I’m an intercessory missionary, and it’s the end of the age
And I have opinions.
What I don’t have today is time. So I will get back on the horse tomorrow and comment on some of the many cool comments, comment on some of the goings on here and abroad, try to comment on Barack Obama’s faith, and then get back to commenting on the emerging church movement. All while looking to finish my comments on the “peacemaker” of Matthew 5:9. Hey, why not aim high?
David
3 comments April 30th, 2007
You haven’t heard from me in a while, I know - so here’s the update:
The past few weeks I have been consumed by three events -
1. The Steeno / Berglund wedding last weekend (I was in it).
2. The Zadok House of Prayer “End Times Simplified” Conference this weekend (I’m here in South Carolina right now with Tracey and Daniel).
3. The Forerunner Prayer Room next weekend (I’m directing it).
If I have a minute, I’ll comment on all three. For now, I thought you would appreciate the update.
David
15 comments April 28th, 2007
When it comes to the abortion issue, my glass is not only half-empty, but filled with the wrong fluid. The Supreme Court ruled this morning to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortions. I must note wryly that they did not vote to uphold the ban or anything close to a total ban on partial-birth abortions. They voted to uphold a partial-abortion ban covering one procedure, based on appeals from California and Nebraska. The Nebraska ban was too restrictive, while the California ban had enough room to get a legal “foot” in the door to allow reason to prevail. Thus, bringing a fetus out of the womb and puncturing its skull is no longer considered to be a right the framers of the constitution intended mothers to have. Glory.
I’m making an assumption here, that politically, a total ban on partial-birth abortions would have been too much ground to take and thus a “middle ground” had to be maintained. Forget for a moment that the framers of the constitution never imagined partisan judges establishing decisions that defy logic, not just the intentions of the constitution. Forget, for a moment, that this decision only covers a fraction of a percentage of abortions in America (90% of all abortions happen early on in the pregnancy). Let’s focus on what’s really being said here.
Humanity Belongs to Those Who Are Exposed to Air
Infanticide is wrong when we take the baby out of the womb; it’s perfectly reasonable as an option for a mother to exercise while the fetus is still in the womb. In other words, the line that is being preserved related to the “personhood” or humanity of a baby is related to contact with air. As long as the fetus remains within the safety of the mother’s womb, it remains an “it” and thus continues to be in a very tenuous legal position.
Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed. Am I encouraged that five justices decided that puncturing the skull of a baby is inhumane? Sure, in the same way I would be encouraged if, say, a judge decided that putting rat poison in baby food is “just wrong”. In other words, I’m relieved that someone has common sense and can see the forest here, but not so happy as to throw a party that obviousness prevailed. I guess that’s better than blatant wickedness being rationalized. It’s hard to celebrate when the womb still remains the most dangerous place in America for a baby to be. I’m not sure I’ll ever be okay as long as babies before they are born are legally rationalized away as non-entities with no rights to live.
So, where some see victory (and others will shout their shrill cries of horror and despair) I see a subtle legal distinction that I am more than uncomfortable with or unhappy about. I am horrified that we have become, as a nation, so blinded and dull in legalities and constitutional wrangling with words that there are some that feel settled in their heart with a less than Solominian solution. That the premature baby has a better shot at life than a fetus that “decides” to hang out in the womb for awhile is one of the most illogical, bizarre, and wicked justifications for murder in human history. I am not comforted.
David
19 comments April 18th, 2007
Everyone is wired differently, as we have “discovered” over the past few days. What is easy for one seems difficult for another. Temptations and trials that would sorely test one man would be a breeze for another. I remember talking with Mike about his annual Mother’s Day sermons a while ago with my wife and a few others present. I was talking about the one that he preached two years ago and noting that it was one of the most incredibly difficult biblical directives a husband could receive. It was, as some of you may remember, the challenge to husbands to embrace and lead the home through authentic meekness rather than strength. Leadership, or headship of the home, means that the man takes the lead in establishing the Sermon on the Mount values of meekness and tenderness by always being the first to genuinely apologize. The man was to find ways to do so even if reasons were not immediately apparent (and the husband was convinced that the wife was 100% wrong).
Thus, winning arguments did not matter anymore. In fact, it could be argued that if allowed myself to “win” an argument, I would be then losing the greater battle of cultivating a godly marriage. I could not use my strength to establish my agenda. I could not use my fast thought processes and ability to lay out a logical argument to end an argument. Though her arguments were emotional and at times seemingly irrational (in my opinion, not reality), I had to find something in the discussion to cling to that was my fault, own up to it, and apologize. I had to let my wife win.
