Have (Babies) Your Way

CNN ran an interesting article today on gender selection. Couples from other countries are circumventing laws that prohibit gender selection in their home countries by coming to America, where - if you have the money - it's currently legal to genetically orchestrate the gender of your unborn baby. Rejecting the term "designer babies," an Australian man mentioned in the article preemptively states "I naturally have something and my wife naturally has something and it's taken out of our bodies and then you're getting a doctor to mix it together and put it back in. ... We're not messing around with God the creator."

I'm not so sure about that...

Man Down

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Today I found my latest example of why we must guard our life and our doctrine closely. John Clark, a self-proclaimed "non-Christian servant of Jesus" has written his own version of the New Testament that omits the word 'church' on the basis that, as he says, "no mention of that beast exists anywhere in the original New Testament writings." He also seems to have problems with the doctrine of the Trinity (his no-Trinity view is the foundation of his denomination), the authority of Scripture as the Word of God ("To 'preach the Bible', as some boast of doing, is nothing."), and salvation by merit of God's grace ("There is no such person as a 'sinner saved by grace.") Boo.

Check out Off the Wire's thoughts on it. You'll find further observations on my part about Mr. Clark's teachings in the comments section.

How to Criticize Your Worship Pastor

The PrayerBookProject blog recently posted a short but sweet example of the consumeristic mentality that pervades much of North America's local churches. Any worship leaders or pastors out there will particularly relate - especially if you've ever gotten one of "those" calls. This guy is actually pretty tame compared to others I've heard about or recieved myself.

Listen. (I think you'll especially like the remix at the end.)

Hell To Pay

"How does one take seriously the reality of eternal damnation and at the same time not let it quench your joy in God?"

My friend GrahamCracka candidly explores the difficult topic of reconciling divine judgement and joy in God in a recent post.

Check it on out.

The Water's Fine

My brother Jeremiah got baptized last weekend. Sweeeeeeet! Here is what the bro had to say about it.

i've done went and got myself baptized last sunday. i'm a new feller now, out with the old and in with the new! ...maybe i'm not that different than just a few days ago. but in striving to be more like our King, Jesus, and in obedience to God's own Word, i reckoned it was time. i'd never been baptized before and i felt like God was telling me it was time. i reckon it's good to listen to God - if you had to listen to somebody. below i have enclosed some of the dialog that i had with some pastors at my church before i got baptized - including a brief testimony of faith. enjoy:

My understanding of baptism by water is as follows: Baptism by water is a metaphor that symbolizes the death of my old life and old ways (before acknowledging and submitting to God's will in my life) and the new resurrected life that now awaits me. Jesus was baptized in water by John, and afterwards God said that He was very pleased with Jesus. It is from the desire to follow and please Christ and in obedience to God's Word that I choose to be baptized in water. I do not believe that baptism is in any way a ticket into Heaven. It is not a get out of jail free card. It does not magically wash away my sins - salvation through Christ and God's own Grace does that. Baptism is an announcement before the world that says, "I am no longer binded by, blinded by, nor will I be a slave to the sinful ways of this fallen world - I am now striving to live my life according to God's will that He has just for me." Baptism will not make my journey through this world exempt from pain, suffering, temptation, or hard times. If anything, it will make me a bigger prize target for the enemy; who better to tempt and try to drag down than a confessed believer and follower of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Therefore baptism at this age in my life is also a call for vigilance against the Devil. It is a cautious decision to strive for a deeper maturity in my relationship with Christ.

...and don't forget what Delmar said in O Brother - 'come on in boys, the water's fine!'

Happy Birthday, Diesel.Blog

On April 14, 2005 - one year ago to this very day - ol' diesel.blog raised its Frankenstein head out of the virtual murk of the interweb and looked around, slightly confused. Way back then, we were our own little writer's triad, Samb, Diddy, and I, each our own three biggest fans. Though we hitched a ride on the blog train long after it was already cool, I'm happy to see we've reached some level of longevity in a fickle forum where current posts are sometimes hard to come by. 365 days and counting. You've come a long way, baby.

I re-present for your amusement the first diesel.blog post ever.

Why It Matters

Last post, there was some good discussion over a variety of topics, including the TNIV, Open Theism, time, omniscience, sovereignty, etc. Many thanks to those who took the time and effort to respond intelligently to the topic at hand.

In minor-league, in-house theological debate, I find that there is often an undercurrent of "do these things we are discussing really matter?" I found my own mind wandering there, and I think some of the others expressed similar sentiment, implicitly or explicitly. Does it matter whether or not God knows the future? Does it matter if He exists outside of linear time or moves with it or some combination therein? Does it really matter whether or not God put "people" as opposed to "man" in the original Scripture texts? Does Open Theism or relative thinking or tradition pose a threat to how Christians relate to God? After all, we're all Christ-centered, heaven-bound believers, right? Blatant heresy aside, since we have the Jesus thing down, that's all that matters - right?

I hope most of us would agree that those things do matter; where we would probably disagree is to what extent they matter. To me, how one answers those questions and others like them will determine how you view and therefore how you worship God - this is no small matter. It simply won't do to stand on the shore of simple knowledge and refuse to wade - much less swim - into the ocean of deep theology, citing "mystery! mystery!" as our reason. Even if you don't agree with that statement, I hope you realize at the very least, discussing these topics matters for this reason: Christianity is not mere religion; it is relationship.
I find myself stupified during those times when I realize how often I speak of God as though He were not here. How often we speak of Him as though He we little more than an object to be studied! And so to say "Christ is my all" yet leave the rest of theology behind is much like telling my wife "What does it matter if I actually understand who you are or not? At least we're married." This may work in a religion, but not in a relationship. What kind of friend/husband/father/son/brother, etc., would I be if I did not understand who you are, how you think, what you like or dislike, how you operate? I have pointed out before that if you had a wrong perspective of my wife and her character, I would not be unjust in (appropriately) correcting you and leading you toward a more accurate perception of who she is. How much more so with God! There are holes and blind spots in our theology, in our knowledge and understanding of God. This should be something that motivates us to engage each other in such discussion, for I do not know Him as well as I ought - nor do you, brothers and sisters.

I think it can be okay and good and healthy that Christians disagree (assuming this is done in a right manner - and how difficult it can be not to give or take up an offense!); we shy away, because this is often done so poorly, but we need not fear the scraping of iron sharpening iron. And though we may disagree, many thanks to those who are willing to engage in proper debate, not for debate's sake, but for the sake of loving God with all that we are. Our belief in Him and our knowledge of His perfect attributes adds nothing to Him; our doubt takes nothing away from Him. But let us never cease to strive to love Him with all heart, mind, soul, and strength. At times, that may mean holding back the tongue. But there will be times - perhaps more often than not - when it means speaking up and engaging one another in honest dialogue. Sometimes it means swimming out past the breakers and the safety of the shore for deeper waters and deeper love.

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. ~ 1 Tim. 4:16

In response to “A Generous (or not so generous) Theology”

“A Generous (or not so generous) Theology”

The following will assume a reading of the post linked above.

Let me preface this post with the following clarifications. Allie, who wrote the referenced post, is my friend, and a trusted friend of my family. As such, I want to make it clear that I am not attempting a retaliatory personal attack on her. Nor am I attempting to start a “blog war” or stoke the fires of meaningless debate. Much of Allie’s post is a well-articulated critique of writing styles, observations, and personal reactions to R.C. Sproul, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper. My intent is not to refute her personal opinions of these men, nor is it to elevate or glorify those individuals. However, there are some issues presented I feel I should, in good conscience, clarify if I am able. In short, I simply want to respectfully present a contrasting view or clarification of a couple of issues presented in her post, specifically the TNIV controversy and Open Theism.

