There are several jokes about guilt. I’m thinking particularly of “Catholic guilt”…or even “Jewish guilt”. There is such a thing as evangelical guilt but I don’t think I’ve ever heard any jokes about it. Evangelical guilt tends to revolve around “quiet time”, a phrase that means “time spent reading the Bible and praying”. Now that I think about it, I’ve heard far and away more evangelical Christians grieve their negligence of “quiet time” than their greed, lust or pride. That being said, it was my “Evangelical guilt” over not doing “enough” personal Bible study that motivated me to Google the phrase “how to study the bible” just a moment ago.

One hit lead me to a page of the Navigators, a group that I don’t really know all that much about. I knew someone associated with the Navigators who had similar personality to mine, so I followed the link to see what they advised. At the top of the page, it is implied that the “inductive” method of Bible study is something suitable for those who are no longer “infants” in the faith. What follows is an example of an inductive approach to the first chapter and verse of 1 Timothy.

As I read through the example, the approach seemed reasonable until it came to the point of Personal Application, which reads:

“I must begin to see myself in the role of Christ’s ambassador who has been authorized and sent out with a divine message. The authority of my witness will only be as effective as my awareness of my mission.”

Now, I don’t really disagree with the affirmation that Christians are representatives of Jesus and that we are charged by him with the message that Jesus is God’s chosen King of Creation. My problem is the tacit equation of my role as an “ambassador of Christ” with Paul’s role as apostle. The fact is that neither I nor Mr Hill, the author of this piece, were given our commissions during a personal conference with the resurrected Jesus. Paul saw Jesus and received his apostleship from Jesus. In fact, the Bible is clear that Paul was chosen to be the one who would take the message of the King to the Gentiles first. I guess what I’m getting at is this: evangelicals tend to think that EVERYTHING in the Bible has a “Personal Application”; consequently we tend to force verses to say something which they probably don’t. Again, Paul was “an apostle…by the commandment of God”…and I’m not… and neither are most of the Christians who have ever read those words.

Well, I’ve done the easy part: criticizing Mr Hill’s inductive approach to Bible study. Now, I need to get down to the hard work of actually studying the Bible…and dealing with my own guilt for having been both negligent AND critical.

…about “cultural homogeny”.

LCC is hosting a conference on the subject and I recently got their call for papers. I’d love to be able to submit a proposal and present but I don’t see it happening…simply, it might be a bit out of my depth.

That being said, I’ve thinking a lot about the concept and particularly one of questions posed in the announcement of the conference. The question reads “Is globabl oneness a desired good?” I guess “global oneness” is a kind of synonym for cultural homogeny…? Anyway, my thoughts are turning around this pivot for the moment:

Cultural homogeny is not only a desired good, but it is a fait accomplii…at least according to my understanding of the Biblical narrative. To put it succinctly: the final scene of the Revealation shows the One God ruling His One People for the New Jerusalm in the context of a New Heaven and a New Earth. This is the fullfillment of the Kingdom of God, so what other cultures will there be? We could say that the “nations”  and “the kings” who bring “their splendor” into the Kingdom represent the inclusion of other cultures; however its apparent that they will all be under the rule of God. Whatever culture exists at the end of human history, it will have no competitors vying for a dominant position. There will only be one culture, Kingdom Culture…at least, that’s how I see it for the moment.

The title of this post is also the title of an upcoming seminar at the University of Durham (UK) presented by  Professor David Burrell, current of Notre Dame.

I don’t know anything in the world about Professor Burrell, so I have no idea what his answer will be, so this will not be a criticism of the professor’s position in anyway. Instead, I thought I’d just post the following comment:

Since this is the topic for a seminar, I’m sure that  there will a long lecture/discussion, however I am also sure that there doesn’t need to be. In fact, my decidedly unscholarly answer to the question is as follows:

No.

Christians can not acknowledge the Qu’ran to be the Word of God because the Qu’ran denies the divinity of Jesus. Christians, whatever else you may wish to say in order to define us, are people who believe that Jesus is God come to Earth. This is flatly denied by the Qu’ran. To claim to be a Christian and to acknowledge the Qu’ran as the Word of God are contradictory actions and absolutely incompatible.

