 |
| California Condor Wing Span. Incredible! |
 |
| The Gorilla came up to the window and sat down. |
 |
| How sad children are taught apes are their relatives when God has fearfully and wonderfully made them. |
 |
| Lunch by the Elephants. |
 |
| Cool! |
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Zoo & Creation . . .
Good?
In Romans 3:9–12 Paul writes: What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” He ends that description in verse 18 with, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Paul is describing both Jew and Greek, basically the “proper” religious ones and those totally ignorant of the true God (therefore, everyone). It is a stunning statement and it is a clear look at how God sees good and bad, Light and darkness. We must remember that he is including here even the man or woman next door who doesn’t hurt anyone and who helps others. None are righteous. No one does good. This is shocking if we are used to defining good and “righteous” by deeds and moral measuring sticks—the kind of defining that leaves us stunned that the “Son of Sam” (see “The Son of Sam and . . . You and I”) might be in heaven one day, and our neighbor or family member who has never done anything so horrific as he has be absent from there, and in hell.
If this reality stuns us, or bothers us, we are probably looking at good and bad as ranking or measured or rated, with people being compared and ranked by their “goodness” or “badness” of deeds. This is dangerous and it will draw us away from God and in to arrogance (or, in some cases, horrible depression if we start to believe we are so much more horrible than others). One thing must be clear in our understanding of the Gospel—the Law, the moral code, is not to encourage and build us up, but to point us to Jesus. Paul continues with verses 19–20 and says: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
The Law convicts. The moral code convicts. It makes the whole world accountable to God. By the Law NO ONE will be justified in God’s sight! The Law brings the knowledge of sin, not unlike Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil and were suddenly ashamed and afraid of God. That is it. That is the Law’s purpose. It is a tutor to bring us to Christ. The Pharisees made the horrible mistake of letting the Law exalt them because they measured good and bad by it, and found themselves “closer” to it than others. That is NOT the Law’s role! It is not to show us we are better than another, but to show us how horribly separated we are from God and how unrighteous we are—to prepare us for Christ and to show us our utter need for Him and His work on the cross as our SOLE basis and claim of righteousness.
When moral works exalt us or puff us up or cause us to esteem ourselves better than another we have completely missed the point of the Law. We were created to live in an intimate, moment by moment relationship with our Creator and Father, led by His Spirit. We were not created to live by a moral code. The Law kills, the Spirit gives life and freedom. What we must understand is that there is no good apart from God. Romans 14:23 will go so far as to say whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and this is not talking about huge moral acts—but about eating! James tells us it is sin if we know what TO do and don't do it (so there is sin from doing, and from NOT doing!) We can start to see that there are NONE righteous—not one! There is no good apart from faith—none! This is so, so hard to absorb as long as we insist on defining good by works and not God. HE, alone, is good, and we must understand that. We become good and righteous in Him and through Him, only! It is only through a living, faith relationship with Him that we are found righteous—and it is only what is done by His Spirit through us that is good.
But, the amazing and awesome flip side of all this is that when we come to Christ, we become completely righteous! Christ has completely paid for our sin and we are completely crucified with Him at our born again moment, and completely raised with Him as a new creation, paid for and adopted, righteous and alive. It is not because of anything we have done, but all because of what He has done and what we have received in faith in our place. It is positional—just like we can travel at 60 mph in a car without doing anything ourself, but simply because we are in the car. Our righteousness is simply because we are in Christ, and that is the most wonderful news of all. If I didn't earn it by my works and can't lose it by my stumbles, and my God is perfectly able to keep me in Christ, no matter what the enemy might try and throw my way!
Thanks be to God! May the joy and freedom His grace and your total freedom from the Law fill you with joy today. —Erick
Paul is describing both Jew and Greek, basically the “proper” religious ones and those totally ignorant of the true God (therefore, everyone). It is a stunning statement and it is a clear look at how God sees good and bad, Light and darkness. We must remember that he is including here even the man or woman next door who doesn’t hurt anyone and who helps others. None are righteous. No one does good. This is shocking if we are used to defining good and “righteous” by deeds and moral measuring sticks—the kind of defining that leaves us stunned that the “Son of Sam” (see “The Son of Sam and . . . You and I”) might be in heaven one day, and our neighbor or family member who has never done anything so horrific as he has be absent from there, and in hell.