The TNIV Debate with Wayne Grudem: The post gives a generally accurate - but incomplete, in my estimation - presentation of the TNIV translation of the Bible. The presented summary of what the TNIV did is review the original Scripture texts in order to more accurately “translate the gender of some pronouns and nouns that have, for the past few hundred years, been translated according to English usage/trends. What I mean is, in Scripture, we often see the word “people” translated as “man” (“Man shall not live by bread alone, etc.”). This is passed down from English usage, but is not present in the Greek. The Greek word there is “people”, or “human beings.” Not “man” or “men”.”

Had providing more accurate translations in examples like the one above been the extent of the TNIV’s work, I’m sure very few of us, Dr. Grudem included, would have been concerned. Who wouldn’t want a more accurate translation of the Bible? In fact, in a formal debate over the TNIV with Dr. Mark Strauss, Dr. Grudem even expressly states “…When we have a sentence that talks about ‘people,’ we shouldn't just use the word ‘men’ because it would be misunderstood today. So, for instance, in Rom. 3:28, ‘we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law’. That's the NIV. I think it's appropriate and good that the TNIV changed to ‘we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law’ … I have no objection to this kind of change at all."

The issue with the TNIV that Dr. Grudem debates is the liberal eradication of gender-specific language in instances when the original texts are actually using gender-specific language. There are hundreds of instances where the TNIV abandons original-text Greek and Hebrew words for ‘father,’ ‘son,’ ‘brother,’ ‘man,’ and ‘he/him/his’ for the sake of more androgynous language while the original text is in fact gender-specific. Dr. Grudem, in the aforementioned debate with Dr. Strauss, gives compelling evidences for both subtle and glaring mistreatments of these gender-specific words in the TNIV - and again, not simply for three or four debatable texts, but for hundreds of verses. As far as Dr. Grudem’s motivation in engaging the TNIV debate in the first place, he says:

I struggled long and hard before I would speak out publicly against it. But I thought it was necessary, because the purity of the word of God was at stake, the purity of the word of God in English. I don't want there to be controversy and struggle in the church. But when there's a Bible translation that's going to lead God's people astray, a Bible translation that people cannot trust, a Bible translation that distorts the meaning of the word of God hundreds of times, simply to get rid of male-oriented language, then I say I can do nothing else, I have to stand against it, and I have to speak out.

I have only briefly presented Dr. Grudem’s side of the argument here. You can read both sides of the TNIV debate, including specific texts and examples presented by both Dr. Grudem and Dr. Strauss. Click here to read the transcript of their debate. If you’re interested in the issue, it’s a worthwhile read.

John Piper vs. Open Theism: I cannot objectively speak to the how of Dr. Piper’s addressing Open Theism, but I think I can speak on the why he addresses this issue so forcibly. Open Theism (also called Free Will Theism or the Openness of God View) is a theological position dealing with the free will of man (er… people), that free will in relationship to God, and the nature of the future. At its core, Open Theism teaches that God has given humanity free will and in order for humans to be truly free, the future choices of individuals are wholly unknown by God, who “self-limits” or denies His own sovereignty, omniscience and omnipresence. Books like The Openness of God, by Clark Pinnock and The God of the Possible, by Greg Boyd and a few others of like ilk (written mostly since the 1980’s, I think) have trumpeted Open Theism, or an “open” view of God. Interestingly, Greg Boyd claims that the differences between the openness and orthodox views of God are "relatively unimportant," "peripheral" and "minor". (The God of the Possible, pp. 8, 20, 29) Yet, I find that Open Theism asserts a radically different understanding of God than Scripture presents. It is an unnecessary – and harmful, in my estimation – attempt to promote the will and responsibility of man at the expense of the divine sovereignty of God.

As with most camps of thought (theological or otherwise) there are smaller, inner divisions or denominations. In Open Theism, some proponents hold the future is knowable while others say it is not knowable. For the Open Theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free-will choices so that human beings can remain “truly free.” Others assert that the future is non-existent and therefore unknowable, even by God. Either way, God is presented as reactionary and limited, trapped either by self-imposed boundaries or by the linear passage of time itself. Despite this, most Open Theists would deny that they present God as weak or powerless. They instead promote that God is simply capable of predicting future events and is capable of bringing certain major events to pass when needed. (i.e., God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophecy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occur at the right time.) Open Theists also claim that they do not deny God’s omniscience. “They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.” (Matthew Slick, What is Open Theism? www.carm.org)

In Open Theism, God is simply reactionary to what is happening in the human “now”; either by volition or happenstance, He is trapped in time along with His own creation; He takes risks that may or may not turn out as He hopes, like a cosmic Gambler of sorts; He "regrets how decisions he's made turn out," "questions how aspects of the future will go," and "experiences frustration because free agents choose unlikely courses of action" (Ibid, 87). An Open Theist would counsel a person who has experienced great tragedy or suffering that God was as surprised as everyone else at what happened. Open Theism even concedes this point: "It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn't plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose" (Ibid, 153). Strangely, according to Open Theism’s view, this makes God kinder and gentler and therefore more trustworthy. If God knew “bad things” were going to happen in the future, He would be a bad God (i.e., evil) not to prevent them from happening. Therefore, God must not know the future in order to remain good - or so it goes with Open Theism.

This view of God is supposed to inspire comfort and hope on the part of believers; but in fact, it destroys the very foundation that the Bible establishes for trusting God, undermining confidence in Him, Scripture, prayer, and faith in Christ. It is a diminished view of God that in my estimation attempts to put the will of man and God’s love of man as the central crux in all God does. These are hardly peripheral issues. I find it no stretch to imagine Open Theism falling diametrically opposite of hyper-Calvinism; God becomes the puppet attached to strings of human whim.

"The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. … Were we able to extract from any man a complete answer to the question, 'What comes into your mind when you think about God?' we might predict with certainty the spiritual future of that man." – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

As always, your thoughts, clarifications, comments, and corrections are welcomed.

Your Bling-Bling is My Bounce-Bounce

Today I was reminded of what was arguably the best toy of my early childhood. Colorful. Plentiful. Delightfully unpredictable. Small enough to be dangerous, but seemingly harmless enough not to arouse suspicion should it be set about to mischief. If at this point you're thinking G.I. Joe or Transformers (or their dispicable offshoots, the GoBots)... wrong and wrong.

I'm speaking, of course, about that whimsical sphere of joy I like to call the bouncy ball.

What rekindled my interest in ye olde toye of yonder years, you wonder? I found myself wondering why I haven't seen a kid playing with a bouncy ball in so long. Apparently, they're all in California (the bouncy balls, not the kids.) Danish director Nicolai Fuglsig loosed about a quarter of a million of those lil' round cuties in the streets of San Francisco to film a commercial for a new line of LCD screens from Sony. Admitedly, I have mixed feelings about to what extent art should blend into commercialism, and this is by no means a push for whatever product is being peddled. But I have to tell you, the fact that this indie-esque commercial is working for The Man did nothing at all to diminish the visual feast of watching 250,000 rubber balls make their way though the byways of San Fran to the eerie tune of José González's Heartbeats. It was spooky.

