In his sermon, the preacher told the audience that he was ready to take on several challenges for glory of God. He told them that his last child was going away to college soon and that he’d asked God to be able to finish preparing his son for the big change coming his way, and then he said;
“…after that I am open to anything….If God wants us to move to Africa or South America to medical missions; I’m there. If he wants me to drop my nice healthcare company job and go into some full time ministry; let’s do it! If he wants us to go and teach or train and mentor at some Christian college to encourage students to look for a God-thing to do with their lives and move to some un-churched, non-Bible belt places so that God can use them to plant and evangelize and serve in those places, then I’m up for that. If he says, “Tom, come back to Maine. There’s still stuff I want you and Jeannie to do there;” man, we’re all over that mountain! If he says, “You know, now I need you to sell that big ol’ , kid-empty house and move into some inner-city ministry dwelling, which means you might have to take a pay cut, but you’ll be better able to take the gospel and authentically live it before the very folks that Jesus came for, the ones who are poor, who are beat up, who are hungry, who are scared, who are defeated: Tom, this is where I really now need you.” If that’s my mountain, then here we go.”
The mountain that the preacher refers to is a metaphor for a God-honoring activity that challenges and shapes the course of the life of a follower of Jesus. It’s taken from the King James version of this story in the Old Testament.
As I listened to this litany of God-honoring activities, I asked myself, “Why would God not want the preacher to do any one of these things?” Think about it for a moment: which one of those activities is God against? None of them. Every one of them would be pleasing to him, especially done with the enthusiasm that was evident in the preacher’s voice and demeanor. Let’s assume that God does not “call” the preacher to quit his job and move to South America to do medical missions, but he does it anyway: would God really refuse to allow anyone to come to faith in Jesus because the preacher was doing a God-honoring service to which was not called? Where’s the logic in that?
As I see it, God saves us and sets us free in Christ to do good works. He give us some principles (i.e.-”Do unto others….”) and some specifics (i.e.- feed the hungry, visit the prisoners etc) and then lets us decide what we’ll do. We’re free in Christ to choose our good works and to make plans. That’s what Paul did. He made a plan to preach Christ in places where no one else had done it. He prayed for “an open door”, meaning opportunity. Sometimes the Lord opened a door and sometimes he closed one, but he never told Paul to change his plan, to quit preaching.
Waiting for God to tell us exactly what to do is a bit immature on our part. Think about it; do you want your grown-up children calling you every morning with questions like, “What should I wear today?”, “How should I get to work this morning?”, “How much money should I give the homeless guy who washes my windshield when I stop at the red light?” God is the perfect father. He’s told us what pleases him. He even sent Jesus to model what pleases him. Now we are free to do as we’ve been told in Scripture and to follow the example of the One and Only Son. So, instead of waiting for God to give us a mountain, we need to choose one for ourselves and ask God to give it to us.
This one has been sitting in the queue so long that I don’t remember exactly how I came across it. I just remember that Mr. Hand has said something profound…and misguided.
A while back, I changed my religion. I used to be an Atheist. Now, I’m an Evolutionist. It isn’t that I’ve suddenly started believing in non-existent beings. My position on things metaphysical is essentially unchanged. I still uncategorically deny the existence of any deities. I still think that people who believe in deities (or just one deity) are incorrect in their beliefs. However, I’ve realized that that particular infection with an erroneous notion isn’t an especially damaging one. This is a kind of cheerful state of affairs. The simple fact is that belief in a deity is simply not even vaguely important to any of the things that really do matter. (emphasis mine)
In a sense, Mr. Hand is right. (Not what you might expect a God-blogger to say, right?) Believing in a deity (of whatever sort and/or multiples thereof) is not especially damaging to anyone provided that the belief doesn’t inform the way a person lives (and that the belief is in fact incorrect). You might refer to this as “functional atheism”. Instead, what really matters are the specific beliefs that one has about the supernatural being(s) in question.
Without any appeal to some kind of authority, Mr. Hand says that “Being mostly nice and often thinking carefully are important.” In order to keep things moving, lets agree and say that these two things are important. Who exactly should a person be nice to and what precisely should that person think carefully about? There are some in the world who believe that the deity to whom they belong requires that they should only be nice to other believers. Conversely, those people do not believe that it is important to be nice to non-believers. Furthermore, there are some people who believe that the deity in question is pleased whenever they are not nice to unbelievers. In fact, some people believe that their deity is pleased whenever its followers kill unbelievers. And so we have an example of how belief in a deity generally and specific beliefs about that deity are “especially damaging”. After all, I’m confident that Mr. Hand would agree that killing people who do not share one’s beliefs is not being nice.