If this reality stuns us, or bothers us, we are probably looking at good and bad as ranking or measured or rated, with people being compared and ranked by their “goodness” or “badness” of deeds. This is dangerous and it will draw us away from God and in to arrogance (or, in some cases, horrible depression if we start to believe we are so much more horrible than others). One thing must be clear in our understanding of the Gospel—the Law, the moral code, is not to encourage and build us up, but to point us to Jesus. Paul continues with verses 19–20 and says: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
The Law convicts. The moral code convicts. It makes the whole world accountable to God. By the Law NO ONE will be justified in God’s sight! The Law brings the knowledge of sin, not unlike Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil and were suddenly ashamed and afraid of God. That is it. That is the Law’s purpose. It is a tutor to bring us to Christ. The Pharisees made the horrible mistake of letting the Law exalt them because they measured good and bad by it, and found themselves “closer” to it than others. That is NOT the Law’s role! It is not to show us we are better than another, but to show us how horribly separated we are from God and how unrighteous we are—to prepare us for Christ and to show us our utter need for Him and His work on the cross as our SOLE basis and claim of righteousness.
When moral works exalt us or puff us up or cause us to esteem ourselves better than another we have completely missed the point of the Law. We were created to live in an intimate, moment by moment relationship with our Creator and Father, led by His Spirit. We were not created to live by a moral code. The Law kills, the Spirit gives life and freedom. What we must understand is that there is no good apart from God. Romans 14:23 will go so far as to say whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and this is not talking about huge moral acts—but about eating! James tells us it is sin if we know what TO do and don't do it (so there is sin from doing, and from NOT doing!) We can start to see that there are NONE righteous—not one! There is no good apart from faith—none! This is so, so hard to absorb as long as we insist on defining good by works and not God. HE, alone, is good, and we must understand that. We become good and righteous in Him and through Him, only! It is only through a living, faith relationship with Him that we are found righteous—and it is only what is done by His Spirit through us that is good.
But, the amazing and awesome flip side of all this is that when we come to Christ, we become completely righteous! Christ has completely paid for our sin and we are completely crucified with Him at our born again moment, and completely raised with Him as a new creation, paid for and adopted, righteous and alive. It is not because of anything we have done, but all because of what He has done and what we have received in faith in our place. It is positional—just like we can travel at 60 mph in a car without doing anything ourself, but simply because we are in the car. Our righteousness is simply because we are in Christ, and that is the most wonderful news of all. If I didn't earn it by my works and can't lose it by my stumbles, and my God is perfectly able to keep me in Christ, no matter what the enemy might try and throw my way!
Thanks be to God! May the joy and freedom His grace and your total freedom from the Law fill you with joy today. —Erick
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Son of Sam and . . . You and I
Note: If you have not read the Light and Dark series (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) I recommend you do as a context for what follows. I believe that an understanding of this truth will dramatically affect both our understanding, and our sharing of the Gospel.
A Fox News story today reports that convicted serial killer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," said he has "no interest" in parole thanks to forgiveness by Jesus Christ. It reports that Berkowitz—who terrorized New York in the late 1970s, killing six people and wounding seven—will not seek parole during his next opportunity in May. According to the article, he wrote Fox News, “I have no interest in parole and no plans to seek release . . . If you could understand this, I am already a 'free man.' I am not saying this jokingly. I really am. Jesus Christ has already forgiven and pardoned me, and I believe this.”
Now, I recognize that there is a lot of scepticism about prison conversions (I have almost never met with someone in jail who hasn’t said God got a hold of them this time and it is the last, but few have made significant and lasting changes toward God when they are out). I don’t know David personally, but I do know that there is much more to be said, and read, about him and his conversion. He even has a web page where he writes devotionals called www.ariseandshine.org. But, setting any skepticism aside (and in NO way saying what he did was not horrible or that God doesn't think it horrible), and assuming for the sake of this post that his conversion is real, this is a story almost guaranteed to reveal deep down your and my understanding of the holiness of God, the condition of man, the Gospel, and of Light and Darkness.
If you, as a Christian, struggle with the fact that this man will share Heaven with you while your neighbor, who gives to charity and does “good” deeds won’t as of now, you may not fully understand how God sees Light and Darkness. Likewise, if you are not a Christian, and you struggle with the idea of this man being eternally in Heaven and you being eternally in Hell, you probably don’t understand Light and Darkness.