Consequently, I confess, it seems like an odd question to address in a seminar.

In a conversation on the meaning of words and their power in written form, a friend of mine recently told me that “we do well to steer clear of continually “should”ing on ourselves and others.” I realize that the connection isn’t immediately clear but it doesn’t have to be to follow this post. I want to reflect upon this idea of “shoulding on ourselves and others.”

My friend sees something unseemly about discussing what people should or should not do. In this case, the question was whether or not one should allow meaning which comes from “beyond the text” to supplant the author’s intended meaning. At least that was my question. However, my friend demurred, attempted to “do well” and encouraged me to do the same. (Or to say it more clearly, he refused to enter into the discussion because he didn’t see that “shoulding comes into play” here.)  But do we really “do well” when we avoid conversing and/or thinking in terms of “shoulds”?

There are some who might  say  that shoulds are wicked and cruel chains which enslave us to expectations to which we can never aspire. Consequently, we can only be free once we shrug our should-ers and their burdensome shoulds. Others may concede that shoulds are always with us while advising that they be trained in the art of silence, lest their incessant chattering  disturb our communion. I understand why some would think this way. I am a witness to the harm done by shoddy shoulding. Yet, I disbelieve that we do well by steering clear of the shoulds, and I do not believe that we do well in attempting to silence the should-ers. Instead, I think we do well when we learn to discern the shoulds from the suggestions.

I haven’t done any research into the matter, but I sense that Jesus didn’t tend to should a great deal. Instead, I suspect that he tended to speak in simple commands. He had the authority to do that. However, he did occasionally should his audience. When the disciples requested  a seminar on prayer, Jesus said “this then is how you should pray” and gave them  a demonstration. After explaining how some folks are so intent upon the Kingdom of God that they avoid marriage, he told the audience “The one who can accept it should accept it.” When he rebuked the hypocrites for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law”, Jesus said to them “You should have practiced the former without neglecting the latter.” Finally, in a lesson on  fear, Jesus told his disciples that he would “show you whom you should fear”.

Admittedly, seizing upon the translations of Jesus’ words which employ the word “should” is not exactly a scholarly method. (It would be interesting to know how the Greek expresses the concept translated as should, but honestly I lack the energy and resources at present.) Yet, I think it’s helpful in thinking about the problem of “shoulding on” others and ourselves. Here we have Jesus, the True Human, the most free human and he did not avoid shoulding his listeners.  Jesus, who came to set the captives free, does not appear to regard all shoulds as manacles upon humanity. Nor did he completely silence the shoulds for fear of their effect on his communion with others. However, he did not merely should his hearers. He shouldered the shoulds himself and instead of shedding the shoulds, he shed his blood.

We do well when we attempt to follow Jesus by discerning the shoulds while shouldering them as well.

That’s what John Stott calls God’s wrath.

Lately, I’ve been surfing blogs, podcasts and websites of folks who, burned by “the institutional church”, “organized religion”, “evangelicalism” or various other expressions of Christianity in the West, have taken to calling God “Dad” and talking about His great love. I’m not against that per se. I just find that at times it’s a bit reactionary and therefore unbalanced. These folks seem to be rushing from abject terror of the Cosmic Cop into the awaiting arms of a great Celestial Softy.

I think Stott’s commentary “What is God’s Wrath?” can help to restore balance. Afterall, since “Dad” is so crazy about us, then shouldn’t we expect Him to be hostile toward whatever and whoever would harm us? (Romans 1:18-32. 1) What is the wrath of God?

