In a lecture, one of the professors of the Master’s College, Abner Chou said “love” is a relational term. Now, reading that the temptation might be to say, “Well, obviously love is a relational term.” But I think that that is the very problem. Because it is obvious that love, if it is truly love and not a modern misuse of the word, is a relational term, it is often overlooked, forgotten, and the implications of the truth are ignored.
First, I would like to remove the term “love” from the twenty-first century uses of it and bring back to it it’s true meaning. Love is first of all not a feeling. The emotion in our heart when somebody we love is near is not love, it is a product of love. Love, then, does not negate the idea of feelings being involved, but those feelings, that rush of the heart, is not love. Do not mistake the effect for the cause! And a case against the pursuit feelings is found in the Romantics, who prove that feelings are unsatisfactory and the pursuit of them leads to self-destruction. This word has been cheapened in another way in the many times we use “love” to describe or feelings towards things, such as, “I love ice cream!” Or, “I love Disneyland!” Or “I love that outfit!” Can you really have a relationship with ice cream? It’s pretty one-sided if you do, and if you were to treat your friends like you treated ice cream you wouldn’t have any. Love, then, is only left in the relational aspect, as we have already mentioned.
To obey the Lord When the Scriptures exhort us to love one another we have to be in relationships with other believers. The church is the place for those relationships. So if you are attending a church, but don’t know the people you are attending with, you’re not obeying the command to love one another. You can’t love the person you’re sitting next to unless you have a relationship with them. This probably means stepping outside of your comfort zone—at least for me it does. I find it hard to get past the first word, but every time I have done so I have been able to maintain a good conversation. That initial fear can be paralyzing, but once you act the fear is then seen as irrational.
The first aspect that entered my mind, however, was not in relation to believers, but in relation to those who have not owned up for their guilt at the cross. People say that the most loving thing we can do to those who don’t believe is to share the gospel with them, but is it a truly loving act if it is outside of a genuine relationship? Perhaps we need to think more of having relationships with non-believers, and through showing our love to them in that relationship they might see that serving our God is a good thing, and then when we share the gospel they are ready to accept it. But the relationship is key to the act being loving! Look, then, for ways to build relationships with those who do not believe with the intention of bringing the gospel to them. That is love.
I realize that this last paragraph I just wrote could be taken further than I intended, and I believe though to make my point I had to come across as strongly as I did. I am not recommending we give up street evangelism, but I am suggesting that that method becomes less our focus as much as on building and starting relationships with the intention of bringing the Gospel to them, to show them Biblical love.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Original Truth
As I was thinking about my previous post and that nothing said in it was actually original to me (only how it was said could be called original), I began to recall that no truth I've proclaimed is original to me. All my thoughts find their source in the words others have spoken. As this train of thought continued, I realized that no truth is invented or is original to whoever said it; it lies outside of the one proclaiming it.
This is why those who see truth and proclaim some aspect of it no one has ever seen before are called "insightful," not "creative." Insight is the gift of being able to look at what is already there (God, the Bible, the world, mankind) and see an element about it that no one has really seen or expressed, and then sharing it with others. I learn new truth when the truth already present is apprehended and then communicated to me in a way I can understand. The truth-teller points away from himself, not at himself.
Therefore, when shown a wonderful truth we have never seen before, the Author of that truth should receive the glory, not the messenger bringing that truth. However wonderful he might be, he did not invent or create the truth, and if the truth is so marvelous that we praise the one to discover it, how much more should we praise the one who made it? The one bringing it, though recognized, should fade away as the One from whom the truth found its origin receives the greater attention.
It is like a marvelous piece of music written by Bach but found and reintroduced by Mendelssohn. Who gets the praise when Bach's music is played? Bach does, not Mendelssohn. Though Mendelssohn is mentioned and praised for discovering Bach's music, Bach is the one who gets the most glory of the two.
In the same way, when a great man like C. S. Lewis shares a truth that is marvelous and eye-opening, God, the author of the truth, should get the praise. Though C. S. Lewis is recognized for his discovery of that truth and praised for it, God should receive the greater focus. He created the truth found within the essay, "The Weight of Glory"; should He not receive the greater praise? I believe C. S. Lewis would prefer that, especially now as his sin nature has now been fully eradicated.
