For those that don’t know, I have been widowed almost 5 years, since August 2004. Due to the nature of the relationship with my late husband and his chronic illness for 5 years before he passed, it feels like I have been without a husband for much longer than 5 years. While I do desire to be married again, I do understand the need for learning contentment in whatever state we find ourselves in. Honestly, that does become a challenge at times, especially lately as I have witnessed many unions around me. Nonetheless, I look to God as my source and know that my spiritual walk cannot suffer because of deferred hope.

Of course, I am not alone. I have heard many women who have either been in my position as a single mother or currently are single and have to go it alone, including parenting and bring up the reference of God as their husband, that He has to fill the void of the missing spouse. In fact, I remember prayers that were offered up on my behalf when my husband passed away, for God to be a husband to me. While I do understand the need to look to God for fulfillment, I do have a problem with this particular reference.

I believe marriage is a most special relationship, designed by God for a man and woman to share the most intimate of earthly relationships – emotionally, spiritually and physically. When God created man, he indicated that it is not good for man to be alone, so he created woman. Now, I do believe that that also has a broader application to humanity in general in that men and women are needed to balance out this thing we call life. But there is also an intimacy shared between husband and wife that I believe are unique to that marital relationship. Consider what Ephesians 5:31 says (cf Genesis 2:24-25), that a man leaves his folks, cleaves to his wife and two become one. This is a mystery, the text says, that is analogous to Christ and His church as stated in Ephesians 5:32. But I don’t think this supports in anyway drawing the analogy of God as husband. And let’s be honest, there are certain aspects of the marital relationship that God cannot fill.

Contrarily, there are characteristics about God and His relationship to His creation that are unique to Him. He is above all else and there is none like Him. He is holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, and depends on nothing or no one. Yet, He exercises communicable attributes with His creation: love, wrath, justice and has identified specific relational aspects towards us including,

God as Father

God as Provider

God as Protector

God as Healer

These are characteristics of God that I can look to Him and expect for Him to be. And this is applicable to those He considers His own whether they are married or single. While I can derive these benefits from earthly relationships, only God alone can be truly counted on and fulfill His role according to these attributes, purely and truly. I believe He does desire a particular intimacy with His children, made possible courtesy of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Through faith and trust in what Christ accomplished, we have direct access and can enjoy His presence of God via God the Holy Spirit. There is sheer delight in this communion. The Westminster Shorter Catechism sums it up aptly. What is the chief end of man? It is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. And enjoy Him we should simply for who He is. But it is not a substitute for a husband. And particularly in His role as Father, I have a hard time drawing an equal role of husband.

But you might be thinking of particular passages that cites God as husband. Yes, the Bible does draw a comparison to God as husband but it is not in the context of a substitution for a marital relationship. Rather, it is always in the context of a covenant relationship between God and His people, namely Israel. This can be seen in Jeremiah 31:32 and also the book of Hosea, where Hosea’s unfaithful wife is likened to an adulterous Israel. The identification of God as husband is not used to show that God serves as a substitute spouse but to draw out the significance of covenant and the picture of what breaking that covenant looks like.

So to use these verses as justification for God as a substitute husband I think misses the point. I understand fully the lure to consider God as such, especially since our tendency is to look to earthly mates to fill internal voids that only God can fill. And let’s face it, there are some who might consider it spiritually immature to have such desires, that one should be so contented that they could possibly do without human companionship. No, God does not appreciate idolatry, something that our earthly relationships can quickly become as we place a higher value and affection on them than our heavenly ones. But I do believe such desires cannot be dismissed and swept under the God as husband rug. Furthermore, I think it is both unwise and Biblically infeasible to consider God husband as a substitute for a spouse. Each relationship has a special place and should not be confused with each other.

It is not easy being alone and desiring an earthly relationship, especially the most intimate form designed by God Himself. The waiting gets wary, the isolation can be numbing and the desires can be overwhelming. In these times, it is prudent and fruitful to place an increasing dependence and delight in God the Father, for who He, what He has done and what He has called us to be. I can call and count on God to be many things but I will reserve the title husband for an earthly one, should that request ever be fulfilled. Hopefully. God willing.

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

When I first started teaching the Bible about fifteen years ago, I was given a Sunday School class at my church. It was a “college and career” class. I was inexperienced in teaching and was very nervous every Sunday, but I had such a strong desire to teach I was willing to endure the stress each week. I remember that I had red splotches all over my neck and my chest evidencing my green nervousness. (I still am nervous each time I teach, but just in a different way).