At this point in my life and studies I believe that the major problem and obstacle to our understanding of the Gospel lies in defining good and bad by a moral measuring stick and not by God’s presence in it or absence from it. We must remember that the Bible says that the Light came into the Darkness, and that men loved darkness because of their wicked deeds and so rejected the Light. There are only two kinds of people—those in the Light and those in Darkness, and God’s reign is the defining mark. Colossians 1:13-14 says of God, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The “domain [rule] of darkness” and the “wicked deeds” Jesus talks about in John, Chapter 3, apply to even those family and friends and neighbors who do “good” deeds. I believe we struggle with this because we want to measure ourself against others, and fail to see the vast distance we all are from God and the utter darkness of absence from Him.
I can not adequately explore this in a single post, and I will talk about this more in the coming days, but we must be very, very careful to not fall into the trap of looking left and right to define Light and Dark, and good and evil, instead of looking up to Him. He is the line, He is the mark, He is the litmus test, He is the measure. He is the life. We were created for relationship with Him, and we chose the knowledge of good and evil. WE chose a moral code. WE chose a set of rules that make it possible to live independent of His leading. HE created us for intimate, moment-by-moment relationship with Him and WE chose a path that made us “like God”—able to define right and wrong on our own. We MUST understand, HE is the measure, HE is life, and anything apart from Him and relationship with Him is Darkness and death. It may have the appearance, and even intention of good, but He alone is life. And, so, we come again to that place where “wicked deeds” are not defined by a moral measuring stick, but by His absence where we have replaced His rule with self-rule, and separated ourselves from Him. We will never grasp this if insist on believing good can exist apart from Him.
I know that this is a lot, and that I run the risk of offending people with such a limited explanation, but hang in there. More next time, but until then, may His love be felt strongly by you.
Erick
A Fox News story today reports that convicted serial killer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," said he has "no interest" in parole thanks to forgiveness by Jesus Christ. It reports that Berkowitz—who terrorized New York in the late 1970s, killing six people and wounding seven—will not seek parole during his next opportunity in May. According to the article, he wrote Fox News, “I have no interest in parole and no plans to seek release . . . If you could understand this, I am already a 'free man.' I am not saying this jokingly. I really am. Jesus Christ has already forgiven and pardoned me, and I believe this.”
Now, I recognize that there is a lot of scepticism about prison conversions (I have almost never met with someone in jail who hasn’t said God got a hold of them this time and it is the last, but few have made significant and lasting changes toward God when they are out). I don’t know David personally, but I do know that there is much more to be said, and read, about him and his conversion. He even has a web page where he writes devotionals called www.ariseandshine.org. But, setting any skepticism aside (and in NO way saying what he did was not horrible or that God doesn't think it horrible), and assuming for the sake of this post that his conversion is real, this is a story almost guaranteed to reveal deep down your and my understanding of the holiness of God, the condition of man, the Gospel, and of Light and Darkness.
If you, as a Christian, struggle with the fact that this man will share Heaven with you while your neighbor, who gives to charity and does “good” deeds won’t as of now, you may not fully understand how God sees Light and Darkness. Likewise, if you are not a Christian, and you struggle with the idea of this man being eternally in Heaven and you being eternally in Hell, you probably don’t understand Light and Darkness.
At this point in my life and studies I believe that the major problem and obstacle to our understanding of the Gospel lies in defining good and bad by a moral measuring stick and not by God’s presence in it or absence from it. We must remember that the Bible says that the Light came into the Darkness, and that men loved darkness because of their wicked deeds and so rejected the Light. There are only two kinds of people—those in the Light and those in Darkness, and God’s reign is the defining mark. Colossians 1:13-14 says of God, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The “domain [rule] of darkness” and the “wicked deeds” Jesus talks about in John, Chapter 3, apply to even those family and friends and neighbors who do “good” deeds. I believe we struggle with this because we want to measure ourself against others, and fail to see the vast distance we all are from God and the utter darkness of absence from Him.
