Inevitably, this time every year, I get this question from someone, or I get involved in an argument over this question. Honestly, I think this is one of the more foolish questions I am commonly asked. So I decided to address it here. I put this question right alongside the questions 'should Christians celebrate Halloween' and 'should Christians have Easter egg hunts.' I put these all together because they are all asking essentially the same thing, 'should Christians allow into our religious festivals activities that are not particularly Christian?'
My answer is always 'yes.' In all of our religious, and some of our secular, holidays there are traditions, rituals, and figures taken from other religions. The Christmas tree, decorations, Santa Clause myths, and even the date of the celebration (among other things) are all Christmas examples. For Easter we have, the Easter bunny, Easter eggs, and even the name Easter. In Halloween we have the idea that on All Hallows Eve the dead return to visit the living.
So the real question is, why are these traditions in our religious celebrations anyway? (and yes All Hallows Eve was a Christian celebration). When most of these celebrations were originated they were started in order to draw new believers away from their pagan rituals. During the early church, when many pagan believers were coming into the church, it became habit to place Christian festivals on or near the dates of the pagan festivals. The reason for this was that new believers would often return to celebrate the festivals from their former religions. This could have been for many reasons, but the early Christians started celebrations that would draw simultaneously draw these new believers away from the pagan festivals and towards things that would unite them with their new Christian brethren. It is understandable that some of the traditions from the pagan festivals would bleed over into these Christian festivals, both as a way to bring familiarity to the festival and as a way to tie these new believers to their new brothers and sisters in Christ.
While some of this is debatable and some of it is simply educated speculation it is both reasonable and understandable. On top of this we must ask, is it worth it to give up beloved and harmless traditions simply to be more legalistically puritan in our actions. Though this example is not entirely accurate it is sufficient for my purposes here, there is nor legitimate reason why Christians should not have Christmas trees, or sing jingle bells, or have Easter egg hunts.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Absence
I'm sorry I haven't posted for a couple of days and I probably won't for another day or two, I've been sick and between that and the holidays I haven't had the energy to put anything meaningful up.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Jenga Tower
I was reminded today that theology is a lot like a Jenga tower, you pull out one little piece and the entire thing falls apart. In Sunday School this morning we were talking about the Virgin Birth of Christ. There are, apparently, a large portion (almost half according to a survey study done by UC Berkley) of seminary students who deny the truth of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Rob Bell, a well-known christian youth speaker, in his book Velvet Elvis argues that it doesn't matter whether or not one believes in the Virgin Birth.
However, if we break down the doctrine of the Virgin Birth then we will see that this is not true. If we deny the Virgin Birth then we also deny the inerrancy and authority of scripture. In this we lose our foundation for the truth and teaching of our religion. The truth if scripture is the foundation for all of our beliefs, it is (or should be) the central filter for our lives. If we lose the authority of scripture then we have no basis for any of our beliefs and we simply have a pick and choose religion. However, even if we can devise some means by which to retain the authority of scripture while denying the Virgin Birth (which we cannot) this is by no means the only central doctrine of theology that we lose.
We also lose the Deity of Christ. Christ is deity because he is the son of God, he is both fully man and fully God, this is because he was not born of the seed of man but formed within Mary by the Holy Spirit of God. If Mary was not a virgin then Christ had a human father, he was not the holy working of God but just another illegitimate son of a random man. If Christ was not God then he was not able to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of man, he was only able to pay for his own sins. If this were true then it means that we would have no savior. However, even were we to assume that Christ was still deity then we still lose the substitutionary atonement (the sacrifice of Christ on the cross).
If Mary was not a virgin then Christ inherited Adam's sinful nature. This would mean that Christ was not a perfect, sinless sacrifice. Even if we assume that Christ was, somehow, still deity even if Mary was not a virgin we still lose his ability to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind. Furthermore if Mary was not a virgin this would mean that Christ was not born within the bounds of the law, he would have been illegitimate and therefore have no standing within Hebrew society. He would also not be a descendant of David, since Hebrew descent was traced through the father, and therefore he could not have been the Hebrew messiah.