When teaching the class one Sunday (I don’t remember the subject), a certain gentleman raised his hand. I thought it was going to be a question concerning the subject we were on, but it was not. He began to complain to me and to everyone there how much he did not like the way I taught and how, exactly, he thought I should change. I was speechless, embarrassed, humiliated, angry, and hurt.

Looking back all these years I have been able to see his problems more objectively. In fact, I think he was right on in his criticism. Everything he said was true about my teaching style and it did need to change. However, he was also very wrong and he should not have said what he said. While nothing that he said was wrong, he lacked a great deal of wisdom in his tact and approach.

The point of this post is this: Saying the right thing without tact is wrong. This is true of Sunday school or any other venue. We are not only called to say the right things, but to say the right things at the right times in the right ways.

Here are a few things to remember when you are the learner.

You are not the teacher

No matter where you are when you are not the teacher, do not act as if you are. So many times I see people who are looking to spring board off other people’s platform. I have been in classrooms where I know who’s hand not to call on. Some people just take over and want to show the class how much they know. You may have the best intentions when you do this and what you say may be right, but, unless the venue expects this, you are not called by God to teach at that time. I am sorry. That is just the way it is.

If the teacher is wrong, and I mean dead wrong, you are still not called to teach. You are called to respect the teacher and listen. Even if the teacher asks you your opinion, you must be very careful not to dishonor the platform that this person has been given.

You don’t have the respect of the people

You must remember that people have gathered to listen to someone else, not you. No matter how smart you are, people don’t care that much about what you have to say. In fact, attempting to be the teacher will be counter-productive. No matter how learned you are in the subject, your arrogance will turn all the others against you and you will only serve to annoy the audience. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

My wife, Kay, was born in the jungles of the Amazon in Peru, her parents were missionaries with Wycliffe Bible Translators where she lived on a compound with nearly 100 missionary families. Everything that was done there was somehow related to translation of the Bible into the many as yet unwritten languages of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon basin. What has been accomplished among the tribal peoples of the jungles in Peru is nothing short of miraculous. But, transferring a missionary kid who’s whole life has been immersed in an environment where the dominant value of life is the visible furtherance of the gospel among those who have never had even an opportunity to hear, to the secular environment of Western culture is a recipe for crisis, or if not crisis at least for ongoing tension.

When we first got married over 35 years ago, this tension was not immediately obvious. I was involved in full-time ministry with Youth for Christ in Orange County, California. During that time, Kay assisted me in ministering to the high school kids of Costa Mesa and Irvine. When I left Youth for Christ, we packed up our trailer, and headed to Dallas Texas, where for the next 10 years I was involved in ThM and PhD study. In 1984, ten years and one month later we left Dallas. We set our sights on the San Francisco Bay area, where I had been hired as Asst. Prof. of Theology at Simpson College. Her life was focused on the home, raising the children. As the children grew and got off to school. It became necessary for her to venture out into the workplace. Feeding four voraciously hungry boys on a professor’s salary became more than a challenge. It became an impossibility (at one point our food bill was regularly larger than our monthly rent!).

As she moved out into the workplace, the tension of the secular versus sacred raised its ugly head. It wasn’t that she objected to working, but if she had to work outside the home, she wanted to be involved in something that counted for the Kingdom, to be in some kind of ministry work. Many, many nights when she would come home, she would share her frustration. She was working in an office for an electrical contracting company and although there were several Christian friends who worked in the office with her it was still a secular job. It wasn’t involved in building the Kingdom. Several years later, she changed jobs. She was now an executive assistant and office manager in a small financial planning firm. But in some cases, this was even worse. She was faced day-to-day with the pursuit of money and felt the tension between God and mammon. About 2 ½ years ago, she changed jobs again. She is working at a small startup company that manufactures a medical device to deal with chronic back pain. Again, it is a secular environment, although in this job she loves the environment and the people, even though she is the only Christian in the office. However, she continued to feel the sacred-secular tension.

