Our income consisted of four sources: 1) My part time job at the DTS Library. I shelved books. Not big pay. 2) My Indian scholarship ($2100 per semester). Yes, I am 1/8 Cherokee, believe it or not. 3) My family who gave what they could. 4) My home church. This is where the majority of our support came from, but it was very sporadic. Some months there would be nothing. Other months, people would give in abundance. Throughout this time, I tried to remain faithful in giving to the Lord. He was the one who provided and I was determined to exercise my Christianity in a way that gave me more opportunity to trust in him.

At one point we had gotten very far behind on many of the bills. We did not have any money to buy groceries. Things were not looking good. We prayed and prayed and then resorted to begging friends and family for a few more dollars. They did what they could. However, what they gave was not near enough to get our heads above water. Our bills were stacked up to just over $5000. At the end of our rope, salvation came through a $5000 check we got in the mail from just one donor at our home church. Just in the nick of time!

Take a detour with me for a moment. I have heard many Evangelical sermons on giving. I have listened to testimony after testimony from those who had prioritized the Lord in the tightest financial circumstances. I had read the passage about the “widow’s mite.” You know, the one where the lady was commended by Christ for giving her last two dollars to the Lord. I knew all the clichés: “I just keep shoveling out, but God has a bigger shovel!” Or, my favorite, “You can’t out-give God.” And, yes, how about our Evangelical go-to passage in Malachi 3:10: ” ‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘to see if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.’” Test the Lord and see if he does not bless you.

Now, back to my story. I tested the Lord that day. I gave to him of my first fruits. I gave to him before the late electric bill, the car payment, and the bread box. I prioritized Him above my children, wife, financial integrity and all else. I had just enough to catch up on my bills so long as I put his claim on hold. But I gave to him part of what I needed. Why? Because he is faithful. Why? Because you can’t out-give God. Why? Because he called on me to test him.

However . . . Two weeks later, threats of collection, electricity cut-off, and growling stomachs of my family made me wonder: Did he just fail the test? Did I just out-give God?

Ten years later, I don’t have any “success” stories concerning the size of God’s shovel. There are still no lack of stories from people (which I don’t doubt) concerning how God blessed them with great financial abundance due to their sacrificial giving. But no matter how I try to manipulate my own story, it always seems that my shovel is bigger than God’s.

I am certainly not discouraged by this. And, if you find yourself in a similar situation, you should not be either.

Let me list a few reasons, beyond my own subjective testimony, why I believe the “You can’t out-give God” statement can be very misleading.

First, the passage most often used is Malachi 3:10. In that passage, God does indeed call upon his people to test him. They were “robbing” him of tithes and offerings (v. 8). He tells the nation that if they will prioritize him through their giving, he will bless them. However, there are three things to take into account:

First, he is speaking to a nation, not an individual. Notice in verse 9: “You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you.” Therefore, it is talking about national blessings, not individual blessings.

Second, this is the nation of Israel to whom he is speaking, not our nation. Verses 11-12 describe the blessings under the Mosaic Covenant that were/are particular to Israel, not to us. We are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, for its blessings or its curses.

Third, even if we could draw an eternal principle out of this passage, we must understand that when it is assumed that the nation of Israel was being obedient to the Covenant, experiencing its blessings, there was always provision for the “poor” of the land. In Leviticus 14:21, we have a stipulation for a faithful Israelite who was giving to God, but remained very poor. God allowed him to give less than was required. Why didn’t this faithful Israelite have more? As well, there is no indication in Leviticus 25:39 that the poor man selling himself into slavery was disobedient. God calls upon fellow Israelites to have mercy on him and those like him. Further, Deuteronomy 15:7-11 demonstrates that God listens to the prayers of the poor when they are neglected. It even says that “The poor will never cease to be in the land” (v. 11; emphasis mine). And this was under the Covenant!

Concerning the widow’s mite, let’s read the story:

Luke 21:1-4
“And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.’”

My first thought when reading this is, why was she so poor? She was the most godly of the bunch. The others, who were rich, were rebuked because they gave so little. But this poor lady, in her faithful service to God, gave all she had. If this was the state of her heart (rather than the first time she did this), then it seems that her shovel was bigger than God’s, and Christ loved it!

Paul spoke about how he, in his Christian life, had learned to live in abundance and poverty (Phil. 4:12). Paul most certainly was a sacrificial giver. Why did he ever experience need? It would seem that his shovel was sometimes bigger than God’s.

Conclusion

In Evangelicalism, we don’t like the Health-Wealth Gospel. You know, the one that says God wants us to be healthy and wealthy. We rightly call this a serious aberration of the Gospel. We even call it heresy. However, do we not promote a quasi-wealth Gospel when we say that God’s shovel is bigger than ours with the implication that if we give money to God, he will give us more money back?

Though I am certainly imperfect here, I do believe what I heard a pastor say the other day: “There is no greater indication of your spiritual life then your giving habits.” He went on to say, “It is impossible to be a good Christian if you are not giving.” The old saying, “If you want to know where someone’s priorities lie, thumb through their checkbook,” is true. However, I do not believe that we are to give with some idea that the bank account of heaven is obligated to wire transfer directly to our earthly bank accounts when we give sacrificially. God may or he may not.

But won’t we experience “blessing” when we give, even if it is not financial? I suppose. But it really depends on how you look at it. When we give sacrificially to the Lord without expectations, we are acting out the blessing that we already have been given: a perspective that is in alignment with reality. The widow gave because she knew that this was not her home. She gave all she had because she was already sold out to God. She knew that the treasures of this earth are nothing to be compared to the glory that is to follow. If you believe this—if you truly believe this—you are already blessed. The belief itself is the blessing. Maybe God’s shovel becomes bigger than yours and maybe it does not. Our blessing is our ability to trust God. Our giving is an expression of that trust.

We should expect to suffer in this life. Sometimes that suffering will come in the form of financial suffering. Sometimes it will be other things. But to think and preach that there is some guaranteed way to avoid the cross of financial suffering is not a message that we carry.

As John Calvin puts it in his commentary on Psalm. 125:3:

“We are here warned that the guardianship of God does not secure us from being sometimes exercised with the cross and afflictions, and that therefore the faithful ought not to promise themselves a delicate and easy life in this world, it being enough for them not to be abandoned of God when they stand in need of his help. Their heavenly Father, it is true, loves them most tenderly, but he will have them awakened by the cross, lest they should give themselves too much to the pleasures of the flesh.”Similar Posts:

• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: “Will God Protect My Children?”
• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• “Still Waiting for Something Good to Come Out of It” or Here in the Real World
• The Problem with Vision
• "God Comes Before My Wife" . . . And Other Stupid Statements

I was discussing religion with a gentleman not long ago. It was a very interesting conversation in which he recounted to me how he used to be a Christian in a Baptist church. But he left Christianity for Buddhism not too long ago. He explained that the reason why he left Christianity was because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In short, he felt that Christians were on the wrong side of this issue.