I can not adequately explore this in a single post, and I will talk about this more in the coming days, but we must be very, very careful to not fall into the trap of looking left and right to define Light and Dark, and good and evil, instead of looking up to Him. He is the line, He is the mark, He is the litmus test, He is the measure. He is the life. We were created for relationship with Him, and we chose the knowledge of good and evil. WE chose a moral code. WE chose a set of rules that make it possible to live independent of His leading. HE created us for intimate, moment-by-moment relationship with Him and WE chose a path that made us “like God”—able to define right and wrong on our own. We MUST understand, HE is the measure, HE is life, and anything apart from Him and relationship with Him is Darkness and death. It may have the appearance, and even intention of good, but He alone is life. And, so, we come again to that place where “wicked deeds” are not defined by a moral measuring stick, but by His absence where we have replaced His rule with self-rule, and separated ourselves from Him. We will never grasp this if insist on believing good can exist apart from Him.
I know that this is a lot, and that I run the risk of offending people with such a limited explanation, but hang in there. More next time, but until then, may His love be felt strongly by you.
Erick
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Fire Boring Preachers?
An August 8th post by Eryn Sun in The Christian Post naturally, as a pastor/teacher, caught my eye. It was called, "Why 'Boring' Preachers Should Be Fired." It talks about Christian theologian Carl Trueman and credits him with writing about how, "good preachers preaching on doctrine or 'the description of who God is and how he has acted' should never leave audiences feeling cold and indifferent" (and how elders should fire ones who consistently do). You would need to read the whole article to get all of what he is said to have said, and to be truly fair to the full picture he presents, but a few comments the author of this post attributes to him include:
1. "The relationship between doctrine and worship in the structure of Paul’s letters allows us to infer that doctrine which does not lead to praise is not really true in the richest sense of the word" . . . "Doctrine which does not culminate in praise is not true doctrine" . . . "Teaching of doctrine and appropriate response to the same are inextricably tied together such that the former should really terminate in the latter."
2. “I was talking to a friend recently who told me of a Sunday school class on providence which he had attended. The presentation, while precise and correct at the level of formulation, left my friend cold. Nothing of the glory or the grace or the mercy or the patience of God had been conveyed in the presentation. There was nothing to call forth a response of praise and adoration.” The article also states that, "He clarified that this did not mean people should be swayed 'by aesthetics' or 'reader response' however. He just questioned a man who took 'the deep, mysterious and glorious things of God' and consistently turned them into a 'bland medium.' "
Naturally, this subject is something I reflected on, and I have a few thoughts about it. My thoughts are not all directly tied in to Mr. Trueman, but rather spawned by his. I have not read his original article, only the article about it, and I am not criticizing him at all, only sharing my reflections that the article birthed.
I wonder—what is the responsibility of a teacher? What is he accountable for? I would think that it would be an accurate presentation and exposition of the Word of God or subject that the Spirit of God led him to. If he picked a message from his own "good ideas" or because a denomination told him to then there is a strong chance that the Spirit is not leading it or anointing it. But, if he has prayed and sought the Lord and obeyed, then the Spirit will anoint it and he has done what he was called to do.
I wonder how Jesus would measure up to the standard of true doctrine being that which elicits praise in the audience? I, honestly, don't see a lot of that response coming from his words. We could say his audience was pre-Pentecost, but then Acts tells us a lot about the apostles being driven from cities for preaching (not praise coming). Of course, if this only refers to an audience of true, Spirit-filled believers then does the criticism find merit that true teaching should evoke praise? I am still unsure on this. What is the responsibility of the listener to be prepared for the teaching and to have his or her heart ready and his conscience cleansed. If the Spirit is grieved or quenched by him or her will a teaching cause praise to rise up?
I think that there is a danger (and a truth) in what Mr. Trueman brings up. Obviously, if a man is consistently unmoved by the glory of God and transmits that lack of emotion then there is a chance it will have an effect on the listener . . . but what a danger there is in putting the response of the listener on the back of the teacher as well. Might this not led to a pastor-centered church instead of a Christ-centered church? Might this bring about the situation where we follow a teacher and not the one the teacher points to? Might this standard subtly pull us into the realm of seeking out teachers who give our itching ears what they want to hear?
I think a key is that the Spirit alone can awaken a heart. If it is awakened or moved by the delivery of a man it is not going to be true. I have read that Jonathan Edwards delivered "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in a monotone and people clutched the pews in fear. Other preachers can preach in a great oratory and evoke an emotion of praise that doesn't last past the first person that cuts them off on the way home. And, what about the mix in the congregation? I can't tell you how many times the same teaching I have delivered has caused one to two people to nod off and had multiple people come up after and tell me how much it moved and affected them. I have had, in the same week, the criticism that the church was too "Pentecostal" (I don't know what that means) and that it wasn't Spirit-filled enough—same week! I have had people complain I go to long and others wish I went longer. I have had our church condemned, and praised, because we long to see those come to it who are broken, addicted, outcast, and rejected. So, what becomes the standard in these cases?