And by spooky, I mean I wish I was a kid running around those streets while it rained bouncy balls from the heavens.

See for yourself.

[photo credit: sony]

Monopoly on Truth

In his debut post, my friend Good Will Hiking poses the question of religious plurality; that is, is there more than one way to God? Specifically, Will asks "...How do you respond to a Christian who believes that other faiths are valid ways to God--that Christianity isn't exclusive and Christians don't have a "monopoly on truth." Can this person be a Christian?"

Check it on out.

Playing Church?

The Church of Fools has been hailed as the first 3D interactive web-based church. Sponsored by the Methodist Church of Great Britain, it was initially conceived as a three-month experiment and was launched in May 2004 – and ran until that September. After logging on, visitors are able to choose a cartoon double, then walk around a virtual sanctuary, kneel, pray, shout hallelujah, play a hymn, and even ring the church bells. Though now closed, the Church of Fools is still "open for individual visits" (i.e., you cannot see or interact with any other visitors).

It was inevitable that web-based community become an outlet for "doing church," and I admit, the format of Church of Fools is intriguing - especially for generations raised on video games. But my initial reaction was to think "Can you really have biblical church online?" (To which the Church of Fools FAQ section answers We're more concerned that many of the people coming to Church of Fools are not getting true, meaningful church offline. Point conceded.) However, I'm not convinced this is what the author of Hebrews had in mind with the command for us not to neglect assembling togther (10:25). Thoughts?

You can check out Church of Fools for yourself here.

Journal Entries - Slidell, LA

2.26.2006 // We arrived in Slidell, Louisiana today after a nineteen-hour drive. My first impression of the area, stupidly, is that it's not as bad as I thought it would be. Messy, yes - but far less... what's the word? Dramatic. I feel bad for not feeling worse about the situation here. Then I tried to imagine what it would be like to look for the bodies of my family and neighbors among once-familiar environs. I could not, but I find the weight of the experience many of the people here have been through is begining to sink in. Lord, would You grace me with a heart that loves.

2.28.2006 // Took time to take in a 'family-friendly' Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans ("Nawlins") this morning. Amid organized chaos, I saw a people so critical of their own city. But under their blatant disdain runs a strong fraternal current. It reminded me of when I was younger - often, I would wreak havoc on my little brother and sister. That was my "right" as their older brother. But also because they are my family, anyone else who messed with them caught hell. I get that same sense from the folks of this city.

3.1.2006 // My hands bled a little as I worked on a house today. It made me think of Jesus the carpenter, the teacher, building something. It occured to me again this afternoon that fixing physical houses do not build spiritual ones (I'm finding this to be a metaphor not short of use round these parts). But physical houses is surely a start, an in-road. Jesus' hands surely bled more than mine. Lord, would You grace me with strong hands to serve.

3.2.2006 // I miss Katie and Caleb. I wonder what it would have been like for us if this was our town? Would we stay and rebuild, or move on? One thing is certain, though - I feel sharp here. There are no church politics, no glad-handing the 'powers that be', no hours sitting behind a desk. There is work - and plenty of it - and you simply go out and do it. The novacaine of northern Virginia has withdrawn, at least in part. This feels very close to where I once had been, in a different season. The lure of the field was at the forefront of my mind today.

Post Scriptum: I am encouraged to see that most of the relief effort here is through the Church.

Post Post Scriptum: I loves me some jambalaya.

3.3.2006 // It's cool to see life taking place in the communities here. Neighbors who once argued over their property lines or who never spoke at all are coming together. One guy told me today it was becoming difficult for him to look at the storm as a bad thing, simply because of the good that has come of it since. I praised God for making His glory known here.

3.4.2006 // Heading home. This place will cease to be reality for us (for now), but I pray the Lord won't simply let it rot to vague and distant memory. The longer I was here, the more I see how wrong my first impressions were about the damage not being so bad. Thing is, I came nearly completely focused on the external damage; the overturned cars, the misplaced furniture, the junk, the occasional missing wall or caved-in roof or blown-down tree. That damage is secondary to the fact that folks' lives - not just their stuff - have been deeply impacted by the hurricane. And now, as they rebuild, it is lives that matter, not simply houses and more junk that will be blown about by the next storm.

I wondered at first if what we were doing here - rebuilding houses - really matters. I know it did for at least two families. The amount of work and repair to be done seems incalculable, but but it is undeniable that God is at work here. His grace was shown to the world through a cross. His grace is shown to Louisiana through a storm. Lord, would you grace us with eyes to see and ears to hear - Your glory is all around.

PERSPECTIVES // diddy | stroud | allie | truitt | julia | shelley

Gone Fishin'

I'll be gone for a while - driving down south this afternoon to Slidell, Louisiana, with a team of folks. We are going to help rebuild some of the houses that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Keep us in prayer. See you next month, Lord willing.

Thirty-Six Days Later :: part three

Continued from this post...

Time went on and things got better between me and my friend. Maybe they got worse first, and then better – but they did get better. I eventually began to learn the value and wisdom of opening up, communcating. I even discovered value (and enjoyment) in the art of conversation, be it deep or casual. My friend began to learn the disciplines of rest and silence. We had grown.

Eventually, we headed back to the States, both of us just a little wiser - just a little. Wounds healed. God gave us wives and jobs and seminary training and more dreams. Time has passed, but that strange seduction, the lure of the field, haunts me from the edges of my mind (my, how that field does beckon!) Time has passed, but I have never forgotten what my friend said. It still rings in my ears, my head, my heart. It remains a moment of still clarity in my life.

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

Not many people will ever say that to you. Even fewer will have weighed the deeper meaning therein and can say it with deep meaning. But if they do, you listen because that is a person who cares deeply for you - but even more deeply for Christ. That is a person of proper priority. That is a person who will take bullets for you, not simply for your own sake, but for the sake of displaying the greatness of the glory of the grace of God. That is a person who would have you walk well and humbly with Christ, despite yourself. That is a person who knows how to love you best, because they love Christ first. It is grace and truth spoken in eleven words, beautiful and terrible.

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

Those are not easy words to speak - and woe to the fool who should ever speak them flippantly, thoughtlessly. Say those words, and you'd better truly be willing to let go of that friendship for the greater sake of holiness. My friend was the first to ever speak them into my life. Other people have come into my life since and spoke those words, though not so much with their mouths, but certainly with their lives as they walk with me. Those individuals are blood of my blood, closer than brothers. And though I’ve yet to speak those words with my mouth, I hope my life says it back to each of them.

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

~fin~

Gratuitous Valentine's Day Post

We were made for relationships. Whether in the context of friendship, romantic dating and courtship, familial, or marital, relationships are the source of both our greatest joys and our most profound wounds. God Himself has always been in relationship before He even created us (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) - and has created us primarily to be in relationship with Him. This primary relationship with Him will then be expressed in relationships with others (see Matthew 22:36-40).

To understand the basis of relationships, especially male/female relationships, it's vital to understand roles. We live in a day and time where our God-given roles are no longer celebrated, but blurred and confused. But God Himself has given men and women specific roles to fulfill, roles that strengthen, bond, and compliment relationships.

Here is a teaching I recently gave on the subject:

LISTEN | DOWNLOAD

Thirty-Six Days Later :: part two

Continued from last post...

But there we were, nevertheless, standing in our dingy kitchen five thousand miles from home yelling at each other over Lord knows what. He wouldn’t shut up. I wouldn’t open up. For months it had been that way, our friendship slowly disintegrating because I didn’t know how to communicate, and it seemed to me he didn’t know how to stop communicating.