This is how truth-proclaimers remain humble, by recognizing the true source of the truth that they proclaim. Even if I, or you, or anyone else do stumble upon a droplet of truth, we have to remember where the droplet came from, and look up, and recognize the hand of the Creator behind it.
This is why those who see truth and proclaim some aspect of it no one has ever seen before are called "insightful," not "creative." Insight is the gift of being able to look at what is already there (God, the Bible, the world, mankind) and see an element about it that no one has really seen or expressed, and then sharing it with others. I learn new truth when the truth already present is apprehended and then communicated to me in a way I can understand. The truth-teller points away from himself, not at himself.
Therefore, when shown a wonderful truth we have never seen before, the Author of that truth should receive the glory, not the messenger bringing that truth. However wonderful he might be, he did not invent or create the truth, and if the truth is so marvelous that we praise the one to discover it, how much more should we praise the one who made it? The one bringing it, though recognized, should fade away as the One from whom the truth found its origin receives the greater attention.
It is like a marvelous piece of music written by Bach but found and reintroduced by Mendelssohn. Who gets the praise when Bach's music is played? Bach does, not Mendelssohn. Though Mendelssohn is mentioned and praised for discovering Bach's music, Bach is the one who gets the most glory of the two.
In the same way, when a great man like C. S. Lewis shares a truth that is marvelous and eye-opening, God, the author of the truth, should get the praise. Though C. S. Lewis is recognized for his discovery of that truth and praised for it, God should receive the greater focus. He created the truth found within the essay, "The Weight of Glory"; should He not receive the greater praise? I believe C. S. Lewis would prefer that, especially now as his sin nature has now been fully eradicated.
This is how truth-proclaimers remain humble, by recognizing the true source of the truth that they proclaim. Even if I, or you, or anyone else do stumble upon a droplet of truth, we have to remember where the droplet came from, and look up, and recognize the hand of the Creator behind it.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Image of God
The first time man is mentioned in Genesis, he is related to God in specifics way, first as creature, and then as an image. The implications of this, other than raising man’s status above the animals, are first clearly seen in God’s words to Noah, when He tells this survivor that those who kill another man are to be killed by men for they destroyed the image of God.
Which is interesting, because Noah lived after the fall, as did all but Adam and Eve, so the image was not completely lost in that disastrous act. But it was shattered, changed, no longer a true image. We were meant to display to the creation the invisible attributes of God—His love, His patience, His goodness, His grace, His wisdom, His mercy, His kindness, His faithfulness, His beauty—but because of our perversion as a result of the fall we no longer reflect these attributes. But that is only the least of it. What we actually do is something far worse. R. C. Sproul writes something chilling:
This imaging of Yahweh that we were intended to do now has been completely perverted. Instead of showing the world God’s glorious attributes, we are in a sense accusing Him of evil, accusing Him of basically being Satan. How can we even contemplate sin if this is what it says about our Sustainer?
I desperately want to show in my life, not only to the creation, but especially those who are disenchanted with the “image” of God they see in man, the invisible attributes of God. This aim is impossible in myself. In no way are we in our own strength capable of reflecting God’s qualities. He, the one who created us to image Him, has to reach down and rescue us from our complete and utter enslavement to sin so we can do what we were originally created to do, to display His invisible attributes to the creation.
The question of what we do with our lives grows small, even for someone nearing the brink of the rest of his life like me. The question that truly matters is “How will I do what I do?” Before doing anything with my time, or saying anything, my thought should be “What does this action say about my Creator? Am I showing the world what He is like? Am I mirroring my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
One aspect of a mirror is that nobody ever sees a mirror, nor are they supposed to. A mirror is supposed to show what it is reflecting. A shattered mirror makes the world see itself, it does not reflect; a mirror that God is through a miracle fixing makes the world see Christ.
(Adapted from the message by Brandon Hix for the 2010 Homeschool Graduation ceremony in Eau Claire, Wisconsin)
Which is interesting, because Noah lived after the fall, as did all but Adam and Eve, so the image was not completely lost in that disastrous act. But it was shattered, changed, no longer a true image. We were meant to display to the creation the invisible attributes of God—His love, His patience, His goodness, His grace, His wisdom, His mercy, His kindness, His faithfulness, His beauty—but because of our perversion as a result of the fall we no longer reflect these attributes. But that is only the least of it. What we actually do is something far worse. R. C. Sproul writes something chilling:
“When we sin as the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: “This is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in his mirror; look at us, and you will see the character of the Almighty.” We say to the world, “God is covetous; God is ruthless; God is bitter; God is a murderer, a thief, a slanderer, an adulterer. God is all of these things that we are doing.”