I’m also confident that Mr. Hand would agree that the killing of “unbelievers” is not the product of careful thinking. However, I would disagree. In fact, it is my experience that we deists have to do some very careful thinking to either justify our un-nice actions or to execute them. This is particularly true of those deists who believe that their deity will distribute some kind of reward or punishment at some point in the future based upon their actions; such people tend to think very carefully more than merely often.
Obviously, what people believe about God, god and/or gods is more than vaguely important to the two things that Mr. Hand says are important, that matter. Consequently, we can guess that such belief (erroneous or not) is important to other things that matter as well.
In this video by Emergent Church personality Rob Bell, he talks about knowing who we really are. The video concludes with a slide at the end which is not readable through YouTube, so I’ve added it below. Watch the video and read the slide.
What does Rob mean by really knowing “our true selves”? How will knowing our true selves help us to live the life God wants for us? What exactly is this life that God wants for us?
While these are great discussion questions for the church youth group, I can’t help but wonder what Rob’s answers would be. Afterall, the phrase “true self” doesn’t appear in the majority of translations available at the Biblegateway. (The Message is the noteworthy exception.) I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the absence of such a phrase is because the true self is not something that we know, but something that we develop.
Paul talks about an “old self” and a “new self”. The old self is the corruptible one that we come into the world with. It is the one that is contaminated by The Fall and enslaved to sin. By choosing to live by the principles of this world, we contribute to the development of the “old self”. We turn away from God and become progressively less like him in whose image we were created. The “new self” is the incorruptible one that is set free (by God)from sin. By choosing to believe in and submit to the Authority of Jesus, we turn toward God and become progressively like him. Our “true self” is directly dependent upon our relationship to Jesus, our as Paul puts it, whether or not we are “in Christ”.
So, knowing our true old self may actually propel us toward God through Christ. Or, perhaps knowing our true new self may encourage us to continue moving toward God in Christ. Is this what Rob is getting at?
Here we can see two different attitudes toward God and His role is guiding people. From Mohammed, you get resignation. God guides or misguides and people are utterly powerless.
From Jesus, you get encouragement. In this model prayer, Jesus demonstrates that his followers should ask for God’s guidance (and deliverance) with the expectation of receiving it.
It’s been a little while since I posted my reflections on the differences between specific sayings/teachings of Mohammed and Jesus. Here’s one that I’ve had in the queue a while.
Mohammed says:
“Verily, the pious (shall be) in gardens and pleasure, enjoying what their Lord has given them; for their Lord will save them from the torment of hell. ‘Eat and drink with good digestion, for that which ye have done!’ Reclining on couches in rows, and we shall wed them to large-eyed maidens. And those who believe and whose seed follows them in the faith, we will unite their seed with them;” Chapter of the Mount vs 5-7 (italics mine)
Jesus says:
“Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” Mark 12:24-26 (italics mine)
Both teachers speak about resurrection and the day of judgement, however Mohammed says far more about the nature of the hereafter than Jesus does. In fact, Mohammed gives much more detail about both heaven and hell; who is there, why they are there and what happens to and with them there. Conversely, Jesus never teaches that people go to heaven when they die, so there’s not much reason for him to talk about what it’s like there for them. (We can unpack Jesus’ statements about “Paradise” and “being where I am” another time.)
Mohammed clearly says that in heaven (aka Paradise) the believers marry virgins and they are even reunited with their children who believe. However you may choose to look at it, there’s an indication that the relationships of wife, father and child are preserved in Paradise. This is not the case according to Jesus. He clearly contradicts Mohammed when he says that marriage relations are not part of the resurrection life. It’s logical to assume that if the categories of husband and wife become irrelevant, so do the categories father, mother, son, and daughter for these all depend on the first relationship between husband and wife.
NB:Jesus only addresses this issue because it was put to him as a test. If you’re not familiar with the incident, read the whole chapter of Mark 12.
“And shouldst thou ever fear from any people treachery, then throw it back to them in like manner: verily God loves not the treacherous.” Chapter of the Spoils v40. (italics mine)
Jesus says:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth’. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go with them one mile, gow with him two miles. ” Matthew 5:38-41 (italics mine)
and
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemies.’ But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven.” Matthew 5:43-45 (italics mine) See also Luke 6:27-36
Not much commentary necessary for this one. Mohammed clearly advocates tit for tat. Jesus doesn’t. In fact, Jesus says that acting with love and praying for (not against) one’s enemies makes a person like God, who also loves those who hate him.