When I told Mike how excruciatingly impossible this was for my prideful ego, he laughed and asked me, for curiosity’s sake, what I thought about that year’s Mother’s Day sermon. It was the one where the husband had to go out of his way to verbally honor and build up his wife - and I commented that I was naturally good at that. I guessed that he would be too. I imagine that the far greater struggle would be the fight for meekness - but again, everyone is wired differently, and not everyone has that “alpha male” personality. I remember being struck by the Holy Spirit during a prayer meeting years ago to pray for my wife and the wives of many of the leaders with similar personality traits. I suddenly felt a wave of compassion and appreciation for them and the way in which they navigated these strong personalities and fragile egos.
The Epiphany
I have been asking the Lord for help in the area of marital meekness for a couple of years now. In fact, right after that particular sermon was finished, I failed at the challenge almost immediately. It took about four minutes after repenting and asking for grace. Needless to say, I am really bad at this.
Then, some time afterwards, something glorious happened. My wife and I were having an innocuous discussion in which we had to figure out how to best maximize our time for the afternoon. Faced with two choices in the discussion, it seemed as if I had the better way to go. Of course, if you’ve been following me thus far you then realize that it always seems as if I have the better way to go. Then, suddenly, she said something that rang true - it was absolutely right. She was right. She “won”.
Now, she wouldn’t think that she won anything - and probably didn’t think about it when I backed down so suddenly. What she didn’t know is that the funniest thing happened in me. I liked that she won the day. I liked that I could choose her thought process. It actually brought me great (and strange) joy to see her win. Suddenly, I had stumbled on a critical secret - I felt like I had discovered gold. The secret, for me, to exhibit meekness towards my wife in these kinds of discussions was to do more than simply find a way to admit fault and apologize every time. It would work for me if I found ways to enjoy my wife in her “rightness” as much as I worked to discover my “wrongness”. To actually search out the manner in which she could genuinely win, and thrill in her “rightness” with her.
I have no idea as I write this whether or not anyone else could relate to the way in which my mind (and heart) works. I do know that I have so enjoyed the revelation of how the last two Mother’s Day sermons go together: I could take my strength (honoring my wife) and apply it by grace to my weakness (meekness in letting her win). Combining the two suddenly made the hard thing enjoyable. I love seeing Tracey win! It blesses her heart that I care and that I have truly heard and valued her perspective (rather than being so in love with my own); it blesses me to see her outmaneuver and outwit me (though she has no idea I see it this way).
Joining her team
Really, what I have done is try to, in every discussion and debate, to join her team to out-think me. I have found that it’s fun to make it her and me versus me. In that, I realize that I have accidentally emulated what Jesus does for all of us on a regular basis. In this race for the prize of Christ, we are not racing against everyone else. We are racing against ourselves and our own weakness and propensity to wander. The great news is that Jesus actually serves us in the race - He joins our team in the fight against sin and brokenness and gives us grace and strength to win the race. He truly delights in the victories that He helps us win on a daily basis!
Not only that - the Father and the Holy Spirit are part of the “team” as well. Thus it becomes a fight between God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and me versus me to win the heavenly prize. When I join His team I have all confidence that He who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete it. I have great hope that I will finish the race with honor. In the same manner, it is stunning to think that I can join the Godhead when I join my wife’s team against me and my perspectives. In fact, it’s more than stunning - it’s fun. Together, the three of us can find creative ways to outwit Tracey’s dull and slow of heart husband, having a blast along the way.
David
14 comments April 17th, 2007
One side note before I throw some thoughts out there: in all the hoopla about personality profiles and such, it seems that no one had a comment about the Malibu clip or “Put ‘em in a body bag!” How is this even possible? That Malibu clip should be framed and laws should be passed requiring its continuous play in all of your households, in my opinion. The “Put ‘em in a body bag” line should be spoken reverently in quiet whispers throughout the hallowed halls of fellowship. I even snuck a Mr. T reference into my last post. These are just a few necessary observations before we continue on together. These emphatic statements of urgent repose will hopefully color your approach to the personality hullabaloo. Blessings to all.
David
7 comments April 16th, 2007
You’re probably not surprised. Did you take the personality profile I talked about a few posts ago? If you want your own descriptive, you can find one on this site. Here’s my description, with a few comments by me (is that too self-indulgent?):
“I don’t care to sit by the window on an airplane. If I can’t control it, why look?” (I actually ALWAYS and ONLY sit on the aisle seat when I fly. I want to get off the plane faster than everyone else and never get trapped. Ever. In any situation. I always gravitate towards, in other situations, the end chair of an aisle, the corner chair by the door in any meeting, and the power seat in any restaurant.)