This imaging of Yahweh that we were intended to do now has been completely perverted. Instead of showing the world God’s glorious attributes, we are in a sense accusing Him of evil, accusing Him of basically being Satan. How can we even contemplate sin if this is what it says about our Sustainer?
I desperately want to show in my life, not only to the creation, but especially those who are disenchanted with the “image” of God they see in man, the invisible attributes of God. This aim is impossible in myself. In no way are we in our own strength capable of reflecting God’s qualities. He, the one who created us to image Him, has to reach down and rescue us from our complete and utter enslavement to sin so we can do what we were originally created to do, to display His invisible attributes to the creation.
The question of what we do with our lives grows small, even for someone nearing the brink of the rest of his life like me. The question that truly matters is “How will I do what I do?” Before doing anything with my time, or saying anything, my thought should be “What does this action say about my Creator? Am I showing the world what He is like? Am I mirroring my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
One aspect of a mirror is that nobody ever sees a mirror, nor are they supposed to. A mirror is supposed to show what it is reflecting. A shattered mirror makes the world see itself, it does not reflect; a mirror that God is through a miracle fixing makes the world see Christ.
(Adapted from the message by Brandon Hix for the 2010 Homeschool Graduation ceremony in Eau Claire, Wisconsin)
Friday, October 30, 2009
David Hume
Those of you who do know this important figure in the area of philosophy probably know him as the man who attacked the claim to miracles.
The problem I found with his attack on miracles is that it doesn't fit with his own philosophy.
David Hume was the most extreme of the British empiricists. Empiricists view that all we can know is what is derived from sense impression. Basically this means we can't even know that physical objects exist, because all we know is the different qualities we see. Anything not based on a sense impression is meaningless.
Hume argued that even science was meaningless because it was based off of feelings. The argument is fairly complex and somewhat hard to summarize. Basically, we relate our sense impressions to one another in three different ways. There is no reason to do this (says Hume) apart from a very strong feeling. We relate impressions with regard to similarity, spatial nearness, and cause and effect. Hume then goes on to argue that, based on his theory of empiricism, that there is no way we can relate something as a cause and another thing as an effect. It isn't possible in his extreme empiricism. We have no way of knowing whether a burn will form on our finger from a lit match being touched to it. It may have happened every time before, but there is no guarantee it will happen again. (Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it?)
Now, we move on to his argument against miracles, which he says are not possible because in all of human experience over centuries, we have never seen a dead man come back to life.
Now go and read that last sentence again, and try to figure out the inconsistency.
Hume argues against miracles using a cause and effect relationship, something he claims is impossible to use. He is arguing against miracles using something he claims he doesn't even believe in. His argument doesn't work. If Hume were to remain consistent with his attack, he'd have to say there are no miracles because there are no natural laws, thus there was nothing to be broken.
Hume is an author the Christian really has to wrestle with, considering his philosophy is used by many to reject God.
The problem I found with his attack on miracles is that it doesn't fit with his own philosophy.
David Hume was the most extreme of the British empiricists. Empiricists view that all we can know is what is derived from sense impression. Basically this means we can't even know that physical objects exist, because all we know is the different qualities we see. Anything not based on a sense impression is meaningless.
Hume argued that even science was meaningless because it was based off of feelings. The argument is fairly complex and somewhat hard to summarize. Basically, we relate our sense impressions to one another in three different ways. There is no reason to do this (says Hume) apart from a very strong feeling. We relate impressions with regard to similarity, spatial nearness, and cause and effect. Hume then goes on to argue that, based on his theory of empiricism, that there is no way we can relate something as a cause and another thing as an effect. It isn't possible in his extreme empiricism. We have no way of knowing whether a burn will form on our finger from a lit match being touched to it. It may have happened every time before, but there is no guarantee it will happen again. (Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it?)
Now, we move on to his argument against miracles, which he says are not possible because in all of human experience over centuries, we have never seen a dead man come back to life.
