There has been nothing more confusing to my faith than watching another so-called strong believer walk away from the faith.
Sometimes they don't walk away, but they take a really long break from any sort of spiritual living. And you ask them, "What about God?!" And they shrug and say, "I wonder if He's still relevant." You just want to shake them and say, "What happened to that faith, that fruitful and powerful faith, that I've seen in your life? Why are you asking childish questions that you would've had so many true answers for just a few months ago?"
It's true that every believer goes through dry times. If I've learned anything this semester through surveying the Old Testament, it's that everyone from Abraham to Moses to Elijah went through dry times where they had trouble seeing the value in following after God or trouble feeling that God was really there for them. Every few weeks, I sit and look around and think, "Is God really out there?" But in the end, I always still believe, deep down, even if I can't resolve whatever doubt is bubbling in the microwave at the time. It feels like there's a difference between dry times and people who just put down their faith and walk away from it for several months or years or forever.
Something that occurred to me is the thought about how parents feel when the kids leave the house empty. A parent who has spent time and shared the joy and experience of life, real life, with their kids will never look back and say, "Well, at the end of the day, all I have left is an empty house, full of unresolved clutter and unoccupied rooms. Did I raise the kids for nothing, if it's just going to end up like this?" The parent knows, deep down, that it was worth it, even if the time being is a little unsatisfying -- the parent knows from experiencing the joy of knowing and growing with their kids.
I wonder if people who fall away from the faith have never known God. I think people can think that they've experienced God -- it's easy to get caught up in the emotion of a budding ministry or exciting conference or new bible study or amazing worship. But at the end of the day, when God seems far away or somehow irrelevant, people whom you think had it all together will say, "Well, I thought it was all worth it. But what was the point of all that? Did I just waste a few years of my life? I don't feel like God is really out there or relevant at all right now." They are not like the parents who know their empty house is just part of the valuable experience of raising kids. I've found that if you ask them, many can't really recall any real moments of joyfully experiencing or knowing the unquestionable truth and love and reality of God - they more or less went through the motions hoping that it would come at some point.
There are believers that have dry times often, but never really put God in a closet and walk away, and those believers I've found have often experienced God in a real and unforgettable way. I'm not any smarter, any more diligent, any wiser than any believer I've known that's walked away. They could all give the "right" answer to the doubting questions they ask. I think there's a lot of grace that God has kept me alive in Him and really shown Himself in my life in a very personal way. I've had so many good times with God that I think it would be unlikely for me to walk away from Him. I thank God often for His grace in that.
1 John 2 says, "Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been with us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."
It is easy to look at a believer and mourn the loss of their faith, and in some cases, rightfully so. But this verse would suggest that maybe they never really knew God in a real, life-changing way, and maybe the purpose of knowing that would-be believer is so that we would know the difference between an antichrist and a believer and that we'd be sure to find ourselves on the right side. It is a sobering thought that God would use the fall of another person as a cautionary message to His redeemed, but it is scriptural.
It is true that we are saved by grace. It is true that God can redeem anyone, and as I've seen in my friends, He has redeemed the faith of some who have turned away.
It is also wise to see someone who walks away and ask, why do I really believe? Is my faith built on solid ground? Am I really seeking to know God? And to pray for God's grace to manifest itself in a powerful, personal, irresistible way that we ultimately can't walk away from.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Genesis 1-11
Is Genesis a historical account? Does the answer have to be "yes" for it to be biblical truth?
My roommate made the point a few weeks back that based on the narrative nature and ambiguities with scientific study, he thought Genesis 1-11 (basically everything before Abram) was fictional. It has all sorts of weird stuff: God calling Himself "us" on a regular basis, the Tower of Babel, the Flood -- all these things that present a lot of challenges to the way we think of God today, if we really sit down and think about it. So Peter argues that Genesis 1-11, based on modern scientific evidence and differences in writing style, is narrative, rather than historical.
That's not as iconoclastic as it seems at first -- in the same way, I think Job in many respects is likely a fable, rather than a historical occurrence. We take stories from the Bible all the time that do genuinely reflect God's character and nature, like Jesus's parables. They're not any less true for us because they didn't happen in real life.