Two teachers. Two messages. Same source? I don’t think so.
“Make not thy hand fettered to thy neck, nor yet spread it out quite open, lest thou shouldst have to sit down blamed and straitened in means. Verily, thy Lord spreads out provision to whomsoever He will or He doles it out. Verily, He is ever well aware of and sees His servants.” The Chapter of the Night Journey beginning vs 27.
Jesus says:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” Luke 6:30.
Even without the fullest context for either quotation, I think it’s fairly clear that the attitudes of both speakers are not the same. Mohammed essentially says, “Give, but not too much,” while Jesus simply says “Give, and don’t demand.” One is self-serving:one is other-serving. There can be no doubt that these two are reading from different scripts.
I’ve got the next several days off, and I expect that I won’t be able to keep up my posting routine (1 every other day), so I’m going to repost some things that I wrote at my former URL. Another reason that I’m reposting these particular pieces is that I saw a blog recently which touched upon these things. I left a comment, so perhaps the owner may come by and find these post interesting.
Anyway, here’s the first of the series just to let you know what’s coming:
I don’t know if such a book would be truly useful, but I know that a book which places the teachings of Jesus beside the teachings of Mohammed for the purposes of comparison would get my attention. Perhaps there is already such a book. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some of the pamphlets I’ve seen from Muslim societies already do this to some degree. It’s such an interesting idea to me that I’m actually doing my own comparisons. I’m not so ambitious as to seek to make a book out of it, but I intend to write a bit here about what I find.
Of course I’m biased, but I don’t intend to write a polemic. Such a thing wouldn’t be beneficial for anyone, including myself. Instead, my aim is to demonstrate that there is no real continuity between the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed. While Islam lists Jesus among the prophets of Allah, it does not acknowledge the New Testament as a reliable witness to what Jesus said and did. For that reason, I don’t expect anything that I write will impact any Muslim’s thinking. Even so, I do think it’s worthwhile to point out that these two people were not singing from the same hymnal in any meaningful sense.
One of the biggest obstacles to this personal investigation is reading the Qur’an. Whenever I’ve tried, the English is practically incomprehensible. (Is this what it feels like to read the Bible for some folks?) I’ve not found very much that reads like a narrative and the copious “blessings” really mess with the flow of the English text. That being said, what little I’ve managed to read has contained some divergent messages which are worth commenting on…which I’ll do later.
A while back, Wonders for Oyarsa chimed in on a post of mine and shared a link to a podcast that he took part in. (Check it out here.) In it, he speaks with the host, Emery, an atheist, about the book of Job. In their conversation, Wonders points out that God is vindicating Job in front of Satan, which might have been a point that was lost on Emery, I’m not sure. While I think that’s true, I don’t think it’s the primary vindication of the story. (Maybe Wonders doesn’t either, I dont’ recall him saying.)
The primary vindication is of God. God, creator of men, holds up Job as an example to Satan. It’s like God says, “I know you think men (whom I made) are worthless, but have you seen Job? He’s an excellent example of what men can be.” So, Satan attempts to show God that He’s wrong and accuses Job of merely seeking the gifts and not the Giver. His questioning of Job is really a questioning of God’s wisdom in creating men and lavishing his love attention on them.
God allows Satan to inflict all kinds of suffering on Job within specific limits. When Job stands his ground and refuses to be disloyal to God and dishonest about himself, God shows that all of Satan’s accusations were without merit, vindicating his wisdom, love and affection for men.
I think God, in his love, then turns and vindicates Job before his “friends”, who (like Satan) accused him of being secretly wicked in some way and too arrogant to confess it.
Deeply concerned about the amount of media attention given to the Emergent Church Movement and afraid of losing large numbers of Generation Y from their own churches, several mainstream denominations are secretly considering “re-branding” themselves.
Insiders to each of the following groups have anonymously claimed that:
Southern Baptists are in negotiations with the Regular and Freewill Baptists to become known collectively as “The Submergent Church”.
United Methodists, Churches of Christ (Uniting), Congregationalist and Unitarian Churches are discussing the possibility of forming a single “Convergent Church”.
Taking note of the rise of “new monasticism” and an increasing interest in the mystery of Eastern Orthodoxy among Generation Y Christians, patriarchs from the various Orthodox Churches are considering the moniker “Resurgent Church”.