As a student of the Reformation, I have been convinced for decades that the sacred-secular tension that my wife feels and that many who have grown up in the evangelical community feel, arises from a misreading of Scripture, and a misunderstanding of the nature of God and his relationship to creation. Beginning in the ancient church there was a wedge driven between the material and the spiritual with a corresponding wedge drawn between the secular and the sacred. During the medieval period, this wedge became a veritable wall. Anyone who was serious about his or her own salvation became a priest, monk or a nun (speaking in broad brushstrokes here). Also during this period the incarnation of Christ and his full participation in the same type of life that we share faded into the background and He became progressively viewed as the divine judge who condemned humanity for its failure to achieve the standard of perfect legal righteousness. (By the way, it was during this period that the we see the rise of Marion devotion as well as the cult of the saints in an attempt to find a sympathetic intercessor who would get the ear of the righteous judge.) This was the issue that tortured Luther—he hated the righteousness of God for it was the basis on which he damned sinful humanity. Ultimately, Luther discovered the true nature of divine righteousness. It was this discovery that kicked off the Reformation. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As I’ve mentioned many times, I used to be firmly entrenched in Pentacostal/Charismatic circles.  As Michael noted in his last post, that while non-Charismatics have an expectation for God to move in their lives, there seems to be a higher level of expectation amongst Charismatics.  I think that’s true and something that I actually applaud as evidenced in this post here that I did some time back, An Ode to Pentacostalism.  I think that is something I will always treasure and keep with me.

However, during my time as a Charismatic, it seems that this higher level of expectation always resulted in a quest for more.  We needed a greater happenings, more miraculous signs (not that anything I witnessed ever really qualified as such), more healing, more deliverance, more prophecies, generally a greater move of God.  Whatever was existent never seemed to be enough.   Since I served on the worship team for four years (keyboards/vocals), the expectation was that we would serve as the catalyst to make this happen, to “usher in the presence of God”, as was stated so many Sundays.   Naturally, one of my favorite “soft music” tunes to play was Michael W. Smith’s, More Love More Power.  Yes we really did need more of God in our lives and looked for it in external manifestations in order to affect an internal change.

It seems to me there remained a continual state of dissatisfaction that only more could fill.  And I have noticed that even in churches that do not necessarily carry the Charismatic label, but are very mainstream in their approach have fallen victim to the “more” mentality.   The desire for church growth translates into more people, bigger churches, and more programs.  To be sure, I had heard on several occasions that we know God is doing something when the seats start filling up and we outgrow the space. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I heard the song on the radio today. “Angel” by Sarah McLachlan. I hate that song. Every time it comes on, I change it. I usually don’t run from such pain, but I can’t . . . not that song. We played it at the funeral. “In a cold dark hotel room . . .” How did Sarah know? But I listened to more than usual; more than I should have.

My children are 10, 8, 5, and 2.  I wish so much that they had a chance to know Angie better. Katelynn, my oldest, knew her pretty well. Kylee a little. Their memories, I’m sure,  are quickly fading. Will was just two months old when she died. Zach was not born.

I often talk to them about Angie. I recount how much she loved them. I tell about how much I loved her. If I keep her memorialized with my children, she seems to be still a part of my life.

“Daddy, how did Angie die?”

This is the dreaded question that I get ever so often. I don’t really know what to say. What a horrible thing for children to hear were I to tell them the truth. Therefore, for now, it is sufficient to say, “She died of sadness.” My kids are usually satisfied, but not lately. Will will not let me off the hook. He is five and very persistent. “How does someone die of sadness?” He asks. “I don’t know,” I respond, “they just get really, really sick.” “But how do they die?” “I don’t know, it just causes them to die.”

I don’t think I am lying to my kids. In fact, I think that it is the most accurate way to put it. She did die of sadness. She just got so, so sad that she did not feel as if she had another choice. The gun she shot was not pointed toward herself, it was pointed toward the sadness that was in her head. She just wanted it to stop and all the pills and positive thinking were not as powerful as the bullet. She killed the sadness and her body was a casualty of friendly fire. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I remember one time in 2001 my wife and I were driving from Dallas to Colorado Springs for the ETS conference. There was a sign that said “50 Miles to Colorado Springs.” She said that we were almost there. I said, “No, not really. The sign does not refer to the city limits, but to the central office within the city.” She responded with a surprise and smirk on her face, “No it doesn’t.” I don’t know why, it was just one of those days, but we argued for the next hour about this. The argument became so severe that we did not talk to each other for quite some time (seriously!). And you know what? I did not really know if I was right. But her reaction and distrust to my “knowledge” on this issue caused me to defend something that I was not even sure about. Her persistent argumentation gave me resolve to prove my case and somehow turned my uncertainty into absolute certainty. I was now committed to my position. I now had a certain emotionally based belief that I did not have before the argument took place.