I didn’t want accountability. I didn’t want depth. I didn’t want to talk about my day or my life or much of anything really. And simply because I was being pushed in that direction, I refused to go. I guess I just didn’t see the value of it at the time. Besides - it was easier to hide in silence. I wanted easy believability, not the sparks and noise and pain of iron on iron. For these reasons, our relationship had slowly devolved of the course of several months from buddy-buddy, to civil tolerance, to silent misery. Silent misery eventually erupted, volcanic and volatile.

I’d never heard my friend curse before. We were Christians, for Christ’s sake.

And so there we stood, fists balled, faces red, veins popping. The refugee tilework on the floor took on a red tinge as head-pounding anger nearly blocked out all rational thought in my brain. I remember yelling something to the effect of “Why the hell do you keep pushing me? Why won’t you get off my friggin’ back?!” His response was somehow both perfectly simple and exceedingly profound at the same time.

His response was a moment of clarity.

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

I had little insight as to what those words meant at the time, only that in my anger they initially struck me as a stupid, arrogant thing to say. What did he know about holiness, anyway?

But I couldn’t shake the implications of his words.

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

[ part 3 ]

Thirty-Six Days Later :: part one

“Because I care more about your holiness than about your friendship.”

Roughly five years ago to the month, I stood in the dingy kitchen of an apartment approximately five thousand miles from here and listened to a man I thought was my friend speak those words into my life. He is my friend – closer than a brother - but at that moment, I questioned it.

We’d been on the field for several months at that point and were coming to the end of the proverbial honeymoon phase. “End of the honeymoon” doesn’t quite capture the true flavor of the moment, though. It was more like watching a couple of flies kill themselves by repeatedly hurling their bodies against a window. No good can come of that, little friends - best just to move on.

We had certainly moved on, or so we had thought. Being there, five thousand miles away, certainly seemed like a good idea when we graduated college nearly a year ago – two buddies servin’ the Lord abroad, a couple of young hotrod Jim Elliot wannabes, laying it all on the line for Jesus. There’s a romantic notion to missionary work, or most any such service to Christ. There is this secret, seductive lure that somehow draws you in: it is the same thing young boys feel when they lie about their age to sign up for military service. It is both honorable and ignorant, for though they have played at war, they know not yet the deep horrors of real war.

So the “call” comes and if you’re listening, you pick up. You buy the field. You’re pretty sure in that field is a harvest, somewhere. So you make your little sacrifices, you count your little costs; you leave things and people behind for the sake of a greater something, something bigger than yourself. It all looks nice on paper. It reads well in books. It sounds cool from jazzed-up conference speakers. The reality of digging in that field, however, was much different than the dreams my friend and I had dreamt. Reality, it seemed, had snuck up on us with a sixty-pound sledgehammer, and was then going to town on our spiritual little backsides (and that in a most un-dreamlike fashion, I might add.)

Those jazzed-up conference speakers had forgotten to mention that to me.

[ part 2 ]

Lightness & Darkness

I recently found myself thinking about the great contrast between light and dark and equating that contrast to our walk with Christ. When I sin, I have stepped out of light into darkness. When I am walking with Christ, I have left the darkness behind to live in the light. There is a contrast there, and an important one.

Now I am not necessarily one to focus on the “bad” – but as you deal with your times of darkness, let me encourage you in this; instead of moping about in the darkness, let those experiences draw a contrast that accentuates the light of Christ. What does that look like practically? Not a day goes by when we don't sin – either actively or passively. We must grieve over that sin, and by the grace given to us by Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, we have the ability to do so. But do not remain in grief - let the times of walking in the darkness make walking in the light so much sweeter. As the old adage goes, you never appreciate your health so much until after you've been sick. You can't fully appreciate the depth of your salvation until you have seen the depths of your own sin and darkness. Not that our focus remains there – but when you have a deep knowledge of what you have been saved from, you will see your walk in the light become immeasurably precious through that contrast.

As I was thinking about this, I found a good article by John Piper entitled Let Us Walk in the Light of God. In it, he talks about being “new creatures” and walking in the light with Christ. I think this is a fitting concluding remark from that article - “The mark of the new creature in Christ is not a rosy self concept. It is brokenness for remaining sin mingled with a joyful confidence in the super-abounding grace of God in Christ.”

Let that contrast deepen your joy in Christ this new year.

Lighten Up

I've recieved several requests recently that I "lighten up" and stop writing about "such heavy theological stuff" etc., etc. So in an effort to "lighten" the "mood," consider this the gratuitous... uh... "mood-lightening" post for the month. Or something. Okay - that said, here are some things to brighten your day:

1.) If you're jonesin' for some generally pointless, but entertaining, comedic blog relief, visit my ol' pal Diddy.9000 - from now on, I'll refer all you chuckle-seekers to his well-written accounts of the ongoing war against spider crickets. Also of light-hearted interest, he apparently thinks Adam Sandler is a better actor than Robert DeNiro. I take back the "ol' buddy" part. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure I know this guy at all. Do make sure you stop by and tell him what you think about that DeNiro biz though.

2.) Just as a promised, I did teach baby Caleb how to read (see photo). Unfortunately, he has a hard time holding Grudem's Systematic Theology up with his lil' baby arms, so after a couple paragraphs, he gets tired and takes a snooze. I guess we'd better start strength training next to build up those wee arms... or maybe I should just teach him how to read on his stomach.

3.) For my birthday, my bro sent me a copy of Taming A Liger: Unexpected Spiritual Lessons From Napoleon Dynamite. Pretty flippin' hilarious. You know I'm training to be a cage-theologian. Gosh.

4.) I'm sure you will be amused to know that Sam, the world's ugliest dog, died earlier this month. Okay, so that's not so light-hearted and funny... but what IS funny is that I know a guy named Sam. He's named just like the dog. The world's ugliest dog. Who... just... um... died. Ha. hmmm... (*sigh*)

5.) Did I mention that baby? Babies always make people laugh.

Whew! Now that we have this "light" and "funny" stuff outta the way, I can get back to some real bloggin'. Next topic - The Wages of Sin is Death... DEATH... DEAAAATH.

Drinkin' - Final Guidelines

Continued from this post...

I shared my personal convictions regarding the consumption of alchohol in the last post. As I stated, those being my own personal convictions (and those convictions in accordance with Scripture as I understand it at this point), I do not necessarily expect that all Christian folk follow the exact same policy in the exact same way. I DO EXPECT, however, that whatever conclusion a believer has arrived at regarding the use of alcohol that they do adhere to these guidelines;

• That he or she never strays close to drunkedness or other sin through partaking alcohol
  
• That he or she knows why they hold a particular standpoint and can, when necessary, accurately articulate their standpoint with both grace and truth to either a believer or non-believer in an appropriate manner
  
• That he or she understands the various facets in which this issue can be viewed apart from the explicit mandates of Scripture and thus does not fall into the trap of simply passing judgment on those who hold differing convictions (again, assuming that those differing convictions do not go against the commands of Scripture regarding Christian conduct)
  
• That he or she would never make their viewpoint a stumbling block to a a weaker Christian or use their convictions to manipulate or condescend others
  
• That he or she would be ever-vigilant to protect their witness and present themselves as blameless
  
• That those who partake do so in a way that honors the Lord and that those who abstain likewise do so in a way that honors the Lord
  
• That he or she consistantly filters their conviction and actions through the lens of Scripture - not only through the explicit and implicit statements specifically regarding alcohol, but regarding general conduct as well.