From this we can see that we cannot remove our belief in the Virgin Birth without losing the whole of our beliefs along with it. However, is this only true for the Virgin Birth or is it true for any aspect of theology. If we take apart any given fundamental of the faith (The inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the second coming of Christ, etc.) then we will see the same effect. Theology is similar to a jenga tower, if you pull out any one piece the entire thing crumbles in on itself. Seeing this we must understand that any view of theology that adds or subtracts elements to what is presented in scripture must be rejected as untrue.
However, if we break down the doctrine of the Virgin Birth then we will see that this is not true. If we deny the Virgin Birth then we also deny the inerrancy and authority of scripture. In this we lose our foundation for the truth and teaching of our religion. The truth if scripture is the foundation for all of our beliefs, it is (or should be) the central filter for our lives. If we lose the authority of scripture then we have no basis for any of our beliefs and we simply have a pick and choose religion. However, even if we can devise some means by which to retain the authority of scripture while denying the Virgin Birth (which we cannot) this is by no means the only central doctrine of theology that we lose.
We also lose the Deity of Christ. Christ is deity because he is the son of God, he is both fully man and fully God, this is because he was not born of the seed of man but formed within Mary by the Holy Spirit of God. If Mary was not a virgin then Christ had a human father, he was not the holy working of God but just another illegitimate son of a random man. If Christ was not God then he was not able to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of man, he was only able to pay for his own sins. If this were true then it means that we would have no savior. However, even were we to assume that Christ was still deity then we still lose the substitutionary atonement (the sacrifice of Christ on the cross).
If Mary was not a virgin then Christ inherited Adam's sinful nature. This would mean that Christ was not a perfect, sinless sacrifice. Even if we assume that Christ was, somehow, still deity even if Mary was not a virgin we still lose his ability to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind. Furthermore if Mary was not a virgin this would mean that Christ was not born within the bounds of the law, he would have been illegitimate and therefore have no standing within Hebrew society. He would also not be a descendant of David, since Hebrew descent was traced through the father, and therefore he could not have been the Hebrew messiah.
From this we can see that we cannot remove our belief in the Virgin Birth without losing the whole of our beliefs along with it. However, is this only true for the Virgin Birth or is it true for any aspect of theology. If we take apart any given fundamental of the faith (The inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the second coming of Christ, etc.) then we will see the same effect. Theology is similar to a jenga tower, if you pull out any one piece the entire thing crumbles in on itself. Seeing this we must understand that any view of theology that adds or subtracts elements to what is presented in scripture must be rejected as untrue.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Holiness and Righteousness of God
I had intended to deal with the justice of God today, but as I started writing I realized that I needed to deal with his holiness and righteousness first. A proper understanding of God's justice, especially as it relates to our sin, is reliant upon a proper understanding of God's holy and righteous nature.
The meanings of the terms righteousness and holiness are interconnected throughout scripture, though never the same. They are also both closely connected with the idea of God's perfectness. First of all the basic meanings of the two terms are very different. Holiness refers to a separateness while righteousness refers to obedience to the law. To be holy is to be set apart or separate from something and to be righteous is to be, literally, within one's rights.
The idea of being set apart is not uncommon in today's Christian community, however it is commonly misused. The Old Testament idea of holiness is generally reserved for references to those people or objects that had a direct connection with God. The tabernacle, and later the temple, were set apart because they were to be used only for the worship of God. The priests had holy garments that were worn only during their priestly duties within the temple. Likewise the Jewish people as a whole were to be set apart for God, that is that they were to worship and bow only to God and not to others, a purpose which they consistently failed to fulfill.
The idea of righteousness was, in the Old Testament, a legal one. One was righteous when one was acting within the bounds of the law of Moses.
When we apply these words to God their common definitions, which depend on God, do not completely apply. God is not set apart for God, however God is wholly separate from this world. While God is in the world, he is omnipresent, he is not of the world, in fact the world is of God. God is a being that is set apart from the world because he was its creator, he is more than the world. In the same way God is righteous in anything he does because he is the origin of law. God in incapable of not being righteous because he is the definition of righteousness.