Now, as childish and worthless as this argument was, every time we see one of those signs on the road, there is a distinct feeling that resurfaces of an old bitter debate. To this day, I don’t really know who was right or who was wrong. But I could very easily, based upon a commitment of my emotions and time given to this argument that day in 2001, pridefully continue in the same vein without either thinking about the non-importance of the issue or whether I am actually right.

Why do we do this? Because we feel obligated to defend our positions once taken. We don’t like to change. Not only this, but we think that we must always defend our position or we feel that our intelligence been conceded and our belief compromised. It is an issue of pride first, truth second.

Now let’s up the move to something more significant. My wife and I have also had arguments about more serious matters. We have argued about particulars on how to raise the children, finances, and issues with in-laws. We have even had some fairly severe theological disagreements. We could and – I am sad to say – do have ongoing disagreements that have not had a chance to rest, mentally and emotionally, from our pride. When these things surface, it is like an old wound that is opened and the injury that took place so long ago has not healed in the least. If this occurs, we are less prepared to confront the issues because we have not reflected upon it in a self-critical manner. In fact, we usually harden with regards to the issue. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I argued in the previous post that big words are often necessary to communicate particular concepts. I also argued that language, being created by God, is the primary way that he has designed for communication. Big words are not necessarily long or hard to pronounce, but they are words that are technical and precise in communicating ideas, and words that most people have not ever heard of. I encouraged people to use them strategically.

However, there have been some objections that I feel warrant another post.

Some people feel as if I am promoting an elite communication style that does not take into account the “common man.” Some believe that what I have said promotes a form of accuracy that leaves little room for understanding.

Nothing I have said mitigates against understanding. In fact, the whole post is just the opposite. To teach people in any situation assumes the audience has some degree of ignorance of the subject. Whether it is ignorance in concepts or ignorance in words, the case is the same. The point is that if the word usage is limited, the comprehension of the concepts will be limited accordingly. Therefore, we use words to increase understanding. We assess where our audience is so that we can determine the degree to which we define ourselves.

Look to Paul as an example. He used words and concepts that were very foreign to most people, often bridging them with concepts that were already understood. In fact, when a word did not exist to fit his concept, he would make up a word in order to better communicate and articulate this concept to his audience! Now those are words that NO ONE knew!!! Yet Paul valued the use of words precisely because he valued the concepts he communicated.

This process is a gradual progression. I don’t suggest using too many words that people don’t understand in each lesson. In fact, one should limit themselves quite a bit. This is a standard pedegogical (teaching method) approach to every discipline. Just think if the fields of medicine, law, or agriculture were limited in such a way. There would be so low a bar set that all of these industries would be simplistic and/or corrupted. No advancement could be made.

Now you might argue that no one teaches in this fields except to those who are going to become professionals of the same. This is true, but aren’t all Christians called to be such in our understanding and seeking of God? Of course we are not with agriculture! But our call is to be a “kingdom of priests”!

Let us value truth enough so as not to set the bar so low under the assumption of apathy or ignorance. What I have found in my ten years of teaching theology to lay-people is that they are neither apathetic nor ignorant. To assume otherwise is not in line with the way things really are and, more importantly, demeans the imago dei which is present in every “common man.” Have more confidence in your audience.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

My two year old son Zach has just entered that stage where he says a new word or phrase just about every day. It is wonderful to watch, listen, and laugh. The other day he said “Batman” perfectly. I was so excited. I assured my wife (even though I am the world’s biggest superhero fan) that I did not know where he got it from. He just picked it up somewhere—seriously. Tonight at the church while we were eating, he put his blanket over Will’s (my 5 year old) head and said “Where’s Will?” That was awesome. New word every day. No kidding.

Switch gears…

I remember when I first started teaching, fresh out of seminary, I was going to really shake things up. No matter where I taught or what I taught, I was determined not to dumb things down. If people did not understand the language of theology, they would just have to learn it. Like playing tennis with someone much better than you, just weather the storm and you will raise to new heights. This did not last long. While I am staying the course, determined not to dumb things down, I now know that I have to be more strategic.