May God grant us the grace to strive in such a way that our actions and convictions never fail to align with Scripture - in this matter or in any other.

Drinkin' - Personal Convictions

Continued from this post...

As promised last post, I will share my personal alcohol policy. I will at times have a beer or a glass of wine, though I am very intentional about where and when and with whom. This is a personal conviction, which I trust I have arrived to under the leading and guiding of the Spirit and the authority of the Word as best as I have understood up to this point in my life (my viewpoint has changed from earlier points in my walk, and could change again at the Spirit's prompting in the future.) Because this is my own conviction - and not an explicit mandate from Scripture - how I conduct myself regarding this issue is a matter of obedience for me. I will give you situational contexts to that, but let me first start with two foundational reasons why I feel that is okay for me:

• I have no family or personal history of alcoholism or alcohol-related abuse (this is not to say someone of like circumstance is not susceptible to alcoholism - but I would advise that those who have such a history, either personally or familialy, to completely abstain from alcohol as there is an exponentially generally greater chance they could succumb to that disease or temptation. Often as well there is a hightened emotional charge accompanying this issue for individuals who have dealt personally with alcohol abuse in any form. It simply seems wise for one then to completely abstain and forego further alcohol-related trauma.)
  
• I have simply come to enjoy the taste and craft of certain alcoholic beverages and there are times when I feel it is appropriate to enjoy them (but not all times are appropriate and even then, obviously in moderation and never out of context with the Scriptures - I will explain more later).

Situational contexts that I keep in mind, though, include:

• I do not drink alcohol in the presence of non-Christian people. I do this because there is a strong cultural stigma in our culture regarding alcohol that I feel I should be sensitive to. I would rather not open the possibility for a questionable impression, and therefore discredit in any way my witness. The only exceptions may be individuals who are long-time friends with whom I am confident my witness or credibility as a disciple of Christ is not in question over the issue.
  
• I do not drink in front of Christian brothers or sisters who I know have been deeply and negatively affected in some way by alcohol abuse in their past or currently struggle with it.
  
• I do not drink in front of Christian brothers or sisters who I do not know well enough to say whether or not my actions will be a stumbling block to them.
  
• I generally do not have more than two drinks in a sitting. I feel that is an appropriate limit to set unless enjoyment become overindulgence. Concerning how much alcohol is 'acceptable' to drink, I often hear Christians debate over whether it is permissable or not to get buzzed - but not all-out drunk - on alcohol. Too many people seem to try to find out where "the line" is by seeing how close they can get to it before crossing it. That mindset is foolish and dangerous at best. Far better to approach with discernment and caution, if at all; God has not left His stance on drunkeness unclear by any means. He has drawn a very clear line - take heed in dancing around it lest you cross it.
  
• I do not ever drink to "take the edge off" or with the intent of altering my mindset, mood, etc.

Given these stipulations, the times I actually partake are, generally, few and far between and usually within the walls of my own home. I would reiterate that these guidelines (apart from the biblical condemnation of drunkedness) are personal convictions - it is a matter of obedience for me to follow them, but I do not necessarily expect all others to have arrived at the exact same conclusions. There are, however, specific guidelines that I do expect any believer partaking of alcohol to follow. I will share these next post.

Continued next post...

Drinkin' - What Scripture Says Part 2

Continued from this post...

In the last post, I made the point that I do not see that Scripture views alcohol as inherently evil or sinful. HOWEVER, we must balance the fact that although the USE of alcohol is not condemned, the ABUSE of alcohol most undoubtedly is; let there be no question about this point.

• “Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags” (Prov. 23:20-21).
  
• "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).
  
• “Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink; who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!” (Isa. 5:11).
  
• “Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink” (Isa. 5:22).
  
• “Be on guard, that your hearts may not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day come on you suddenly like a trap” (Luke 21:34).
  
• “Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy” (Rom. 13:13).
  
• “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."(Eph. 5:18).
  
• “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissentions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).
  
• “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money” (1 Tim. 3:2-3).
  
• “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine...” (Tit. 2:3).

There are plenty more references - probably all familiar to you who've investigated this issue - but I think the point is clear even from this sampling. In Scripture, drunkenness - or the misuse/abuse of alcohol - is everywhere condemned as a serious sin, both explicitly and implicitly.

In addition to considering the words of Scripture specifically regarding alcohol, I think one must also treat this matter in light of how it affects one's witness before people who are not Christians and in light of one's testimony before fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. This is an area that though I believe there are governing principals to guide us, there is room for discernment given each situation. I do not want to be vague on this point, so next post, I will share my personal "alcohol policy" and the reasoning behind it.

Drinkin' - What Scripture Says Part 1

Continued from this post...

Let me start with simply sharing some Scriptures that give insight into the use of alcohol in Biblical history. The obvious tie-in to alcohol or fermented beverage in the Bible are references to wine. Here are a few things from the Old Testament.

God commands wine and strong drink to be brought as an offering to himself:

• “Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one year old lambs each day, continuously ... and there shall be one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a libation with one lamb” (Exod. 29:38,40).
  
• “Its grain offering shall then be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering by fire to the Lord for a soothing aroma, with its libation, a fourth of a hin of wine” (Lev. 23:13).
  
• “And you shall prepare wine for the libation, one-fourth of a hin, with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb ... and for the libation you shall offer one-third of a hin of wine as a soothing aroma to the Lord ... and you shall offer as the libation one-half a hin of wine as an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the Lord” (Num. 15:5,7,10).
  
• “Then the libation with it shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb, in the holy place you shall pour out a libation of strong drink to the Lord” (Num. 28:7).

Wine is tied to the concept of God's blessings:

• “Now may God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and an abundance of grain and new wine” (Gen. 27:28).
  
• “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man’s heart” (Ps. 104:14-15).
  
• “Honor the Lord from your wealth, and from the first of all your produce; so your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine” (Prov. 3:9-10).

Conversely, and interestingly, the removal of wine has been tied to God's discipline:

• “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you ... You shall plant and cultivate vineyards, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall devour them” (Deut. 28:15,39).
  
• “The Lord has sworn by His right hand and by His strong arm, ‘I will never again give your grain as food for your enemies; nor will foreigners drink your new wine, for which you have labored’ (Isa. 62:8).

What strikes me about these references - especially those regarding sacrifice and offerings - is that in my understanding, nothing unclean or unholy is to be offered to the Lord, yet wine was included as an acceptable offering. I draw from this that there is nothing inherently bad, evil, or unclean about it. I do not see evidence in Scripture, as many evangelicals believe, that all alcoholic beverages are inherently evil and that any use of an alcoholic beverages is sinful. However, I do see that Scripture presents some specific instruction regarding alcohol consumption - there is a context and conditions for its use. I'll get to these next post.

Continued next post...

Drinkin'!

Okay... Although my purpose on this blog is not to create controversy, it looks like I'm about to jump into another controversial subject. At least 3 individuals have recently pointedly asked me my opinion on Christians drinking alcohol. If you're not a Christian and you're checking this out, the following posts may just be funny to you, but for many Christians, this can be a big issue.

I got an email from a good friend a couple weeks ago that expressed - quite well - the sentiment of several other conversations I've recently had. My friend says:

I was wondering what you think about the issue of Christians drinking alcohol. The past few years, I have been faced with backing up my own position in the face of adversity from close Christian friends. I do have a strong opinion, but sometimes wonder if it is a conviction from God or if my view is clouded because of what has happened in my own life. With the ever-increasing amount of people around me choosing to partake, I am seeking Biblical counsel from one I know really seeks God.