ENTJs have a natural tendency to marshall and direct. This may be expressed with the charm and finesse of a world leader or with the insensitivity of a cult leader. (Comforting.) The ENTJ requires little encouragement to make a plan. One ENTJ put it this way… “I make these little plans that really don’t have any importance to anyone else, and then feel compelled to carry them out.” While “compelled” may not describe ENTJs as a group, nevertheless the bent to plan creatively and to make those plans reality is a common theme for NJ types.
ENTJs are often “larger than life” in describing their projects or proposals. This ability may be expressed as salesmanship, story-telling facility or stand-up comedy. In combination with the natural propensity for filibuster, our hero can make it very difficult for the customer to decline. (I realize that some of you will never have a conversation with me again.)
TRADEMARK: — “I’m really sorry you have to die.” (I realize this is an overstatement. However, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description.) I’m very gentle. I’m also very pragmatic.
ENTJs are decisive. They see what needs to be done, and frequently assign roles to their fellows. Few other types can equal their ability to remain resolute in conflict, sending the valiant (and often leading the charge) into the mouth of hell. When challenged, the ENTJ may by reflex become argumentative. Alternatively (s)he may unleash an icy gaze that serves notice: the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with. (I think we can come up with a “Sermon on the Mount” profile for the redeemed…or am I missing something I need to repent for?)
“Unequivocating” expresses the resoluteness of the ENTJ’s dominant function. Clarity of convictions endows these Thinkers with a knack for debate, or wanting knack, a penchant for argument. (Quietly rocking with guilt) The light and heat generated by Thinking at the helm can be impressive; perhaps even overwhelming. Experience teaches many ENTJs that restraint may often be the better part of valor, lest one find oneself victorious but alone.
The auxiliary function explores the blueprints of archetypal patterns and equips Thinking with a fresh, dynamic sense of how things work. Improvising on the fly is something many ENTJs do very well. As Thinking’s subordinate, insights are of value only insofar as they further the Right, True Cause celebre. [n.b.: ENTJs are capable of living on a higher plane, if you will, and learning to value individuals even above their principles. The above dynamic suggests less individuation.] Um, I live on a higher plane. I’m not into individuation. I like personification. Or gratification. Or Superstation. I miss Playstation.
Sensing reaches out to embrace that which physically touches it. (Huh?) ENTJs have an awareness of the real; of that which exists. By stilling the engines of Thinking and iNtuition, this type may experience the Here and Now, and know things not dreamt of nor even postulated in iNtuition’s philosophy. Sensing’s minor role, however, puts it at risk for distortion or extreme weakness beneath the hustle and bustle of the giants N and T. (I’m drifting into annoyance with this continuing analysis. I get more annoyed in the next section.)
(Note: this section seems like psycho-babble gobbledy-gook to me. If someone, like an amateur psychologist, wants to translate it for me, I’d be grateful) Feeling is romantic, as the ethereal as the inner world from whence it doth emerge. (What the crud…? Again, I was done after that line.) When it be awake, feeling evokes great passion that knows not nuance of proportion nor context. (Who is this, Mr. T? “IT BE AWAKE, FOOL!”) Perhaps these lesser functions inspire glorious recreational quests in worlds that never were, or may only ever be in fantasy. (Okay, not Mr. T. Maybe Mr. Girl.) When overdone or taken too seriously, Fi turned outward often becomes maudlin or melodramatic. Feeling in this type appears most authentic when implied or expressed covertly in a firm handshake, accepting demeanor, or act of sacrifice thinly covered by excuses of lack of any personal interest in the relinquished item.
Made sense to me. Post your description in the comments section - I’m dying to know!
David
41 comments April 14th, 2007
I am writing this examination of the concept of “team ministry” for one reason - it is the beginning of a series I am doing that will examine the nature and implications of the Emergent Church movement related to the end of the age. Thus, the purpose of writing this is to establish for you my broader philosophy of the roles different “tribes” and groups play within the body of Christ in this hour. It is important to me that we are on the same page before I say what I am going to say next.
Those that know me know that my aim is to be unusually conciliatory and honoring of different “streams”, movements, and expressions of the body of Christ throughout the earth. I greatly value and enjoy the astonishing creativity of God - the God who birthed what is now 6,000 languages (and counting). Beyond this, I have continually valued and honored what I consider to be an expression of “team ministry” that transcends one corporate gathering or group of people with a variety of gifts and talents.
I see an expression of team ministry reflected in the corporate church of individual cities, nations, and whole generations, depending on the scope of local, national, and international ministries and their God-given spheres of influence. One church in a city might function in a more evangelistic manner that serves the whole city, while another church is more teaching-oriented; still another group might excel in equipping for missions and function as a true sending vehicle to launch skilled leaders to the nations. Everyone can play different parts on the team of a city church, whether they operate in such a manner knowingly or not. Jesus is a skilled Apostolic leader fully able to gather a diverse group of leaders to a geographic location to serve His purposes.