Now go and read that last sentence again, and try to figure out the inconsistency.
Hume argues against miracles using a cause and effect relationship, something he claims is impossible to use. He is arguing against miracles using something he claims he doesn't even believe in. His argument doesn't work. If Hume were to remain consistent with his attack, he'd have to say there are no miracles because there are no natural laws, thus there was nothing to be broken.
Hume is an author the Christian really has to wrestle with, considering his philosophy is used by many to reject God.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Graduation Speech
These next few years will likely define how I live the rest of my life. I am standing on the brink of my future with my fellow graduates, and I realize that we need a clear view of God's purpose for these formative years in our lives. In order to live my life to the greatest benefit to myself and the others that surround me, I must strive to fulfill the purpose God has set before all who follow him.
This purpose is not some vague notion of following a will of God, and feeling out where he is leading us. God has not set a specific plan for my life that, if I deviate from , I am living a second rate life outside his specific will. Rather God has laid out a clearly defined goal in His Word. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer to that question is "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." If we strive to glorify God in what we eat, what we drink, what we do, how we make a living; if we strive to pursue complete and satisfying happiness only in God, we have fulfilled our purpose in life. Anything else is wasted, mediocre and unfulfilled.
My goal in these few moments is not to challenge only my fellow graduates, but to challenge all of us gathered here today not to waste our lives on good things. Things like keeping America conservative, battling abortion, helping the poor. If we are serious and committed to finding joy in God, all these other good results will follow. The most effective way to push Christian values in America is not through political action, but by showing the world the awesome love of God that demands us to fall down on our faces in worship. God created us to bring glory to Him. He created us to worship Him. We're forsaking our God-given purpose in life when we allow ourselves to be satisfied fighting for anything less than him.
People may question us, "How can God be loving if he acts as if he's trying to build his self-esteem?" We must answer with John Piper's methaphor, "would you take a man to the alps, then lock him in a room of mirrors?" If God is truly the most wonderful, the most awesome, the most magnificent being, it does not make sense that he would allow us to be satisfied by worldly pleasures. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, it is not that we are unsatisfied with God, it is that we are satisfied in too little. We are satisfied with our cars, our computers, our families when we are offered a life that is infinitely greater. Christ gave his all so we could rejoice and be satisfied in the only person who can truly bring joy.
We must educate the world in the truth that God wants us to be happy. Not happy in a worldly sense. People use this truth to justify sin, when proper application means avoiding sin at all costs. True, lasting, satisfying happiness can only be found in God. The Psalmists recognized this truth. In Psalm 16:11 "In your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore" and in Psalm 43:4 "I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy." Unfortunately, people will also use this truth to leave Christianity, saying that if God wanted them to be happy he wouldn't have allowed this disaster to strike. How utterly foolish! We must tell them that God allowed the disaster into their life to show them how they were satisfied in too little. They were satisfied in their financial security, then they lost their job. "Its all God's fault!" They cry, and they are right. He was showing them that money cannot be trusted. Their spouse dies, and they blame God. He was showing them they were satisfied in their mate and not in Him. Their children are lost in a tragic car accident and God pleads with them to see that they were too attached to their children, forsaking the God that gave them the gift of their children. I don't want God or myself to be seen as callous. Nobody will find a better comforter than the Holy Spirit, but sometimes in our humanity we forget our frailty and our utter dependence on His mercy for every breath we take.
This is my passion. This is my goal. This is the will of God. That I use my talents to tell the world the message that God offers them glory, and they prefer mud. God offers them joy and they prefer dirt. God offers them complete satisfaction in him, and after they ask him to save them from their sins, they become enamored with the world. What a tragedy. I pray God keeps me from such a fate. I pray God keeps you from such a fate. I pray God uses us to keep the world from such a fate.
This purpose is not some vague notion of following a will of God, and feeling out where he is leading us. God has not set a specific plan for my life that, if I deviate from , I am living a second rate life outside his specific will. Rather God has laid out a clearly defined goal in His Word. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer to that question is "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." If we strive to glorify God in what we eat, what we drink, what we do, how we make a living; if we strive to pursue complete and satisfying happiness only in God, we have fulfilled our purpose in life. Anything else is wasted, mediocre and unfulfilled.