I should say that your opinion won't have an impact on my choice to abstain, but I would like to have a better idea of how to speak to my friends on the issue.

Anything you've studied would be helpful - thanks!

This letter prompted me to really articulate how I see this issue as a disciple of Christ, and I think this is a worthy subject to come to terms with as you walk with Christ. In my thinking - and more importantly, in accordance with Scripture as I understand it - the issue is fairly black & white, although there are several factors to consider. I will share these in greater detail over the next several posts. The specific factors I will look at are: what does the Bible say about alcohol? What does it mean for my witness (my interaction with non-Christians)? What does it mean for my brothers (my interaction with fellow Christians)?

Continued next post...

Cutest. Baby. Ever.

A couple of you have asked for updates on lil' Caleb. I have to tell you - and I admit that I cannot do so impartially - that he is quite possibly the cutest baby. In the world. Ever. Prolly the smartest and the strongest too. He's 3 months old now, so he's starting to be really interactive which, speaking as a dad, is a blast and sometimes funny, too - like when he coos, or grins, or projectile vomits all over his babysitter.

I figure it's never too early for this guy to start earning his keep around here, so I'm working on his physical conditioning at the moment. Right now we're learning basic punch/kick combos, wrist locks and grappling manuevers (don't worry, though - mom provides plenty of softer, gentler nurturing ;-). But even she will admit that this little dude has a crazy kung-fu grip. I'm pretty sure he'll be walking soon. Maybe by next week. And then the week after that, we're going to start teaching him to read...

A Word of Thanks

Firstly, let me apologize for my absence there - life just hit a busy spurt. Also, I wanted to take a second to thank all of you who followed and commented on the transubstantiation posts. I'd like to especially thank David Wills and Damienc for their comments regarding the Catholic position. It has been a very enjoyable and worthwhile discussion. At the moment, we are continuing our discussion here, so feel free to check that out. Meanwhile, now that I've returned to the blogosphere :-) I hope to begin a new series of posts... check back soon.

Transubstantiation - Concluding Thoughts

These are the concluding thoughts from a series of posts on the topic of transubstantiation. The previous posts are as follows:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four


Most Catholics I have spoken to on the matter of transubstantiation contend that the view presented here completely downplays the Lord's Supper. I would like to finish out this series of posts simply by saying that this view in no way detracts, denigrates, or condescends the Lord’s Supper. Nor would I say that Communion is merely a symbol. I think most people would agree that when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of Me” He is not saying “I want you to intellectually recall all the facts you know about Me in your brain.” Rather, to partake of the Lord’s Supper is to remember His death and all that His death accomplished for us; this should stir and strengthen our faith and draw us into deeper communion with Jesus. Consider once more the words of J.C. Ryle on the subject:

Now, is it reasonable to suppose that our Lord would appoint an ordinance for so simple a purpose as "remembering His death?" It most certainly is. Of all the facts in His earthly ministry none are equal in importance to that of His death. It was the great settlement for man's sin, which had been appointed in God's promise from the foundation of the world. It was the great redemption of almighty power, to which every sacrifice of animals, from the fall of man, continually pointed. It was the grand end and purpose for which the Messiah came into the world. It was the cornerstone and foundation of all man's hopes of pardon and peace with God. In short, Christ would have lived, and taught, and preached, and prophesied, and performed miracles in vain, if He had not "crowned it all by dying for our sins as our Substitute on the Cross!" His death was our life. His death was the payment of our debt to God. Without His death we would have been the most miserable of all creatures. No wonder that an ordinance was specially appointed to remind us of our Savior's death. It is the one thing which poor, weak, sinful man needs to be continually reminded. (J.C. Ryle, The Lord’s Supper)

In the ordinance of Communion, we have been given the opportunity to experience a profound and vital spiritual truth, and we are to be nourished and satisfied by faith in all that God has given us in Christ.

The Lord’s Supper proclaims Jesus – and that is no small thing at all.

Transubstantiation: Eating & Drinking

Continued from last post...

Most Catholic apologeticists contending that Christ's physical body and blood is materially manifest in the Lord’s Supper traditionally base this assertion on John 6:48-59. In this section of Scripture, Jesus foreshadows the meaning of the Lord's Supper and says publicly in the synagogue "I am the bread of life" (v. 48). He then talks about eating this bread; in v. 51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Clearly, this was a shocking statement given the response of those around Him. They took Him literally – the Jews began questioning how Jesus might give them His flesh to eat (v. 52), and Jesus responds (v. 53), "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you…"

The Baltimore Catechism uses parts of John 6 to defend the Catholic position of the Eucharist, specifically citing John 6:48-59 (Catechism 344). Unfortunately, this section of the Catechism stops short in explaining the context of Jesus' statements, for He does indeed explain to His disciples the meaning of what He was saying. The verses following John 6:59 (where the Catechism stops short in its citation) do indeed show that Jesus was not speaking literally. Jesus realized His disciples were confused about what He was telling them. Verse 60 points out "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'" So Jesus in v. 63 gives them the key to interpreting what He said, so His disciples would avoid the very mistake that the Jews in the synagogue were making in presuming He meant literally eating his physical flesh and blood: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." With this statement, Jesus points out that He is specifically referring to a spiritual action, not a physical one.

He alludes to this very point earlier in this same chapter. In John 6:35, He says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." So, He will satisfy hunger and thirst. If He is speaking literally, then we can conlude that Christ is a complete and utter failure. Firstly – if we are to be consistent in our exegesis from that standpoint – we would have to literally (bodily) come to Him - but how can we do so if He is not here, but seated at the right hand of God in heavenly realms as Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, and Luke 22:69 tell us? Secondly, those who simply believe in Him would find physical nourishment - another clear failure if this was His intent, for even today (much less in all of A.D. history) true believers die of hunger, thirst, malnutrition.

But if He is not speaking literally, what then is the eating and drinking He refers to? It is coming to Christ and believing in Him. “Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” The eating and drinking refer to spiritual acts; desiring Him, accepting Him, trusting Him. He is speaking of the hunger and thirst of our souls being satisfied in Him – not our stomachs.

As with continual sacrifice, in this way too there is no need for physical, literal transubstantiation.

Continued next post...

Transubstantiation vs. Symbolic Language

Continued from this post...

I am of the mind that the Bible as a whole should be interpreted literally (an interesting topic in itself - perhaps a topic for later posts). This is a standpoint from which Catholic apologists often mount their defense of transubstantiation. However, let us not disregard that there are many times when the Bible does use symbolism and symbolic language. (This is not to say that you and I get to decide when the Bible uses symbolic language – the Word interprets itself in this matter!)

