAL VS SELF FULFILLMENT

Jesus informs us that a central ethic or posture of being a follower of Christ, to being a part of his kingdom, is self-denial. This immediately confronts the mainline thinking of our culture which is self-fulfillment. Everything about us, the air we breath is all about making yourself happy; finding your own path to self-fulfillment. It normally sounds like this. “Do whatever makes you happy!” Which sounds great, but some very clever people quickly found out that some people make themselves happy by hurting other people. So we amended the phrase, now it reads “Do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.”

Unfortunately it still doesn’t work. You can’t remove all restraint, and then try to put the restraints back on when it all starts to go off the rails. It is like letting a wild bull loose in a crowd of people, then trying to subdue the same bull without anyone getting hurt. It simply can’t be both ways.

SAME SIN, TWO SCENARIOS

So, if following Christ includes both self denial and trading your desires for Jesus’ desires/cross, then the opposite is also true. When we are not following Jesus we are fulfilling ourselves and pursuing our own desires. What is revealed about these two men is that their desire is not to follow Jesus, but to look out for their favorite master, themselves. Their sin is the same, its classic self-idolatry, they value themselves and their desires first and foremost, and it plays itself out in two different ways. Lets look at these two guys with this new perspective brought into the conversation.

Guy one sees Jesus as a means to his self-fulfillment, Jesus is a step in the right direction to meet his goals and desires. Guy two, sees Jesus as an obstacle to his self-fulfillment, getting in the way of his desires, and so instead of delaying his own gratification, he delays following Christ instead.

Guy one thinks that following Jesus will gain him certain advantages. As a scribe, if he hooks up with a teacher as exciting as Jesus then this will be fuel for his career. For him Jesus is a means to getting what he wants, this is why Jesus tells him that this life is not all its cracked up to be. He’s not simply warning, or trying to scare the man away, he’s testing him a bit, in fact he testing both men a bit. What if it doesn’t work out the way you think? What if you don’t get everything you want? What if you do get everything you want but it still doesn’t satisfy? Am I enough for you? Am I you’re treasure? If so, then the potential difficulties won’t be an issue for you, nothing will be more important to you than being with me.

This particular way that self-idolatry sells itself to us is rampant even in our churches. In order to make our churches seem relevant we sell Jesus along side what we think people want. Do you want help with your finances, your marriage, your addictions, your lust, your family, your business, your anger, your happiness? Whatever you need just trust in Jesus and he will give it to you! Have “You’re Best Life Now”, “Be the Best You…” etc. Its completely antithetical to the gospel. And it breeds this idea of self-fulfillment in our hearts.

Now lets think about this particular type is self love. We want something so bad that we are willing to use Jesus to get it. Whatever it is, we love it more than Jesus, we trust it for fulfillment over Jesus, and then we go to Jesus, and expect him to help us get his replacement. It is insane, and it’s not going to happen.

Guy two reminds me of the dude who has been engaged for seven years and still hasn’t set a date. He keeps making excuses to keep delaying the commitment he knows he should make. Similarly this guy keeps pushing commitment to Christ down the road. “Once I do this thing then I’ll follow.” Notice that we normally try to mask our excuse, and act like we are being responsible. “I just need to learn some more, I need to be a little more mature before I give my life completely to Christ.” Whatever that thing is, he falsely believes that it is a more worthwhile pursuit, that it will ultimately satisfy him, more than Jesus.

My wife and I have five children, which leads to some pretty interesting conversations. Every now and then a newly wed couple will say something to us that usually goes like this. “We’re going to wait until its a good time for us, you know, until we are ready to have kids.” We always try to truthfully respond and tell them “If you’re waiting for the right time, or until you’re ready to have kids, then you’re never going to have kids, because there’s never a “good time” to have kids, and you are never going to be “ready” for them.” This is the attitude this man has with Jesus. By seeing Jesus as an obstacle, and choosing to seek what he thinks will satisfy him more, he simply delays the great joy he could have being with Jesus.

BRINGING IT HOME

There’s much to be discussed, and explored, and explained here, but given my time limit I must be brief. How do I know that self denial is key to being a part of this life, to being a part of this thing called Christianity? Because its exactly what our king did.

Philippians 2:3-11 ESV

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We are not better than our King that we deserve to seek our own desires when he sought after nothing for himself.

