What We Fight Over

The Christian church is divided. I am not talking about the divisions over doctrine and moral behavior, which can be defended. Nor am I talking about the divisions over personal animosities, which are not so excusable but are not surprising in a fallen world. I am speaking of the divisions over style and methodology, or even by age and race. We fight over things like dress and types of music and other things that seem to go under the category of details. Even some things that are considered doctrinal seem more a matter of style than principle. Now God does call us to unity (Romans 15:7; Philippians 2:1,2; Ephesians 4:3-6), but what does this mean? In Scripture this does not mean being exactly alike. Scripture pictures Christ’s church as a body made up of different members that work together to accomplish God’s purposes (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16). The Christian church is an assembly of people with different backgrounds, different tastes, different personalities, and different gifts, brought together to serve the one true God. How can we return to that ideal?  

I am convinced that the first step to bridging these divides is to follow the Biblical principle of putting others and their concerns before what we want (Philippians 2:3,4; Romans 15:1,2; Mark 10:42-44). In doing this we are following the example of our Master, who left the throne of heaven to rescue us from our sin (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 15:3; Mark 10:45). This, in many ways, cuts across our current consumer-oriented approach to churches. We look for a church that meets our needs and where we feel comfortable. Now all of us have legitimate needs, and there is a place for considering them when choosing a church. We are not self-sufficient, and we need one another to be built up (Hebrews 10:24,25; Colossians 2:19; 1:28,29). Therefore, we should not be so proud as to refuse to accept this. Nonetheless, should we really be totally focused on our needs and what makes us feel comfortable? Should we not also consider how we might serve others? Should we not even consider looking for a church that needs us and needs our gifts, rather than one that simply reinforces our prejudices? Should we not try to find ways to build bridges to people different from us, rather than stay in our comfortable cliques? And if we are already part of a church, should we not look for what we can contribute to that church, rather than simply what it does for us? Now there is a balance here. I do not suggest that someone go into or stay in a perfectly horrid situation on the idea they can certainly change it. There is a certain amount of conceit involved here. But neither should we simply approach being part of a church based wholly on the idea of what is in it for us. For this is not the attitude of a true servant.

A Touch of Humor - Why Membership

Is there a good reason for church membership? What?

Old Erich Proverb - Defend

We are not called to defend God but trust Him; He can take care of Himself.

A Voice from the Past - Charles Hodge

Every man, without a supernatural revelation, no matter how much of a philosopher, knows that death is the entrance on the unknown. It is the gate into darkness. Men must enter that gate conscious that they have within them an imperishable life combined with all the elements of perdition. Is it not self-evident then that immortal sinners need someone to answer with authority the question, What must I do to be saved?

Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Systematic Theology, Vol. I Theology, Introduction, Chapter 3-- Rationalism, B, (2) (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982, p. 36).

Do we need revelation from God to make sense of life? Why?

Who Would Die for a Great Moral Teacher?

One clear fact in the early history of Christianity is that, within about 30 years of its origin, Christians were being persecuted. This continued on and off, until Constantine made Christianity legally acceptable. Therefore, Christianity was very early considered something worth dying for. Some would claim that the Roman Emperors simply decided to go after Christians and would not let them off. Now this might explain a particular individual case. But it cannot explain why there were those who continued to profess to be Christians after the persecution started. After all, Christianity is a belief system, not something like ethnic background that can be established by research. And all the records claim you could get out of being persecuted simply by denying the faith and sacrificing to Caesar as a god.

Now one of the most common theories about Jesus is that He started out as a human moral philosopher and was later blown out of proportion. But this does not fit with His followers' being willing to die for Him at this early date. The Greeks and Romans had their share of moral philosophers. The Jews had a number of famous rabbis. One more moral philosopher would have been lost in the crowd. It is difficult to see how anyone, other than perhaps a few close companions,would have been willing to die for such an individual. Nor would one have died for an as-yet-undeveloped legend or a failed Jewish Messiah. But the Son of God, come to save us from our sins and give us eternal life, is worth dying for. Now this does not prove Christianity is true. You can still claim that it was a great fraud or that Jesus was more than a little out of His mind. And you will have to decide whether you can make that fit with the character of Jesus in the New Testament. But it does eliminate some of the options

The fact is, the great moral teacher thesis has almost no historical basis. The New Testament knows nothing of a non-supernatural Jesus. The main early distortions of Christianity saw Jesus, not even as a human, but as a god who was not willing to become a material human being but was a phantom that only appeared human. Though some held that this god co-oped a human being to speak through and then deserted him in the end. But even the Arians claimed Jesus was not just a great moral teacher or even a human prophet, but the greatest of all created supernatural beings. There were a few people who seemed to believe that Jesus was just a God-empowered human being: the Ebionites, Paul of Samosata. It is difficult to be sure exactly what they believed, as they were obscure, and little about them is preserved. The truth is, the main reason people have for holding that Jesus was a great moral teacher is that it is the idea they are most comfortable with. But it does not fit with the facts.