This is representative of so many in our cultural Christianity. This gentleman’s argument was simple:

Christianity is determined as valid or invalid upon the character of its adherents.

In other words, if Christians do not act a “good” way, then Christianity itself is discredited. In this man’s mind, Christians were on the wrong side of the conflict, therefore he left Christianity for something more suitable in keeping with the character that he supposed should accompany those who follow the true God.

I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. Here it goes:

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

Did you get that? Let me repeat.

Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

So many times I hear people give excuses why they are not Christians. They will refer to Christian so-and-so who did this or that terrible thing. They will look to the character of Christians and judge, based on this character, whether Christianity is true. Not only this, I often hear Christians who affirm such a validation method. I have heard Christians say that Christianity is validated by how we treat one another.

This simply is not true.

Thankfully, God did not confine the validation of his message to the character witness of sinners. If he did, we are all in trouble. Why? Because your character is grossly lacking. The character of the Christian community is weak at best. The character of Christian leaders is shaky and brittle. The history of the church, no matter what tradition, does not always have a pretty track record.

I often tell people not to look to me for confirmation of their Christian belief. This is important. If, for some reason, I was to renounce my faith, leave my wife and family, and take up the banner of atheism, I am certain that many people would be discouraged. Rightly so. My students would ponder how this could be seeing as how I seemed so convinced of the truthfulness of Christianity before. They would be discouraged and many would be disillusioned. But even if I were to renounce the faith, this is no real reason for anyone to give a second thought to whether Christianity is true or not. Christianity is not based upon my character. While the spead of the Gospel is somewhat dependant on Christians (as God has made it so), it’s veracity is not dependent on the faithfulness of its followers.

Many people refer to this passage in support of such a view:

John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

The idea would be that so long as we love one another, then Christianity is validated. Therefore, we should not do theology or apologetics, but just set an example and Christianity will be evidence through our character. As much as I appreciate the desire for Christians to act like Christians, this is a dangerous misunderstanding of this passage. It places the validation of Christianity upon our character witness. But the passage does not suppose the truthfulness of Christianity is dependent on our character. It does, however, suppose the truthfulness of our Christian confession is dependent on our character. If we don’t love one another, it does not make Christianity any less true. It only makes our profession to be Christian less true. Likewise, if we do love one another, Christianity is no truer than before.

Christianity is based solely on the historic person and work of Christ.

Let me repeat.

Christianity is based solely on the historic person and work of Christ.

As I told this gentleman, “Christianity is true if Christ rose from the dead. If he did not, it is false. That is it.” It does not matter how Christians respond to the conflict in Palestine, Iraq, or any other place. It does not depend on whether you are nice to your neighbor or a murderer. It does not depend on whether all Christians are unified or divided. It does not hinge on your character or mine. It does not even depend on our perseverance in the faith. Its truthfulness is solely a matter of history. Is Christ who he said he was?

Paul tells the Corinthians,”If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Notice he did not say “If you Corinthians don’t promote peace and justice and be nice to one another, then our faith is in vain.” Its about what Christ did, not what you do. It is about the incarnation. While our character might make Christianity more attractive, our character does not have a vote in truth. It is about history first, the rest will follow.

We need to be reminded of this as our country is increasingly becoming  ”post-Christian.” If we ever give the impression that Christianity is validated by our character witness, God forgive us for misleading so many. We are poor, weak, and broken, but the foundation of Christianity—the historic God-man Jesus Christ—is forever strong.Similar Posts:

• "If the Bible is Not Inerrant, then Christianity is False" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Is this a good illustration of our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture?
• The Danger of Inerrancy
• A Warning About Pseudo or “Pancake” Apologetics

Concerning the gift of prophecy (the idea that one can speak on behalf of God in a “thus-says-the-Lord” type way), I have never seen this either. I would love to have God speak to me, or better, through me, in such a way, but he never has. I have never heard the voice of God and have never been his spokesperson other than through my interpretation of Scripture. Although, I must admit, I had a strange occurence twenty years ago. I had a drunk I gave a ride to in downtown Oklahoma City tell me that God told him I was going to be a preacher. At that time in my life, it was a joke to think such. It was not enough for me to think much of, and the guy was drunk!

I could not make a very strong argument that God has stopped sending prophets or stopped speaking directy to people. My theology does not demand such. I have simply just never seen one. However, there is an argument out there that more traditional cessationist’s (those who’s theology argues that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased in the first century, usually with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of Scripture) make to argue their case. It is an argument that I think is very weak and fails to understand the nature of prophecy and the nature of what constitutes Scripture. It goes like this:

If the gift of prophecy is still being given and there are people out there who speak directly on behalf of God, then the canon is still open.

What this means is that if God is still speaking in any way, whatever is spoken, by virtue of it being God’s words, needs to be added to Scripture. Maybe a new book, letter, Psalm, or just a page added to the end of the Bible, this argument insists that a belief in modern day prophecy demands an open canon.

I disagree.

Here is the basic problem I see with such an argument: It misunderstands the nature of prophecy and the nature of the canon.

1. Nature of prophecy: There is no reason to think that prophecy always has corporate or salvific implications. To think that everything that God has ever said is relevant to all people simply cannot be defended. Prophecy can be individualistic. While it is true that the nation of Israel had their prophets that spoke concerning the nation as a whole and the future of the nation and the church has had its Apostles and prophets who spoke on behalf of God concerning the Gospel, the nature of the church, and the consummation of all things, this does not mean this is all prophets speak about. In fact, there are plenty of indications that many of prophets spoke to individuals about rather mundane things such as the location of lost donkeys (1 Sam 9:6, 20), an adulterous affair (2 Sam 12:7), and corporately about issues with no transcendent purpose at all such as acts of God in nature (Acts 11:28). One could argue that these “non-transcendent” prophecies were setting the stage for the prophet so he could qualify to speak about more transcendent issues, but this does not seem to be the case. What transcendent issue did Nathan speak about? What about Abigail?

In the end, while prophets were given by God to speak about issues of paramount importance, they were also given to speak about rather non-consequential stuff as well. Therefore, the drunk who told me I was going to be a pastor could certainly qualify even though his “prophecy” was of no ground breaking importance.