The meanings of the terms righteousness and holiness are interconnected throughout scripture, though never the same. They are also both closely connected with the idea of God's perfectness. First of all the basic meanings of the two terms are very different. Holiness refers to a separateness while righteousness refers to obedience to the law. To be holy is to be set apart or separate from something and to be righteous is to be, literally, within one's rights.
The idea of being set apart is not uncommon in today's Christian community, however it is commonly misused. The Old Testament idea of holiness is generally reserved for references to those people or objects that had a direct connection with God. The tabernacle, and later the temple, were set apart because they were to be used only for the worship of God. The priests had holy garments that were worn only during their priestly duties within the temple. Likewise the Jewish people as a whole were to be set apart for God, that is that they were to worship and bow only to God and not to others, a purpose which they consistently failed to fulfill.
The idea of righteousness was, in the Old Testament, a legal one. One was righteous when one was acting within the bounds of the law of Moses.
When we apply these words to God their common definitions, which depend on God, do not completely apply. God is not set apart for God, however God is wholly separate from this world. While God is in the world, he is omnipresent, he is not of the world, in fact the world is of God. God is a being that is set apart from the world because he was its creator, he is more than the world. In the same way God is righteous in anything he does because he is the origin of law. God in incapable of not being righteous because he is the definition of righteousness.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
An Example of the Fear of God
Well, after that brief interlude I wanted to give an example of what I was saying about the fear of God. One of the best examples I have ever found of the idea, and one that helped me to understand what was meant by the fear of God, is actually in a fiction novel.
The novel Year of the Warrior is set in Medieval Norway shortly after the early introduction of Christianity into the Norse world. The main character is a young man who is removed from the Catholic seminary because he is unable to keep his vows. The man arrives home to find his village in the midst of a viking raid in which he is captured by the raiders to be sold as a slave. He tells them that he is a priest to gain preferential treatment (priests sold for a greater sum) and is sold to a Christian viking lord.
At one point in the story this lord takes ill and the main character is asked to go pray over him for God's healing. The description of the main character's walk from his hut to the hut where his lord is dying begins as a beautifully written introspection about whether or not he actually wants his lord to live. If his lord died he would be free, and he has fallen in love with the woman his lord keeps as a mistress, though she harbors no such feelings for him at this point in the story. During his introspection a figure, who is obviously cast as Satan, appears beside him and promises him a great many things if he would be willing to allow his lord to die. This temptation culminates with the promise that his lord's mistress will fall in love with him and they will be together.
The main character responds to this temptation in a manner that many Christians today would not understand, he turns to the Satan figure (who is pictured as a man in a black cloak), and says "If I were a stronger man, or a braver man, I might accept your offer. But I am weak and a coward and terribly afraid of my God."
This simple statement struck me, when I first read the book several years ago, as a profound departure from the modern view of God.
The novel as a whole is excellent and is a powerfully written story of one man's journey from near atheism to a complete faith in God. This statement comes at a point where the main Character is beginning to finally believe in the God of scripture and in his power, both to protect and to punish. What strikes me most about this scene, and the book as a whole, is the unwavering honesty that it applies to the Christian experience. Sometimes we NEED to be afraid of God, not just so that we can understand his revelation to us, but also so that we can make the right choice when faced with abundant temptation.
The novel Year of the Warrior is set in Medieval Norway shortly after the early introduction of Christianity into the Norse world. The main character is a young man who is removed from the Catholic seminary because he is unable to keep his vows. The man arrives home to find his village in the midst of a viking raid in which he is captured by the raiders to be sold as a slave. He tells them that he is a priest to gain preferential treatment (priests sold for a greater sum) and is sold to a Christian viking lord.