EXAMINE YOUR HEART

I want to ask the question that I think will challenge us, and dive the point home.
What ways are you only using Jesus to get what you want?
What ways are you avoiding Jesus so that he doesn’t get in the way of what you want?
What are those things you want, and how do you believe they will satisfy you more than Jesus will?

Jesus sums up the entirety of the law by stating two things. Love God, and love your neighbor. Not yourself. The first step to crucifying your flesh, to putting down your desires, to taking up his cross and receiving his desires is denying yourself. Bowing down to King Jesus. So today, wherever you may be, may we all kneel today to King Jesus and begin destroy the pride and love of ourselves.

Grace & Peace

So there you go, that was my lab sermon. I got lots of good feedback and would appreciate yours as well!

Nehemiah : A Better City : Ch.3

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

(On a personal note, I was really encouraged and challenged by this message. To study, I try to read our focal text ahead of the sunday sermon, then, I prepare a pseudo-sermon of my own. This text isn’t necessarily difficult, but it is long, thirty-two verse, and I was really happy to see that some of my thoughts on the text were similar to where my pastor landed as well.)

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

Radical, Multi-Racial, & Diverse, is an a expression of the gospel, and the kingdom centered around it. We don’t want to be “color blind”, and completely ignore our differences, we want to take into account who people are. Ask instead, what would racial diversity, and ideological diversity, look like before the fall? What does this, unity in diversity, look like apart from our sin & brokenness? Simply put, for us today, what does unity and cooperation look like apart from the fall?

What we see in this text is that picture. Diverse people coming together for something greater than themselves. A mere glimpse of God’s hope and eventual plan for his creation. This is a peek at what the coming, and reigning kingdom will look like.

Herein, we get to see it, and God would ask us to join it.

Context

A long time ago God made everything perfect, Adam and eve messed it up, and it all went bad. God gives a promise through a man named Abraham,  it passes to Moses who gives us the law, then to David who builds the nation, then to Solomon who builds the temple, then the rise of the prophets. The prophets speak while the kingdom is divided, conquered, and scattered away from their home over the course of hundreds of years. Eventually the people are allowed to return home and rebuild the temple and the city.

We see everyone, except for one group who thought they were too important, get involved and get to work inspite of race, class, or trade. It wasn’t that they just used their gifts, but they were given a plan beyond themselves, and they even did things that they were not particularly skilled in.

What do we see in this glimpse of the kingdom?

There is always noncompliance.  If you are ever reading a list in the bible and one thing is different from the list, then that thing deserves special attention. And we see one group refuse to stoop to serve the Lord. The question is why wouldnt these guys serve? And in that question it is revealed to us a picture of why we refuse to serve. Plainly and simply, pride, they saw themselves higher than they ought to. There are hundreds of scriptures that bash this idea, and posture in the face, and point to Jesus as our hope of salvation when we refuse to cooperate. So why dont we cooperate.

A. Rebellion, or we just dont want to. And B. Ignorance,  that we are just unaware that our lives are always on mission, and always an act of worship.

The difference in these things is knowing grace. Increase the grace and knowledge of Jesus the son of God and renewal will take place. You’ll see yourself add you truly are. Not above anyone, certainly not above Jesus, and even Jesus came and served. So when we refuse to serve, we are also saying that we consider ourselves better than the son of God.

Unity in diversity creates stability. Our diversity is the greatest gift we have as the church. Don’t make the error of thinking that your preferred way is the only acceptable way to do things. Knowing grace lets you accept people, and their, ideas, that are radically different than yourself. If you can’t see the other side of your position, then plead for grace. “If you want to make a Christian angry, put him around someone who sins differently than he does.” -Darrin Patrick

All of this is a glimpse of the greater renewal. It’s important to remember that the picture of leadership, unity, and cooperation that we see in Nehemiah is not a perfect picture, but just a glimpse of God’s renewed kingdom. All of this secured in the person and the work of Jesus Christ, who is the king of the new kingdom. Through him, and the grace he shows us, we can be completely unified, and radically diverse. God shows us these glimpses of his kingdom not so we can sit back and observe, but so that we may stand up and join.

Reflection questions

How can I join the MISSION OF RENEWAL in the ordinary?

How can I cooperate with others to join the MISSION OF RENEWAL, even in inconvenience?

What do I cling to that gets in the way of cooperation towards renewal?
How does Jesus undo the root of my selfishness?

Nehemiah : A Better City : v1-11

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

God is not taken off guard on our bad days. Normally our actions in these moments, days, and seasons, is to act as if God has forgotten us. What this often reveals about our hearts, is not Gods insufficientcy, but our low view of his sufficienty.