2. Nature of the canon: This is related to the first, but involves a slightly different assumption. The supposition here is that the canon of Scripture is made up of everything that has ever been inspired. Here inspiration equals canon. If it is inspired, it should be added to the Scripture.

But why would we ever assume such a proposition. Scripture is not made up of everything that has ever been inspired. There is very good reason to believe that there were a lot of inspired words from God that never made the canon cut. A great example of this is the early years of the prophet Saul. While were are given some background to his story on how he was called to be a prophet, we don’t know anything about how he was established among the people as a legitimate spokesperson for God. Yet as we follow the narrative in 1 Samuel, we see that Saul considers him an already established prophet due to many prophecies that we don’t have recorded in Scripture. Notice what Saul says in 1 Sam 9:6: “Behold now, there is a man of God in this city, and the man is held in honor; all that he says surely comes true. Now let us go there, perhaps he can tell us about our journey on which we have set out” (emphasis mine). We don’t know all that he said that came true since it is not part of the canon. This is a definite occurrence of God speaking through someone that was not recorded in Scripture. Therefore, the principle “if it is inspired, it belongs in Scripture” fails here. We could do the same with many of the Prophets. Look at Nathan. We barely have anything from him. His most famous encounter is when he indicts David for his affair and murder, but are we to suppose that this was his only prophecy? He was already a respected prophet, yet Scripture does not record his prophecies. What about Christ? Everything he said was, by definition, inspired. Yet we obviously don’t have an exhaustive account of all that he said. In fact, even John says that there were many other miraculous signs that Christ performed which were not written down, letting us know that even signs, wonders, and miracles were not always recorded because of their non-transcendent purpose.

John 20:30-31
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, I think that it is evident that not everything that God says belongs in Scripture. The canon of Scripture is made up of everything that God has said that is relevant to all people and, normally, pertains to salvation history.

Again, I am not a charismatic. I have never heard the voice of God. Nor have I seen what I believe to be modern-day prophets. However, I don’t think that it is wise to attempt to argue for a theology that demands the cessation of God speaking today, especially if the argument’s main thrust is that if God is still speaking, then the canon is still open. This argument simply does not work and is contrary to the biblical evidence.Similar Posts:

• Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open . . . And Am Fine With It!
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 3): Prophecy and Healings

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is illegitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they will see your faith as shallow and fake. By essentially saying, “I have never thought of that,” you have just lost your representation.

Not only this, but you have also belittled the person by demeaning the question. How did you demean the question? By not engaging it, but simply saying “I will get the answer and come back.” Quick fix, eh? How do you know you will get the answer? Is it really that easy? Is it as simple as “getting the answer and coming back.” You are saying to this person, “I know that this is the main reason why you reject God. You may think you are a smart chap, but you are not that smart since I can simply go get the answer and come back in no time!”

I am not saying that we have to have an answer for everything. But this is the point: Most pop apologetics today are concerned with good Evangelical cliché answers. It is not about engaging the issue. It is not about wrestling with problems. It is about “getting the answer and coming back.” Sometimes there will be good answers. Other times there will be many legitimate options. Still, other times there will be no answers, just an understanding of the difficulty.

This is why Christian discipleship of the mind is so important. We need to show others that we are not disqualified due to intellectual shallowness. We need to have wrestled with the issue ourselves. We need to show them that we understand the problems not simply because we have read a question/answer book on the subject, but because we have been in the same place and asked the same questions. We have engaged and wrestled with the question personally. Therefore our answer comes from the depth of who we are, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

Another example: Think about this. You are witnessing to someone and telling them about Scripture as God’s word. They begin to inquire about the contents of Scripture saying, “So many people have different books in their Bibles. How do you know that the books you use are the right ones?” You say, “Good question, I will get back to you on that.” Say what? You have not even wrestled with a foundational question such as this? How real can your faith actually be? That is what is going through their mind.

Or, how about this: They ask you how you know historically that Jesus rose from the grave and it is not just a Christian myth. You respond, “Good question. I am going to find out and get back to you on this.” You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave?? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave???? You, a Christian, are going to go (future tense) to find out why you believe the central element to the Christian faith is true? And you expect this person to follow you?

This comes in all areas of theology. As a Calvinist (one who believes in unconditional predestination) I am often asked many questions about why God did not choose everyone. I don’t have an answer for this. It disturbs me too. But this is not from lack of studying or reflection. I know all the options. I have spend many a night dealing with this with the Lord. Hoever, I don’t have a good answer. But I do have an informed answer: “I don’t know.” Sometimes an informed I don’t know is better than an unreflective text book answer. Why? Because it legitimizes the question (and the one asking) and legitimizes your faith. You have shown that you are a real person, not a theological bot. Theological bots are simply concerned with the “right” answer to everything, not the struggle and the depth that accompanies true belief.

We are not theological bots. God wants us to love him with all our understanding. But our discipleship process must engage issues truly. We need to avoid surface level shallow defenses of our faith. They do more harm than good. And, remember, on some issues, informed agnosticism is the best and most effective position to have.Similar Posts:

• Are We Theological Bots?
• Welcome to the world of agnostics
• The Parable of the Life Preserver
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?
• “What if I Missed Something?”

Consider this story (adapted from a true story):

Greg Jones was an evangelical Christian, active in his church, a regular preacher, teacher and served on the elder board. He says that he was addicted to fundamentalism. He slept, ate, and drank the truths of Christianity. After a decade of faithful service to the church, he is now a professing atheist who rejects the naivety of all that he held to so dearly. Why? Well, as he tells the story, he says that he was awakened out of his slumber of fundamentalism through many encounters with “the truth.” Chief among these encounters was when he finally realized that the Bible was “full of errors.” He describes his turn by referencing the discrepancies that he found throughout Scripture and being unable to come to a way to reconcile them. “For years,” he describes, “I was the best at answering the skeptic with regards to any objection that he could levy against the Scriptures. I knew how to reconcile any supposed contradiction. It became like an art form that I was proud of. No matter how difficult the problem, I could find a way out. After a time, I don’t know why, but I began to reflect upon the lengths that I had to go to make it all fit together. I realized that the art of answering the contradictions became a subjective smokescreen that I raised not only to those I was responding to, but also to myself. I had to be honest with myself. John says ‘No one who is born of God sins,’ then turns around and says “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father.” Which one is it? There are literally hundreds of problems like this in Scripture. My answers may have satisfied those I taught, but they no longer satisfied me. Eventually I realized (sadly, I might say) that I had to let go of the inerrancy of Scripture. Once I did that, I had to let go of Christianity all together.”