If we are to preserve the balance of Scripture, our definition of God’s anger must avoid opposite extremes. On the one hand, there are those who see it as no different from sinful human anger. On the other, there are those who declare that the very notion of anger as a personal attribute or attitude of God must be abandoned.
Human anger, although there is such a thing as righteous indignation, is mostly very unrighteous. It is an irrational and uncontrollable emotion, containing much vanity, animosity, malice and the desire for revenge. It should go without saying that God’s anger is absolutely free of all such poisonous ingredients.
The desire to eliminate any notion of God’s personal anger, as being absolutely unworthy of him, is usually associated with the name C.H.Dodd, whose commentary on Romans was published in 1932. He argued that ‘Paul never uses the verb “to be angry” with God as subject’, although he is often said to love, and that the noun *orge* (anger) is used only three times in the expression ‘the anger of God’, whereas it occurs constantly as ‘wrath’ or ‘the wrath’, without reference to God, ‘in a curiously impersonal way’. Dodd’s conclusion is that Paul retains the concept ‘not to describe the attitude of God to man, but to describe an inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe’. A.T.Hanson elaborated this view in *The wrath of the Lamb* (1959), maintaining that God’s wrath is ‘wholly impersonal’ and is ‘the inevitable process of sin working itself out in history’.
But the argument based on the comparative absence of the expression ‘the wrath of God’ in favour of ‘wrath’ or ‘the wrath’ is weak. For Paul treats grace similarly. At the end of Romans 5 he writes both of ‘the grace of God’ (15), and about ‘the grace’ which he nevertheless personifies as both ‘increasing’ (20) and ‘reigning’ (21), and which is the most personal of all God’s attributes. If then ‘grace’ is God acting graciously, ‘wrath’ must be God reacting in revulsion against sin. It is his ‘deeply personal abhorrence’ of evil.
The wrath of God, then, is almost totally different from human anger. It does not mean that God loses his temper, flies into a rage, or is ever malicious, spiteful or vindictive. The alternative to ‘wrath’ is not ‘love’ but ‘neutrality’ in the moral conflict. And God is not neutral. On the contrary, his wrath is his holy hostility to evil, his refusal to condone it or come to terms with it, his just judgement upon it.

V is a friend of my son.

S has known her for the last three years. In a few days, she’ll be moving back to her home country.

V came over for one last play date. All of the kids were sitting at the table having a snack. S asked her, “Do you know Jesus?” V said she didn’t. S asked who her God is. V didn’t seem to understand the question (but she may have just not wanted to answer) so to clarify S and his brother M asked, “Who do you pray to at night?”

At this point I intervened and said, “Guys, she may not pray.”

Before abandoning the inquiry all together, S commented “Everybody ought to know who their God is.”

Yes, everybody should.

In a commentary on Ephesians, particularly chapter 5, John Stott says:

“Secondly, *wise people discern the will of God*. They are sure that, whereas willfulness is folly, wisdom is to be found in God’s will and nowhere else. *Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is* (verse 17)…Moreover, in seeking to discover it, it is essential to distinguish between his ‘general’ and his ‘particular’ will. The former is so called because it relates to the generality of his people and is the same for all of us, e.g. to make us like Christ. His particular will, however, extending to the particularities of our life, is different for each of us, e.g. what career we shall follow, whether we should marry, and if so whom. Only after this distinction has been made can we consider how we may find out *what the will of the Lord is*. His ‘general’ will is found in Scripture; the will of God for the people of God has been revealed in the Word of God. But we shall not find his ‘particular’ will in Scripture. To be sure, we shall find general principles in Scripture to guide us, but detailed decisions have to be made after careful thought and prayer and the seeking of advice from mature and experienced believers.”

Pardon my presumption, but I would add two things to Stott’s commentary at this point. First, while it is true that we will not find God’s particular will for ourselves in Scripture, we will find His particular will for others. (Consider God’s will for Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Paul.) Why bring this up? I’ve noticed that there is an assumption that many Christians have when it comes to discerning God’s particular will for their lives which is rooted in their attitude toward God’s revelation of his particular will to these and other people in Scripture. The assumption is that, just as God had a particular call on these people’s lives, He has a call on each and every individual. Note that I use the word assumption for that is what it is. The Scriptures never say that God has a particular will for each and every individual beyond being delivered from death to life. Second, I’d like to add that even after we think carefully, pray earnestly and pursue good counsel from “mature and experienced believers”; we still can not claim to have flawlessly divined God’s particular will for our individual circumstances. We can say that we have used the resources available to us and commended our decision to God who “in all things, works for the good of those who love him”.