V1-3
Background of the story

The capitol city of Israel is Jerusalem. The story revolves around a group of exiled remnant jews who have been living 900 miles away from their home, pushed out by invading forces. Generations pass and another invading force takes over the previous invading force and allows the people to go back home. This leads us up to the events of the book of Haggai, the events in Nehemiah take place about ninety years after that. Nehemiah has gained some favor and level of power within the invading forces, and is in a place of authority in a house of royalty. He peeks into Jerusalem to check out how the remnant of Israel are doing, and finds out that his country men and their city is in shambles.

The key to understanding Nehemiah is to gauge his reaction as a mirror of Christ up against our reaction today when we live, breath, and see the distress of our cities.

V4-6
Nehemiah hears of the state of his city. God burdens the right people at the right time and place to accomplish his purposes, and here he burdens Nehemiah for his city. Nehemiah responds by weeping, praying and fasting for his people.

Point one. He goes to God before he goes to work. Nehemiah is about to do work, he will be moved to action, but not before he goes to God first. The question for us then is ” Who or what do you turn to first in distress? ”  Whatever or whomever you turn to is what you trust most. On a super small level, its like waking up and checking your phone to see who commented on your status from last night before praying to God. What you do first reveals what you trust most. So how do you deal in the moment to moment, where do you go first?

V6b-10
Secondly we see Nehemiah take the blame vs us who normally give blame. In the very first instance of sin in the bible we see Adam blame God for giving him the woman that caused him to sin. Nehemiah doesn’t blame the remnant for their state, he owns and takes responsibility for the sins against them and the sins they’ve committed. He doesn’t sit in his “ivory tower” and look down own them, which is what we always do, instead Nehemiah was burdened for them and moved to action. Do you own or blame? It was on them (the remnant), but Nehemiah puts himself right in the middle of their mess. The coward blames, when we blame we are cowards, the Godly man is burdened and moves to action.

V8-11
Point three. He confesses the greatness of God over the greatness of the problem. He reminds them of the word of God, that no matter how far off we go, God will bring us back. He doesn’t whine or complain about the greatness of the problem, but instead proclaims the greatness of God. We forget the greatness of God in the face of great problems. May we long to trust God this way.

Nehemiah is not the goal or the benchmark of faithfulness, and he is a good example and a challenge to us to grow and change, but in this book we are not the Nehemiah. We are the broken beat up and unable to remain faithful people stuck in a dying city.
Nehemiah is the compass who points us to Christ.

The Christ who was outside of our brokeness in a house of royalty, he looks down on us and puts himself in the middle of our situation,  owns our sins that is not his own, and petitions the Father on their behalf, and begins the work to redeem a city and save a people.

May we be saved and the burdened for our cities like Nehemiah, and like him, may we get involved and point people to their true and only hope in Christ.

Reading “Out From” and “Into” Scriptures: The subtle problem of Eisegesis.

This blog will, at times, be reflective. Not that my spiritual musings are as interesting as anyone else’s, but it maybe helpful to some, and even if only for my own entertainment, to explore how they’ve developed. I’ve talked a little bit about my personal “church history” before, and that leap from one theological camp to another has been challenging. We as people, naturally resist any change or challenge to our deeply held beliefs, but for me, it couldn’t be ignored.

Shifting theological camps is difficult, when I see, or talk to, old acquaintances they immediately assume that we (my wife and I ) left because we were upset or mad about something. I wish it were that petty. Let me be clear that I don’t completely disagree or disavow our old camp, but there are some differences, some subtle and other’s more prominent, that led to our shift. Our shift was honestly a theological one, the problems that we have, are problems that were revealed as we studied scripture, and found that we were no longer a fit for our previous church.

One of these “shifts” revolves around the very way we used to approach scripture. We learned that we had been in the habit of reading into scripture as opposed to reading out from scripture.

The big nerdy term for reading out from scripture is called exegesis. A biblical teacher is charged to exigete scripture. Simply, what we mean by exegesis is to read “out from” scripture, which is to do your best to get to the clear intended meaning of a particular text.

To get to the meaning you ask questions like “Why did the writter write this?”, “Who is he writting too?”, “What problems is he addressing?”. Then they move to a more transcendent line of questioning, “Why did God inspire this person to write this?”, “How does this translate to us today?”, “What sin does this reveal in me?”