This description is a common testimony of many who have walked away from the faith. But this blog is not about walking away from the faith per se, but with the danger of the doctrine of inerrancy. When Greg rejected the doctrine of inerrancy because of his inability to reconcile the discrepancies, did this necessarily mean that he had to walk away from the faith?

Here is the question: Is the doctrine of inerrancy so central to the Christian faith that if one were to deny it, he or she should pack their bags and search for a new worldview? In other words (and let me be very clear), if the Scriptures are not inerrant, does that mean the Christian faith is false?

Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here).

Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ became man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did, in fact, occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.

Think about this: Do we only trust the historical records of those accounts that have an inerrant witness? Are the ancient histories inerrant? I have never heard anyone say that Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE) was inerrant in his records of Roman history, yet we treat him as generally reliable. As well, Josephus (37- after 93 CE) is seen as a generally reliable Jewish historian, but not inerrant. Those who write history books for our schools today do not have to submit a resume with credentials of inerrancy before they are approved by the publishers to write upper-level history textbooks do they? No. Why? Because it is a well accepted understanding that people can give a reliable and truthful witness, even if they are not inerrant. What if we followed the example set by Greg in the above story. Once we find a discrepancy of any kind in any work, this renders the entire work untrustworthy. If this were our method of historical inquiry, we would be completely agnostic to all of history. We would end up saying that all works written by historians of past are complete lies and fabrications, because they are not inerrant. 

Thankfully, this is not the dilemma that is presented to us in understanding history (or any other discipline). We understand that people, while errant, can give us generally trustworthy accounts. Those who hold positions as university professors, scientists, engineers, historians, mathematicians, politicians, and just about every other career must rely upon the general trustworthiness of the witness of other errant individuals.

Let’s take this same approach with the Scriptures for a moment. Let’s assume that the Scriptures are not inerrant. (Please, at least attempt to go there with me!). Let’s take it a step further and say that the Scriptures are not inspired at all. Here then is the situation: the Scriptures are a collection of 66 ancient historical records, given through various types of literature. The records, like any other record, may have errors-historical, scientific, or otherwise. Now that we are rollin’, let’s say that John did indeed make a mistake about the number of women who came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection. Does this make the testimony of John completely false? Does this mean that the entire testimony of John is now wrong at every turn? Of course not! Any historian who followed this methodology would quickly find himself out of a job, for he would have no sources for his research. If the Scriptures were like any other records of history with minor discrepancies, then this would not justify a total rejection of the events they record. Their credibility is based upon the assumption of general historic reliability as evidenced through the rules of historic inquiry—which do not include a criteria for inerrancy.

Let me take this one more step further. The fact is that we don’t even need the Scriptures in order for Christianity to be true. Remember, the Christian worldview is Christocentric (centered around the Advent of Christ), not bibliocentric (centered around the Bible). It is because of God’s grace that we even have the record of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. But if for some reason God had decided to withhold His grace and not record these events in Scripture, does this mean that the events did not take place? Of course not. Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are historical events that happened whether or not we have inspired records.

You may say to me, how would we know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had it not been recorded? This is a good question, but you must first take this next step of concession. Not only is it true that Christianity is not dependent upon inerrancy, inspiration, and recording of the events, but it is also not reliant upon our knowledge of the events. Theoretically speaking, God could have sent His Son to die for the world and raise from the grave and not told anyone at all and Christianity would still be true. The point is that Christianity stands or falls upon the historical truth of the Advent of the Son of God, not the record of these events through Scripture. How God decides to communicate these events, should He choose to do so, is not the issue. I suppose, for the sake of arguement, God could have used unwritten tradition, the testimony of angels, dreams and visions, or direct encounters.

Now, apologetically speaking, there is no reason whatsoever, I believe, for one to reject the general historical reliability of the Scriptures if presented as such. If one were to accept the Gospels, for instance, like any other historical writing, then they would have to be persuaded of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth based upon honest and solid historical inquiry. If they did not, then, in my opinion, their methodology is flawed by other unjustifiable presuppositions such as the impossibility of miracles.

Why did Greg feel compelled to reject the entirety of Christianity because of a few supposed errors? Because that is what he was taught by conservative, well meaning Christians. I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options. These are not the only two options. The Scriptures can be generally reliable historical accounts and the Christian faith still be true.

To those of you who are struggling with or reject the doctrine of inerrancy, while I believe you are wrong, this does not mean that you have grounds to reject the historicity of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God as recorded in Scripture. There are 27 ancient documents that have historical credibility that must be referenced just like any other ancient document (not to mention the witness of dozens of first and second century historical documents that are not included in this New Testament canon). If you reject Christianity based upon your belief of the errancy of these documents, you must also reject all the records of ancient history.

To those of you who believe in inspiration and inerrancy, your belief is on solid ground. But please be careful not to create a false dilemma concerning a strict adherence to your persuasion. While the authority of God’s word is of central importance, Christianity is Christocentric, not bibliocentric. Christ is still Lord, even if the Scriptures were never written.

What is the danger of inerrancy? Making it the doctrine upon which the Christian faith stands or falls. Again, while I hold to this doctrine, I am not even convinced that it is a linchpin of Evangelicalism.

Similar Posts:

• The Danger of Inerrancy
• The Danger of Inerrancy
• Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series
• Is Inerrancy the Linchpin of Evangelicalism?
• A Possible Error in the Bible?

Question:

I have a deep love for the lady who I’ve been dating and I’m getting set to pop the question to her. 

I love apologetics. You know that. I love teaching it as well. However, apologetics is not God. It is not the gospel. No one’s ministry is God. I have told my Princess repeatedly that God will always be #1. She must be second place. I must put her before that without putting her before God. How can I teach and defend the gospel if I am not living it? Part of living it means giving my wife the proper place in my world.

So while I’m on that, let me ask you how you make a division. How do you keep up a life of study properly with a life of marriage? I know if I give all of my attention to study, well she’s deprived and that’s not right. On the other hand, if all I do is give her attention, well we don’t eat. I have to do both. I’d like your insight.

Answer:

Let me start by saying that Kristie and I love each other deeply and we are totally committed to each other. However, we have not had a “good” marriage by any stretch. I am not sure I should be saying this. Not because Kristie would not approve, but because it exposes something that causes me a great deal of shame to reveal. I wish that I could say that I had even a typically decent marriage, but I don’t think this is the case.