I think many Christians are unnecessarily burdened with the task of finding God’s particular will for their lives. I’m not thinking of those folks who tramp through life confident that they’ve rightly understood various impressions, leadings and “burdens” on their hearts or faultlessly interpreted the results of “fleeces” they’ve “lain out”. I’m thinking of those who are constantly wondering if they are “in the center of God’s will” or who, due to a change in their circumstances, feel oppressed by the guilt of having “missed God’s will”. For those people, I would ask God to help them reach the point where they can rely on His revealed general will and the wisdom that He provides to make particular decisions, ultimately confident that God is at work, mysteriously, on their behalf.

…the following question:

What are the Christians’ deterrent from sin?

The Holy Spirit is the Christian’s deterrent from sin. While there is debate as to the precise point at which this happens, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer and begins a “new creation” in him. This new creation is a process which is completed at the return of Jesus or the resurrection, whichever comes first. Throughout this process, the “old man” is “put to death” while the “new man” grows in life. The new man loses his desire for sin. It no longer appeals to him. Yet, he sins because he is not yet fully a “new creation”. When he sins, he is sorrowful and repents. God graciously forgives him and the relationship remains firm. As the Christian grows, a deterrent in the form of external punishment isn’t necessary.  The threat of Hell or of any other punishment is motivational in direct proportion to the maturity of the Christian. The more immature the Christian, the less he understands the love of God and the more easily motivated by fear of punishment he is. Conversely, the more mature the Christian, the more he understands the love of God and the more he values the relationship with God, so that he flees from sin.

Remember, the Christian knows that God did not make man sinful, therefore the sinful state must be reversed for mankind to be what God originally intended. This is only possible through a new creation, which (like the first creation) involves the Spirit of God.

I’m afraid of teenagers. Always have been. Even when I was one.  Patrick Mead, on the other hand, isn’t. He’s a preacher for a church in Rochester, Michigan who goes to local schools to speak with teens about Christianity. I recently saw a post at Patrick’s blog where he lists ten questions that teens in the public schools tend to ask him. I thought it would be a good exercise for me to try my hand at answering them. Of course, blogging answers is not the same as giving them out in real time but it’s still good to think about the kind of response I might give.

From Patrick’s post, 10 questions from teens:

1. Why do Christians hate gay people? Can gay people go to heaven? What’s so bad about being gay?

A) Some Christians hate gay people because they don’t understand gay people, God or themselves. I think a better question is, “Does God love gay people?” The answer to that is “Yes.”

B) It might surprise you to hear this, but the Bible doesn’t actually say that people go to heaven when they die. Seriously. Look it up. So you don’t think I’m dodging the question entirely, let me reword it slightly. “Do gay people live forever with God when they die?” People who live with God forever are no longer gay…or selfish…or dishonest…or sinful in any way.

C) Homosexuality,  like all sin, keeps us from living out the purpose for which God made us; namely to be His image in the material universe. All sin defaces that image. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin in this regard. It just seems like it is because it gets a lot of attention from the media.

2. Why did you choose Christianity over the other religions?

Well, it’s not like I went online to GodMart.com, selected several religions for consideration, hit the “compare” button and then , after closely reading the resulting table, chose the one I liked best. Like you, and everyone on the planet, much of what I think, believe and know about everything has been inherited; I got it from someone or somewhere else like TV, music, books and even family and friends. I’ve chosen  Jesus over other deities and prophets because I think he was telling the truth about God, himself and humanity.

3. Will people who don’t believe in Jesus go to hell? How is that fair? How can God be loving if he sends people in Third World countries to hell just because they never got to go to church?

A) Jesus said that no one can come to God except through him. Now, this statement is either true or false. I accept it as true because I believe that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. Consequently, I have to accept that people who try to come to God through any other way will not reach Him. This is why it is so important to Christians to tell people about Jesus.