One of the most difficult assignments I have as a teacher of theology is to convince people of the need to be familiar with and engage in theological discourse. People simply are not used to it. In all our ministries, from Parchment and Pen, Theology Unplugged, to The Theological Word of the Day, I am attempting to be intentional in the ways we bring a timid and intellectually insecure culture to a place where true learning can become a reality. I am still learning—a lot.

One of the most difficult things that I have to convince people of today is the need to learn a new language. No, it is not something other than English, but it is a sub-set of technical terminology that exists in Biblical and Theological studies. For the most part, people don’t expect nor (think they) desire to engage in such a learning experience. In church, we are told that people don’t understand this word or that phrase so you have to speak in such a way where all difficulty in comprehension is removed. When speaking about the “atonement,” don’t use that word. Replace it with “What Jesus did on the Cross.” When speaking about “redemption,” change it to “What Jesus accomplished.” When speaking about “predestination,” change the topic all together. No one is ready for that!

On and on I could go. We live in a time when people are “seeker-friendly” to such a degree that unless you dumb things down to the point where everyone can handle the serve, you are going to run them off. In this, we are saying a couple of things: 1) Even though my two year old boy can learn a new phrase in passing everyday, once people get out of college the have exhausted their ability to learn something new. 2) People don’t come to church or lessons to learn new concepts and ideas, but to take what they have already learned and have it restructured and/or be reminded of it. Therefore, we are limited in how we can communicate.

These presuppositions are completely unjustified and unfounded. I have never heard anyone defend this mentality outside of a desire not to offend people with “bid words.” But the problem is when we take this to its logical conclusion. Why stop at adults? Why not bow to the least common denominator. Let’s include Zach. Sometimes my wife brings him into the service and we don’t want to offend him, right? Therefore, let us preach “goo, goo” and “gaa, gaa” with an occasional “Batman” thrown in. That way we are sure not to offend anyone.

Here are reasons why I still use big words:

1. God created big words. Words are the basic building blocks of language. There is a reason why God created language. It was not so that people could communicate through a minimalistic paradigm, but so, as language is understood, concepts and truth can be further communicated.

2. Big words work. Have you ever had an abstract concept in your mind only to find out later that there was word associated with that concept? I have. In fact, I am continually searching for a verbal articulation of what I am thinking. I remember having an epiphany (i.e. a sudden realization) when I learned what the phase “irenic theology” (i.e. taking a peaceful approach to theological matters in order to stimulate learning in a non-threatening environment). I had this concept in my mind as I often thought about how much better I learn when opposing positions are presented in a persuasive yet peaceful manner. I just could not articulate it. But when the word “irenic” was applied to this, I could communicate it more tangibly to myself and others.

3. Big words legitimize. I often say that when you have a theological word or phrase that comes from the Reformers and you can say it in Latin, the concept that the word represents is de facto (i.e. as a matter of fact) true! In reality, there is a grain of truth to this. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I admit to being a Facebook junkie regular.  Not only do you get to touch base with those to whom you have some connection and varying levels of relational intimacy and knowledge, but there is some fun stuff too like these neat little quizzes that somehow speak to your character.  Of course, its impossible to really target the essence of who we are through a computer generated response of 10 questions and I have definitely been somewhat disappointed at the outcome of a couple (those who know are probably laughing their heads off right now   ).  But I certainly recovered with the last one called Which Bible Character are You?  And the response was King David.  I thought “awright, this is cool”.  It got me to thinking about the character of David, especially considering that he was identified as being a man after God’s own heart.

Anyone who has read through the Old Testament knows that David was no choir boy.  He didn’t necessarily do everything right. Yet David eventually would eventually yield to what God wanted.  He recognized that although he had at his disposal resources to affect positive outcomes for himself, it would all be meaningless if it was not aligned with God’s prescription.

I believe the actions were a response to David’s recognition of God’s ultimate authority.  It wasn’t just about doing everything right but about seeing everything right and seeing from God’s perspective according to who God is as He has defined Himself.  Because clearly, David didn’t do everything right. Not only that, but recognizing that all God had laid out at that time was in consideration of His plan and His purpose concerning Himself and His creation that he spoke in the prophets, through provision of His Law for His chosen people in demonstration of His authority.  So as David was confronted with the error of his ways, He saw that against God he has sinned (Psalm 51:4).  That somehow his perspective had become so skewed that he missed who God was to feed who David was and what He wanted.   He recognized that God was the final arbitrator of truth and justice and alignment to His perspective would enable David to live at peace with God.   David respected that authority.