Kristie and I are worlds apart. Not only in personality, but spiritually as well. Well, let me qualify this some. I am not saying that one of us is super spiritual while the other is a dud, but that we are different. Kristie has never resented my ministry and has, at times, served as an encouragement. But she is not that interested in what I do. Theology is not her thing. The same is true for me with regard to her priorities. Sometimes it feels as if we are like magnets turned the wrong way. Our relationship is, for lack of a better word, clumsy. We have good chemistry in a very real way (which I am so thankful for), but, from a human standpoint, we are not a “match made in heaven.”

There is a lot more that can be said.

I don’t, at this point in my life, have a nice red bow that is coming in the form of a “but…” I am just giving you some of the background so you can understand my answer. If Kristie and I were to allow our relationship to go in a direction that “seems” natural, I think we would drift completely apart, she in her world, and I in mine. I could very easily say to myself that my work and ministry are far more productive than the treadmill of problems that come by way of my marriage. My ministry could easily get separated from my marriage and become the de facto priority of my day (and it sometimes does when I am in one of “those” moods).

However, I would say from experience that if your marriage is not going well, nothing is going well. Your ministry, insights, and everything else will suffer when your wife is not your priority. And if it does not, then that may be an even bigger problem: apathy. Apathy toward your marital relationship. Solution: Redirect all passion to ministry. What a terrible place to be. Understandable, but terrible.

“But, but, I am doing so much good in ministry. I suck at marriage.” I know how it feels, but don’t separate the two. Your marriage is and should always be your first and foremost ministry. Even if it is not as “successful” as your other pursuits, don’t compare them. Before God, you are called to love her and give yourself up for her as Christ did the church, even if you are worlds apart. Christ and the church were worlds apart, too.

(Sheesh…what self-therapy here.)

“But what if my wife keeps me from ministry? What if she only serves as massive speed bumps to my ‘calling’?”

I try to keep this in mind: God does not really need me. As much as I like to think I am significant (i.e., if I don’t get this blog done, this class taught, this person’s theology corrected, who will?), my family must come first. It is so easy to forget this or to become bitter towards your wife. There is a reason why we are told to treat them tenderly.

Your passions should not be divided, but they often will be. When it comes to the big decisions, always choose your family. When it comes to the big decisions, always choose your family. When it comes to the big decisions, always choose your family. That is something, I believe, you will not regret on your death bed. God has numerous ways to get done that which we felt like we were supposed to. If you are married, your primary area of service is your wife.

“But who comes first, God or my wife?”

Not a good way to put it. Not good at all. It is like saying, what comes first, God’s commandments or God himself. Most certainly, there are times when you will have to follow God rather than your wife, but this is not saying that God will ever call on you to neglect your responsibility to love her in order to serve him. While it is true that you put God first, I don’t know how to separate that from putting your wife first. In other words, you put your wife first precisely because you put God first.

For those of you who have a passion for ministry, do not separate this from your passion for your family. Don’t become bitter, apathetic, or dismissive towards the wife that God has given to you. She is your first ministry. If you do well with her, you have done better than one who writes, speaks, blogs, and preaches for God to the neglect of his wife.

As hard as it is for me to say, if your ministry is not providing for your family, find something that will.Similar Posts:

• What Does Love Look Like in Marriage?
• How My Passion for Ministry Almost Ended My Marriage
• Married to the Ministry? Why Jim Left the Ministry and Faith
• Is the Threat of Divorce Ever Justified?
• Is it Possible to Marry the Wrong Person?

Albert Einstein once said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . so is a lot.”

I have been in discussions with a gentleman who reads this blog and, occasionally, will take one of my theology courses. The main topic of discussion is the necessity of theological discourse for the average Christian. Whether it be big words, concepts, or ideas, this gentleman does not think such things are necessary for the Christian life. He prefers the simplicity of loving God and leaving the rest to the theologians. His basic argument is that such things can and often do take away from our ability to live the Christian life due to their “side-tracking” nature.

Let me paraphrase a comment he would typically make:

“Whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, a traducianist or creationist, believe in soul sleep or intermediate bliss, believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or memorialism, none of these ultimately makes any difference. In fact, these beliefs serve more to bring about sinful divisiveness than anything else.”

In other words, this is illustrative of those people who would say, “I don’t want to know about God, I just want to know him.”

This attitude with regard to theology is not uncommon at all. In fact, it seems that it has a lot of truth to it. It would seem that simplicity in our confession and faith would ultimately bring about the most unity and acceptance as well as provide more energy for the things that really matter. Right?

Well, if you are saying that more knowledge is dangerous, I agree. Knowledge can puff up. Knowledge can provide ground for strong opinions, lack of perspective, and, ultimately, division. But if you are saying that because of the dangers of knowledge it is not worth the risk, I disagree.

Let me give you an illustration that I think provides a sufficient parallel to the current issue. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. Knowledge of what? Well, anything. But most specifically, we could apply this to relationships. When we enter into a relationship with someone, we take risks. Relationships involve us becoming vulnerable. When we allow someone to get to know us, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, rejection, and a sort of Trojan horse pregnability of our heart. The same is true concerning those with whom we enter a relationship. Knowledge about them is dangerous. Not only for them, as they expose themselves, but for us as we put our own idealism about them on the line. In other words, you may know someone from a distance who you have placed on an idealistic pedestal. Once an opportunity comes for you to deepen that relationship, closing the blissful distance, you are entering into dangerous territory. Why? Because now you are opening yourself up to knowing the real person. All masks will soon come off and then you will have to nuance this relationship based upon your more up-to-date and accurate knowledge of the person. This process is certainly reciprocal and it is risky—it is dangerous—for both parties. While new discoveries will certainly bring about joy and depth in the relationship, they can also bring about a great deal of pain and emotional distance.

When the fear of relational knowledge becomes so great that people guard themselves against all forms of vulnerability, disorders follow: schizoid personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder (AvPD), social anxiety disorder. Such people become closed and guarded, hoping that this will leave them protected, safe, and secure.

While people might rationalize their timidity due to the reality of the dangers that are involved when knowledge is attained, this rationalization is misleading. The avoidance of knowledge causes us to neglect a basic need of humanity—intimacy.

I fear that this is often the case when people rationalize their avoidance of theology. Theology is simply coming to understand God at a deeper level. Yes, there are risks, just the same as any relationship. There are risks of misunderstandings, changing your ideals, opening yourself up to criticism, and coming to know both the wonderful and (what might be perceived to be) the not-so-wonderful things about God. There is also the possibility of division and strife as you defend what you believe to be true. But is this really any different than any other relationship?