So it is in that spirit that I have been quick to honor brothers in the body of Christ that function in ways that serve cities and nations in broader ways than many desire to give credit for. While it is valid to question some pastor’s motives in the manner in which they establish “seeker-sensitive” expressions, this does not give us license to then dismiss the viability of the entire seeker-sensitive movement. Could it be true that God has actually called some to establish these kinds of ministries in the body of Christ in our day? While others, looking to duplicate or replicate the success of the legitimate structures that have been built, often end up doing so for transparently ambitious and self-gratifying reasons, we must be careful in our judgments and religious opinions in deciding the worth of a thing that might serve a God-ordained purpose beyond our limited perspectives.
True God-initiated seeker-sensitive churches serve the body of Christ in two critical ways: first, they are zealous to pursue skillful and excellent communication of biblical truths; and second, they often end up contributing significantly to the building of the whole body of Christ in a geographic location. We must admit that excellence in communication is a worthy pursuit, and one that is better than entertaining poor communication in the name of unbiblical idealism regarding authentic Christianity. If we were honest, we would also admit that there are churches near seeker-sensitive ones that are secretly thankful. Why? They owe much to these churches for believers that progressed as far as they could after finding Jesus before shifting to a spiritual family that better fit their increased hunger for more “meat” from the scriptures as well as an answer to their unsatisfied yearning for the deep things of God.
If seeker-sensitive churches are content to play their role on the “team” rather than build the biggest, most successful ode to their giftedness on the block, then everyone wins in the end. If other pastors can come to terms with the fact that “sheep stealing” is a farcical notion birthed from insecurity and sinful ambition rather than the word of God, they would then be fine with people shifting to different expressions of the the body reflected in the different corporate gatherings throughout their cities. Different seasons of growth, maturity, and development demand that believers run with different groups that best fit those seasons. Pastors that are willing to serve, launch, and recognize their limitations can be free of heart and pleased to have played a role in loving a member of the broader body of Christ that is valuable to Jesus. Pastors that seek to be “all things to all men” in a vain effort to gather all peoples to themselves will be sorely disillusioned and frustrated with the passage of time.
Thus, we need the excellence in which seeker-sensitive ministries (called by God) communicate gospel truths to the unsaved or the newly saved. We need the faithful commitment to scripture that the baptists exhibit, the excellence in teaching of the Calvary Chapel movement, and the love for the things of the spirit that the Charismatic expresses. I love that prayer ministries are being established in cities around the world. I love that there are many significant ministries (Hillsong, Vineyard, Integrity) that have contributed mightily to the worship culture of the church of this generation. The Wesleyan / Methodist movement did the same for generations past.
I never want to fall into the trap of assuming that the stream that I swim in is innately superior to the ones that others enjoy. I never want to give myself to an elite spirit that desires a conformity to my spiritual culture. We need Campus Crusade, Young Life, Navigators, Intervarsity, Youth With a Mission, Acquire the Fire, and many other ministries and expressions that serve their redemptive purpose under the sovereign call of God for this hour of history. Everyone plays a part.
This is important to me that my heart on these issues is clear. The reason is this: I have serious questions and issues with the Emergent Church movement. I am not alone in this, nor am I the first to raise these questions. It is important to me, however, to establish my own “ground rules” before being what is, for me, uncharacteristic of my normative posture towards other brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not want to unintentionally give permission to, nor room for, ungodly religious opinions that refuse to take into account the purposes and plans of a soveriegn God that transcend our own perceptions and reasoning. It is not my way to speak ill of sincere believers who truly seek to honor Christ with their lives and choices. Those that know me know that I often speak well of pre-trib brothers - of whom I want to extend much charity and respect in regards to their labors to see the lost won to Christ. Regardless of how Christ is preached, I delight that He is preached to all.
That said, I want to conduct my own honest examination over the next week of the Emergent Church movement. Again, I have grave concerns over both the present expression and what I feel is the logical future destination. In my next post, I am not going to address them - it is important that I first define this movement so that we have a common understanding of what I mean when I say “Emergent”. Then, I want to examine in my next post what I feel are some illegitimate foundations. I will wrap up the series with a look at what I believe the future has in store for the emergent church.
It should be an interesting week.
David
7 comments April 14th, 2007
For me, this phase I went through in the 80’s was one of them. Yes, my friends, I must confess - I was an American Gladiator, back in the day. Please go easy on my hairstyle and strange language - that’s how we wore it back then, and that’s how we talked. I just wanted to be cool.
If any of you are interested in the article Allen Hood referenced on the resurrection, here it is.
Some of you may be like me - you’re a personality profile addict. I can’t get enough of them. If you’d like to take a rudimentary (and free) version of the Myers-Briggs, go here and then let us know what Jungian type you are. I’ll throw in what I am somewhere in the comments section if you do.