At one point in the story this lord takes ill and the main character is asked to go pray over him for God's healing. The description of the main character's walk from his hut to the hut where his lord is dying begins as a beautifully written introspection about whether or not he actually wants his lord to live. If his lord died he would be free, and he has fallen in love with the woman his lord keeps as a mistress, though she harbors no such feelings for him at this point in the story. During his introspection a figure, who is obviously cast as Satan, appears beside him and promises him a great many things if he would be willing to allow his lord to die. This temptation culminates with the promise that his lord's mistress will fall in love with him and they will be together.
The main character responds to this temptation in a manner that many Christians today would not understand, he turns to the Satan figure (who is pictured as a man in a black cloak), and says "If I were a stronger man, or a braver man, I might accept your offer. But I am weak and a coward and terribly afraid of my God."
This simple statement struck me, when I first read the book several years ago, as a profound departure from the modern view of God.
The novel as a whole is excellent and is a powerfully written story of one man's journey from near atheism to a complete faith in God. This statement comes at a point where the main Character is beginning to finally believe in the God of scripture and in his power, both to protect and to punish. What strikes me most about this scene, and the book as a whole, is the unwavering honesty that it applies to the Christian experience. Sometimes we NEED to be afraid of God, not just so that we can understand his revelation to us, but also so that we can make the right choice when faced with abundant temptation.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Gay Marriage - A response to Lisa Miller's Article in Newsweek
Lisa Miller, in the recent December 15 newsweek, authored the cover article (which can be found here, http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1). Which is an attack against Conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that scripture supports the practice.
Miller makes numerous scriptural errors in her article, first of all she seems to believe that the Old Testament example of marriage is summed up in the patriarchs and the kings. She cites Christ's celibacy as a reason that we should make no attempt to follow biblical examples of marriage, and claims that the Apostle Paul was also celibate. One has to wonder where exactly she has been getting her information.
First let me say that there are many bad examples of marriage in scripture, the Bible is a book that offers a wonderful transparency in the lives of its characters. We see not only their good points but also their bad ones. However, one has to wonder at her assumption that this honesty is (1) a bad thing or (2) an argument to ignore scriptural standards. The characters of scripture often do not follow the laws that God lays down, they also pay the consequences for ignoring said laws.
I do want to speak further on the Apostle Paul, first of all Miller's claim that the apostle was celibate shows a glaring lack of knowledge of Hebrew culture. Paul was a Pharisee, in fact he himself claims to have been among the greatest of the pharisees (as in best not necessarily most powerful). However, if this is the case he MUST have been married at one time. One could not be a pharisee and be unwed. Discerning readers of scripture will note that Paul's wife must have either died, or left him. Miller's claims about Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 also show a startling lack of knowledge about scripture and the history of the first century. 1 Corinthians 7 encompasses the ENTIRE biblical warning against marriage...this is the only passage where marriage in general is preached against and Paul himself has many good things to say about marriage in other books.
Paul's letter to Corinth was written, as far as we can tell, during a time of great persecution by the Roman government. Paul's warning against marriage was written with the understanding that if the Corinthian Christians did marry it was very likely that one spouse would die within years, possibly even months or days, of the marriage. Paul's warning against marriage is not that marriage is a bad thing but that marriage, for the Corinthian's at that time, was more likely to result in misery than in joy.
Miller also, erroneously, informs us that the only New Testament passage to preach against homosexual behavior is Romans 1:21-32 and that homosexual behavior between women is never mentioned in scripture. However homosexual behavior is also condemned in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude and the passage in Romans 1 contains mentions of both male and female homosexual behavior.
All this is to say that Miller's attack against the opposition to homosexual marriage is not based in fact.
However, how should Christians deal with homosexual marriage and the calls for equal rights for homosexuals.
One of the key arguments for the gay rights movement is that homosexuality is genetically based. However, we will assume for a moment an evolutionary stance (though I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, I am in fact a creationist). If we assume the validity of Darwin's theory of natural selection then the idea that homosexuality is genetically based should seem impossible. Homosexual couples can not naturally reproduce and pass on the genetic code hypothetically necessary to create more homosexuals. This leaves us with two options (1) Either homosexuality is not genetically based or (2) homosexuality is a genetic flaw which has been artificially kept in the human genome by means of selective breeding. We will again assume the former as the later is ethically, politically, and socially too problematic to tackle. This would place the argument for equality made by the gay rights movement on the same level as religious equality, not the level of racial equality on which they commonly attempt to place it.