My goal in these few moments is not to challenge only my fellow graduates, but to challenge all of us gathered here today not to waste our lives on good things. Things like keeping America conservative, battling abortion, helping the poor. If we are serious and committed to finding joy in God, all these other good results will follow. The most effective way to push Christian values in America is not through political action, but by showing the world the awesome love of God that demands us to fall down on our faces in worship. God created us to bring glory to Him. He created us to worship Him. We're forsaking our God-given purpose in life when we allow ourselves to be satisfied fighting for anything less than him.
People may question us, "How can God be loving if he acts as if he's trying to build his self-esteem?" We must answer with John Piper's methaphor, "would you take a man to the alps, then lock him in a room of mirrors?" If God is truly the most wonderful, the most awesome, the most magnificent being, it does not make sense that he would allow us to be satisfied by worldly pleasures. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, it is not that we are unsatisfied with God, it is that we are satisfied in too little. We are satisfied with our cars, our computers, our families when we are offered a life that is infinitely greater. Christ gave his all so we could rejoice and be satisfied in the only person who can truly bring joy.
We must educate the world in the truth that God wants us to be happy. Not happy in a worldly sense. People use this truth to justify sin, when proper application means avoiding sin at all costs. True, lasting, satisfying happiness can only be found in God. The Psalmists recognized this truth. In Psalm 16:11 "In your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore" and in Psalm 43:4 "I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy." Unfortunately, people will also use this truth to leave Christianity, saying that if God wanted them to be happy he wouldn't have allowed this disaster to strike. How utterly foolish! We must tell them that God allowed the disaster into their life to show them how they were satisfied in too little. They were satisfied in their financial security, then they lost their job. "Its all God's fault!" They cry, and they are right. He was showing them that money cannot be trusted. Their spouse dies, and they blame God. He was showing them they were satisfied in their mate and not in Him. Their children are lost in a tragic car accident and God pleads with them to see that they were too attached to their children, forsaking the God that gave them the gift of their children. I don't want God or myself to be seen as callous. Nobody will find a better comforter than the Holy Spirit, but sometimes in our humanity we forget our frailty and our utter dependence on His mercy for every breath we take.
This is my passion. This is my goal. This is the will of God. That I use my talents to tell the world the message that God offers them glory, and they prefer mud. God offers them joy and they prefer dirt. God offers them complete satisfaction in him, and after they ask him to save them from their sins, they become enamored with the world. What a tragedy. I pray God keeps me from such a fate. I pray God keeps you from such a fate. I pray God uses us to keep the world from such a fate.
Monday, April 6, 2009
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
(Romans 3:5-8)
(Romans 3:5-8)
Friday, March 20, 2009
One of the most precious sayings of America is that we believe "all men are created equal." I know the reverence we hold this saying in, but I think (As C. S. Lewis has kindly informed me) that it is a legal fiction, useful only for the courts.
When we think about it, do we really believe all men are created equal? Is everybody capable of being a star quarterback? Can everbody swim like Michael Phelps? Can we all dance? Sing? Are all of us just as good looking as the actors we watch on the big screen? No.
But then again, wouldn't life be very, very boring if we all were superbly good looking, amazingly athletic and had the brain of Einstein? Yes! I think God was wise enough to create a world in which everybody was different. Our personalities and skills make for an interesting world where we can meet people similar and different from us. Just imagine, if everybook had the same characters, same plot line, same setting, and same resolution, we'd be bored out of our minds! Same with people, since we are different, we don't get bored.
Aren't we all grateful to the wisdom of the One who created us different?
When we think about it, do we really believe all men are created equal? Is everybody capable of being a star quarterback? Can everbody swim like Michael Phelps? Can we all dance? Sing? Are all of us just as good looking as the actors we watch on the big screen? No.
But then again, wouldn't life be very, very boring if we all were superbly good looking, amazingly athletic and had the brain of Einstein? Yes! I think God was wise enough to create a world in which everybody was different. Our personalities and skills make for an interesting world where we can meet people similar and different from us. Just imagine, if everybook had the same characters, same plot line, same setting, and same resolution, we'd be bored out of our minds! Same with people, since we are different, we don't get bored.
Aren't we all grateful to the wisdom of the One who created us different?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)