Speculators in the web domain market have already registered the following domains in the hope that other Christian denominations will purchase them once they’ve decided which names best suit them.
Preacher Dean in Nashville, Tennessee is doing a series of sermons from Exodus. Last week, he reached the point of the story when Moses goes up on the mountain to receive the 10 Commandments from God. In order to make his point, Dean reminds his listeners that the inclusion of those 10 Rules are not a non-sequitor but rather they are part of the narrative. His point is that the part they play in the story of God’s rescue of Israel from slavery is this: they are the marriage vows of God and Israel.
Now, if the giving of the law at Sinai was like the taking of wedding vows, then was God’s first date with Israel a camping trip?
Thanks to the noteworthy success of the theory of Global Warming to achieve wide-reaching acceptance in the West, the way has been paved for a new school of inquiry that we shall call “Consensual Science”. Through the application of the fundamental ethic of Consensual Science (“If enough people say it’s true, it is true; especially if they have really expensive advanced degrees in subjects that most people can’t pronounce correctly.”) , I would like to investigate the complex subject of abiogenesis. Since I am not a scientist, I will avoid unnecessary, sciency jargon, like the words “sciency” and “jargon”.
For those who may not know, the word “abiogenesis” is a big word with a definition which can be used to impress people at parties. You should look it up before you read any further.
While there is some debate among scientists regarding the specifics, the vast majority of humanity has reached the following consensus: some things are alive while other things are not. There also seems to be further agreement among most folks that the easiest way to make a living thing is to begin with at least one living thing, however two living things is often preferred since there tends to be the possibility of a tax break in most states. Yet, within the scientific community, there is speculation about the possibility of combining non-living things in such a way as to produce living things, but so far there have been no successful attempts at doing so…at least none which the overwhelming majority of humanity would recognize as belonging to the category of “living thing”. So, for the moment there are two explanations of where living things come from. Let’s look at them in more detail.
One says: “Under the right conditions, with the right stuff and given the right amount of time, non-living things will make living things. We believe this is true because it has happened at least once in time as demonstrated by our being here today.” The other explanation says: “Since it takes living things to make other living things, some living thing(s) had to make the living things we see around us. We believe that an intelligent Living Thing of unimaginable power made living things as demonstrated by our being here today.” Again, the consensus among most people in the world seems to be a version of the second explanation, taking into account some variables, such as the possibility of multiple intelligent living things. Despite their opposing views, supporters of both explanations have tended to enthusiastically agree that the other is completely bonkers. (Yeah, I know I promised not to use sciency jargon.)
Both positions are very compelling, but they can not both be correct. So which one is? The answer is the explanation provided by the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. This I know because Consensual Science tells me so.
The Professing Professor doesn’t keep his blog updated but I’ve been listening to a podcast of his sermons for several weeks now which is available through iTunes. In a recent sermon given in respect of Dedication Day (a day for the parents and the church community to dedicate themselves to raising new babies born into the community), he said something that I wish he would expound upon. The Prof said that all children belong to the Kingdom of God. He said that Jesus doesn’t say, “These are my children and those are yours,” but that all children belong to Him.
It’s a bad habit (I know) but I still find myself questioning who belongs to the Kingdom and who doesn’t. Whenever I visit that question, it tends to be with regards to adults, not children. I know that there are some doctrines in Christianity which attempt to say something about the status of children before God, but I have not given as much thought to them as I have other topics. The reason that I’m provoked to do so now is because the Prof and I come from the same church heritage and what he says sounds different from what I grew up hearing and I wonder what he’s learned. Of course, he’d have to explain what he thinks the term Kingdom of God means and what (if any) connection that has to “being saved”. In fact, the term “being saved” would need to be unpacked a bit.
So, I’m wondering are children automatically born into the Kingdom? Are only some children born into the Kingdom while others aren’t? (If so, which ones and why?) If children are born into the Kingdom, at what point and for what reasons do they end up “outside” and need to hear the good news of the Kingdom?
Again, I know that there are some complex doctrines out there which say something about this and I’m familiar with some of them, but maybe someone will have something to offer that I haven’t heard yet. Radical Congruency and iMonk, are you listening?
Of course, if the Prof could chime in, that would be great…
First, for introducing me to John Shore. I’ve added this writer’s blog to the blogroll and I recommend paying him a visit. However, I feel that I should warn you of the following:
1) John Shore is a Christian
2) he gets lots of comments
3) which means whatever you might have to add to a conversation will probably get lost in the crowd…
so, please just leave your comments here.