In this position we, as Christians who are acting with love, must admit that those who chose a different lifestyle than our own do still deserve the same LEGAL rights as we enjoy. However marriage is not a wholly legal issue. It is a religious issue as well, and this I think is key to the argument against homosexual marriage. If the gay rights movement wants to provide a legal equality to homosexuals then they should be fighting for civil unions, not marriage. The fact that the issue here is homosexual marriage and not legal homosexual unions which provide the same legal benefits as legal heterosexual unions makes the issue one of competing religions and not one of CIVIL or LEGAL rights.
Miller makes numerous scriptural errors in her article, first of all she seems to believe that the Old Testament example of marriage is summed up in the patriarchs and the kings. She cites Christ's celibacy as a reason that we should make no attempt to follow biblical examples of marriage, and claims that the Apostle Paul was also celibate. One has to wonder where exactly she has been getting her information.
First let me say that there are many bad examples of marriage in scripture, the Bible is a book that offers a wonderful transparency in the lives of its characters. We see not only their good points but also their bad ones. However, one has to wonder at her assumption that this honesty is (1) a bad thing or (2) an argument to ignore scriptural standards. The characters of scripture often do not follow the laws that God lays down, they also pay the consequences for ignoring said laws.
I do want to speak further on the Apostle Paul, first of all Miller's claim that the apostle was celibate shows a glaring lack of knowledge of Hebrew culture. Paul was a Pharisee, in fact he himself claims to have been among the greatest of the pharisees (as in best not necessarily most powerful). However, if this is the case he MUST have been married at one time. One could not be a pharisee and be unwed. Discerning readers of scripture will note that Paul's wife must have either died, or left him. Miller's claims about Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 also show a startling lack of knowledge about scripture and the history of the first century. 1 Corinthians 7 encompasses the ENTIRE biblical warning against marriage...this is the only passage where marriage in general is preached against and Paul himself has many good things to say about marriage in other books.
Paul's letter to Corinth was written, as far as we can tell, during a time of great persecution by the Roman government. Paul's warning against marriage was written with the understanding that if the Corinthian Christians did marry it was very likely that one spouse would die within years, possibly even months or days, of the marriage. Paul's warning against marriage is not that marriage is a bad thing but that marriage, for the Corinthian's at that time, was more likely to result in misery than in joy.
Miller also, erroneously, informs us that the only New Testament passage to preach against homosexual behavior is Romans 1:21-32 and that homosexual behavior between women is never mentioned in scripture. However homosexual behavior is also condemned in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude and the passage in Romans 1 contains mentions of both male and female homosexual behavior.
All this is to say that Miller's attack against the opposition to homosexual marriage is not based in fact.
However, how should Christians deal with homosexual marriage and the calls for equal rights for homosexuals.
One of the key arguments for the gay rights movement is that homosexuality is genetically based. However, we will assume for a moment an evolutionary stance (though I am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, I am in fact a creationist). If we assume the validity of Darwin's theory of natural selection then the idea that homosexuality is genetically based should seem impossible. Homosexual couples can not naturally reproduce and pass on the genetic code hypothetically necessary to create more homosexuals. This leaves us with two options (1) Either homosexuality is not genetically based or (2) homosexuality is a genetic flaw which has been artificially kept in the human genome by means of selective breeding. We will again assume the former as the later is ethically, politically, and socially too problematic to tackle. This would place the argument for equality made by the gay rights movement on the same level as religious equality, not the level of racial equality on which they commonly attempt to place it.
In this position we, as Christians who are acting with love, must admit that those who chose a different lifestyle than our own do still deserve the same LEGAL rights as we enjoy. However marriage is not a wholly legal issue. It is a religious issue as well, and this I think is key to the argument against homosexual marriage. If the gay rights movement wants to provide a legal equality to homosexuals then they should be fighting for civil unions, not marriage. The fact that the issue here is homosexual marriage and not legal homosexual unions which provide the same legal benefits as legal heterosexual unions makes the issue one of competing religions and not one of CIVIL or LEGAL rights.