God has spoken to us concerning Himself, His plan and purpose.  Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that previously He spoke in prophets but then in His Son, being the same essence and emitting His glory so that as we’ve seen Jesus, we’ve seen the Father.  God revealed Himself to His chosen people and His expectations from them through His prophets, which was a foreshadow of His ultimate revelation in Christ.  He moved His authorized agents, prophets and apostles (2 Peter 1:20-21) to inscribe this revelation (2 Timothy 3:16), which we have laid out for us throughout the 66 books of the Bible.  God has condescended to us to make Himself known, or what He has wanted to make known, so that we may ascend to Him in our hearts.  God has established His authority.

Therefore, the Bible is not just a rulebook, a good book or a textbook.  It is His very word handed down to us so that we may understand His perspective on who He is and His expectations from His people.  It is as if, he has tapped us on the shoulder personally and said “This is who I am, that I’d like you to know”. Now I, being a dispensationalist, believe that God has progressively revealed Himself through selected eras (economies, dispensations, whatever) successively building upon a previous revelation concerning Himself and His requirements from His people in each particular era.  Sorry, this just makes perfect sense to me.  And whether you are dispensationalist or not, there has to at least be the recognition that the inspired writings through 40 authors is how God has chosen to communicate Himself, that this hold ultimate authority for who He is and what He expects. It involves reading it in a holistic consideration to determine how each piece fits into God’s overall story that He has provided to us from Genesis to Revelation.

I don’t think anyone wants to deliberately misinterpret Scripture.  Sure, there are those who desire to prove the Bible wrong but I’m not talking about that.  When someones picks up the Bible to read it, I believe there is a genuine interest to understand what it is saying.  There is a geniune interest in learning what the Bible is communicating.

But we all have rebellious tendencies because we have arrived on earth ensconsed in a package called flesh.  Flesh is the principle at work in our humanity that is inwardly focused and seeks to operate disconnected from God’s moral righteousness and demands.  It makes Me, Myself and I the celebrity with a Burger King mentality that will always want it “my way”.  It serves as willing and facile conduit for sin, since sin is the “lawlessness” that rebels against God and will always miss the mark.  Sin operating through the flesh is opposed to God at every juncture.  Unfortunately, I think one of the greatest misrepresentations made to Christians is that a new nature means we no longer contend with the old one.  Surely, regeneration makes us alive to respond to God correctly that is enabled through the work of the Spirit, whose continual filling will produce movement to Spirit-led outcomes rather than flesh-led outcomes.  It’s why Paul says in Galatians 5:16-17 to follow after the Spirit so that we will not carry out the desire of the flesh, because the flesh is opposed to the Spirit.

Therefore, the “I, me, mine” of the flesh will navigate perspective of who God is and how He has defined things, according to His revelation towards an inward focused perspective of ourselves, our opinions, our experiences and yes even our church traditions and denominational affiliation.  We can take the very breathed out words of God towards application that will not only affirm a flesh-oriented rendering of what Scripture is saying but can skew the overall agenda in a way that disrupts the whole system.  I love this quote by A.A. Hodge,

Since the revelation given in the Scriptures embraces a complete system of truth, every single department must sustain many obvious relations, logical, and otherwise, to every other as the several parts of a whole.  The imperfect development, and the defective or exaggerated conception of any one doctrine, must inevitably lead to confusion and error throughout the entire system.

Do you hear what he is saying?  Every word, thought, idea and presentation counts and must be weighed against the entire system for it to make sense.  If we recognize that the Bible is God’s breathed out word to us and if we are at all serious about understanding who He is, His plan and purpose, then that should give us pause.  It should cause us to approach His word with fear and trembling, with a cautious regard about conclusions and a determination to not misinterpret, misorient, misread, misunderstand or misapply the text in order to benefit ourselves, our opinions or our positions. Consider the times when persons in the Bible had divine encounters, like Isaiah, Joshua and John on Patmos.  They contrasted the holiness of God with the broken impurity of their own humanity, and bowed in a humble worship.  This reverence should be ours when approaching the text, that we treat every word, every paragraph, every chapter and every book with tender care, not looking to quickly impose our own ideas onto the text but carefully examining what it is saying.  And this will cause tension and wrestling with some passages but must be done lest we revolt against the very word of God.