B) How is it fair for Jesus to be the only way to God? It’s better than fair. It’s loving. When we say that someone isn’t being fair, we tend to mean that they are not giving others their rights. You have to understand that God doesn’t owe anyone anything. He doesn’t owe anyone life or happiness. He gives life and happiness because he loves. When humans hurt Him by their sin, he doesn’t owe them forgiveness. He forgives because he loves. God doesn’t owe life forever with him, so God’s provision of  a way for us to be with him at all is an act of love. Choosing Jesus to be that way for us to be with him is his decision, not ours and it’s one he made in love.

C) God does not send people (from the First, Second or Third World) to hell because they never got to go to church. People go into hell because they reject God’s love. The question is, how can they accept God’s love if they don’t know about it? They can’t, which is why Christians think it is important to tell the story of Jesus through out the world. So, what will God do with those folks who never heard the story of Jesus and got the chance to accept God’s love? The Bible doesn’t address this question. In light of what God’s having made a way in Jesus for people to be with him forever, I trust that he is loving and wise and will do what is good.

4. Do you believe in creation? How can you believe the Bible and science?

A) Yes, I believe that God created everything.

B) The question assumes that they contradict each other. I don’t think that they do.  I think that the Bible and Science either address the same questions from different perspectives or different questions entirely. I think the real problem comes when we try to get our answers to certain questions from the inappropriate source. For example, when I’m hungry and I’m in a restaurant, I ask for a menu to help me decide what to eat. I don’t ask for a biology textbook so that I can learn how my food is digested and converted into energy.

5. Why did you become a minister/priest/pastor?

I didn’t. I started a blog instead.

6. Do you have doubts? What are they?

A) Certainly, I have doubts.

B) I sometimes ask myself “What if…?” What if I’m wrong?  What if  God doesn’t exist, or what if he does and he’s not going to forgive me of my sins? What if this group is right about God, Jesus, faith and I’m wrong? I don’t tend to think of these as doubts. I tend to doubt reports of miracles even though I believe that God can work them.

7. How many sacraments do you have? Why?

A) Um…not sure. I think two.

B) Of the seven sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, I see Jesus requiring only two of his followers, namely baptism and the Eucharist.

8. What does it mean to be a Christian?

To be a Christian means to follow Jesus. I’m still learning what all that entails.

9. Is there a heaven and hell? What are they like?

A) The word heaven has a couple of different jobs in the Bible. Sometimes it means the place where God is. Sometimes, it means the sky as opposed to the ground. It can also mean the space beyond the sky where the stars are. We know what the sky and space are like. As for the place where God is; I assume that it’s a good place. Hell on the other hand is a place without God and so I trust it is no where I want to be.

10. How can you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Understand that for the most part, people don’t make up their religious beliefs. They inherit them or they choose them. In some respects, it’s like joining Facebook or MySpace: you don’t register and then start ordering the network to function the way you want it to. Instead, you figure out what is acceptable use and decide whether or not you will follow the policy or not. If not, you either use another social-networking service or you start one of your own. You could say that I registered with “FaithBook” and friended Jesus…, but you probably shouldn’t. One of Jesus’ status messages reads,  “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.”  I believe him. If someone says to me, “All paths lead to God,” it’s impossible for me to say he is right, but so is Jesus. It is dishonest to God and an insult to your intelligence. After all, you know it’s impossible for “one way” and “all ways” to both be true.

I don’t know if these are good answers…persuasive answers…helpful answers, or not. But they’r what came to mind this time around.

Is there a qualitative difference between these two concepts regarding the relationship between a Christian and the Holy Spirit?

Having been away for so long, it’s a bit foolish to expect a response in the comments but I cast the question into cyberspace and let it land where it may.

I pose the question because of a lesson  by Dr. William Lane Craig about the Holy Spirit, in which he said more than once that being indwelt by the HS is not the same as being filled with the HS. I’m not sure I agree with him, but I do think it’s an interesting thing to discuss.