A Life Lived for God, Part I

Lately, I have been examining myself and realizing how short my short-comings actually are. Some people would probably say that I am being to hard on myself. But, I would simply respond to them that they just don't see the depths of my soul. I remember reading recently a pithy quote that, I think, captures the gravity of man's sin. It went something like this: A woman approached the pastor of a local congregation and began complementing the pastor for his godly, upstanding demeanor and behavior. He looked at her and said very simply, "If you could see the depths of my soul, you would probably like to spit in my face." It seems to me that there is something to this story. Anytime we begin to think too highly of ourselves, sin will be lurking nearby waiting for us to take our guard down.

So, in order to combat this in myself, I will be writing a series on (as the above title indicates) a life lived for God. Paul states in Romans 12:1-2 what a life for God looks like. He writes, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Paul is clear; God desires our whole lives, and nothing less should be expected, which is only reasonable seeing how Christ gave his whole life for us. The question then is what does that look like. What exactly characterizes a living sacrifice? It seems to me that Paul includes a list elsewhere that defines what a life lived for God would be characterized by. He writes in Galatians 5:22-23, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." It is the fruit of the Spirit that must characterize the life lived for God. So that is what this series of posts will be about. Each post will explain how each fruit leads to becoming a living sacrifice. Now, you may be thinking to yourselves, "That is not really that difficult." My question for you (and in reality for me also) then is, do each of things truly typify your life in the eyes of others and of God? Do you have actual peace all the time? Are you enduringly patience and longsuffering? Are you a joyful person? Are you completely faithful to God and others? Are you gentle when wronged? Honestly, I would have to answer a resounding "no" each question. So, this is my attempt to understand what it means to live a life for God.

Where is the love?

So, I got to preach the text from Hebrews 12 today. I did pretty well overall. I spoke clearly and made only a few mistakes in my delivery. But, something was missing. A very wise person pointed out that I did a great job loving the text. I treated God's Word with respect, but I forgot the other part of the equation. There was an audience out there. That audience was full of young and vibrant image-bearers. And, in my zeal for the text, I forgot to love them. I forgot that God's Word (the Living Word) loves them. I was reminded that it doesn't matter how well you explain the text if the people don't know that you care about them. There has to be such a careful balance between the two. I am called to love the Word and love the people. Without the people, the Word loses meaning because it is meant to apply to and change us. Without the Word, the people lose all purpose because it is supposed to be the guiding principle of our lives. Jesus was the best at this. He always knew his audience, and more importantly, He always loved them, even when He was rebuking them. I think the failure I suffered today is symptomatic of most of the preaching we hear today. It is either brilliantly dull and passionless or ignorance on fire. With that said, I am thankful for this wise person who encouraged me. From now on, everytime I step in a pulpit, I will remember that it's not just about loving the Word. That love for the Word should kindle in me the greatest, deepest, most passionate love for those who are about to receive it.

A Prayer Request and an Observation

Wednesday morning, I will be teaching the Word of God to the upper school of Trinity Academy at our weekly chapel meeting. I will be speaking on Hebrews 12:1-2, which is a wonderful passage about the race of faith. Pray that I remain faithful to the text and have the right words to say. Pray also that I understand my audience (middle and high schoolers).

I would like to add that I found an interesting tid-bit last night studying this passage. One of the commentaries I read picked up on something interesting. In this passage, the author, whom I argue is Paul, explains in verse two that Jesus endured the cross. The commentator pointed out that the only other place that the cross is actually mentioned are the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. Maybe this is more evidence for Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Just some food for thought.

Who God is

I love reading theology, especially systematic theology. I know I'm sick, but I just can't help myself. One of the more fascinating part of theology deals with the naming of God. I enjoy trying to comprehend the various attributes of God and how they interact with one another. One problem that plagues much of modern theology is the overemphasis of one of God's attributes over all the others. Typically, modern, especially liberal, theologians focus solely on the love of God. It is true that God is love, but He is not love exclusively. If He were, then His other attributes would suffer injury. Think about it this way. If God is so "loving" that He lets everyone into Heaven (universalism), then what is that love actually? Love becomes indifference. It is the justice of God that makes His mercy and love so real and beautiful. In God's justice, we see what we deserve. Consequently, God's love is much greater and more wonderful in the light of His justice. I bring this up because I have been reading Thomas Oden's Systematic Theology. His comments on this material seem especially fitting.

"Classic Christian teachers warned against emphasizing one attribute [of God] at the expense of another. Just as a good person will manifest good but varied behavior in situations where different responses are called for (and in doing so does not become 'different persons'), so God is an infinitely good One with varied qualities that are unified in the divine character . . . In God, to be is to be incomparably strong. To be God is to be unfailingly merciful. God's way of being is loving. God is all wisdom, all spirit, all light, all intelligence, and wholly just. God is merciful, just, and holy. God is the Way, Truth, and Life, without ceasing to be simply God . . . God is not at one moment unmercifully strong and at another moment unwisely omnipotent. God is always mercifully strong and wisely omnipotent, and omnipotently wise and strongly merciful. Nor is God at one time just, at another time loving, and at another time all-knowing. God's whole being, inclusive of all attributes, is present in each of the discrete attributes that faith recognizes and celebrates. God is fully and simultaneously all these attributes and more than any language could attribute. This notion is interwoven with faith's affirmation of God's simplicity. God is not divided up into our petty conceptions of God's attributes. In all attributes, God is, and remains, simply and completely God."