Jesus clearly utilized symbolism when teaching in parables. He also refers to Himself specifically using symbolic language; “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48); “I am the gate” (John 10:9); “I am the vine” (John 15:5). Reading these passages in context, it is clear Jesus never means He is literally a piece of bread, a gate, or a vine. Those would be unnatural assertions. In like fashion, if I were to hand you a photograph and say “This is my family” it would be unnatural for you to assert that I mean that the photo itself is literally my kin. Rather, it is understood to be representative. I believe it is clear that the same is true when Christ says “This is My body” in reference to the bread. Consider the words of J.C. Ryle, a widely-respected English pastor from the 19th century:

Does the New Testament authorize men to say that the Lord's Supper was ordained to be a sacrifice, and that in it Christ's literal body and blood are present under the forms of bread and wine? Most certainly not! When the Lord Jesus said to the disciples, "This is my Body," and "this is my Blood," He clearly meant, "This bread in my hand is an symbol of my Body, and this cup of wine in my hand contains a symbol of my Blood." The disciples were accustomed to hear Him use such language. They remembered His saying, "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one" (Matthew 13:38). It never entered into their minds that He meant to say He was holding His own body and His own blood in His hands, and literally giving them His literal body and blood to eat and drink. Not one of the writers of the New Testament ever speaks of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice, or calls the Lord's Table an altar, or even hints that a Christian minister is a sacrificing priest. (J.C. Ryle, The Lord’s Supper)

Furthermore, John Piper points out that if the words, "This [bread] is My body" (I Cor. 11:24) were intended to mean, "This [bread] has literally turned into My physical body," would we not expect the same meaning to hold for the statement about the cup? In the next verse Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Yet, in the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, this statement is not forced to mean “This cup has literally turned into a covenant.” Here, the cup is acknowledged as representative, a reminder that the blood secures or purchases or guarantees the blessings of the covenant. Honest exegesis requires consistency.

Continued next post...

Transubstantiation: A Continuing Sacrifice?

Continued from this post.

Let me begin by first clarifying the belief that I spoke out against. Catholic doctrine holds that "Christ gives us His own body and blood in the holy Eucharist first, to be offered as a sacrifice commemorating and renewing for all time the sacrifice of the cross" (Catechism 356). This view of the Lord’s Supper, from the Catholic standpoint, is literally the re-sacrificing of Christ. And, while the Catholic catechisms quote Scriptures that speak of Christ dying once at the cross, this doctrine also teaches that Catholic priests perform at each Mass a miracle that transforms the bread and wine into Christ's physical body and blood (transubstantiation) and that each Mass “is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross” (Catechism 359). Jesus is then – quite literally according this doctrine – sacrificed anew each time a Mass is held and the Lord's Supper is taken.

In contrast to this, however, the New Testament teaches that Christ’s death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins was both final and complete for all time. Consider Hebrews 9, which deals with the passing away of first (old) covenant regulations in light of the new covenant in Jesus. Hebrews 9:25-28 says “…Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly… for then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, He appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself… so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many…” Consider too the even more explicit statements of Hebrews 10:10 – “…We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” Hebrews 10:12 – “…But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time…” and of Hebrews 10:14 – “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Consider as well Christ’s own words before He died on the cross – “It is finished” (John 19:30). The phrase in Greek is teleho – which is to bring to a close, to complete, to fulfill, to accomplish the final part of one’s task.

To assert then that there is a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice, as the Roman Catholic doctrine asserts in their view of the Eucharist, not only contradicts New Testament teaching, but destroys the assurance we have that payment for our sin has been fully paid – once and for all – by Christ and wholly accepted by God the Father. If continual sacrifice for our sins still must be made by Christ, we have no assurance of there being “no condemnation” toward us (Romans 8:1). New Testament doctrine is clear that after the one offering of Christ on the cross, there is no more need of continual or further sacrifice.

Continued next post...

Hike Colorado

I went to Colorado this weekend with a friend to visit my brother and do some hiking. If you like hikin' and you've never hiked the Rockies, you should probably drop everything and go right now. We took on Mt. Yale, which summits at 14,196 ft. above sea level. It was without a doubt the most difficult hike I'd ever done - as if the incline of a 'fourteener' wasn't rigorous enough in itself, the thin air at that altitude (and my own lack of conditioning) certainly made for one tough climb. It was, however, in a word - awesome.

In Response to Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation. That's a big word that probably doesn't mean a whole lot to the general populace, or to the casual reader occasionally passing by ol' Diesel.Blog here. However, I've recently taken issue with this topic, so the next few posts will deal with it. I hope you find this series of posts both encouraging and useful (or at least interesting).

A few weeks ago, I had the great privilege of leading the congregation of my church into a time of communion. We are a non-denominational, Protestant Bible church and we take communion as a congregation once a month. I was asked to give a devotional/teaching beforehand to lead folks in preparation for taking the Lord's Supper. As one of the sidenotes to a point I'd made, I stated that transubstantiation - the belief that the communion elements literally become the physical, literal, manifest body and blood of Christ - is and always has been an erroneous doctrine.

Transubstantiation is, for the most part, a teaching of the Roman Catholic church. There are quite a few former Catholics that attend my church and apparently a few practicing Catholics as well. As emails and responses trickled in following that message (generally folks wondering why in the world I would state that someone else's well-intentioned beliefs are erroneous or Catholics defending their position), I have had the opportunity to solidify my own theology regarding communion and share that with others. Thus, I would like to use the next several posts to share my response to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Let me preface with this thought - my intent here is not to "bash" Catholicism. Please do not regard my statements as an attack on Catholic people. The point is not Catholicism or Protestantism or anything inbetween or beyond. The point is truth. My intent is simply to point out truth - truth not merely as I perceive it, but Scriptural, Biblical truth spoken by God, taught by His Spirit, and perfectly grounded in Christ Jesus. And truth, friends, is no relative thing.

Continued next post...

Graven Images Revisited

Continuing thoughts from the last post...

Would you say this view is extreme? A little too close to legalism? Is it simply unrealistic and absurd? I thought so at first, I'll admit. (I’m trying to figure out if I still think so or not.) After all, what harm is there is using art to spur people on to worship? What wrong is there in putting forth some visual that helps the Christ-worshiper focus in on the Object of his or her worship? Plenty, it seems, if that visual is meant as a direct representation of the Lord.

Why? Simply because nothing can directly, accurately represent God except Himself. If an image meant to depict Him is used habitually (or even sporadically) to aid in worship, would we not come to think of Him, pray to Him, relate to Him as the image represents Him? And to the extent that any created image used in worship fails to represent His full glory, to that extent we would fail to worship Him as we should.

John Calvin said, "A true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence ... His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form. ...Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious; because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is."

Packer points out that God-depicting visuals used in worship are misrepresentative not necessarily because of what they show about God, but because of what they fail to show. He uses the imagery of the crucifix as an example: "... The crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of His deity, His victory on the cross, and His present kingdom. It displays His human weakness, but conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power ... The symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity." (p. 46) The image dishonors God, not because of what it shows, but because it obscures His true and full glory. (I would, however, note that this logic could just as easily be directed towards a worship song or a sermon.)

So will I ever create visuals that include Jesus in them again? More than likely. But by His grace, I'll not do it carelessly.

Graven Images

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:4-5). That's the second of the original ten commandments - do not make or worship idols; keep yourselves from idolatry.

For many of us, at the word "idolatry" our minds can't help but summon images of savage tribes, kow-towing before carved totems or pagan priests offering human sacrifices before skull-adorned statues. Clearly, though, we good twenty-first century Christian folk aren't bending the knee to such pagan notions, especially nowadays in our soy-triple-latte-hold-the-whip postmodern society... Are we?

I recently read a chapter in J.I. Packer's Knowing God that forced me to reexamine the theme of idolatry in my own life. Packer builds a case for "more subtle forms of idolatry" around Charles Hodge's principal: Idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images. Packer then defines "images" as any visual or pictorial representation of the triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship.