The opposite big nerdy term is eisegesis, meaning “read into” the text, that means you take your own ideas and presuppositions and lay them over a text to make your point.

The problem here is that the bible is not really open for this type of interpretation. We should pull meaning out from a text, not force meaning into it.

At large, on a cultural level, bits of scripture have been taken apart and out of context to justify lots of evils, western slavery for example. On the ground, in day to day life, I’ve seen men use the bible to rule over their wives and children, I’ve seen couples divorce using scripture to justify their actions, and to approve of their wandering hearts.

Now the bible does say things about slavery, a man’s role in the home, and divorce, but normally we don’t like what we find. So instead of reading “from” scripture and letting it change us, we read “into” scripture and try to change it.

More liberal churches are infamous for this. They almost completely ignore historical orthodoxy, and believe the bible is up for modern interpretation that suit the individual needs of the people. However, we shifted from a largely conservative church, were, for the most part, historical orthodoxy is upheld, and “reading into” the text is more subtle.

Here’s how it works. The primary motivation for a Christian is the truth. We hear the truth as it is rightly proclaimed then the holy spirit use that information for our transformation. This is how we are first saved and the subsequently how we grow and change.

So first, you hear the gospel and respond through salvation, then sometime later you hear more of the truth and start to see how it affects the different parts of your life. This is why the intended meaning of the text is so important. The more we hear the truth the more we are transformed by it. I find that much of the time people seem to think that Christian character forms instantly, when in reality it happens over the course of your entire life.

The big idea is that we serve the truth, the truth does not serve us. So say you are a pastor, you notice a particular issue in your church, attendance is down, giving is low etc. So you decide to find all the scriptures you can find on a particular subject and throw them at your congregation to convince them to step it up and meet the expectations you see in scripture.

What you say may be in the bible, it may even be truth and fact, but the pastors intent can ruin the intent of the verse. You can easily find a verse about tithing and your congregation may feel compelled/guilted to give because their pastor told them to, but not because they heard the truth, and their hearts were changed by it.

You simply produce a people that are motivated by guilt but are not cheerful or generous in their hearts.

See the bible does tell us to give, but what is missed too often is why we don’t give. We don’t give because in our hearts, we are not generous. We become generous when we hear the truth, and then seek God to restore in us the generous type of hearts that love to give.

Exegesis produces transfomed people because they regularly hear the truth and are challeged to change by it. Eisegesis produces moral people who conform only to meet requirements that make them feel accepted, but there hearts are not necessarily in it. Eisegesis only reads the surface of a text and therefore only deals with the surface of the issue. Exegesis looks deeper for the heart of a text and therefore deals with the heart of a person.

What I’m trying to paint with a very broad brush, is that the act of eisegesis in scriptual interpretation is not necessarily the problem. Its the intent of the one delivering the message that leads us away from finding the meaning “out of a text”, and pushes us toward adding our own ideas “into a text”.

Are you trying to warp the meaning of a text to permit certain sins? Or is it more subtle? If you approach a text with any personal agenda then you’ve already lost. Whether you’re a pastor searching for a way to get your flock to act a certain way, or a teenager trying to figure out how far is too far with your girlfirend, you’re searching scripture not looking for God’s heart in a particular circumstance, but a way to merely serve your own heart’s desires. This, I believe, is the root problem with eisegesis.

It is not your message that needs to be understood. Heck, its not even a “yours and God’s message” together that needs to be understood, it is only God’s message that needs to be understood.

I have a lot of implications that I’m hesitant to discuss. I know that when my eyes and mind were first opened to this idea of reading “from” vs “into” the bible, it was hard to initially wrap my head around. So I’ll leave it here as not to add to much at once.

This is a starting point, and if anyone wants to continue the conversation of the many implications you are free to comment or get ahold of me. I try my best to be clear and choose words carefully, so please read thoroughly before discussing.

Let me try to sum up. The main reason that we jumped theological camps is that we weren’t flourishing, not in a selfish way, but in a consistent growing into maturity way. Looking back, a contributing factor was this idea of reading “into” scripture (eisegesis), vs reading “from” scripture (exegesis).

Truth did get through, and there was a lot to be learned, but it was often muddled with agenda and presumptions that covered the clear message of the text. Which I understand, but what I further understand now is that the truth plus agenda, no matter how good that agenda is, is not as effective at changing people’s hearts as the truth is on its own. The big idea is to simply let the truth have its stay. No modification, just the truth. Once we get to that truth, then we can begin to see cleary how it applies specifically to each of us.