WOW!!!!!

That is all I can say about this. Take a look, if you dare.

The Sin of Inconsistency

My good friend and brother in Christ, Drew Jones, has written an excellent piece, in which he comments on the commentary of Dan Savage of The New York Times. Take a few minutes and give it a read.

The Sin of Inconsistency

Don't forget to vote....

Tomorrow is an important day. Not because the Republicans might lose control of the House and Senate (which is a real possibility), but simply because it is election day. Our country is completely apathetic about this wonderful, democratic process. This is your chance to voice your opposition or support for the current administration. I am not posting this to promote any particular candidate or party. I simply want people to take seriously the democratic process here in America. Vote your convictions. Vote your beliefs. Just vote. It is a privilege we fought for, and it should never, ever be neglected. If you don't vote, please abstain from complaining. You passed up your opportunity to voice your complaints.

So, tomorrow, get off your butts and vote for somebody.

Just a little more....

Just wanted to add a little bit more to yesterday's post. I just read an interview with Al Mohler and Andrew Sullivan. In the interview, Mohler and Sullivan discuss Sullivan's book entitled The Conservative Soul. Toward the end of the interview, Mohler and Sullivan got into an interesting exchange over what it means to be a Christian and how that effects your moral life. Here is the exchange for you enjoyment:

RAM: Well, we should doubt the things that are not certain. We should doubt the things that are not certain. But let me ask you this--just because when you talk about those who identify as fundamentalists, and you know, frankly, I'm not even going to argue over the word. But you say that a fundamentalist is determined by the text. And I just want to be right up front and honest with you. Insofar as it is possible, given my own fallibility, I want to find what I believe in the text of Scripture. And you find that hopelessly wrong-headed, according to this book.

AS: Well, because the Scripture contradicts itself on many occasions, and you have to have some interpretation of it, which means the text itself won't tell you how to live your life. Only Jesus can help you live your life.

RAM: But how is He going to do that outside the text of Scripture? Where do you have access to Jesus?

AS: Well, the text of Scripture is very important, but you have to interpret it, and you have to think about it in terms of your own life, and reconcile your own conscience and moral reasoning with what it is saying. And that's a journey and a process. It's not a moment, you know? And it's the process that I'm talking about, as I think you know.

I think this is the mentality of much of "Christianity" today. Once again, it is the idea that Jesus is our buddy and works in ways that contradict the way he worked in the past because he has become a "twenty-first century man." Sullivan claims that he is a Christian because he believes in the divinity of Christ. There is a major flaw in his thinking here though. If Christ truly is divine (which all orthodox Christians would agree with), then he would not only be absolutely Good, he would also be absolutely unchangeable (immutable). Well, if Christ is what Sullivan and some of the emerging church and liberal theologians say he is, then we have a problem. Because Christ is now working in a way that is contradictory to the way he used to work. So, he is a liar and capricious; therefore, he is neither good nor immutable. If we do as Sullivan suggests and interpret Scripture based on our own lives, then it is no more than a moral, self-help guide with mere suggestions on living. And, the Jesus presented in the Bible is merely the working out of that suggestion. This type of teaching makes Jesus what Schaeffer calls a "contentless banner." His name is a word devoid of meaning and can be used to justify anything. That is why revelation is so important. Without it, actual, certain knowledge is impossible. Everything becomes a guess; therefore, ethics is similarly impossible. How can you do the right thing when the right thing might be something different tomorrow? It is impossible.

A Prophet?

Recently, I have been reading Francis Schaeffer's Escape from Reason, which details the decline of modern thought from the time of Thomas Aquinas to the modern day. While the book in general has been very interesting, I found something of particular significance toward the end of the book. Schaeffer, writing about the way in which modern philosophy had affected modern theology, stated the following:

"The evangelical Christian needs to be careful because some evangelicals have recently been asserting that what matters is not setting out to prove or disprove propositions; what matters is an encounter with Jesus."

As if this wasn't enough of an indictment, he continues on:

"If what is placed upstairs (two circle theory of knowledge) is separated from rationality, if the Scriptures are not discussed as open to verification where they touch the cosmos and history, why should one accept the evangelical upstairs any more than the upstairs of the modern radical theology? On what basis is the choice to be made? Why should it not just as well be an encounter under the name Vishnu? Indeed, why should one not seek an experience, without the use of any such words, in a drug experience?"

Later on, he writes:

"I have come to the point where, when I hear the word 'Jesus' - which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and His Work - I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word 'Jesus' than almost any word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from those which Jesus taught."

Finally, he concludes with this:

"If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of the Scriptures...we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system."

As I read these passages, several thoughts went through my mind. First, isn't this exactly where some of the emerging church movement is leading us? They have said to us, "It's not about knowing, it's about feeling." They have told us to give up revelation for an experience. Why? Because nobody can debate with an experience. So, their problem is either fear or laziness or both. Second, I thought about the teaching of liberal theology, which basically says follow your heart. If you really believe that your doing is what Jesus wants you to do, then you better do it. It doesn't matter whether or not it is contrary to what Jesus actually taught because he continually revealing himself in new ways to us. Well, if this is true, then Jesus isn't actually truly knowable. Third, I found myself remembering the words of John Calvin.

He wrote in the Institutes:

"Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. . . Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13) but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends."

Well said, well said...