What I find is that people have a theological disorder when it comes to truth. They are theophobic (theology, “study of God” + phobia, “fear”; or veriphobic (veri, “truth” + phobia, “fear”). Really it is simply a rationalization of some sort of a Theology Avoidance Disorder (ThAD). It is saying to God that you are not interested in coming to know about him, his word, or his truth (at least in any detailed way), but you, nevertheless, want to experience all the benefits of the relationship.

Symptoms of Theology Avoidance Disorder:

• Increasing apathy toward theological issues
• Belief that theological discussions are counter-productive since they often cause divisions
• Isolating one’s theology from their relationship with God
• Separating “devotional time” from “study time”
• An increasing antagonism toward labels

But let’s continue the illustration. Women, how would you feel if your husband or boyfriend approached you the same way? What if he said, “Listen, I want to have a relationship with you, but I really don’t want to know too much about you. If I do, I may be disillusioned and you may not like me. There are also going to be opinions that I have about you may not be shared by others who know you, such as your mom, dad, and brother. Therefore, if we are to have a relationship, let’s keep all knowledge to a simple minimum. I don’t want to know about your past, future plans, or anything that might make me uncomfortable. Nothing divisive. Just give me your name and tell me that you love me. That will be enough.” The answer is simple. You are asking for a superficial relationship that protects your ideals and is “safe.” But the reality is that it is not a relationship at all.

I know that this illustration is simplistic, but it does catch the mood of what I am trying to say. Ignorance is bliss, but bliss is not God’s will for us. He is not asking you to be in a minimalistic blissful relationship that is safe. Nothing about knowing our God is safe in that sense. It will often cause confusion, disillusionment, hurt, division, and distance. But isn’t that the truth of all relationships? They also bring about joy, comfort, hope, peace, and unity.

God has invited us to take the risk of coming to know him. He has revealed himself and provided a lot of information about himself. The Bible is filled with knowledge of our God. A little knowledge of him is dangerous . . . so is a lot.

I am not saying that knowledge is all there is to our relationship with God, but it is foundational. The effort to come to know God, even if we come to some wrong conclusions, is an indispensable part of the process of “doing” the relationship. It is the same in all relationships.

Either way, the adoption of a Theology Avoidance Disorder is not a Christian option.Similar Posts:

• “Belief is No Good Without Practice” . . . and Other Stupid Statements (Part Deux)
• "Belief is No Good Without Practice" . . . and Other Stupid Statements
• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "God Comes Before My Wife" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• “Christianity is Dependant on Your Character Witness” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

*Added to the “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” series. Please note:there is intentional overstatement with the title for rhetorical effect. If you don’t like it, there is a good possibility that anything you say can and will be used against you in this blog and eventually turn into an “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” post of its own

Yes, I got another one of those emails calling me a liar. It comes with the territory. It was not that my particular view was wrong, misinformed, or even misguided. Nope. I was a liar. I was deliberately misleading people. I know the truth, but I withhold it so that I can consciously exchange it for something that is false. The old bait-and-switch.

I am often humored by extreme rhetoric that Christians will employ, but never more so than when people become so loose with the accusations about lying. Maybe humored is the wrong word: it’s a disturbed type of humor.

The presupposition is this: Whenever someone teaches something you disagree with, the rhetoric employed to combat such is accusations of lies. In other words, if someone does not teach the truth in your opinion, they are lying. Period. No question about it.

I have said this before, but let me give the list again: If I were to employ such rhetoric, here is how I might sound:

• Mormons are liars. They all seek to lead people to hell.
• Paul Copan (who is an Arminian) is a liar. His theology is full of misdirection.
• John MacArthur (who believes in ipsissima verba) is a liar. Don’t listen to his lies.
• Francis Beckwith (who is a Roman Catholic) is a turncoat liar. Don’t follow him in his attempts to undermine truth.
• Clark Pinnock (who is an Open Theist) is a liar. He is trying to pull everyone into his deception.
• I. Howard Marshall (who does not believe in inerrancy) is a liar. He seeks to distort God’s authority.
• William Lane Craig (who is a Molinist) is a liar. He has been at the misleading game for some time.

You see the reasoning. All of these people are those with whom I would have some theological disagreements, major and minor. Since I am right and they are wrong about the issues, they must be liars. That is the only solution, right?

Be careful with such rhetoric. Better, just stop it.

I read it on blogs and hear these accusations in debates. It is the default position in the media. Christians—well-meaning Christians—use such rhetoric in blogs, sermons, books, articles, and on Facebook. All the while proclaiming to defend the faith.

According to the dictionary, a lie is “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

There are a couple of things to note here. A lie is intentional and deceptive. It is not simply something that is untrue. There is the supposition of intent with deception to make someone believe something that they know is false.

I believe that there are indeed many times when people teach something that could truly be called a lie. I could give many examples. But when our default position is that when someone else teaches something we believe to be wrong that they are lying, we have big problems.

Four come to mind immediately.

1. Most of the time, people who teach wrongly about something are not lying, they are just convinced of a wrong position. It is that simple. No need to implicate the person’s morality. There are many things that I believe and teach that are wrong (if I knew what they were, I would change). I am not lying when I teach them. I may be deceived by a lie, but my deception is genuine. In other words, people who teach something that is not true usually truly believe that it is true. Therefore, they are not lying.

2. Extreme rhetoric such as this can often be a sign of personal insecurity about our own position and our ability to defend it. I see it all the time. If you are ignorant but passionate about your own position, things are often more black and white than they would otherwise be. I just tweeted this today, “Often, the more militant you are, the less confident you are. Calm down. Be cool. Excessive combativeness can evidence insecurity.”

3. Using such rhetoric is emotional manipulation. The one who uses it is normally attempting to play on people’s emotions in order to heighten the sense of urgency for them to reject the opposing beliefs. While defending what we believe to be true is mandated in Scripture, we are to do it with “gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15). Calling someone a liar as the default method of engagement and evaluation of their teaching is not gentle and shows no respect.

4. It does not really work. Our generation is already suspicious of people’s ability to come to know truth to the exclusion of other alternatives. Rhetoric such as this is a clear sign of hostile ignorance and will quickly only serve to disperse your audience. A few loose accusations such as this and they won’t trust anything you say (or you will have to resort to only preaching to your choir).