Fear
In my blog yesterday I mentioned Matt. 10:28 which says "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Proverbs 1 says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge..." and Proverbs 9 says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." In fact the 'fear of the Lord' is a common theme throughout scripture.
In the modern world this idea is usually ignored entirely. We live in an age which desires the almighty God to be a 'big buddy' or the 'big guy in the sky.' Christians today tend to believe that God is a teddy bear who would never hurt a fly. The movie 'Dogma', which is a satire against Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular, introduces itself with a Roman Catholic bishop presenting the 'buddy Christ' as the new official Church representation of the Christ figure. The movie is not far off of reality.
When the 'fear of the Lord' is mentioned in modern Christianity, whether it is by lay people or by the clergy, it is normally represented as a healthy respect of the awesomeness of God, but not as an actual fear. However these attitudes stand in stark contrast to the biblical representation of the 'fear of the Lord.' While certainly a healthy respect for our creator is a part of the biblical idea of the 'fear of the Lord' it is only the beginning. The 'fear of the Lord' represented in Matthew 10, and also in Acts 5 as well as many Old Testament passages, is not simply respect but honest fear.
Americans today have come to the conclusion that fear and love are mutually exclusive, however this is not what scripture teaches. It is, in fact a recent idea. It is common knowledge that in Machiavelli's classic The Prince the author declares that 'it is better to be feared than loved'. However it is less know that he first states "Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." (The Prince, Chapter 17) Machiavelli's statement here is exactly what the scriptures teach about God, he is to be both feared and loved. The difference between Machiavelli and God is that Machiavelli was a man; fallen, imperfect, and limited; while God is perfect in every way and infinite. What Machiavelli saw as being near to impossible God can do easily.
This brings us back to the idea of the 'fear of the Lord.' What we must understand is that the scriptural teaching of the 'fear of the Lord', while it includes the idea of healthy respect, also included the idea of one's fear for the state of his immortal soul.
The context of Christ's teaching in Matthew is the provision and protection of God. Christ is teaching his disciples that they need not be afraid of Satan and his minions. However we must look at his technique, in this teaching Christ does not tell his disciples that they should not fear the Devil because God will protect them from him. Instead Christ teaches his disciples to fear the Devil because God is altogether a more fearsome being. While the Devil and his minions can 'destroy the body' or kill a person, God can 'destroy both body and soul in hell' or commit one to eternal torment.
The teaching of the 'fear of the Lord' is that we are to both love God, who is our father, and that we must fear his wrath. Though for Christians we are given freedom in Christ that the Jews were not. We must still keep in mind this idea of fear if we are to come to an honest understanding of our place in the Kingdom of God.
Proverbs 1 says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge..." and Proverbs 9 says that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." In fact the 'fear of the Lord' is a common theme throughout scripture.
In the modern world this idea is usually ignored entirely. We live in an age which desires the almighty God to be a 'big buddy' or the 'big guy in the sky.' Christians today tend to believe that God is a teddy bear who would never hurt a fly. The movie 'Dogma', which is a satire against Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular, introduces itself with a Roman Catholic bishop presenting the 'buddy Christ' as the new official Church representation of the Christ figure. The movie is not far off of reality.
When the 'fear of the Lord' is mentioned in modern Christianity, whether it is by lay people or by the clergy, it is normally represented as a healthy respect of the awesomeness of God, but not as an actual fear. However these attitudes stand in stark contrast to the biblical representation of the 'fear of the Lord.' While certainly a healthy respect for our creator is a part of the biblical idea of the 'fear of the Lord' it is only the beginning. The 'fear of the Lord' represented in Matthew 10, and also in Acts 5 as well as many Old Testament passages, is not simply respect but honest fear.