Facing Betrayal

Almost all of us have been betrayed or felt betrayed by someone. Maybe it was clear-cut and there is no question. Maybe that has been misunderstanding and there are two sides to the issue. It is my opinion that human beings have an almost infinite ability to misunderstand each other. We also have any ability to get upset over insignificant issues. But there are real and inarguable betrayals that happen in the world. How do we deal with it?

First we need to forgive (Matthew 6:12; 18:21-35; Ephesians 4:32). This can be very hard. But there are some things that can be put in perspective. It needs to be understood that forgiveness is not excusing. In fact forgiveness pertains to those things they have really done wrong. God forgives us our real sins (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Acts 26:18) and it is on this basis we are to forgive others. Now there is a place for asking what is the real wrongdoing in a situation and what is a misunderstanding. But we may not always be able to determine this. It is not always clear. It may not be clear to the other person either. Sometimes we may never know. It may be best to forgive whatever may need to be forgiven, even if we are clear exactly what is blameworthy, and go on. Forgiveness also does not necessarily mean allowing yourself to be taken advantage of. There is a place for the Christian to go the second mile in terms of giving people a chance (Matthew 5:40,41; 1 Corinthians 13:7; 6:7). But this does not mean totally setting aside the demands of justice (1 Corinthians 6:4,5; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; Romans 12:18). Ultimately this is a judgment that must be made with care and serious consideration of what right in the sight of God.  But I do not think we are always obligated to just take it.

Particularly if the person is a Christian there may be an obligation to confront them (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 2:24-26). Now there is a place where love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12; 17:9). But particularly if a person feels they have been genuinely betrayed they need to seriously consider confrontation. But it must be done with gentleness and a view toward correction and restoration. And it should start with a one on one confrontation  with others only getting involved later, if no reconciliation is accomplished in the original meeting.

But more then all of these we need to trust God (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 37:1-6; 127:1,2). We must remember that He is in control of our lives and will work out even difficult circumstances for our good (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 4:17,18). For it is only by trusting God we can avoid bitterness growing up in our life and affecting those around us (Hebrews 12:15-17; Ephesians 4:31; Romans 12:19-21).

The Arrogance of Evangelism

Are we arrogant, as Christians, to say we alone have the truth? Should we really put our time, effort, and money into convincing people nearby and around the world that Jesus is the only way? I ask this because I think sometimes, as Christians, we can have a subtle doubt about this in the back of our mind. Should we really be bothering people, particularly people in other cultures, who seem perfectly happy in their beliefs? Underlying this is the idea that all faiths ultimately lead to God. But is this believable? As we look at real life, we notice there is a right and a wrong way to do things. If I try to put water in my car’s gas tank, it will not have good results. Nor would it matter how sincere I was when I did it. What basis do we have for believing things are different in the spiritual realm? The whole idea of relative truth is inconceivable and unlivable. And no one really tries to follow it except in certain areas, like theology, where they find it convenient. But is there something in Christianity which is different from all the other faiths?  

Some beliefs offer gods who are basically human beings writ large, often with the foibles of human beings. Other concepts of God limit Him to being some vague force or unmoved mover that works behind the scenes but is not really involved in our lives. This kind of God is one we summon when we want Him to start the universe or lay down a moral code and then dismiss when we are done with Him. There is no reason to believe a real God would abide by these restrictions. Or if we hold to a significant God, we can hold to one who is strict and measures us entirely on our performance. The problem is, if we look honestly at our performance, it does not really measure up. Or we can believe in a God who is a soft touch, who pats us on the head and approves us no matter what we do. This God might seem at first more comforting, but there is a problem. We live in a world that is full of real evil, and it is difficult to see how a vaguely approving God can deal with that and correct it. I am convinced the only real answer is the Christian one. The real God, who is too just simply to let wrong go unpunished and too loving not to become a man and take the punishment Himself. This is the only answer that really fits. And if we have that answer, we have an obligation to make it known to those who do not. If we see a man’s house is on fire, we are no friend if we refuse to wake him for fear of upsetting him.