Okay, you’re right. That was my lame attempt to siphon off some traffic from a successful and more articulate blogger. I apologize, John.
Anyway, if you’re going to visit John Shore’s blog, allow me to direct you to this post. It’s called What Atheists Taught Me. In it, John pleads with Christians to listen to the atheists, really listen. And to respect them.
But how? How can Christians respect atheists?
(Hint: the same way we can respect everyone.)
I’ll elaborate on this later.
And second, for teaching me that I can up the number of visitors to my blog by simply adding the tag “atheist” to it. I promise I’ll not abuse this knowledge in the future.
I got great response from the no-god camp on this post. Everybody expressed themselves in a civil manner and it was good. No debate. Just folks laying their perspective out there for my education.
I’ll be honest; it was hard not to attempt to defend and/or apologize for Christians and Christianity. It would have been wrong to do so, especially after saying that I wasn’t interested in debate. Yet, there are certainly some things that were said that I’ll probably want to revisit in later posts, after I’ve had some time to digest it all.
One thing that I won’t put off until later is an apology; not in the sense of a reasoned defense of a held belief, but instead in the sense of an expression of remorse for wrongs committed against another. There are some (a lot?) in the no-god camp who have been wronged by Christians and while I seriously doubt that anything I can post in my obscure blog could mean much to those folks, I still feel like I have to say:
I’m sorry that we Christians have treated you as though you were not human. I’m sorry that we have not been kind in our exchanges or civil in our debates. I’m sorry that where you were not our enemies at one point in time, we made you our enemies by failing to obey the God we claim to know and serve. We have dishonored you, our God and ourselves. I apologize.
Talk is cheap and words on blogs are perhaps even cheaper, but I felt I ought to put that out there. Also, I know that there are Christ-followers who live lives much more closely conformed to the likeness of Jesus than the ones you’ve met. I hope you meet them some day. Heck, one of them even writes a much better apology.
Walls are everywhere in my host country. I don’t mean fences that you can see through, hop over or dig under. I mean solid masonry of one sort or the other. They are a fixed feature of every private domicile.
I don’t know if walls are a hold over from the days of tribal raiding or if they’re built to maintain privacy within the context of the relatively new urban lifestyle that people have these days. One thing I do know is that walls are not only useful to keep things out, but they are also useful to keep things in.
The main compounds of Christian worship in my host city are all behind walls. At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be anything sinister about this. As I’ve said, walls are just part of the architecture around here. However, I think that upon closer examination we might find that the walls have been very useful to the local authorities to keep Christians from exercising much influence within the culture.
While the law does allow for Christians to worship in designated compounds, absolutely no proselytizing is allowed. Additionally, Christian literature and media are permitted inside the walls of the compound but may not be sold or distributed outside the compound. These and other restrictions which are not especially aimed at Christians have, I believe, boxed in our thinking…at least the thinking of the leadership of the group where I’ve been worshipping for the past several years.
No one inside the walls of our church compound talks openly in our assemblies of doing anything outside the walls of the compound. I’m not talking about hassling folks with pamphlets or anything overtly evangelistic. I’m talking about organizing an effort to alleviate some of the suffering that is all around us. When I pressed one of the church leaders about this idea, he told me that there are such things going on but that they are not talked about. The reason they’re not talked about is because a culture of extreme caution has been cultivated. As someone once told a friend of mine here, “It’s better (for the church) to be here and do nothing than to not be here at all.” Whatever good we’re up to, it needs to stay inside the wall.
Recently, I’ve learned about something going on outside the wall that I hope to get involved with. It’s an organization that seeks to help some of the poorest and most ill-treated people around by giving them food and clothes along with other kinds of aid. While the organization was started by a Christian couple, it is certainly not a bait and switch operation that lures folks and then tries to stuff religion down their throats. (They wouldn’t be allowed by the government to operate if it were.) All the same it is an opportunity to get beyond the wall and be Jesus to people, which is good for everyone involved.
"Sometimes, in a futile attempt to escape …. God’s judgment, we take refuge in a theological argument. For theology can be turned to bad uses as well as good. " -John Stott
The ArMchair TheolOGian is…
... an American expatriate Christian in the Middle East who enjoys learning, thinking, reading, writing and talking about God, His Son, the Church and religion. He thinks that blogging is a good way to do all of these things.
Please, have a seat.