History buffs may appreciate this Vanity Fair article on the power struggle between Kissinger and Nixon. I’m a sucker for this kind of inside information, personally.
This is an article from Time magazine that I was going to write about a while back, but couldn’t ever get to. As astonishing as it might be to some, it provides fascinating insight into what motivates a few of the “pro-Gospel of Judas” scholars in their quest to legitimize that gnostic text as a legitimate window into Christian thought in that era. The motivation (fueled, of course, by using radical Islam as a pretext) is, in part, to remove the early church glorification of martyrdom; secondly, to diminish the idea that Jesus died on the cross as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins. Perhaps this is worth a post sometime in the future after all…
This is for any who could be categorized as a fellow Karate Kid fanatic. Don’t open this in the prayer room with the volume on. It’s quite sudden, and a bit disconcerting after a while. Those who know me have already guessed that this is my favorite line in the whole movie, and I can honestly say that I have spoken it thousands of times growing up. Of course, I also spent way too much time randomly giving people the hopelessly pathetic Ralph Macchio “I’m being bullied right now” face; it’s a derivative of the “Mr. Miyagi, take me to Japan with you” face.
This could be one of the most disconcerting, disturbing, and fantastically stupid excuses ever used to justify self-defense. I’m not talking about the astonishing phrase, of course. I’m talking about the occupation that bolstered this woman’s courage to shoot her husband. Chalk up another public relations victory for the ol’ post office.
This is a total side note, with no link - I just wanted to say it for the record, since it was another topic I couldn’t quite get around to a few weeks back. I don’t remember electing Nancy Pelosi to conduct foreign policy on my behalf - anyone else want to ‘fess up to that one?
And of course, how could I not end this historic first foray into links I appreciate without sharing with you one of my favorite websites - or, as I like to call it, my own little burning ring of fire that I fell into? I don’t know how I’d feel, in terms of my dignity, if I had to look my friends in the eye and tell them I’m servin’ them up on a Grand Turbo. Honestly. Don’t know if I could really go there. Could you be friends with someone who invoked the name “Grand Turbo” at outdoor dinner parties? Me, I’m not so sure at this point.
On the other hand, it would be cool to own the “American Gladiator” of gas grills.
David
18 comments April 13th, 2007
One of the most awesome ways in which a believer can enter into the blessing of being Christlike is to emulate one of the simplest ways of being like Jesus: helping to brothers in conflict reconcile with one another. In relational conflict, the one who aggressively pursues reconciliation between the two offended parties and helps bring true peace is one who is beginning to lay hold of the very mission statement of God Himself in this age. He loves reconciliation.
As someone wise once said, “He’s a family man!” He loves it when the brothers get along “horizontally”, and when any kind of true reconciliation takes place amongst the family members than His heart is glad. This is why there is so much in the scriptures regarding relational issues and the necessity of loving one another. In fact, this was the whole content of the beloved disciple’s message in the final years of his life. Love one another.
His love for unity amongst His people is indescribable. That one would navigate the pathways of desire to find themselves kneeling before God thirsting for His presence, hungry for His heart, zealous for righteousness, tender in heart, meek in spirit - how could such a journey not lead a man to experience true love for those around him? How could such pursuit for God not leave one thirsting to love the ones that He treasures, hungering to climb the mountain of God with awesome comrades who bear the same marks of passionate pursuit?
This longing is one that He has placed deep within the heart of every man and woman - the yearning for true brethren that constitute those whom we could link arms with as we go together into the deepest depths of the treasures of God. These divine treasures were made to be uncovered with others who have a similar hunger, desire, and passion for truth.
I am thankful for the gift of what Allen Hood calls “corporate revelation”. It is one of the gifts of Psalm 133, or the “commanded blessings” that descend upon brethren who dwell together in unity. It is our privilege to sharpen one another in our knowledge and understanding of the scriptures. It is our glory to share nuggets of insight and truth with one another, from various perspectives and sensibilities that constitute the diversity of gifts and thought processes of the body of Christ. We truly can go farther together than we can alone - and it is God’s sovereign design that it work according to that pattern. Why?
As human beings with prideful natures, we have a tendency to fall into the trap of the most insidious expression of pride: self-preference. We love our own perspectives, ideas, opinions, and styles. We become easily annoyed and thrown off by the sensibilities of others. Often, when you are capable or gifted, it just seems easier to go it alone. While we may hate loneliness, we love to isolate ourselves into a self-preserving effectiveness that enables us to continue to champion our own cause.