I think the answer has to lie in the simple question, "Did the teacher do what God asked them to do?" That is all they are responsible for, I believe. But, it is an interesting question and line of thought and I'd love to hear your comments. Obviously, as a pastor, I'm a little pre-biased. What do you think? What do you believe God's Word says a teacher's responsibility is? What would cause you to fire a preacher, and what wouldn't?
1. "The relationship between doctrine and worship in the structure of Paul’s letters allows us to infer that doctrine which does not lead to praise is not really true in the richest sense of the word" . . . "Doctrine which does not culminate in praise is not true doctrine" . . . "Teaching of doctrine and appropriate response to the same are inextricably tied together such that the former should really terminate in the latter."
2. “I was talking to a friend recently who told me of a Sunday school class on providence which he had attended. The presentation, while precise and correct at the level of formulation, left my friend cold. Nothing of the glory or the grace or the mercy or the patience of God had been conveyed in the presentation. There was nothing to call forth a response of praise and adoration.” The article also states that, "He clarified that this did not mean people should be swayed 'by aesthetics' or 'reader response' however. He just questioned a man who took 'the deep, mysterious and glorious things of God' and consistently turned them into a 'bland medium.' "
Naturally, this subject is something I reflected on, and I have a few thoughts about it. My thoughts are not all directly tied in to Mr. Trueman, but rather spawned by his. I have not read his original article, only the article about it, and I am not criticizing him at all, only sharing my reflections that the article birthed.
I wonder—what is the responsibility of a teacher? What is he accountable for? I would think that it would be an accurate presentation and exposition of the Word of God or subject that the Spirit of God led him to. If he picked a message from his own "good ideas" or because a denomination told him to then there is a strong chance that the Spirit is not leading it or anointing it. But, if he has prayed and sought the Lord and obeyed, then the Spirit will anoint it and he has done what he was called to do.
I wonder how Jesus would measure up to the standard of true doctrine being that which elicits praise in the audience? I, honestly, don't see a lot of that response coming from his words. We could say his audience was pre-Pentecost, but then Acts tells us a lot about the apostles being driven from cities for preaching (not praise coming). Of course, if this only refers to an audience of true, Spirit-filled believers then does the criticism find merit that true teaching should evoke praise? I am still unsure on this. What is the responsibility of the listener to be prepared for the teaching and to have his or her heart ready and his conscience cleansed. If the Spirit is grieved or quenched by him or her will a teaching cause praise to rise up?
I think that there is a danger (and a truth) in what Mr. Trueman brings up. Obviously, if a man is consistently unmoved by the glory of God and transmits that lack of emotion then there is a chance it will have an effect on the listener . . . but what a danger there is in putting the response of the listener on the back of the teacher as well. Might this not led to a pastor-centered church instead of a Christ-centered church? Might this bring about the situation where we follow a teacher and not the one the teacher points to? Might this standard subtly pull us into the realm of seeking out teachers who give our itching ears what they want to hear?
I think a key is that the Spirit alone can awaken a heart. If it is awakened or moved by the delivery of a man it is not going to be true. I have read that Jonathan Edwards delivered "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in a monotone and people clutched the pews in fear. Other preachers can preach in a great oratory and evoke an emotion of praise that doesn't last past the first person that cuts them off on the way home. And, what about the mix in the congregation? I can't tell you how many times the same teaching I have delivered has caused one to two people to nod off and had multiple people come up after and tell me how much it moved and affected them. I have had, in the same week, the criticism that the church was too "Pentecostal" (I don't know what that means) and that it wasn't Spirit-filled enough—same week! I have had people complain I go to long and others wish I went longer. I have had our church condemned, and praised, because we long to see those come to it who are broken, addicted, outcast, and rejected. So, what becomes the standard in these cases?
I think the answer has to lie in the simple question, "Did the teacher do what God asked them to do?" That is all they are responsible for, I believe. But, it is an interesting question and line of thought and I'd love to hear your comments. Obviously, as a pastor, I'm a little pre-biased. What do you think? What do you believe God's Word says a teacher's responsibility is? What would cause you to fire a preacher, and what wouldn't?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