Americans today have come to the conclusion that fear and love are mutually exclusive, however this is not what scripture teaches. It is, in fact a recent idea. It is common knowledge that in Machiavelli's classic The Prince the author declares that 'it is better to be feared than loved'. However it is less know that he first states "Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." (The Prince, Chapter 17) Machiavelli's statement here is exactly what the scriptures teach about God, he is to be both feared and loved. The difference between Machiavelli and God is that Machiavelli was a man; fallen, imperfect, and limited; while God is perfect in every way and infinite. What Machiavelli saw as being near to impossible God can do easily.
This brings us back to the idea of the 'fear of the Lord.' What we must understand is that the scriptural teaching of the 'fear of the Lord', while it includes the idea of healthy respect, also included the idea of one's fear for the state of his immortal soul.
The context of Christ's teaching in Matthew is the provision and protection of God. Christ is teaching his disciples that they need not be afraid of Satan and his minions. However we must look at his technique, in this teaching Christ does not tell his disciples that they should not fear the Devil because God will protect them from him. Instead Christ teaches his disciples to fear the Devil because God is altogether a more fearsome being. While the Devil and his minions can 'destroy the body' or kill a person, God can 'destroy both body and soul in hell' or commit one to eternal torment.
The teaching of the 'fear of the Lord' is that we are to both love God, who is our father, and that we must fear his wrath. Though for Christians we are given freedom in Christ that the Jews were not. We must still keep in mind this idea of fear if we are to come to an honest understanding of our place in the Kingdom of God.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sin and the Law
I have recently been studying the theology of sin and I have been disappointed with recent publications on the subject. While I have found many people with opinions on the subject I have found very little biblical scholarship concerning the scriptural nature of sin. Because of this I decided to do my own study on the scriptural teachings concerning sin, what I found surprised me. This is not to say that what I found was out of the ordinary, but that it was something that I had heard so many times before. In scripture there are two words, one Hebrew and one Greek, that are translated as sin. Both of these words hold the idea of missing the set mark or standard.
While there are numerous other words that are normally translated as sin or have to do with the idea of sin they can all be grouped into the same general categories.
(1) Missing a set mark
(2) Transgressing the law of God
(3) Transgressing the laws of government
(4) Offending your personal conscience
In scripture sin is intimately connected with the law. In fact the idea of law is so important to the idea of sin that no definition can be called scriptural without reference to the law. This goes against much of the recent writing about sin which is attempting to respond to the extreme legalism within the church. However I wonder if, in responding to legalism, we have not gone too far in the opposite direction.
We must avoid the extreme legalism that teaches that wearing not wearing a tie in church is sin, or that a male have pierced ears is sin. However, at the same time we cannot forget that the very nature of sin is tied up in the law of God and the laws of men. Sin is a breaking of the law and we must always keep this in mind because without this understanding we cannot understand our own sin, and if we cannot understand our own sin then we cannot understand forgiveness.
So, what does this mean for you and me?
If sin is a breaking of the law then we understand that every time we sin, and when we understand sin in this we we know that that is very often, we break God's law. We offend God with our sins, but more than that we break the sacred covenant that binds us to him. The only thing that saves us is the sacrifice of Christ which serves not to save us from Satan, but from the wrath of God. Hell is NOT the domain of the devil, it is not the torment of Satan that we must fear. Christ told us "do not fear the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell."
Hell is the embodiment of God's wrath, not a place where Satan reigns. When Satan is finally committed to the lake of fire (see Rev. 20) then he will suffer as much as anyone.
Secondly, when we understand the nature of sin we can begin to understand the nature of forgiveness. The sacrifice of Christ was necessary because we have offended the very nature of God, even one sin offended that nature to such a degree that it shattered the communion between God and his creation. In Christ we have been given the chance to see that relationship repaired. What greater joy could there be than to enter back into the intended communion between God and man?
While there are numerous other words that are normally translated as sin or have to do with the idea of sin they can all be grouped into the same general categories.
(1) Missing a set mark
(2) Transgressing the law of God
(3) Transgressing the laws of government
(4) Offending your personal conscience
In scripture sin is intimately connected with the law. In fact the idea of law is so important to the idea of sin that no definition can be called scriptural without reference to the law. This goes against much of the recent writing about sin which is attempting to respond to the extreme legalism within the church. However I wonder if, in responding to legalism, we have not gone too far in the opposite direction.