Truth, doctrine, belief, and the Gospel are too important to spice up with emotionally charged rhetoric that is easily dismissed. I do believe Mormons are wrong—seriously wrong. But I don’t think that they are necessarily being intentionally deceptive. I do believe that Arminianism is wrong with regards to election, but I don’t think that Arminians are liars. They simply are personally convinced of something that I am not. (This is not meant to say that I believe that the error of Arminians is equally as wrong as the error of Mormons—don’t go there!). 

Main Point: People, including myself, may be deceived, but it does not mean that we are deceiving.

People believe things for a reason. The best way to engage the issue is not to assume intentional deception, but to be willing to study and learn in order to find out why people believe what they believe. You may end up discovering that they have good reasons for believing the way they do, even if you remain personally unconvinced.

If you want to represent your position well, don’t attack the opposition with such rhetoric. The key is to be cool. Passionate, but cool. Then, when and if you do feel it necessary to employ such rhetoric, it will be seen as intentional and serious. People will take you seriously.

Whether you are a pastor, teacher, blogger, poster on this blog or a breathing person (that covers everyone), be careful. This is simply an ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the position) argument. You should be confident enough in your position not to have to resort to such childish maneuvers. Anything else dishonors God as much as you believe the opposing belief is dishonoring God.

1 Pet 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Don’t forget the last part. Be cool.Similar Posts:

• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "God Comes Before My Wife" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements

Premise: We often make heaven such an esoteric place that no one really wants to go there.

Since I was young, I was excited about getting to heaven. We all were. I remember when my mother told my older sister, Kristie (yes, my wife’s name is also Kristie), about heaven. She told her that Christ was going to come someday to take us there. Upon hearing this, Kristie quickly ran out of the room. When my mother called to her and asked her way she was leaving so abruptly, she said, “I am going to get my shoes so I can be ready to go.”

But I also remember having my hopes dashed by something that produced a great amount of guilt. During a Sunday School session, while we were discussing heaven, the question on the table was if heaven was forever, what were we going to be doing all that time. Wouldn’t we be bored? The teacher responded in a way that is representative of many people’s understanding of heaven: “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the thrown of God twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.”

Talk about taking the wind out of the Superman sails of a little boy such as myself! I had big plans for heaven (which included flying 3-5 hours a day). It was hard enough for me to bow down before the throne of God for five minutes a day, much less for all eternity 24/7. Simply and unspiritually put, that does not sound like too much fun. The answer was always the same when I would timidly admit my fear of ultimate and eternal boredom: “When you are in heaven, sinless and in perfect submission to God’s will, you will be perfectly and joyfully content bowing before the throne of God all day, everyday.”

I would think to myself (although I would never admit it), I am not sure that I want to go there. I mean, I love God and certainly don’t mind bowing before him, but 24/7? If this is something that I will enjoy, it probably is not really me in the resurrection. For years I lived with the unspoken shame that I did not really want to go to heaven.

It was not until many years later that this burden of guilt and fear was taken off my shoulders. It was not until then that I found out that “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the throne of God 24/7″ was a stupid statement.

Where it comes from:

As best I can tell and remember, the primary reason why many people believe this is from the book of Revelation:

“And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.” And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” (Rev 4:8-11)

The idea is that, just as the four living creatures worship God in this way day and night without ceasing, so will the twenty-four elders. These twenty-four elders are representatives of Israel and the church, and, thus, all the inhabitants of heaven, including us, will be bowing down before the throne of God 24/7.

But I don’t believe the Bible presents such a view of heaven. In fact, I think Evangelical “heavenology” is in as much a need of a major overhaul as just about any other doctrine. In fact, even my previous hopes about heaven don’t pass biblical muster. I believe with a more systematic and biblical view of heaven things change quite a bit.

Other misunderstandings I have since come to realize were wrong about heaven:

• The eternal heaven is separate from the Earth
• In heaven we will be able to fly (or do anything we want)
• In heaven we will know everything
• In heaven, you will not love anyone more than another
• In heaven there will be no challenges, advancements, or failure

Where it goes away:

I often tell people today that one of the biggest surprises that Evangelicals will have when they get to heaven is not how different it is, but how similar it is.

A few points:

Not “Plan B.” This is the most important thing for us to realize. Our love affair with Gnosticism (i.e. spirit=good, material=bad), finds its way into our view of the afterlife. Unless we greatly qualify what we mean, I think that it is more proper for Christians to speak of the “New Earth”—a physical earth—rather than heaven. God is not on “plan B.” In other words, God did not create all that there is, have a plan, implement it, only to say “Shucks, that did not work. On to ‘plan B’” when Adam sinned. God’s activity through Christ is about redemption, not calling a Code Red. God is restoring all things, not re-imagining all things. Revelation 21-22 speaks about our final abode as a recreated earth. This recreated earth is the restored earth. Restored to what? The way things were supposed to be. We find quite a bit of imagery, from the rivers to the restored tree of life, that mirrors the Garden of Eden.

“Can’t do anything we want? Like fly?”

Why would we think we could? Because it is heaven? And God’s ultimate will for us is to be able to do anything and everything? Although I cannot be sure, I have no reason to believe that I will be able to defy gravity on the new Earth. Gravity is good and necessary now, and will be then. It is not the result of sin that gravity came into being. Why would God move to a “plan B” that does not have gravity?

“But won’t our bodies be ‘spiritual bodies’ with ‘power’?”

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1Co 15:42-44)

Yes, but the idea here does not refer to the ontological quality of our bodies (i.e. what we will be able to do), but the spiritual state of the physical body without sin. It is “spiritual” not in the sense that it will be ghost-like and it is “powerful” not in the sense that it will be able to defy the natural laws that God originally intended, but it is spiritual and powerful in that it will not be controlled by the flesh any longer. The sin principle will have been extinguished. This will be the greatest change we will notice.

What will be the same? We will be eating and drinking. We will not communicate through ESP, but with lips, tongue and breath, following the laws of physics. We will have five fingers on each hand, five toes on each foot, two eyes, two ears, hair, finger prints, tear ducts and so on. All of which will perform the function which they were originally intended. Why? Because we have to have them to function! Again, “Plan A” restored, not “plan B.”

Relationships will take effort. Food will be digested from the stomach, to the small intestine, to the large intestine. If you close your eyes while walking, you will trip and fall. We will need to eat to sustain our bodies (Rev. 22:2). Physical pain will serve as a warning if you touch something hot. We will need to learn before we can accomplish. And so on. There is no reason to think that any of this will change since none of it came into being as a result of sin.