This requires submission, which is a dirty word in relation to some topics but is at the heart of true Christianity.  It is lowering ourselves in relation to God, like John says ‘he must increase but I must decrease’.  It is recognizing that we will have tendencies to bring presuppositions into reading the Biblical text and that our flesh will nudge us to the ‘what’s in it for me’ reading and moreover, how can I show I’m right about what I’m thinking.   Submission will cause us to yield to a consideration of the what is being said and lay our own opinions, agendas and need for rights aside.  Yes, we do have a need for rights and a need to be right.  But Jesus shows us the perfect example regarding this attitude:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled Himself and became obedient to death – even death upon a cross (Philippians 2:5-8, NIV)

How much more should we lay aside our rights.  How much more should we be eager to learn, quick to hear and slow to speak.  How much should we have as our hearts goal a desire to know God on His terms and not ours.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

“Don’t be misled by his theology. All the person does is lie. He is a liar.”

Ever heard that? Ever said that?

The other day, I saw a blog titled, “More Lies from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.” Ouch! I did not know I was lying.

I am reminded of the EMF song in the 90’s, “You said to much, and what you said it was a lie.”

The proposition 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. No question about it.

If I was to employ such rhetoric, here is how I might sound:

Mormons are liars. They all seek to lead people to hell.

Roger Olson (who is an Arminian) is a liar. His book about Arminian theology is full of misdirection.

Sam Storms (who is a Charismatic) is a liar. He seeks only to deceive.

Robert Thomas (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.

Gregory Boyd (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. 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 (according to me), they must be liars. That is the only solution, right?

Be careful with such rhetoric. Be very, very careful. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It was in my expository preaching course that I learned it. It was driven into my teaching psyche and intended to become a part of my basic presupposed knowledge of ministry. Without it, all your preparation would be in vain. Lacking this, your message will fail to do what God actually intended it to do.

It is the message for a new generation. It is something emergers know and they know that they know it. It is what  I hear on blogs, read in books, and a continued favorite among those who are despondently depressed and shamed when surrounded by “fundamentalists.” It is pridefully stated as if this epiphany is going to miraculously wake a sleeping Evangelical culture of John MacArthur and John Piper groupies.

What is it?

“Belief is no good without practice.” Wake up and smell the manna!

Sounds reasonable doesn’t it. Let’s put it another way.

“Belief is not the end, it is a means to an end. The end is doing not believing.”

In preaching, it goes like this:

“If you don’t have a way in which people can apply the lesson to their lives today, you have not really done anything.”

Another:

“Introduction. Body. Three points of application.”

A friend said it the other day. We visited a church led by a young seeker-friendly preacher. After the lesson he said, “Now I really liked that sermon.” “Why?,” I asked. “Because it has so much application,” he responded. “That is what I need—application.”

The idea here is that belief, in and of itself, is not the end game that God has for us. God primarily wants us to be active in our practice. Good works, being nicer to people, acting out our love, giving to the poor, self-sacrifice, not cheating on tax-returns, avoiding certain web-sites, bringing home flowers to your wife, forgiving your father, protecting the unborn, knowing when to set down the beer, taking your daughter out on a date, remembering to say “I love you” (don’t just suppose they know), and trading your Hummer for a Honda. These are all things I can do today. This is what we need. Right?

emergentos moschos skubula

(Excuse the French). Nice translation: “What a load.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As Valentine’s Day was approaching, naturally the atmosphere was thick with merchandise marketing and sentimental expressions befitting the spirit of the day.  So it was no wonder that as I was driving into school the other day, the radio station that was tuned in to my car, hosted callers telling of their significant others, the meaningfulness of their relationship and the proclamation of their love for the other.  One person has been happily married for 22 years, another 30 years and another 14 years, all indicating how glad they were to have so many years together.  I thought it was nice, even though I am mindful that we never know what goes on behind the scenes.  Still, the fact that they would get on radio for these declarations is telling enough. Even better, the fact that is was a Christian station, I would like to believe that these were marriages centered in Christ. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

The other day while on Facebook, I saw a status update of one my facebook friends proclaiming the goodness of God and how He will grant us the desires of our heart.  I confess my reaction was tinged with some cynicism as I reflected on my own desires that have seemingly been ignored despite earnest, sincere and rightly (or at least I believe) motivated prayers for God to move in a particular situation in my life.  And these are prayers that I have prayed for a good while now, believing that God does hear, does care and is concerned.  Although admittedly my emotional response to delay would seek to refute this at times.

