Angels & Demons

One of my boys has been curious about Angels and Demons lately. He asked me the other day what Satan’s name was when he was an angel in heaven. “Lucifer”, I told him.

On the way to school today he mentioned to me that there were Angels outside of the car, flying as fast as they could to keep up with us and keep us safe. My other son chimed in, “and they are with us on the playground.”

Then one of them asked me, “where is Heaven?” To which I responded, “that’s a good question, buddy.” And left it at that.

Most of us are at least curious, and at time fascinated, with the spiritual realm. We know that Angels and Demons exist; we know that there is more going on than what we see. What we don’t know is what exactly that looks like or how exactly it works.

The popular novels “This Present Darkness” and “Piercing the Darkness” set the tone of the conversation when I was growing up. I remember the fascination that I had, and others had, with the idea that if we could just look hard enough, or distort our view in some fashion, we’d be able to see the demons nearby or the Angels singing along with us while we worshiped. We treated the spiritual realm like one of those computer generated posters that you have to stare through until suddenly, at just the right angle, a 3D image pops out and you have a whole new perspective. Like those posters, the hope is that once you’ve seen it, you can’t not see it.

I remember talking to a woman once who had just lost her job at a Christian School. She was convinced that there was some impropriety going on, and that there were folks who were out to get her and that, eventually, those folks got to the right people and she was let go. As she passed the school, she said, she looked up and swore that she saw demons circling around the top of the school. The school and it’s administration, it seemed, had been possessed.

Of course, this is a person who had just lost her job from that very same school. I gathered quickly that she was extremely upset about this, but seemingly couched her feelings in spiritual talk rather than admitting the hurt. I don’t know whether or not she saw something that looked like demons, or if in her hurt she wanted so badly to believe that she was right and the school was wrong that she subconsciously fabricated something to be true. I doubt that she saw actual demons floating around the top of the school. Not because it’s not possible, but because it’s highly unlikely that the school was 100% in the wrong and that she was 100% in the right, so that they were somehow possessed and she were somehow righteous. If the school was possessed by demons, leading them to operate improperly, then she must have been possessed by demons too, since there was no doubt that she operated with some impropriety as well. If she saw demons floating above the school, I wondered why she didn’t see them over her head when she looked in the mirror.

The truth is that most of us don’t need demons to mess around with us to get us to act wrongly or to do evil. We are fully capable of making those choices on our own, and often do. Even Christians continue all the time to make wrong choices. That doesn’t suddenly mean that a demon has captured them; it does mean that we are constantly and desperately in need of a savior.

I’m not saying that demon possession doesn't exist. If it happened in the New Testament, it can certainly happen today. I don't think that a Christian can be possessed by a demon, however, because when the strong man moves in, the other strong man gets booted (Matthew 12:29). 

I’m also not saying that my sons understanding of Angels was incorrect. Surely, they protect us in the same way that demons surely tempt us. Were they flying next to the car? Are they on the playground? I don't know where they are. What I do know is that the next time I'm praying for my son, and somehow he doesn't slip when he could have slipped or he falls and doesn't get hurt or a mis-thrown rock doesn't hit him that could have hit him, there's a high likelihood that an angel has intervened, protecting the children of God.

It seems, though, that unless there is a specific message that God wants to send to you, it is highly unlikely that you are going to see one. The same goes for demons. We are living in a world that was once under the rule of the Devil, and is now slowly coming under the guaranteed rule of Christ. The Devil has been overthrown. The New Strong Man is here, and the minions of the devil have no power over us anymore.

In the meantime, there's a lot going on around us that we have no idea about. And some day, that dimensional curtain will be torn back and the world will be renewed and this world will fully coincide with that world and we'll see what has been going on all around us the entire time.

But not yet.

Jesus Birth is No More Miraculous than Mine

"I have still less trouble in believing in the miracle of the virgin birth because for me to become a son of God is a human impossibility; this event, this miracle must be repeated in my life if it is to be at all! To be a Christian is not to subscribe to some code of ethics. It is certainly not to subscribe to the law of Moses. It is not to have one's name on a church roll. Is it not to take Jesus as my example and to seek to answer every day the question, What would Jesus do in these circumstances? That is not being a Christian.

Being a Christian is to be a new creation in Christ Jesus. It is to be born again. It is a miracle as great as the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior. If Mary in utter skepticism says, "How can this be?" – that is, the thing is biologically impossible; it can never be – it is equally true that for me, a sinner, to be made a child of God, for me in all my human depravity to have the nature of God Himself imparted to me so that at last, when His work is finished, I shall be holy as He is holy, lovable as He is lovable, beautiful as God is beautiful, is a miracle! Only the omnipotence, the infinite power of God can bring this about. "How shall this thing be?" Gabriel's answer to Mary was, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee"; therefore the child to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God."

The House of Christmas, p. 42
H. Harold Kent

So it was published in 1964. A few thoughts.

30 years later, give or take, the WWJD craze took off among Christian youth groups. Is there merit in reminding ourselves what Jesus would do in any given situation? Sure. It's just not the point. If you could do what Jesus could do with any reliability whatsoever you wouldn't have needed Jesus to begin with. We love to focus on what we can do for God; we fail, almost always, to realize that for us to do anything for God is a miracle in and of itself. It requires a complete transformation of our soul, a complete renewal of our old selves. We are made as new. Sinners made holy. It's a miracle, and we didn't do anything to deserve it, earn it, or make it happen.

I read a recent philosophical statement regarding the existence of God and the chief proof of the article was the experience of those who believe. Part of me felt like this was shaky proof; to be sure, our experiences or what we perceive to be true can lead us astray. On the other hand, one's own experience is undeniable; it is irrefutable; this happened, and I know it happened. So it is with the Christian faith. The transformation is so great and so undeniable that we can only say, "this is true. I believe."

Perhaps it's this low view of our own salvation–in essence, that we don't think it required that much to make it happen–that makes us minimize the true nature of the Gospel. I think it's the reason that the Gospel, the good news, doesn't take root as the life-giving message that it truly is. We're still hanging on to the old mentality that tells us that surely there is something we did to deserve whatever has transpired in our lives. Surely, belief was just the next step on the journey. Surely, there must be an explanation, and it must have something to do with me.

There is an explanation, of course, and it's the same one given to Mary. The difference is that Mary knew the thing was impossible, and therefore must have nothing to do with her. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you", was the angels' response. This thing is not of your doing. It's of God's.

That's how you know it's legit.

Identity & Conduct

Over the last week or so, my alma mater Gordon College has been making headlines because of a letter that was sent to the White House requesting an exemption from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that President Obama was expected to sign and enact via Executive Order. The letter was co-authored and signed by a number of evangelical leaders, including the President of Gordon College, D. Michael Lindsay. I may, if time allows, put together another post with all the links that you need to read up on the issue yourself, including the original letter, the resulting petition from moveon.org, as well as responses from the President and the Chair of the Trustees of Gordon. In the meantime, I’ve decided to put some thoughts to paper (or screen) that I hope will help to provide some clarity if you, like me, are wrestling with the myriad of questions that have arisen as a result of the letter.

It has become obvious to me as I’ve watched the back-and-forth in social media, the outrage by some in the Christian community (and general confusion by others), and the carefully crafted responses from Dr. Lindsay and the College is that most Christians have a lack of clarity when it comes to both the issue of religious freedom, as well as the College’s position on homosexuality.

To be clear, Dr. Lindsay and the College have carefully articulated their position as it relates to religious freedom in the United States apart from homosexuality as a particularly defining issue. This is wise. The issue of sexual preference/gender identity is a defining issue of our day and must be dealt with in the context of honest dialogue and loving relationship. The freedom to have a particular defining stance as it relates to that issue, however, is a different thing altogether, and that is what the original letter to the White House was addressing. Dr. Lindsay and others are defending the right of a religious institution to have particular religious thoughts and convictions, regardless of what those thoughts and convictions may be, or whether or not they are in agreement with the social and cultural views of the day.

(The ENDA, for what it’s worth, would only have applied to institutions that received federal funding or federal contracts. The argument in the letter sent to the White House was that the ENDA would force religious institutions to choose between their religious convictions on the one hand, or the government funding on the other. If they stuck with their convictions–something any serious religious institution would do, of course–it would mean that whatever services they provided to the community would undoubtedly suffer because of the loss of funding. There is a question here about the extent to which the government should be involved in religious organizations, and vice versa, but that is a discussion for another day.)

Inasmuch as Dr. Lindsay and the College have avoided the discussion of the college’s position on sexual preference/gender identity, however, the reality is that the petition and response to the letter were primarily motivated because of what people interpreted–rightly or wrongly–as a request to willfully discriminate against the LGBT community. I’d argue that it was a misinterpretation of the letter, but one that was at least understandable, if we don’t know what the Bible teaches about identity and conduct. That’s acceptable for a non-Christian–why should they care what the Bible says? It’s a sad thing, however, when so many Christians seem confused. But then that is the issue: without a proper understanding of identity and conduct, Christians will be woefully unprepared to deal with culture issues such as the one at hand.

After all, this is the foundational claim being made by those that are fighting for what they claim are “civil rights” for those in the LGBT community. It is a civil rights issue precisely because of the fact that it is an identity issue. Just like society eventually realized that we shouldn’t discriminate against someone because of their skin color (an identity issue), we shouldn’t discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference (also an identity issue).

In other words, we shouldn't discriminate against someone based on something that is part of their biological nature. That is to say that a person who has dark skin is no less of a person than someone who has light skin, and therefore, they shouldn't be treated any differently by society. The same goes for someone who was "born" with a particular sexual preference, or even for people whose sexual preference or preferential gender identity doesn't necessarily match up with their biological gender identity, as is the case with transgender people. Their sexual preference, or preferred gender identity, as the case may be, does not make them any less of a person, and therefore, they shouldn't be treated as any less of a person.

There is an assumption being made here, of course, which is that sexual preference or gender identity is something that is inherent to our genetic makeup; it's something we're born with. A gay person is born gay the same way that your skin color is determined by your DNA. And while Christians have in some instances tried to make the case that it is not genetic, I don’t think that argument is helpful nor even particularly intelligent. Firstly, the question of whether or not there is a “gay gene” in a person’s DNA is a scientific question requiring scientific methodology, observation, and inquiry. Secondly, in the end, it doesn’t matter for the Christian perspective.

In any event, culture at large believes that identity will necessarily lead to conduct. Or, belief will lead to behavior. And while we as a society don’t believe in discriminating against people based on their identity, we all agree that we should be able to discriminate against people based on their conduct. That is to say that we typically wouldn’t deny service to someone in our restaurant for looking a certain way, but we would discriminate against someone if they entered into our establishment and began screaming, shouting, and generally acting unruly and obnoxious. In most cases, we would not just refuse service, but we would forcibly remove them, regardless of what they looked like. We discriminate based on behavior all the time, either because we think the behavior is dangerous or because we just don't like it.

(I was almost discriminated against on a golf course because I didn't realize that I couldn't drive the golf cart across the par-3 fairway. Unfortunately, as I sped across the grass, blissfully ignorant, the ranger spotted me and gave me a tongue lashing. He could have kicked me off the course because of my behavior.)

What we recognize as a culture is that conduct is directly related to our identity, or our behavior demonstrates what it is we really believe. And, in many cases, we reserve the right to discriminate against you if your behavior (or conduct) indicates that you weren’t who you said you were (identity), or don’t believe what you said you believe. Just ask the NBA.

The NBA recently made clear to Donald Sterling that people like him weren't allowed in their club; he wasn't allowed to be a part of their establishment. You'd be hard pressed to find a person who thinks that the NBA's discrimination towards Sterling was not warranted; what he said was extremely offensive and shockingly obtuse. What we'll discover in short order, however, is whether or not it was legal. Most people think it was. The reason? Donald Sterlings behavior was contrary to the code of conduct set forth by the NBA and the NBA owners, a constitution that he himself agreed to. He claimed, in principle, to believe what the rest of the NBA and the owners believed. Unfortunately, his actions proved otherwise. And based on those actions, the NBA felt justified in removing him from involvement in their organization.

Identity necessarily leads to conduct. That’s the point. Our conduct reveals who we really are. How can we force someone to behave contrary to who they are? To do so would not only be cruel, it would effectively be impossible. And as Christians, we should whole-heartedly agree. Our conduct will necessarily follow our identity; that is exactly what the Bible teaches.

The central theme of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that we don’t need a change in conduct, we need a change in identity. Only once our identity is changed will our conduct be changed. Our behavior will follow our beliefs, and not the other way around. So fellow Christian, do not miss what the Bible teaches about you: your identity is found in Christ. This is the dramatic overhaul that has happened in you, through the Holy Spirit, because of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross.

This is the reason it really doesn’t matter whether our sexual preferences are genetic or whether or not they are learned. Christianity teaches that all of our desires–genetic or learned–are going to be warped. We have a tendency (and more than just a small tendency) to want to do things our own way, to make ourselves the center of the world, to have all choices and decisions revolve around us, and largely, to ignore anything or anyone that says differently, including, even, a creator God. At least we're all on the same page, rebellious people that we are. It’s our natural-born identity.

What does matter, however, is that we have been renewed by the Holy Spirit so that our identity is no longer found in our nature, it is found in our spirit. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation!” (2 Cor. 5:17) This doesn’t mean that our natural-born self suddenly disappears. Far from it! It does mean, however, that because our very identity has changed, our conduct will no longer be forcibly driven by our nature. Since our identity has been changed, by grace, it will become increasingly obvious in our conduct and how we behave.

The standards of conduct set forth by an institution like Gordon College seek to articulate what that obedient life looks like, an obedient life that is only made possible because of our new identity in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. For example, the Bible articulates God’s ideal for sex and marriage as being between one man and one woman in an unbreakable covenant relationship. Thus, anything outside of that would be considered outside of God’s ideals, and thus, "disobedient", including viewing pornography (also prohibited in the standards of conduct, if I remember correctly) and extra-marital sex. The Christian person who finds their identity in Christ may be tempted towards those things because of our nature, but won’t continue to find them compulsory. Their identity in Christ means that they can choose God’s ideals, and in fact, will desire God’s ideals, based on that identity, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Lindsay, and the Chair of the Trustees, carefully articulated in their letters what all Christians should believe: we do not discriminate based on people’s fundamental nature, because Jesus does not discriminate based on our fundamental nature. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...” (Romans 3:23) Yet they also made clear that there is a discriminatory marker, and that is our conduct. If a staff member or a student consistently conducts himself in a manner that is contrary to the schools standards, based on the college’s view of what the Bible teaches as an obedient lifestyle, they may face discipline or removal. It is a code of conduct which every faculty member and student agrees to at the time of hiring or admission.

What they didn’t articulate was that the reason for this is because of the deeper issue related to identity. The very reason that Gordon can discriminate based on conduct is because conduct reveals who a person really is. Is your identity really found in Christ? It will show through in your conduct and your desires and your ability to be obedient. Imperfect obedience, of course. The Christian life is a life of repentance, not perfection. But our new identity will compel us closer to obedience, and not further away from it. So, as one reformer said, “the greatest perfection of the Christian is the desire to make progress...”

The bottom line is that without Jesus, and the new identity that we receive through faith, we are completely powerless to choose against our biological impulses and our biological nature. But we have a new identity, and we are not powerless, and as a result, we can live a life of obedience to God and his word even when it goes against everything that culture tells us or that culture believes. It’s not cruel to ask the Christian person to choose against their old nature; in fact, it’s cruel to ask them to choose against their new nature! That is who they really are now, because of Jesus Christ.

I don’t expect the world, at large, to understand that. But I hope and pray that we Christians do.

Colossians 3.

A Special Place in Hell

Every time I hear someone use the expression, "a special place in hell", I cringe a little inside.

We use it in reference to someone who we believe is particularly deplorable; someone who has done something that we can't possible imagine. Surely, this person is worse than we are. Surely, out of all the bad people, this one deserves more punishment than the rest. Surely, if God is going to subject anyone to an eternity of torture, this one here deserves it more than the rest. So much, in fact, that they must be given a special place. Like a back room. Where extra torture happens.

Unfortunately, I think the statement says more about us than it does about the person that we're referencing. At very least, it reveals a lot about what we believe. For one, it reveals that we believe, in some sense, that there are universal standards of right and wrong. We don't exact this type of judgment on just anyone; we reserve it for those people who have done something that we fairly assume will universally be condemned. Of course, there is also the self-righteousness of the whole thing. Clearly we believe that we have a higher moral or ethical standing than the person we have condemned to the back room. Finally, it reveals our complete misunderstanding of who God is, what he's up to these days, and what hell actually is.

Out of the three, it is only the first one that is at least mildly constructive. We live in a day and age when we are increasingly embracing the idea that there are no universal absolutes; indeed, all morality or ethics are relative to the culture that we live in. In other words, something we consider deplorable might be perfectly acceptable in another culture; and thus, a person practicing those acts cannot be considered "evil" or "wrong" so long as they are operating according to the morality or ethics subscribed to by their culture. Most people don't live with this philosophy for very long before they realize the major pitfalls and ethical dilemmas that it raises. (For example: bombing innocent people. Maybe we are the only ones who think they are innocent. Maybe someone else thinks they are guilty. It's all relative, isn't it?) The failures of cultural relativism become clear in light of particularly deplorable acts, and we acknowledge it with statements like "a special place in hell". To that end, it is constructive. But it is only the beginning of the unraveling.

The second problem immediately arises when we consider that somehow we are morally or ethically superior to someone else. By what standard? If it cannot be a cultural standard, and there are absolutes that we inherently acknowledge, then what is the basis for those absolutes? Who gets to create those absolutes? Who enforces the absolutes? And how do we know what they are?

This is the great question that will come home to bear on our culture. As Christians, I believe we must be prepared with an answer. So often we have resorted to simplistic responses–"just believe in Jesus", "Just invite Jesus into your heart"–and have failed to address the very real and deep questions faced by humanity. But Christianity is nothing if it cannot address the deep, spiritual questions that each of us, as spiritual creatures, carry within us like a constant reminder of a life once lived.

When my philosophies have proved to be a failure; when my resources have not provided me what I am looking for; when my success has not made me feel any more important; when my pursuits have not provided me love; when, in the end, I am still unhappy, where do I turn? We can mute the questions for a time, but we cannot ultimately ignore them. At some point, even if for a moment, they return to the surface and beg to be answered.

Christianity provides an answer. There is an absolute, and it was created and established by the God of the Universe. But this God is not a dictator who creates the absolute for his own enjoyment; he is a Father who creates the world a certain way for his children's enjoyment. And the absolute are not rules, per se. Not as we think about rules. They are simply the way things are. God is perfect and good and holy and beautiful, and anything that is not perfectly in harmony with goodness or holiness or beauty simply cannot exist. It cannot be one with the Father. So long as we are in perfect harmony with all that God is by his very nature, we exist in perfect joy. This is the description of how things were upposed to be.

It is that very union that was broken. Broken, as the Bible says, by representatives of the human race. Instead of living in the perfect unity that we had with the Father, we instead opted out; we chose our own way. Something else looked to be more beautiful and more good; but when we experienced it, we realized that we had been deceived. The promise of a greater beauty or a greater good was a lie; it could never exist; it could never deliver what it promised.

The result of this broken unity is disunity. It's disordered living. It's a disruption in the way that things were intended to be. Rather than harmony, we have chaos. Rather than goodness and beauty, we see evil and ugliness. Everything that was, the way things were really intended to be, was broken. And worse, imperfection can never achieve perfection again. Even if it could to some extent, it would carry around the memory of it's brokenness. Perfection will require outside intervention.

All of this explains how things are. Yes, there is disruption in the universe. Yes, there are absolutes. Yes, there is evil. Yes, there is brokenness. We see it, experience it, and all to often, know it in an intimate way either as the perpetrator or the victim. Most of the time, we are a combination of both. Our feet are firmly planted in how things are; firmly rooted in rebellion against how things were supposed to be.

So there is no morally superior ground. Imperfect is imperfect. One flaw or many. In broad categories, the label reads the same: damaged goods. And we have been experiencing the penalty ever since: separation from our Father. In short, we have been experiencing the precursor to hell.

Whatever else Hell is, it begins with this: complete and utter separation from God. The natural outcome of the divorce from his perfection, goodness, and holiness. Complete brokenness. There are no "special places" in hell. Everyone suffers the same fate. There is no worse thing imaginable than complete separation from our source of life. It couldn't get worse even if we wanted it to.

But the good news is that there is a way home; there is another representative who did for us what we were always supposed to do, but couldn't. Another representative who bore the penalty of our rebellion, and suffered Hell on our behalf. Another representative who chose not to opt-out of God's goodness, but rather, chose to endure extreme pain and ultimately separation so that you and I could opt back in. That representative, of course, is Jesus. And because of his sacrifice, as your representative, God judges you based on him. So when God sees you, he sees perfection. You are united with him again. The way things were supposed to be has come again, and you can have it.

Imagine that the memory of the life once lived was a memory of pure joy; you know you had it once, and you have been struggling to find it again ever since. Jesus is the pathway home.

So back to the original impetus for this thought: a special place in hell. 

There is no special place in hell. None of us are superior to anyone else and in fact, what we deserve is, across the board, exactly the same: we deserve total and complete separation from God because this is what we chose, it's what we choose, and it's what we will continue to choose for as long as we have breath. We will choose our own way. The path where we get to decide what's best. There's only a back room in hell reserved for the worst of us if it's big enough to hold all of us.

But there is a special place in heaven reserved for Jesus. And the good news is that it actually is big enough to hold all of us. But we only get in with Him. When we go to Jesus house with him, his Father adopts us as his kids and gives us a room.

Jesus is not interested in condemning people to hell; he is supremely interested in inviting them to heaven. The great and beautiful message of the Gospel is that he has already secured the pathway and ensured a safe passage for all who put their confidence in Him.

More Than One Question

If I could encourage you in one way, it might be this, that you not approach God with a single question and then seek to determine what you think about God based on his answer to that question.

Far too many of us approach God this way, with our single question in hand, a test for God, if there ever was one, to see if he measured up to our ideas of what he should be like. Based on his response we then determine whether he is worth our love.

The problem with this approach is that it is too simplistic. If there really is a God, it would be impossible to know everything that there is to know about him from a single question. Further, I wouldn’t even want someone to judge my worth–and certainly not base their love for me–on any single question they may ask, no matter how positively I can answer the question! If before I were married my future wife came up to me and said, “do you like ice cream?” and I responded that I did, she may love me for the moment but be quite disappointed when she finds out that I don’t like having a conversation after 7 pm. If my desire for ice cream were the only thing true of me, or at least, the only thing she knew to be true of me, then her love would be so incomplete for me that it is only marginally better than no love at all. Indeed, it may even be worse, since her knowledge of me is so small that there is a high likelihood that, in the future, she will find out things about me that she will eventually grow to hate.

On the other hand, she may ask me a much more important question than my regards for ice cream. For example, she might ask me if I ever get very angry. And I would have to respond that I did, at times, get extremely angry. I may yell and curse when I get angry, although it is not the norm. If my future wife determined that I was not worth loving because of the way I answered that singular question, it would be just as tragic or worse than if she loved me based solely on my affinity for ice cream. Her knowledge remains incomplete; she cannot possibly understand me based on whether or not I like ice cream or whether or not I ever got angry.

Too often we approach God with singular questions intended to call him out, or characterize him into someone we can understand. Sometimes we do it so we can love him based on his answer, sometimes we do it because we already hate him, but it would be much easier if we had a reason. At best, the questions are a reflection of our heart; they cannot reflect the full truth of God.

If I were to approach God and ask him if he could ever forgive me, for example, the answer would be a resounding ‘Yes!’ Yes, he can forgive you! But to ask that question, no matter how positive the response, is to have a severely limited view of God. It may be the answer we were looking for, and even hoping for, but it is not the answer we ultimately need. Knowing that forgiveness is possible is an entirely different proposition than knowing how to attain that forgiveness; knowing that God can forgive without knowing how or why he forgives is incomplete. And, much the same as my wife loving me based on ice cream is dangerous, so loving God with such an incomplete knowledge of God is dangerous as well. For if I leave his presence and all I know is that he can forgive, but I forgot to ask him how, then it may be that I will never receive the forgiveness that I had been inquiring about in the first place.

I may also approach God and attempt to force him into a corner. How many would love to question whether or not God brought about the latest suffering, or the cancer, or allowed their sibling or parent to die at such a young age? We approach him with indignation and demand from him, “did you let this happen?” When he answers “yes”, as we assumed He would, there is no need for further questioning. That one answer gave us all that we need to know; we have no interest in a God who would allow that type of pain in our lives.

The problem is in our assumption that God’s knowledge is as limited as our knowledge. Our rationale goes something like this: If I cannot possibly picture a reason why this suffering may have come upon me, then it must not possible that there is a reason at all. My future spouse would be operating according to that rationale if she chose not to give me a chance after finding out that I sometimes get very angry. The problem, of course, is that she may not know why I get angry, nor has she even considered the possibility that there may be a reason for someone to be very angry. She has made her choice; she cannot picture a reason for someone to ever get angry, and so a reason must not exist. In the same way many of us miss out on God because we don’t like his answer to a singular question. We hear his answer and determine that it’s all we need to know. God is not worth our time.

And so we’re back at the beginning: do not approach God with one question that you believe will be the silver bullet for determining whether or not God is someone who should be loved. Rather, ask the deeper questions; the ones that lay beneath your desire to have an answer to the one you think is so pressing. Perhaps there is more to God than you originally thought. Perhaps he loves you more than you know. Perhaps the answer to the question you once thought so important that it could not wait will eventually be found to be meaningless, in light of the wonder of who God really is.

Are you willing to find that out?

The Fallacy of a Dying Church

Here is some language that we should stop using: "dying church".

Let's get this straight: the church of Jesus Christ is always alive. Let's not lose focus on what the church is. It is the gathered body of people made alive through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a work that is compelled by and empowered by God through his Holy Spirit. The very definition of the church cannot be extricated from life itself; if it is, you no longer have the church.

So why do we call churches that are in decline "dying churches"? It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the church. Our problem is that we too closely associate the church of Jesus Christ with our local church, assuming that the two are one-and-the-same. While the church-local is built on and a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ, it nevertheless contains a wide variety of human elements, both cultural and systemic. Life, for those portions, is no guarantee. In fact, if there is a guarantee, it is that at some point in the future, both our systems and our cultural expression will become irrelevant, and thus, highly susceptible to collapse.

The first step is to make the distinction between those elements of the church that are "man-made" in their origin, and those that are "divine" in their origin. Only when we do that will we become comfortable with the changes that are necessary in the human realm, while holding fast to the life-giving elements of the church, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What I've seen is that many churches, in an effort to simply survive, will sacrifice the Gospel or the advance of the Gospel for the sake of the local church. While they may desire to grow and be "healthy", it is only trumped by their desire to make sure things can continue to be done the way they've always been done. Change is scary; risk is scarier. If we change, we risk making a mistake that will ultimately destroy "everything we've created" (see the problem?); if we don't change, not only do we remain comfortable but we mitigate the risk. If there is any risk, it's far enough down the road that we're not worried about it.

Incidentally, this is why most organizations that ultimately close their doors are on the path to closure long before they think they are. Organizations grow, stabilize, and then plateau. It's in that plateau period where the choice is often made to remain in a state of comfort and not "rock the boat"; unfortunately, that's usually the first step towards a long, slow, steady decline that won't be evident until the gentle slope has turned into a cliff and there is almost no turning back.

The good news for the church is that we aren't, or shouldn't be, afraid of organizational collapse. We're not selling a product that needs to be revamped, lest we lose our lifeline. We're preaching an unchanging Gospel that is our lifeline. When we wrap our heads around that, and realize that the lifeblood of the church goes on and on and on and grows and grows and grows no matter what happens to our little expression of the church, we become much more open to letting go of the human elements of the local church and living in the comfort and grace of the Gospel.

The church is not dead, she is alive! That's the confidence we have in the Gospel. And that's the message we need to proclaim.

On Baptism - Does God have Grandchildren?

Here's a slippery wicket: does God have grandchildren?

Most orthodox Christians believe that there must be a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a person before they are finally admitted into the family of God. This work is described in various ways all throughout the New Testament but refers to that moment of moving from unbelief to belief. This work is compelled by, and accomplished by, the Holy Spirit working in our hearts. When that regenerative work occurs, we move from being an old creation to a new creation, or from death to life, or from darkness to light, or any number of other metaphors that are used in the Bible to describe the difference between our former state and our new state. Again, the regeneration is necessary, and it is a work of the Holy Spirit.

This is important: you don't get into the kingdom or family of God just because you are born into a Christian family with Christian parents. There must be a personal belief–putting ones confidence in the work of Jesus Christ for their own salvation–likely followed by some form of profession.

If memory serves me correctly, it was Billy Graham who either coined or popularized the phrase that "God does not have grandchildren." His point was to emphasize the importance of making a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ; it was this "personal profession" that would indicate that a person possessed saving faith. In that sense, he is correct: God does not have grandchildren. He simply has children, all of whom have professed faith in Jesus Christ.

But what about the children of believing parents? Here we are left with three options.

The first option is that they, too, are Christians, or children of God. There are a multitude of problems with this, beginning with the aforementioned need for regeneration, and ending with the plethora of kids who have unfortunately been born to Christian parents who have then lived a life that ultimately professed a radically different belief. It is clear that simply being born into a Christian family is not enough to save; we must still admit our need for a savior and put our own confidence in Jesus Christ.

The second option is that these children are not Christians at all, but totally pagan, unregenerate, unbelievers, and far from God. We'll deal with this in a moment.

The third option is that these children are in some sort of a different category altogether. Perhaps not "regenerated" and thus fully saved, but not quite pagan, either.

Most Christians fall into the third category, at least in practice. Our children are raised to call Jesus, "Lord". They are raised to call God, "Father". They are taught to follow Jesus, to share Jesus with their friends, to live for Jesus, to pray to Jesus, and to abide by God's word. Of course, we wouldn't require (or should not require) any of these things for a person who was legitimately an unbelieving person. We may want them to live according to God's ideals, we may appeal to them on behalf of Christ, but we will only expect them to actually live that way once they have put their faith in Christ, have been transformed by the Holy Spirit, and genuine love for God and love for their neighbor is actually possible. To force a non-believing person to "act like a Christian" would be to create some sort of moralist, ethical behavior, that is not in any way based on the Gospel. We might create nice people, but not Christians.

But, of course, most of us don't view our children as being exactly the same as unbelievers. We recognize that by virtue of being raised to Christian parents who love Jesus, and teach Jesus in their homes, and call God "Father" themselves, our children receive some sort of benefit of being amongst the people of God. They are treated like they are a "part of the family", even if they haven't been able to profess Jesus Christ on their own. We look forward to the day when they will make that profession, but until then, our confidence is placed fully in Jesus that he will save our children, so we teach them to love Jesus as their savior so that they are prepared to hear his voice when he calls.

So what does that have to do with baptism?

We believe that baptism is a sign of the new covenant. This New Covenant is instituted through Christ's shed blood on the cross, thus making a way for all people to access the family of God through faith in Jesus Christ and confidence in his work on their behalf. Thus, baptism is ultimately a symbol of association with Jesus Christ in his life, death, and resurrection; this is the association that makes the covenant community the covenant community. It is the reason that when we practice adult baptisms, and an adult "receives the sign of the covenant", that we practice baptism by immersion into water. The imagery of the descent into the water and the reemergence from it reminds us that we have been buried with Christ and will rise with Christ–again, through association with his life, death, and resurrection, in faith.

The promises don't stop there, however. We also believe that when Peter told the Jewish people (and visiting foreigners in Jerusalem) that the promises of the Gospel were for them and their children, that he meant it exactly the way they would have taken it. If they, in faith, believed in the promises of God, then their children would receive the benefit of being raised in that covenant family as well. And, additionally, that if their children believed, then they, too, would ultimately receive salvation. In the meantime, the children would be raised to be "part of the family".

It is precisely because these children are considered to be "part of the family" that we baptize our infants, pointing towards Christ as the ultimate means of salvation, yet fully living in the grace of God that our children will be raised as a part of his covenant family. Our children, too, can call God, "Father". They will be taught to abide by His word and to love Jesus as their savior. In the meantime, we continually pray that Jesus would do the difficult work of transforming their hearts by sending the Holy Spirit so that they become a "new creation", through faith in Jesus Christ. When that happens, then we celebrate with them at their profession; what we are celebrating is not something that they have done, but something that God has done, and something we always believed he would.

Furthermore, we see these great promises of God towards his people all throughout Scripture. As we baptize our children because they will be raised as "part of the family", so Abraham circumcised his infants, and even the other adult males living in his house. Abraham's faith in the promises of God, and his dedication to the commands of God, would extend, in some way, to the people who lived under his roof. It wasn't a guarantee of salvation, (Remember Esau?) but it wasn't exactly the same as being outside the family either. Instead, Isaac, and all of his children, and their children, were considered to be part of the "covenant family". Eventually, the confirming mark that they had personally understood this would be a continued reliance on God and his promises (faith). But until then, they received the sign–circumcision–that indicated that they were included in God's covenant promises.

If baptism is really a sign of the new covenant (I cannot see how it isn't), then by restricting it to adults only we are making the case that children of believing parents are not part of the covenant. To be outside the covenant is to be pagan. This is at least in part why many baptist churches practice infant dedication. We almost instinctively realize that to be the child of a person who believes in Christ is a special blessing; certainly God's promises extend to our children in some way.

But dedication doesn't go far enough, because ultimately baptism isn't about us. It's about God. The God who saves his people by sending his Son Jesus to the cross to die for our sins. The God who establishes covenants with his people and then, through his faithfulness to his own covenants, ensures their fulfillment. The God who invites us to follow him in his Grace, who saves us by his Grace, and calls us to believe. We baptize our infants because it reminds us that even when we could not respond to God, he would faithfully pursue us anyway. God's love is poured out on our children through his church, as part of the family, until they can profess with their mouth, "Jesus is mine, and I am his."

That's a blessing worth celebrating. It's grace worth signifying. That's what baptism is about. And it's why our infants receive the sign.

On Baptism

I'm starting this post with the very real knowledge that there is so much more to say than one post will allow as it relates to my what I think about baptism. I've had multiple conversations in the last week that have prompted me to think about, refine, and clarify what it is that I (and our church) believes and practices. I'm not even sure I'll get into that in this post.

In fact, one of the troubles with baptism generally is that your average Christian really is under-informed regarding what it actually means and the significance involved. I'd like to say that it's just people in my own tradition, but I think the problem is more widespread. People from the  reformed background tend to adopt the "we've always done it this way" mentality, baptizing their kids when they're born, giving it little more thought than the nominal catholic who wants to have a christening. They have no knowledge of what they actually believe about the sacrament, what it signifies, what it represents, the promises of baptism, etc. Thus, they have no defense when a well-meaning (but also under-informed) brother or sister tells them that real baptism consists only of immersion of a professing believer. After all, "it's obvious".

Except it's not obvious, as any honest pastor/theologian will confirm. It requires at least as much, if not more, explanation and understanding than our other sacrament, Communion or The Lord's Supper. Most churches take the sacrament of communion seriously enough to "fence the table" every time that the church celebrates it. This means that we explain exactly what it means, what we're doing when we take it, and how to take it incorrectly, so that we don't "heap judgment on ourselves". We take the meaning of communion seriously enough that we don't claim that "it's obvious".

So, we must know what we believe. There are reasons that some churches believe that the sign of the new covenant can and should be freely given to children of believing/professing parents (maybe my next post). There are reasons that other churches believe that the sign of the new covenant should NOT be given to those children, until they can profess for themselves faith in Christ. But in either case, let's understand what we're doing when we're celebrating the sacrament.

Conviction on an issue is not the same as biblical clarity on an issue. All pastors/believers should be convicted about what they believe the Bible says. Honest ones will be able to admit when it's possible to disagree and still be a Christian. We don't all have to practice the same thing, but we should be willing to admit that the "other side" is at least plausible.

(The issue with not knowing or understanding, incidentally, is that there are a lot of people who aren't living in the promises of their baptism because they think that their baptism was about something that they did. But one thing we should all agree on, whether we were baptized as a child or as an adult, is that the action is never in our corner–it's always in Christ's...)

The Way that Leads to Life

“There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.”

— Proverbs 14:12; 16:25

The wisdom saying above occurs twice in the book of Proverbs, and why shouldn’t it? It is a summary of the way in which each of us walks his own way.

One can almost hear the thoughts of Adam in the Garden of Eden as he listened to his wife discuss the potential benefits of the “forbidden fruit” with the Serpent. In the end, after hearing the arguments, it is as if he thought to himself, “It seems like this is right. This is the best path forward to where I want to be.” He knew that God had said it would lead to death, but this way seemed more “right”.

Most of the time it is not the things that we know are wrong that get us off track; it is the things that we believe will be right for us. Perhaps it is only our motivation that is wrong, like performing good deeds for self-recognition. Maybe we assume that the ends justify the means, like lying on our resume because we believe that having this new job will allow us more flexibility to give of our time and our resources. Or, maybe we justify our actions by creating a greater evil that we are combating, like cheating on our taxes because we think the government will do worse with the money than we will.

Jesus did not walk according to his own way, but walked according to the way that God his Father had laid out for him. Because he perfectly walked God’s way, he was the perfect sacrifice for all of us who had walked according to our way. Because of his perfect life, his perfect sacrifice, and defeat of death, the way we must now walk is in the way—that is, we must walk in Jesus. (John 14:6)

The Gospel Vaccine

The best way to make sure that someone never understands the Gospel is to make them good.

I think this is what Jesus means when he tells the Pharisees that they go across sea and land to make a single convert and then make him "twice the son of hell" as they themselves are. There was a certain zeal to their activity; perhaps they were driven by a passion for their message. They may have appeared enthusiastic. Yet, they functionally shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in people's face. Why?

Because they taught people how to be saved without Jesus. They made people good. They told them how they could behave better, have a better life, be more religious, and please God on their own. Once they believed that they could please God with their own efforts, they were in double trouble. It's one thing to be ignorant of the fact that you have a problem (in this case, God's displeasure towards your best efforts); it's another thing entirely to believe that you've solved the problem on your own.

It's bad to have cancer and not know it. It's worse to have cancer but convince yourself everything is okay. In the case of the former, you might be open to the real remedy once the problem is revealed. In the case of the latter, you don't even think you need a remedy.

The way we do this in the world of American Christianity is giving people just enough Jesus that they don't ever bother to look for the real thing. We give them a vaccine. They are inoculated. And we do it by making them good.

Growing up, we were made good through religious activity. We had solid theology and doctrine, we just didn't have much of Jesus. We assumed Jesus. We could quote answer #1 from the catechism (at least the first part), we just didn't know how to actually get the comfort that we said we had (the second part of the answer). (Side note: question #2, which no one memorizes, also directs us towards the answer...)

Nowadays the pendulum has swung in the other direction. We no longer address doctrine, theology, or that sort of deep, boring, and confusing stuff. We just "follow Jesus". We're not entirely sure which Jesus, or what Jesus believed, or what he taught, or any of that confusing stuff. We do know how to be better parents, better lovers, and better employees, though, so it can't be all bad. Anything other than that we can just sort of make up as we go.

The end result is the same in both categories. It's either something we do or something we know that makes us okay with God. Either we know a lot about him, or we follow him. Unfortunately, neither is ultimately sufficient.

The heart of Christianity is putting our total confidence in Christ's work rather than our own; it's understanding God's absolute and one-way love towards sinners like us. It means admitting that my best isn't good enough. I can't earn God's acceptance–but I don't have to, because Jesus already has. God gives it to me, free of charge. That's grace. And it's the only way in to the kingdom of heaven.

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”

— Matthew 23:13-15

“Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own,
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—
to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven;
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.”

— Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 1

“Q. What must you know to
live and die in the joy of this comfort?

A. Three things:
first, how great my sin and misery are;
second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery;
third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.”

— Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 2