God, on the other hand, had a better idea. It’s called “diversification”. He spreads spiritual gifts and natural talents around to many people with varying degrees of strength and intensity. He creates a glorious variety amongst His people. Then He throws us all into a room together. How glorious are the collisions! He has created a built-in system that demands humility and love for one another knit to our intrinsic need for one another. We can’t make it alone.
We need one another as comrades who labor for the common good, friends who champion one another’s destinies, and cheerleaders who keep one another in the game when we stumble in discouragment or failure. We need to grow in love, trust, and meekness that we might grow together and enjoy one another as we enjoy God. We need to learn to become good brothers so that we can become true sons. He is delighted by the journey of brothers learning to be good, faithful, and loyal brothers - that they might learn in turn to become good, faithful, and loyal sons. He loves reconciliation!
This is one vital and important aspect of the glory of the “peacemaker”. The one who fights for relational reconciliation according to God’s heart does so not for personal gain or emotional relief. The one who fights to be reconciled to his brothers according to the heart of God has touched the zeal of the Father for His sons to love one another. It is a window into the divine delight of the Father that longs for unity and honor amongst the brethren. As a loving Father, He desires reconciliation and intimacy that is more than vertical. He longs for horizontal intimacy.
It thrills His heart to see bretren dwell together in true, spirit-empowered, tender-hearted, meek and lowly, honor and grace filled unity! This is the dream of His heart for the age to come. There is a coming day in which we will love one another with the love of Christ, with no selfish ambition and vain conceit, with no fear or mistrust, with supernatural wisdom, understanding, insight, and perceptiveness fueling our thought life about one another. We will speak the heart of Jesus to one another. We will enjoy one another in unimaginable ways. We will weep with joy together as we explore the depths of Christ together.
Knowing this, my prayer is that we would be empowered by the zeal of the Lord to walk in forgiveness and tenderness towards one another. The “perfect” that is coming is something that we are challenged by the word to strive to walk in today. It is not okay for the brethren to hold things in their heart towards one another. In fact, it is not okay for brethren to sit still when they know that someone else has an issue with them! That is why Jesus commanded that we go to a brother when we know that they are offended (Matt. 5:23-26). He was charging us to be agressive and spiritually violent in our pursuit of reconciliation. There are some who have a clear heart towards their friends, yet are still passive in this regard - they often will choos to wait until the offended party takes the initiative. This is not the heart of the peacemaker.
We must be those who love true unity - brethren agreeing together in lifestyle and biblical values, honoring and enjoying one another in Christ. The journey involves much relational labor, time, and energy. The one who endeavors to be a true son of God, however, will take on the heart attitude of the peacemaker. They will be the ones who decide to fight for the love of God in every relationship and situation, regardless of the personal cost.
Blessed are they, the true sons of God!
David
8 comments April 11th, 2007
VS. 
Happy Good Friday! How awesome it is to know that Christ died for us that we might fellowship with God and one another in spirit and in truth! I want to celebrate both momentous events by making it up to you that my writing has been scattered over the past few weeks. Yep, you guessed it, this one’s record-breaking long. No way around it. I figure you can print this up and chew on it over the weekend, and beyond.
My Newsweek arrived in the mail this week, and much to my delight contained a mini-”debate” by Rick Warren (Pastor of Saddleback Church and author of “The Purpose Driven Life”) and Sam Harris (”New Atheist” author of the books “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”). You can read the whole transcript here. Here’s a hint - it’s quite long, so make sure you hit the “print” button (and then hit “cancel” if your print queue comes up) to bring up a single-page view, rather than scrolling through ten pages of the transcript.
Though the whole article was fascinating, I found one comment Sam Harris made particularly interesting, related to prayer:
“Let me respond to this notion of answered prayer, because this is a classic sampling error, to use a statistical phrase. We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations. You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.”
I, for one, find it fascinating the Sam Harris is looking for empirical proof that God is real and acts on our behalf. I find it ironic that the scientific proof that Sam is looking for is related to answered prayer. This is noteworthy to me, of course, because I happen to link the events of the first and second coming of Jesus to that very “experiment”. What he is asking for (a supernatural sign related to prayer) has already taken place, in a far more spectacular and historic manner than the regeneration of a limb. As fascinated as we are with God when we have the privilege of witnessing such a dramatic healing, what could be more astonishing than the ultimacy of answered prayer - the birth of the Messiah onto planet earth, as well as His return?
Science, of course, is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” By its very nature, the limitations of the scientific method makes the study of “God” and the supernatural impossible and is self-limiting by its own stated goals. It is ironic to me that this is how Harris chooses to define the activity of prayer. Yet, science is frustrated because the transcendent God will not be reduced to a subject of the created. Man can only scientifically study God on His own terms, in the manner in which He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Thus “theology” (the study of God) was meant to be the capstone of the sciences, or the banner of all of the scientific research being presently conducted as man empirically explores the creation as a means of discovering a small piece of what the creator is like.