What is even more troubling is that as I pray for God’s will to be done in my life, there are no guarantees that these prayers will be answered.  Even though Matthew and Luke  record Jesus as saying that a snake would not be offered for the fish that is requested, implying that if we present a particular request then we should expect a response corresponding to the nature of that request.  Naturally, this is not a blanket prescription for expecting prayers that are not aligned with God’s mandates in context of the whole counsel of Scripture.  The contexts of these passages also suggests that the gift of the Spirit is what Jesus had in mind and not necessarily a license for a prayer free-for-all.  But even with these restrictions, there is an encouragement to approach God with our requests but those requests are tempered by the sovereign will and reign of God, which may not produce the outcome we desire. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.

Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.

Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency.  While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a  charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?

The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.

However…

While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I was discussing religion with a gentleman this evening. 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. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. 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. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Having discussed some of the strengths of the continuationist/charismatic position, I would now like to explain why, at this point in my life, I am not a charismatic. I am going to put these in order, but I want to stress the tentativeness of my conclusion. In this, I am not necessarily offering what I believe to be strong arguments against continuationism, but only those arguments that are subjectively persuasive to me. I hope that these arguments genuinely express my position without the normal combative tone communicating “This is what I think everyone should be!”

1. I have never had a genuine charismatic experience.

Considering the relative weakness of any biblical defense against a strong cessationist position, I am very open, biblically and theologically, to continuationism. I used to have an emotional bias against all things charismatic, but I have not had such in years. In fact, I have come to respect and be intrigued with the position due to the scholarship and balance that I find in many contemporary charismatic leaders. However, I have never witnessed anything that I believe to be persuasive evidence that the supernatural sign gifts are normative or even active in the church today. This does not mean that I have not witnessed what I believe to be are miracles (I have seen one or two) or God’s intervention and guidance, but I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the particular gifts—workers of miracles, healings, prophecy, or the like—that I mentioned in my first installment in this series.

Of course I have heard people give prophecies. During my undergraduate, a little over ten years ago, we had a “prophet” come to our school (it was a third wave school) and lay their hands on everyone during the chapel service giving them personal words of prophecy. But it was hard to tell the difference in this and a session of palm reading. The words were so general, a sort of “catch-all”, that they could have been applied to anyone. “You have been through much pain lately . . . God knows.” “You are confused about a decision you are up against . . . God says, ‘go with your heart.’” “Be kind to her.”  Yes, people were listening with tears running down their face, but I could not adjust my skepticism and allow for such a breach of conscious. I though—and still think today—anyone can do this.

If a person is a prophet, they much show some type of undeniable sign. Would God really expect less for the surrendering of my mind? I would say and still will say to anyone who says that they are a prophet or have the gift of prophecy, “Why should I listen to you? What evidence do you bring that you are from the Lord?” Look at the examples of those who carried the Lord’s message in the past. Look at Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul. The dead were raised, lame walked, and shadows healed. I have never witnessed anyone who spoke on behalf of the Lord—the definition of prophecy—and accompanied such with these type of miracles. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Concerning my previous series on divorce, someone asked me for my beliefs about divorce and remarriage.

Can there be remarriage after divorce? This question is not an easy question to answer by any means. While I was on staff at Stonebriar Community Church, I could not dodge this issue by canning it in some objective theological position as I would have liked. Practically speaking, it was always before me. I performed many marriages while I was at Stonebriar. So much so I called myself the “marrying man.” In many of the marriages I performed, at least one out of two had been through a divorce. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #4 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

#3 If I become a Christian, God will make me healthy and wealthy.

During this lesson, Lindsey and I draw from the Bible and personal experience concluding that the health-wealth Gospel is not only a different Gospel, but it represents a different God.

Send post as PDF to

 

 Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because God Will Make Me Healthy and Wealthy [27:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #3 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

#3 If I become a Christian, it will make me happy.

Is this true? Listen to what they we have to say. (Forget Lindsey’s comments at the end )

Send post as PDF to

 

 Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because it will make me happy [26:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!