But what implications does that have for the Fall? It would mean that humanity didn't inherit sin from Adam's poor life decision, but it's just generally a sin nature that we have. Which is fine on a day-t0-day basis, but what do we make of scriptures like Romans 5, which talks in great significance of the transgression of Adam and the big hairy start of sin?
A possible counterargument might be the strong suggestion that there were other people created outside of Adam's lineage. I think most people think that Adam and Eve didn't just pump out two boys, one of whom murdering the other, as the basis for starting mankind. Something doesn't really add up there. So what about the other people that God probably created outside of Adam? They probably have a sin nature too that they didn't inherit from Adam. Maybe Adam was only symbolic of the entrance of sin into the world, and if that's the case, it's okay that he could be fictional.
I run into more relevant problems in the gospels. In the beginning of Matthew, the book traces the lineage of Jesus from Abraham, which is fine. In Luke 3, the lineage goes all the way back to Adam. The Jews of this period validated their writing and corroborated the veracity of their main characters by including detailed accounts of lineage, as if to say, look, this person is legit, and here are the connections you should be making to realize that I'm telling you a historical truth. So could that historical authenticity end once we pass Abram and start getting into those mythical crazies like Methuselah? I have some familiarity with the diligence and attention to detail that the Jewish culture puts on scriptural preservation -- I have a really hard time believing that they would chronicle a partially fictional lineage.
One of the wild cards is, how much of the first five books did Moses get from God on Mt. Sinai? Did God give him that ancient history, or was some of it preserved by the Hebrew people? Did God tell him to write about his own death? I don't know a lot about how the Torah was put together, whether in one solid revelation from God, or piecewise, but that would certainly affect whether Jewish scholars were passing on history that man preserved or that God gave them. If God gave Moses the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and Noah, then who am I to question their truth? Am I confident in the Scripture and its real, honest-to-God truth, outside of what did or didn't happen historically? Yes. So in a sense, my question about historical happenings doesn't really matter. I mean, I don't really follow Hugh Ross's creation science anyway, so it's not like I'm running into a huge wall reconciling the age of the earth with my faith. I'm not the sort of person who gets hung up on the challenges presented by dinosaur bones and dark energy and their reconciliation with the Bible. Just doesn't interest me that much.
It'd still be nice to know.
I feel that way about a lot of things.
My roommate made the point a few weeks back that based on the narrative nature and ambiguities with scientific study, he thought Genesis 1-11 (basically everything before Abram) was fictional. It has all sorts of weird stuff: God calling Himself "us" on a regular basis, the Tower of Babel, the Flood -- all these things that present a lot of challenges to the way we think of God today, if we really sit down and think about it. So Peter argues that Genesis 1-11, based on modern scientific evidence and differences in writing style, is narrative, rather than historical.
That's not as iconoclastic as it seems at first -- in the same way, I think Job in many respects is likely a fable, rather than a historical occurrence. We take stories from the Bible all the time that do genuinely reflect God's character and nature, like Jesus's parables. They're not any less true for us because they didn't happen in real life.
But what implications does that have for the Fall? It would mean that humanity didn't inherit sin from Adam's poor life decision, but it's just generally a sin nature that we have. Which is fine on a day-t0-day basis, but what do we make of scriptures like Romans 5, which talks in great significance of the transgression of Adam and the big hairy start of sin?
A possible counterargument might be the strong suggestion that there were other people created outside of Adam's lineage. I think most people think that Adam and Eve didn't just pump out two boys, one of whom murdering the other, as the basis for starting mankind. Something doesn't really add up there. So what about the other people that God probably created outside of Adam? They probably have a sin nature too that they didn't inherit from Adam. Maybe Adam was only symbolic of the entrance of sin into the world, and if that's the case, it's okay that he could be fictional.
I run into more relevant problems in the gospels. In the beginning of Matthew, the book traces the lineage of Jesus from Abraham, which is fine. In Luke 3, the lineage goes all the way back to Adam. The Jews of this period validated their writing and corroborated the veracity of their main characters by including detailed accounts of lineage, as if to say, look, this person is legit, and here are the connections you should be making to realize that I'm telling you a historical truth. So could that historical authenticity end once we pass Abram and start getting into those mythical crazies like Methuselah? I have some familiarity with the diligence and attention to detail that the Jewish culture puts on scriptural preservation -- I have a really hard time believing that they would chronicle a partially fictional lineage.