Thus, a scientific mind such as Harris must begin with a set of pre-conceived premises that become self-fulfilling over time:
1. There is no scientific proof of God - thus there is a high probability that there is no God.
2. Theology must be separated from the scientific realm because of the high probability that there is no God.
3. The sciences, then, must be studied in a vacuum without any thought that there is a creator or divine initiator as the causative agent to these physical elements and rules of nature. There is no provable cause to natural and physical laws, thus we must presume that creation itself is the only cause of creation’s activity.
4. If God is either a causative agent or a real physical and natural entity within the natural order, than He must reveal himself in an observable way that is subject to provable facts.
5. Since God has not operated in a scientific manner according to my rules, than presupposition number 3 must therefore be true.
Amazingly, the stunning thing about our God is this - He humbled Himself to come to us, in the natural realm, in a tangible, physical way. He then proved that He was God, according to the four gospel accounts (particularly in John’s gospel). Then, they killed Him by crucifying Him, as Peter spoke in Acts 2. This is Sam Harris’ fatal flaw - his complete disconnect with the reality of human nature. If God actually performed the scientific “proof” that he was looking for, he would not rejoice and believe. He would become even more angry, for now he would have to deal with the “dominoes” that would then collapse around him as “proof A” began to move to “consequence B”. In other words:
1. If “A” (Jesus is real, alive, and the Son of the Living God) is true;
2. Than “B” (all that He spoke) is also true;
3. Than “C” (man’s necessary response) is then required. Immediately.
The issue of faith is related to the issue of “C”. Faith is not (as Harris and others like him incorrectly reason) about the blind acceptance of men to the premises about the truth of God in the absence of God. Because they assume their premises about the absence of God to be true, they then presume that men believe things about God in a vacuum. They refuse to believe in a vacuum. Again, ironically, this is not even the true definition of faith. Faith is the decision men make when God reveals Himself to them. Abraham was considered “righteous” by God because of his faith - not in a vacuum or absence of the supernatural, but because the supernatural, transcendent God revealed Himself (and His city) to Abraham and Abraham changed his whole life direction as a consequence. It’s not about whether there is a God or not - it’s about what we do with who He is and what He said when He acts.
Again, the faulty premise that Harris and other atheists work from is that faith is a man-initiated act that provokes a sovereign response. The absence of the empirical proof of God’s response to man’s initiative (belief) is subsequent proof that there is not, in fact, a God at all. Again, all that Harris has proven is that God will not respond to Harris’ desire to establish the ground rules. According to Paul, in Eph. 2:8-9, man is saved in part through faith - but not a faith initiated by his own belief in God. It is through grace that men are saved, by faith, that none may boast. God is the initiator and man can at best only respond or react - but the reach of God towards men is only and always in God’s hands. The Holy Spirit is always acting in such a manner that all men would be drawn to the Father - again, Paul reveals that men in fact always respond to the initiative of God. It’s just that, in Rom. 1:18-32, that response is, most of the time, to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. “Salvation belongs to our God,” the saints sing in the book of Revelation; yet He leaves the choice to receive that constant invitation into our hands. If we say “yes,” to the invitation by grace, He will respond to our cry of faith and credit that tender response as a righteous one.
Harris, and all men, cannot escape the God that is real and the God that acts. They can suppress Him, they can reason Him away, but they cannot escape Him. He did not give them the choice. For He is not a God limited to scientific proof of His existence, rather, He is forceful in His pursuit of all men that they might be saved and come into the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). Thus we come to the “anomaly”, the Apostle Paul himself, formerly Saul of Tarsus. While many of the great apologists, including C.S. Lewis, have noted that Jesus Himself - particularly what He said about Himself - constitute the best apologetic for the truth of the nature and identity of the man, I tend to look to Paul.
Strange, isn’t it? In looking to Paul rather than the gospel narratives, I find the same thing that Lewis noted about Jesus - yet presented in a more paradoxical and forceful manner. Lewis noted that, if Jesus died (and historically, we know this to be true), than we must weigh the claims He made about Himself that led to His death. He is either Lord, as He claimed; or He is a lunatic, or He is a liar. There are no other options to assign to the Man. Of course, the problem we run into with skeptics is what the gospel writers themselves said about their goal - as John wrote, “That we may believe…” was the stated purpose of these evangelists. In the minds of the skeptics, their work is already suspect - since they cannot be trusted as historical documents. For all they know, these men fabricated these stories to justify their claims about a man they thought to be the Messiah.