We must avoid the extreme legalism that teaches that wearing not wearing a tie in church is sin, or that a male have pierced ears is sin. However, at the same time we cannot forget that the very nature of sin is tied up in the law of God and the laws of men. Sin is a breaking of the law and we must always keep this in mind because without this understanding we cannot understand our own sin, and if we cannot understand our own sin then we cannot understand forgiveness.
So, what does this mean for you and me?
If sin is a breaking of the law then we understand that every time we sin, and when we understand sin in this we we know that that is very often, we break God's law. We offend God with our sins, but more than that we break the sacred covenant that binds us to him. The only thing that saves us is the sacrifice of Christ which serves not to save us from Satan, but from the wrath of God. Hell is NOT the domain of the devil, it is not the torment of Satan that we must fear. Christ told us "do not fear the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell."
Hell is the embodiment of God's wrath, not a place where Satan reigns. When Satan is finally committed to the lake of fire (see Rev. 20) then he will suffer as much as anyone.
Secondly, when we understand the nature of sin we can begin to understand the nature of forgiveness. The sacrifice of Christ was necessary because we have offended the very nature of God, even one sin offended that nature to such a degree that it shattered the communion between God and his creation. In Christ we have been given the chance to see that relationship repaired. What greater joy could there be than to enter back into the intended communion between God and man?
Friday, December 12, 2008
My First Blog
Well, this is my first blog. I'm calling it useful religion because that's the point of religion, to be useful. If your religious beliefs are sitting on the periphery of your life, as an addendum or a footnote, then they're not doing you much good. My goal in this blog is to provide useful, quality discussion of important religious issues. These issues will not necessarily be current events, though some might be, instead they will be issues of theology, philosophy, and biblical teaching important to my own life and issues that I consider important to the lives of others.
So, before I go any further let me briefly discuss my qualifications, after all you don't want to be taking your religious advice from some loon on the internet right? Well...I hope not at least.
I am a conservative Christian and so the majority of my posts will have to do with Christian theology, belief, and biblical exegesis. However I will, from time to time, post something pertinent to other religious beliefs as well. I have a Master of Divinity from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and have studied theology, Christian history, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics (exegesis is the study of what the scripture actually says while hermeneutics is the study of how what it says should be interpreted), Christian leadership, Greek, and Hebrew. Along these major areas of study are more minor studies in church administration and growth, evangelism, world religions (focusing on far eastern religions), and religious philosophy.
Well, that's it for this post, I intend to update this blog every day or two with new posts on matters of religious and theological import to the everyday life of the Christian. Please don't think this will be a blog for theologians and biblical scholars only, though they are certainly welcome to read, I intend this blog to be pertinent to the individual Christian's life and spiritual walk.
I hope that you find this blog useful in the future and take the chance to put into practice the teachings I put forth.
So, before I go any further let me briefly discuss my qualifications, after all you don't want to be taking your religious advice from some loon on the internet right? Well...I hope not at least.
I am a conservative Christian and so the majority of my posts will have to do with Christian theology, belief, and biblical exegesis. However I will, from time to time, post something pertinent to other religious beliefs as well. I have a Master of Divinity from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and have studied theology, Christian history, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics (exegesis is the study of what the scripture actually says while hermeneutics is the study of how what it says should be interpreted), Christian leadership, Greek, and Hebrew. Along these major areas of study are more minor studies in church administration and growth, evangelism, world religions (focusing on far eastern religions), and religious philosophy.
Well, that's it for this post, I intend to update this blog every day or two with new posts on matters of religious and theological import to the everyday life of the Christian. Please don't think this will be a blog for theologians and biblical scholars only, though they are certainly welcome to read, I intend this blog to be pertinent to the individual Christian's life and spiritual walk.
I hope that you find this blog useful in the future and take the chance to put into practice the teachings I put forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