Our relationships will take effort. Our mannerisms will give us away. You will have times when you want to be alone. We will have distinct personality characteristics. Some will be more shy than others. We will not all look, act, and be the same. Some will have greater talent in one area than another. I probably will not (immediately) be able to slam a basketball. Heck, Kristie was not too far off when she went to get her shoes upon hearing about heaven’s reality. I have no reason to believe that shoes are a result of the fall!

In sum, we have every reason to believe that whatever was not brought into being through sin will stay the same.

Restored stewardship. Now we get to the “What will we be doing?” part. Of course we will be worshiping God in sinless fellowship, but this worship will come by fulfilling the original intent. There will be no need to “fill the earth” though procreation (Gen. 1:28), but there will be the mandate to subdue it as stewards of God’s creation.

Christ gives us a glimpse into our stewardship when he tells of the Parable of the Pounds (Matt. 25:13-31). Read it. In it Christ teaches that what you do here matters for eternity. How you invest your life in this age, determines your responsibilities in the next. While salvation comes to all by grace alone through faith alone, this does not mean that there will not be rewards in heaven. Some people will be in charge of many things and some will be in charge of fewer: “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’” (Mat 25:23). In Luke 19:11-27, it is described as stewardship over “cities.” I don’t think we should be too literal with this, but the fact is that we will have great responsibility. We will have jobs. We have every reason to believe that we will have to be on time to work, have certain job requirements, have a certain skill set, deal with others who are “under” us, and have successes (and, possibly, sinless failures). The labor that we do will not be from the sweat of our brow any longer (Gen. 3:19). In other words, we will find joy and contentment in what we are doing. We will all love our jobs!

In these things, we will worship and fellowship with God. Far from spending all of our time bowing down day and night before the throne of God, heaven will be full of varied activities, responsibilities, pleasures, and accomplishments. God will bring heaven down to the new Earth and for all eternity we will fellowship with God the way he originally intended, being his vice-regents on the new earth.

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3-4)

Far from being a place of endless boredom and monotonous activity, heaven (i.e., the new Earth) will be a place where we realize together with God the glory of his original intent.

To me, that sounds much better than anyone can hope. And I did not even have to make it up!Similar Posts:

• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: What Will We Be Doing in Heaven?
• "When We Get to Heaven, We Will Be Timeless" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Book Review: Heaven is for Real
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times

As I have been reading and reviewing books and blogs over the years, my approach has changed. This was not an overnight change, but something that just happened the more involved I became in engaging those who were serious about teaching and learning with intellectual honesty and integrity (something that, I am sad to say, does not often characterize Christian leaders and teachers). There are certain characteristics that I have found in people’s teaching that immediately alert me to the realization that I am wasting my time (which I don’t a whole lot of!).

Here are some key issues that tap me on the shoulder and demand my attention be redirected:

• Overstatement
• Unqualified Superlatives
• Non-Contingent Propositions

Hang with me. I will explain.

This is probably not the list you expected. Many of your lists would include clarity, systematic presentation, grammar and spelling, and reference support. Those things are important to me as well (although you may not have noticed from my writing!), but the above list is what I notice most, especially in presentations and arguments that are theological in nature.

Overstatement, unqualified superlatives, and non-contingent propositions, are related and can be thought of as different ways of saying the same thing. In fact, you might say that they all belong in the same semantic domain that we might call “imbalance.” Once I detect imbalance, I usually have a hard time going on. Think of phrases like these: 

“I am absolutely certain that . . .”

“There is not a doubt in my mind . . .”

“The church has always believed . . .”

“Everyone knows that . . .”

“It is perfectly clear . . .”

“No educated person believes . . .”

“Nothing could be further from the truth.”

And the like.

It is the tendency to represent your case without what many people call “epistemic humility”—a real understanding that you could be wrong. We all have a problem saying “I could be wrong” or “in my opinion” because we feel as if in doing so we are making concessions that undermine our case. We like to give our readers and listeners continued and perpetual confidence in the argument of our presentation. We feel that if we don’t gain this confidence at every point and turn, we have poked holes in our own vessel and that by the end of the voyage, our ship will be sunk. Therefore, everything must be air-tight. There is no room for personal opinion since the subjectivity that it presents gives way to uncertainty. There is no room for contingency, no room for insufficient data, and no place for the legitimacy of the opposition, even to the slightest degree. If we believe what what we are saying, we must justify this belief beyond any possibility of a doubt.

But, ironically, especially in a hyper-critical postmodern world, we give credit to our case when we do represent the transparency that accompanies real contingency and the revelation of epistemic humility. We show that we have a broader understanding of the issues. It evidences an honest wrestling with the subject of the proposition. In the end, when we do come to a conclusion on the matter, even with all the contingencies that we have worn on our sleeve, readers become more confident in your ability to think with integrity and have a greater confidence in your conclusions.

Notice what Strunk and White have to say in their popular book on writing style. Also, notice that this is not a book about how to write theology, but how to communicate through writing. The wise and timeless principles expressed here can be applied to any communication venue (even an argument with your spouse!)

“When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm.” (Strunk and White. Elements of Style, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 7).

Do you understand what they are saying? Once you characterize yourself with this type of imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience. Well, let me say this another way: Once your arguments carry such imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience except with those who already agree with you. The object of your enthusiasm becomes diminished, finding relative balance in the strengths of your other overstatements.

Here is where it gets very important: If Jesus Christ is the object of your enthusiasm, does his death, burial, and resurrection find equal qualification with your belief that your church is the one true church, that the world was created in six literal days, that the anti-Christ is Obama? Overstatement can destroy our testimony. With such a methodology the discharge of the Gospel becomes hamstrung.

Let me back up and say that if someone uses unqualified superlatives, overstatements, or non-contingent statements wisely and sparingly with intentionality, so long as their credibility has thus been established, I will not only tolerate them, but listen to them with a greater degree of interest and consideration. Why? Because they show themselves to be balanced and worthy of consideration.

Please note, this is not a postmodern concession to relativism, for I am not advocating that people hide convictions or not take stand for what they believe. Neither am I saying that you cannot have great degrees of certainty and assurance about many of your convictions. I am simply telling people that if you overstate your case, no matter what it is, I will have a hard time listening to what you have to say. And I think I speak for many.

I would be careful and consider whether or not you are wasting your own time in writing and teaching if these overstatements characterize your approach. We honor God when we stand up for the truth, but we don’t honor him when we misrepresent the truth to accomplish our presupposed agenda that has not been critically thought through. God help us all to use our words wisely, especially those of us who are teachers.Similar Posts:

• Why I Won’t Listen to You (or Read Your Writing)
• Theology is the pursuit of truth, not prejudice
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice
• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements