A Voice from the Past - Ambrose

Let not, therefore, expediency get the better of virtue, but virtue of expediency, By expediency here I mean what is accounted so by people generally.

Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, Book III, Chapter VI, (translated by Rev. H. De Romestin, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, T & T Clark and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1997, p. 73).

What is involved in putting expediency first in our lives? How can we avoid it?

Can Family Values Be an Idol?

C. S. Lewis claims that if you make any earthly thing into a god, it becomes a demon. For anything put in the place of God becomes an idol (Colossians 3:5; Isaiah 31:1; Romans 1:21-23). And often it is the truly good things that are the most dangerous. For if something is obviously low and self-seeking, it is hard to put it up on a pedestal and worship it. Whereas something that is really valuable can invite this.

Evangelicals in recent times have fought hard to protect family values. This is not surprising, because they are obviously under attack. Now I am not saying we should ignore these issues. But our age is in danger of  making an idol of family, marriage, romance, sex, or some combination of the above. Some claim the goal of life is to hop into bed with as many members of the opposite sex as you can, but others claim if you fall in love with the one right person, you are guaranteed a wonderful life. It is easy, from the Christian point of view, to reject the first option (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; Hebrews 13:4). But is the second view any the less idolatry? And when this fails, as it inevitably will, you can end up endlessly searching for that one person.

A proposed alternative is to claim you have to work at it to have an ideal marriage and family.. Now this can put you on an endless treadmill of continually trying harder. It can also lead to complacency or discouragement, depending on whether you believe you are succeeding. And it can totally ruin a marriage. For the harder you try to fix all the problems in the marriage, the more likely you are to end up alienating your spouse, who may end up feeling they are one of the problems. While we do need to be concerned about the state of our marriage and family, we ultimately need to trust God with them (Psalms 127:1,2; 37:3-6; Proverbs 3:5,6). And this will put what efforts we do make in perspective.

Also, if we take the performance approach, we can end up sitting in judgment on others, particularly those in Christian leadership, who do not live up to our expectations. Now there is a place for correction of clear sin in a loving manner (Galatians 6:1; Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Thessalonians 3:14,15). But we must beware of self-righteous judgment (James 4:11,12; Romans 14:4; 1 Corinthians 4:3-5). And this external pressure can aggravate the tendency to complacency or discouragement and produce the very thing it was meant to avoid. Complacency can leave someone unprepared to deal with sexual temptation. And discouragement can result in someone giving up trying to maintain the standard.   Now I do think there are Biblical standards here we need to uphold. But if we make family values into an idol, we can end up destroying the very thing we are trying to save.        

A Conspiracy Unmasked

There is something attractive in the idea that everything is a complicated conspiracy of some sort. It allows us the pride of feeling we have seen through this deep plot (Proverbs 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:1-3). It also allows us to paint whoever we disagree with as utterly evil. But it is not really plausible. The problem is not that people are not that evil, though I doubt that, even though human beings are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9), they are in general that uncompromisingly evil. The problem is that they are not that competent. We are capable of pulling off very limited sorts of conspiracy. But carrying out a massive, complicated sort of conspiracy, like the one envisioned here, without getting caught or exposed, is extremely problematic. And I am convinced it is one of Satan's schemes to befuddle us. By stereotyping them as unremittingly evil, it can turn Christians away from their obligation to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:43-46; Romans 12:17-21; Colossians 4:5,6). But it can also be used by those who disagree with us to invent complicated ways to avoid the Christian contentions. However, I am convinced that it is an illusion and keeps us from having a logical evaluation of the facts as they really are. But it can be by either side to prop up their theories. Nonetheless, it is a dangerous indulgence and should be avoided.  

Is the Institutional Church Evil?

There are many, including many who regard themselves as Christians, who denounce the institutional church as an evil thing. Is this true? Now "institutional" is a slippery term. But we need to go back to the beginning. The church is the assembly of all those saved by putting their faith in Christ (Acts 2:38-47; 20:28; Ephesians 3:10-12). It is His body, through which He accomplishes His purposes in the world (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Colossians 2:19). Therefore, we are a people who belong to Christ (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:4-12; Ephesians 5:25-30).

Now as members of this we are required to be organized. We are expected to have leaders, though they are servant-leaders (Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Hebrews 13:17). We are to meet together in an orderly fashion, though it may be in an informal context (1 Corinthians 14:26-33; 11:17-22; Hebrews 10:24,25). And it is hard to have any impact on the world without being organized. But the danger in any organization is that it can end up serving the needs of the organization or its leadership rather than accomplishing the purpose for which it was created. Now the organizational church should, as far as it can, reflect the universal church. This will always be imperfect in an imperfect world. There will be surprises. There will be people in leadership roles who do not belong there. There will be obscure people who have an important part to play. But we need to make the effort to see that the organizational church reflects Christ's purposes and does not just promote the organization or its leaders.

Now is there a difference between an organization and an institution, and what is it? From what I can see, an institution is a permanent, fundamental part of a society. Now it is possible to be an organization without being an institution. The government is an institution, but the bird-watchers' club is not. It is possible to be institution without being an organization. Marriage is an institution, but we would normally not regard it as an organization. But is the church an institution? The church should be an established, foundational part of the life of the believer. But it is dubious to make it an established part of society as a whole. This tends to result in conformity to the world (1 John 2:15-17; Romans 12:1,2; James 4:4). But marginalizing our church involvement is not the answer. We are required to strike a careful balance. The institutional church is a good thing as far as it reflects the organizational church which reflects the universal church. But when it becomes a means to its own ends, it can become destructive. So we need to carefully weigh how we, as Christ's church,  can have an impact on each other and those around us without being forced into society's mold.

A Touch of Humor - Worship Conundrum

What limits should we have on what constitutes genuine worship? Where should we draw the line?

Old Erich Proverb - Danger

The real danger is not the evil things, but the good things we let get between us and God.

A Voice from the Past - Luther

Thus there remains in us an everlasting strife and resistance, so that much impurity is always creeping in and thus dividing our person, and there can be no flawless purity, or a good conscience or perfect love, except perhaps what may appear to be so to men.

Martin Luther, 1483-1546, On the Sum of the Christian Life, (Sermons I, Luther's Works, Volume 51, translated by John W. Doberstein, general editor Helmut T. Lehmann, Muhlenburg Press, 1959, p. 275)

Is this true of us? How should it affect our approach to life?

What Is Religion?

What is religion? And is it a good thing or a bad thing? Now the word "religion" in most contexts lacks any useful substantive definition. It confuses rather than helps any real analysis, because it lumps together things that do not belong together. It also is frequently seen simplistically, as a sealed box completely independent from secular beliefs. But how should it be looked at?

Christianity claims that God became a man at an identifiable point in history, died as a sacrifice for our sins, and validated this by rising from the dead. Then there is Judaism, which Christianity originated from and which I am convinced Christianity is the logical fulfillment of. There is also Islam, which I am convinced is a simplification of Christianity. But this is a dispute over varieties of the same thing, The basic point of this Judeo-Christian belief system is that there is one God, perfect in character and unlimited in power, who made us and has revealed Himself to us and to whom we are ultimately responsible.

One alternative to this view is traditional paganism. This holds to a multiplicity of gods, more limited and more capricious. But often there is some memory of an older, more supreme God, who they have somehow lost touch with. Christians would contend this is because God revealed Himself to all mankind in the beginning. Between the Judeo-Christian and pagan positions lies Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism holds there is a good God and an evil God, and they are continually at war with each other. But if there are two equal Gods, what basis do we have for calling one good and the other bad? I have often wondered if Zoroastrianism may have been the result of the influence of the Israelites who went into captivity.  Others have speculated that Judaism originated from Zoroastrianism. A lot depends here on how you date the books of the Old Testament.

Another option is humanistic philosophy. This holds that human beings can understand their world and solve their problems with no or little help from any kind of deity. They may believe in what I call (with apologies to C. S. Lewis) a tame God. A minimalist God who may start things going or lay down basic moral standards, but then leaves us to work things out on our own. This fits the Greek philosophers and the traditional Chinese philosophies. Paganism can deify important peoples, so it not surprising the Chinese deified their philosophers. That leaves Hinduism and its derivatives. Buddhism is an attempt to simplify Hinduism, and there are other related options. I have wondered if Hinduism originated from mixing a philosophical theory, that the world is an illusion we need to escape, with the prevailing paganism

We are therefore left with three to five basic positions. But these are hardly independent boxes. These beliefs mix together in various ways. Now you can divide these views up into two separate camps, but there is more than one way to do so, and there is no reason to hold one is the correct way. And none of these really correspond to the standard division between religion and non-religion. A division that puts humanistic philosophy on one side and the other views on the other comes closest. But it does not entirely fit and ignores the considerable mixture between the views. It is simpler to find some other system of classification. And it leads to less confusion.    

The Love of Money - 1 Timothy 6:9,10

Did Constantine Re-invent Christianity?

It is claimed that Christianity has been corrupted from its original form. One suspect for this is Constantine the Great. It is claimed that he put together the New Testament to say what he wanted. It is also claimed that Constantine originated the idea that Jesus is God and imposed it on the church. But will this stand up to examination?

There are manuscripts of large portions of the New Testament that date before Constantine and those of all of it shortly after him. Also, these books were quoted and mentioned as authoritative even earlier. Ireneaus identified the four gospels as unquestionable. He also gives a detailed description of the contents of the gospels, along with the books of Acts and Romans, and mentions others of Paul's epistles. This was well over 100 years before the time of Constantine. Papias mentions the four gospels even earlier, but his works are lost, and he is only known through quotes in other sources. But that someone could simply invent Papias and his writings without it being questioned is dubious. Also, there is the Muratorian fragment, which gives a list of New Testament books. It does leave out a few books and consider a few books not currently accepted, but the substance is the same. Now after the time of Constantine, there were church councils that made official decrees as to what was in the New Testament. But it is clear they were not working in a vacuum but making official what was generally believed, while ruling on the few books that were in doubt. There is no evidence Constantine had anything to do with this.

The idea that Jesus is God is found not only in the New Testament, but in Christian writings that immediately followed it. Even the pagan observers (Pliny the Younger and Lucian of Samosata) noticed that Christians worshiped Jesus rather than the other gods. The term "Trinity" was coined to describe the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Tertullian about 100 years before Constantine. The Council of Nicaea, called by Constantine, may have clarified some of the details, but it was not introducing something new. Further, Constantine wanted both sides just to drop the whole thing and get along. He later sent Athanasius, the chief advocate of Trintarianism, into exile because he was unwilling to go along with this program.

But it could be maintained that it was someone before Constantine who did these things.  However, before Constantine the Christian church was decentralized and persecuted, and no one had the power to impose these things on the whole church. This does not prove Christianity is true. But it does mean we cannot avoid the Christian claims by saying it is not what Christianity originally taught. We are left to deal with the basic questions of who Jesus Christ is and what He did. But claiming someone later distorted it does not fit the facts. 

A Touch of Humor - The Time of Year

What issues are worth making a point of? How do we decide?

Old Erich Proverb - Box

When we put God in a box, we end up nailing ourselves inside.

A Voice from the Past - Irenaeus

If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh?

Irenaeus, 125-202 AD, Fragments of the Lost Book of Irenaeus on the Ressurrection, Chapter IX (translated by Rev. M. Dods, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Philip Schaff, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001, p. 433)

What difference does it make that God promises to resurrect the body? How should it affect our lives?

In Search of the Church

What is the Christian church, and where do we go to find it? This is important because Christians are told they are part of this church, so they need to find out what it is and how to participate in it (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:11-16). But where do we find it?

One view says it is known by historical continuity, by being able to trace the organization back to the apostles. But there is no basis at all in Scripture for this. Those passages that speak of a principle of authority present in the church base it on a confession of faith in Christ or on being His disciples (Matthew 16:12-19; 18:15-20; 28:16-20). Nor is this obvious from just looking at the history.

But perhaps the correct church is the one that has all the correct teaching. However, Scripture discourages us from the idea that we know all the answers (1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:2,3; 2:1-5). This is not surprising, as we are sinners and are still in the process of growing in Christ (1 John 1:8-10; Philippians 3:12-16; 1 Corinthians 13:12). We are told we can know God, though this clearly implies more than intellectual knowledge (Jeremiah 9:23,24; Philippians 3:7-11; John 17:3). Now this does involve knowledge of certain of the basics (Galatians 1:8,9; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:3,4). But it does not mean having all the details right.

Another approach, more common today, is one that looks not at the teachings, but at the practices. The idea is, if we follow the right practices, then we are the church as it should be. But the New Testament gives only broad, general guidelines for practices (1 Corinthians 14:40; Hebrews 10:24,25; Acts 2:42-47). Now we are given very definite commandments as to how Christians should behave (1 John 4:7,8; Philippians 2:1-11; Colossians 3:12-14). These should be taken seriously, but only the Lord Jesus perfectly embodied them. If we look for a church where these are perfectly or even nearly perfectly reflected, it will be a long search.

I would like to suggest a different approach. Those who are members of the church are those who have faith in Christ (Ephesians 3:10-12; Colossians 1:18-23; Acts 2:47). Therefore, those who are believers in Christ are the church and should act like the church. But the issue is not finding the right congregation or organization, but acting in a way that reflects who we are. We need to trust that God is at work in our life to change us as we trust in Him (2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 1:28,29; 2:19). And we can go out in confidence, not asking, "How can I fit in?" but "How can I build others up?" Nor will I deterred by the fact of what label they have, but I can be in communion those who have faith, in whatever context I meet them. For it is not finding the right people, but being the right people.

Forbid Not

What does it mean when it says, "forbid not to speak in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:39)? Does it mean anything? I do not think it means we should not exercise discernment. We are commanded to do that (1 Thessalonians 5:21,22; 1 John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 12:3). But it would seem to indicate that categorically forbidding everyone to speak in tongues is questionable. Now I know the standard answer is that it is speaking of real tongues, and it is then claimed that modern tongues are not real tongues because tongues have passed away. But it seems strange that Paul would unqualifiedly say not to forbid to speak in tongues if people were required to forbid it in another twenty years or so.

Further, this only works if you can clearly prove tongues have passed away, but the Scriptures used to prove it are very weak (1 Corinthians 13:8-12; 14:21,22; Hebrews 2:4). Now it is claimed there were times when no one  spoke in tongues. But if tongues are not something required of every believer or a necessary sign of spirituality, this is not a problem (1 Corinthians 12:11-30; 13:1-3; Romans 12:6-8). God gives His gifts when and to whom He wants to give them. How much of a gap there is in terms of tongues is arguable. But even if there was one, this can be attributed to the will of God, who gives gifts as He wills; however, it does not prove tongues have permanently passed away. God caused prophecy to pass away for 400 years between the Old and New Testaments, but that did not mean it had passed away permanently. And I need to ask whether I can really know that tongues should be forbidden across the board. Particularly if God commands me not to.

A Meeting of the Staff

As the ambassadors entered the room in slow, measured steps, the staff meeting of the Corps Diplomatic Ecclesia was called to order. Chief Ambassador Sidney Moderator began in a slow, measured tone. "We have come together to discuss the current image of the Kingdom in the sight of outsiders," he stated. "It would seem that our image has been tarnished in the eyes of public opinion by various detractors. We need to do something to correct this. Any suggestions?"

"Well," replied Ambassador Handsoff, an older and highly dignified gentleman, "our problem is too much intermingling with those outside. It does nothing but corrupt our people and lead to the tarnishing of our image."

"But don't we want to encourage immigration?" remarked Press Attache Newsnose, whose candor had often hindered his advancement in the Corps. "And would not isolationism discourage this?"

"When they see our correct and decorous lifestyle," returned Handsoff, "they will be impressed and want to immigrate."

"How far are you willing to take this?" asked the Chief Ambassador.

"I am forced to wonder if I should really be associating with the people in this room," Handsoff replied, in a stiff manner.

"What we really need is political action," said Ambassador Legislator, an active, middle-aged man with a loud, booming voice. "There are a few corrupt people who have gotten control of the wheels of power. We must act decisively to drive them out."

"But do we really want just outward conformity to a few laws?" asked Attache Newsnose.

"The hearts of the common people are basically with us," said Legislator. "If we change the people in charge, they will support us."

"And how successful have you been in enlisting the masses to support you?" asked the Chief Ambassador.

"It has been hit and miss," Legislator admitted, "but give them time and they will see the light."

"All of this is wrong-headed," stated Ambassador Sensitive, a young man who many regarded as too casually dressed. "The problem is, the outsiders do not really know us. If they got to know us and found out we are just like them, they would immigrate."

"But aren't there people who are really opposed to what we teach?" said Attache Newsnose, trying to offend three ambassadors in a row.

"I am sure this is all a misunderstanding," returned Sensitive. "If given a chance, they will see it."

"And how far will you go to attract outsiders?" asked the Chief Ambassador.

"Well, there were some who claimed our Las Vegas Casino Night went a  bit far," admitted Sensitive. "But you must always contend with the narrow-minded."

An assistant rose from the the outer ring of chairs and asked, "Could we not just serve the King as best we can and leave it to Him to deal with our image?"

He was hooted down by the entire room.

(apologies to Keith Laumer)

A Touch of Humor - Typecasting

How can we decide what roles people should fit into in the church? How do we avoid forcing people into jobs where they do not belong?

Old Erich Proverb - Why

If we know what we believe but not why we believe it, we can be swept away by any new wind of thought.

A Voice from the Past - Bunyan

(speaking of meeting Faintheart, Mistrust, and Guilt under the figure of thieves) But for such footman as thee and I are, let us never desire to meet with an enemy, nor vaunt as if we could do better, when we hear of others that they have been foiled, nor be tickled at the thoughts of our own manhood, for such commonly come by the worst when tried. Witness Peter, of whom I made mention before. He would swagger, ay he would: he would, as his vain mind prompted him to say, do better, and stand more for his master, than all men: but who so foiled, and run down with these villains as he?

John Bunyan, 1628-1688, The Pilgrim's Progress (edited by Roger Sharrock, Penguin Books, 1987, pp. 114-115)

How can we avoid the danger of being too sure of ourselves? What are the warning signs that we are in danger of this?

Why All the Anger?

Modern theological discussion is marred by anger on all sides. There are those who support Christianity who are consumed by anger against those outside. But there are also atheists and secular people who are driven by anger. A civil discussion of differences seems impossible. I am convinced that all sides feel like they are being backed against the wall and are afraid they are going to lose. Therefore, they respond by vilifying and lashing out at their opponents. But this tends to increase their fear and anger and worsens the situation. Is there a way out of this?

How can everybody believe they are losing? To understand this, we need to understand what the vocal representatives of both sides want. They want society to accept their values and hold them as givens. They may be willing to let the other side continue to exist, but only as marginal people with no power who keep their opinions to themselves. Now I doubt either side is going to achieve this in the near future. To add to this, both sides have vivid memories of what the other side has done in the past to enforce their point of view. And unfortunately, both sides have a point. But the solution is not to become so afraid of the other side's enforcers that you go out and get your own.

On the one side, until recently Christianity at least seemed to be nominally in charge of western culture and took this for granted and was comfortable with it. But in more modern times we have lost this kind of control. And the result has left many Christians feeling very uncomfortable and longing for the good old days. But I am convinced many atheists and secular people thought that if Christianity once lost its nominal control of our society, it would just nicely vanish and they would gain total control. It did not happen. Even in Communist countries, where atheism was firmly enforced by law, Christianity did not disappear. In fact, it has prospered, not only in spite of, but because of persecution. To make things more interesting, there has been the rise of New Age and other alternate beliefs, which neither side is really comfortable with.

How then should we respond to this? I cannot advise atheists, but as Christians we need to put aside our anger (Ephesians 4:26-32; James 1:19-20; Proverbs 22:24,25). To do this we need to trust God, even if things do not seem to be going our way and we are not comfortable with what is going on around us (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 37:1-6; 46:10). And we need to remember God commands us to love even those who oppose us (Matthew 5:43-48; Romans 12:17-21; Proverbs 15:1). Now this is hard to do, especially when there is someone in your face, going at you hammer and tongs. But if we wish to help break the cycle, we need to made the effort.

Interpreting Troubles

One of the great temptations, when encountering trouble either in our lives or someone else's, is to try to interpret it. Now there are some cases where this is possible, and our troubles are a correction for our behavior (Hebrews 12:5-11; 1 Corinthians 11:30-32; 2 Corinthians 12:7). But more often then not, there is no correction involved and it is a mistake to look for it (Job 1, 2; John 9:1-3; Hebrews 11:35-38). Rather, we should trust God to bring us through, even if we do not understand it (2 Corinthians 4:17.18; John 16:33; Romans 8:18). For if the reason is not clear, trying to come up with some kind of explanation generally only makes the situation worse. And it is by resting in God, rather than by knowing the answers, that we can best deal with the situation (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 46:10; Isaiah 40:31).

The Great Declaration

How can a person be just before God? Paradoxically, the obvious answer is not the right one. The obvious answer is that if we work hard enough, we will please God. But Scripture takes the opposite tack. It says we are not able to please God based on what we do (Galatians 3:10-12; Romans 3:19,20; 7:7-25), but we are declared righteous based on the work of Another (Romans 3:21-31; Philippians 3:7-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Therefore, while it is the duty of a human court to justify the innocent and convict the guilty (Deuteronomy 25:1), God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:4,5) through the work of His Son. For He is the One who paid the price for sin (Colossians 2:13,14; 1 Peter 2:24,25; Ephesians 1:7).

Now this is not obtained as a result of trust in external rituals (Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-12; Malachi 1:10), but through genuine faith (Ephesians 2:8,9;  Galatians 2:16; 1 John 5:11-13). And this faith has an effect on the lives of those who possess it. It motivates us to follow God out of love for Him because of what He has done for us (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Romans 12:1,2). It also brings the power of God in our lives to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:28,29). But this transformation is a process, ongoing in our lives but never perfect (Philippians 3:12-16; 1 John 1:8-10; Hebrews 12:1,2). Ultimately, we stand before God not based on what we have done, but on what Christ has done (Roman 8:31-39; Galatians 4:4-7; John 10:27-30).

This is important because if my ultimate standing before God depended on me, I would be left with either self-righteousness or discouragement. But it is only as I accept that this standing depends on the work of Another that I can be set free to grow in Christ. I can be realistic about where I am now because I know that my place with God is secure. But I can be optimistic about the future because I know God is at work in me. And I do not need to water down God's standard so I can convince myself I can keep it. Further, I can face the world with confidence, knowing my relationship with God is secure because it is grounded in Christ. But I am forced to be humble, knowing that I still have a long way to go to be the person I should be. And all this is possible because my righteousness before God is not based on my behavior, but on the work of Another.

A Touch of Humor - The Search

What sort of church should we look for? How picky should we be?

Old Erich Proverb - Perception

God is not limited by our perception of Him, but we are.