Of course, the idea that they would then have to have pulled of the most elaborate and skilled hoax in history would be enough to dismiss their skepticism. Rather than go that route, I love that the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts introduces us to the most unlikely character in the entire new movement - Saul of Tarsus. While the motives of the original apostles could come under doubt and suspicion, what did Saul have to gain from his conversion? There is no answer for such a transformation. In fact, he did not gain, but for quite some time lost everything in the exchange - credibility amongst his own people and doubt and fear by the community he looked to join. There are no rational reasons for a man the skeptics call a “religious genius” to have converted at all in the absence of God. His life story speaks to the same options as Jesus Himself presented - either what Paul said was true or he was the most deluded, insane man who ever lived. For he surely didn’t gain that much (by his own admission, in 1 Cor. 15:19) comparatively to the prestige, honor, wealth, and fame he was heading for within the Jewish community.
Paul surrendered all of this for a life spent “as a fool“; or, as he continued in 2 Cor. 11:23-28, “in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times,” he testified, “I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; and a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles (in other words, everyone hated him)…” Paul went on to describe more of the worst punishments a man could endure - and for what? He truly believed that the risen Christ had appeared to Him, that God Himself had commissioned Him, and that the Spirit had taken him up into the third heaven and gave him visions and revelations. According to what he suffered related to these beliefs, either they were true or he was a madman. No man could endure these things over many years and be that skilled a liar - and, as Paul makes clear, there was nothing to gain from lying.
Where Jesus left us three choices (Lord, lunatic, or liar), Paul served by removing one of those three. Only two are left. Both men were either true in what they said or absolutely and irrevocably insane. Yet for Paul, there was no choice in the matter. God had intervened by grace and had apprehended Him. The God who acts spared him from the course he was fervently taking (in the name of God) and redirected him miraculously and incredibly into a life spent on the receiving end of the punishment he began his career administering to others. Did the same men who “fabricated” the account of Jesus’ resurrection also “fabricate” the life of Paul? Or did the risen Lord actually appear to the man, and redirect his life and mission?
We who spend our lives “wasted” in the place of prayer know the answer - and it is found in greater measure than any limb returning to health. We do not believe in a vacuum. We do not have faith in the place of unknowing or a strange hope devoid of evidence. We have a testimony, and the reality of a life transformed, and the life of God stirring and boiling within us, a jealous Holy Spirit who speaks and convicts and comforts. We have desires for Godly things, a yearning for righteousness that was wholly foreign to us years ago. We have an ache within us, a groaning that cannot be produced within the heart of sinful men, a longing suppressed and ignored by intellectuals who are afraid to deal with the consequences of responding to the daily invitation of God to repent, and believe, and live.
Paul defined this “knowing” in 2 Cor. 5:1-8 as follows: “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith (responding to the work of the Spirit), not by sight (responding to the circumstances of life). We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
We do not believe in a vacuum. We do not have to prove that we speak to “the God who wasn’t there”. Faith is the substance - the living proof of the reality of God contained within the transformed life who was blind but now sees in part - of things hoped for. We hope for the fullness to come, but that which comes to us now in part gives us great confidence in our future, and great trust in the daily leadership of God that has not failed - despite the protests of atheists who use the existence of evil, corruption, and death as a proof of the absence of life, light, and truth. Faith is the evidence of things not seen - the invisible supernatural that touches and enlivens a cold, dead heart into deep affection and longing. We do not believe in a vacuum of unknowing. We have substance and evidence for our hope. I do not press on, this Good Friday, in the vain groping and grasping for some kind of evidence that would serve as a lifeline to continue on in prayer and fasting.
I press on with great confidence that wisdom will be justified by her children, and that the sum total of my life and its meaning will be measured according to the evaluation of a just but tender judge. For what Sam Harris can never come to grips with in his vain search for meaning is that morality cannot empirically be the substance of an evolutionary process, and that decency cannot form out of the morass and mire of animalistic urges and instincts. For if God is a myth, as he hopes to someday prove, than he will also prove subsequently that there is no further need for selflessness, sacrifice, and charity. There can be, in the absence of the Risen Christ, only the survival of the fittest, and a relegation of the “unfit” to extinction.
In light of what I know to be true, I then echo the words of Paul in 2 Cor. 11:9 - “Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord (related to the aforementioned judgment seat), we persuade men…”
This I pray, for Sam Harris, and the many like him - that they might come humbly by grace to the beginning of wisdom, delivered from their vain knowledge, into the fear of the Risen Christ, that in the terror of His judgment, they might repent and be rooted and established in the love of God and the patience of Christ Jesus. Amen.
David Sliker
Good Friday, April 6th, 2007
16 comments April 6th, 2007
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Mar | May » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
© Copyright 2010 His Hand is on the Door. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress | Login | Blix Redux by Headsetoptions.
Professional themes through the Wireless
Internet directory of Web Host
Search