That means, as the chapter goes on to explain, that crucifixes, statues, paintings, meant to represent any member of the Trinity are all, in reality, misrepresentitive. None of these things are God Himself, Packer asserts, but mere man-concieved images of Him. Speaking for myself, this is a hard pill to swallow. What about the great art of the Renaissance? Passion plays? Jesus movies? That painting of Christ out in the lobby of your church? I'm a visual artist - a graphic designer by trade, but also dabble in drawing, painting, photography, video and multimedia. I've drawn, painted, photographed and designed countless images meant to depict Christ, the glory of God, the work of His Spirit. Have I thus created images? By Packer's assertion, most assuredly I have.

Thoughts?

Read Part II

Cloud of Witnesses - Part Two

Continuing thoughts from yesterday's post, it is clear to me that without those guys in this running group, there’s no way I’d be dragging myself out of bed to run at 6:15am on a rainy Friday morning. But since I have that “cloud of witnesses,” I find that I am more easily able to “throw off everything that hinders” (warm sheets, for instance) “and run with perseverance the race…” Paul uses the cloud of witnesses as a point of motivation for us to run well and run faithfully.

The men of the running group were laughing one morning about a Starbucks commercial that we thought illustrates this point well. There is this guy Hank, who basically has his own cheering section – a cloud of witnesses, if you will – to cheer him on throughout his day. Obviously, Heb. 12:1 is not saying we live merely before the eyes of man, and Paul makes it clear that our ultimate Witness is Christ, and we are to set our eyes on Him as we run (Heb. 12:2). But Christ, in His love for us, ran a perfect race and laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16) for the glory of the Father.

I was thinking last night about Matt's comments to yesterday's post regarding this section of Hebrews. Although I think what I've said here is sound in the larger sense, I'll admit that my exegisis of this text has not been entirely accurate. I'll be working on that. Until then, let's consider - how much more faithful would we be in running our races if we really understood the importance of that “great cloud of witnesses” – and better understood both the role of the runner and the role of the witnesses as we strive to "run with perseverance the race marked out for us"?

Cloud of Witnesses - Part One

I went running the other morning with my friend D.R. and some guys I know from church. D.R. started this little running group a couple months back under the premise of the apostle Paul’s many references to the Christian life as a race. We get together early on Fridays, have a short devotional thought, and then take off for 30 minutes of running, jogging, or walking (or in my case, 30 minutes of gasping, panting, or wheezing). Now I’m the type of guy who, when it comes to exercise, is no longer what you’d call “self-motivated.” And to be honest, although I enjoy the effects and acknowledge the benefits of exercise, it’s often a struggle to maintain consistency on my own.

One of the verses we were looking at before running that particular morning was Hebrews 12:1 - Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. The part of this verse that grabbed me as I thought about it is the fact that “we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.”

Obviously, those witnesses could be non-Christians; those to whom we are examples for Christ as we live our lives. I think that’s the context in which most of us think of those witnesses, but I don’t think that phrase is limited simply to those who are not Christians. I think that cloud of witnesses also includes our brothers and sisters in Christ – it is a reference to the importance of Christian community in that it enables and motivates us to “run with perseverance.”

You can't make it alone. We were made for community... that's why the Church is called a body.

Filling Up Space

My post God On Trial was recently featured as an article on FillingUpSpace.com ... Many thanks to Travis McSherley and the rest of the FuS staff for the honor!

For Your Consideration

Sorry about the brief haitus there. In the midst of work, family visits, and one very vocal, sleepless baby, (etc., etc.) I fell out of the blogosphere. Now that my "blog fast" is over, I've got a couple topics I'm looking forward to covering.

In the meantime, though, there are exerpts two postings from other blogs I think you should take a look at. I thought they were worthy of consideration. Check out the following:

Mistyping the NAME :: by D. Griffiths
I was just typing and accidently wrote "Gof." Sure, the "F" key is right next to the "D" key. And sure, the designation "God" is derived from the germanic tribes reached by the first Roman missionaries and has no inherent holiness as a word. Yet, that simple mistype sent a shudder through my heart. We are so careless with the name of the Lord. God, gosh, Jeeze, and further, more profane designations, pepper the vernacular. But I don't care to bemoan that old complaint. I want to draw your attention to the frivolity with which we write and type words that refer to the God of all the world... READ THE ENTIRE POST >>

Too Much to Say :: by M. Wireman
Matt. 12:34 - For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
I say all this to say to myself, you, and other folks out there speaking and typing out a deluge of words, be careful. I look all around the internet and see frivolous words being spouted off. All the ridiculous posts will be called to account. Even if you don't blog, the words you speak in solitude will be brought before you for you to give an account. Don't waste your breath, invest it into eternity... READ THE ENTIRE POST >>

Relief for Hurricane Katrina Victims

It's much easier to write about helping folks than to actually do something about it. Check out a way to provide practical aid for Hurricane Katrina victims at Marcus' blog or through Reston Bible Church.

God On Trial

I believe in the sovereignty of God. That is, God’s sovereignty is the attribute by which He rules over all of creation - and to be sovereign, God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free. I believe also in the goodness of God. A.W. Tozer says this about God's goodness:

The goodness of God is that which disposes Him to be kind, cordial, benevolent, and full of good will toward men. He is tenderhearted and of quick sympathy and His unfailing attitude toward all moral beings is open, frank, and friendly. By His nature He is inclined to bestow blessedness and He takes holy pleasure in the happiness of His people. That God is good is taught or implied on every page of the Bible and must be received as an article of faith as impregnable as the throne of God. It is a foundation stone for all sound thought about God and is necessary to moral sanity. To allow that God could be other than good is to deny the validity of all thought and end ill the negation of every moral judgment. If God is not good, then there can be no distinction between kindness and cruelty, and heaven can be hell and hell, heaven. The goodness of God is the drive behind all the blessings He daily bestows upon us. (A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy)

Scripture clearly teaches both aspects of God's character. Yet, in times like these when great disaster occurs, is it not our tendency as men to put God on trial? We tend to attack one or both of these attributes of God. We cry "Look at these hurricanes! Look at these people suffering! How could God have let this happen? Is He really in control?" Or, if we do not doubt His sovereign control over a given situation, we are more than prone to put His goodness on trial. Who among us has never asked, in some form, "How could a good God allow this horrible thing to happen?"

It is only the frailty of man that feels either God's goodness or His sovereignty is somehow diminished by disaster. Did God know - even ordain - that Hurricane Katrina would wreak such havoc upon our neighbors to the south? Absolutely. Did He know all those people would be left houseless, possessionless, fleeing their homes for their lives? Yes indeed. Did He ordain each death, each loss of a child, a parent, a spouse, a friend? He foreknew every single one. But His sovereignty and His goodness remain intact. Our doubt takes nothing away, just as our belief adds nothing to them. His attributes need no defense, including this very writ. Everything occurring regarding this hurricane - from loss to life, from hatred to love - demonstrates the goodness and sovereignty of almighty God. Do we understand it? Hardly. But doubt neither His goodness nor His sovereignty.

We would do well to remember that we are not sovereign. We see only a few pieces of a canvas that stretches on beyond time, and with even the best of us, our sight is tainted by our own depravity. Our vision and knowledge is finite and limited. God's are not. Instead of putting God on trial, let us instead see through eyes of faith, ever trusting in His immeasurable goodness. Even if we do not understand, let us say along with the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah "Though He brings grief, He will show compassion, so great is His unfailing love." (Lamentations 3:32)