One of the wild cards is, how much of the first five books did Moses get from God on Mt. Sinai? Did God give him that ancient history, or was some of it preserved by the Hebrew people? Did God tell him to write about his own death? I don't know a lot about how the Torah was put together, whether in one solid revelation from God, or piecewise, but that would certainly affect whether Jewish scholars were passing on history that man preserved or that God gave them. If God gave Moses the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and Noah, then who am I to question their truth? Am I confident in the Scripture and its real, honest-to-God truth, outside of what did or didn't happen historically? Yes. So in a sense, my question about historical happenings doesn't really matter. I mean, I don't really follow Hugh Ross's creation science anyway, so it's not like I'm running into a huge wall reconciling the age of the earth with my faith. I'm not the sort of person who gets hung up on the challenges presented by dinosaur bones and dark energy and their reconciliation with the Bible. Just doesn't interest me that much.
It'd still be nice to know.
I feel that way about a lot of things.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
On Being Convinced I
Over spring break, I was doing some outreach on the beach out at PCB, Florida, and I ran into a guy who was really familiar to me. Not because I had ever met him before. It was just that he was in the same place that I've been and that a lot of my friends have been. He understood the gospel in an intellectual sense and was willing to consider why it might be relevant to his life. In some ways, he really wanted to believe and follow Christ. But he just wasn't convinced. How can you be sure that this Jesus and His gospel is the truth? How do you really know, 100 %? Man, it would sure be a lot easier of God did some of His parting-Red-Sea-pillar-of-fire miracles right now, and then I'd believe, no problem.
I didn't know what to say to that. It's true, a lot of people just can't make that jump to belief, and in the Bible and in life, God says those people aren't showing the kind of faith He asks for. On the other hand, I have trouble telling other people to just believe and go with it. I have trouble telling myself that.
Here is something true. We often believe things we can't prove. Most people believe in true love, that it exists, and that they know when they find it, and I don't think they're wrong when they say and live like they believe in it even though they can't point to something concrete and say, "That is love." Scientists can't prove gravity -- they can just see its effects and rationalize that something like gravity must exist by the way things are made to move. They can see some of its effects, they can see that there is a clear, consistent nature to it, but they can't purport to have conquered gravity in a sense of understanding and deconstruction. But we all believe in gravity, and you'd be a fool to say that gravity doesn't exist just because we can't point to something that is definitively gravity. You'd say, look at the world around you, look at the way everything moves. It must be.
There is some wisdom in thinking of God in the same terms.
I didn't know what to say to that. It's true, a lot of people just can't make that jump to belief, and in the Bible and in life, God says those people aren't showing the kind of faith He asks for. On the other hand, I have trouble telling other people to just believe and go with it. I have trouble telling myself that.
Here is something true. We often believe things we can't prove. Most people believe in true love, that it exists, and that they know when they find it, and I don't think they're wrong when they say and live like they believe in it even though they can't point to something concrete and say, "That is love." Scientists can't prove gravity -- they can just see its effects and rationalize that something like gravity must exist by the way things are made to move. They can see some of its effects, they can see that there is a clear, consistent nature to it, but they can't purport to have conquered gravity in a sense of understanding and deconstruction. But we all believe in gravity, and you'd be a fool to say that gravity doesn't exist just because we can't point to something that is definitively gravity. You'd say, look at the world around you, look at the way everything moves. It must be.
There is some wisdom in thinking of God in the same terms.
Resurrection Day
So I decided to start a blog. Other people keep prayer journals or notebooks, and I lose everything I write down on paper, so I figure I'm less likely to lose my laptop. This blog will contain my thoughts about spiritual things and my journey to seek Jesus Christ. I will not always be right, but I will always be honest.
It's Easter today, and I went to Grace Bible Church with Pat for the first time. We read through Mark 16:1-8, and I had the following thoughts (some inspired by the sermon):
- The women went out to go anoint the body of Jesus with spices, and when they came to the tomb, they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" Seems like poor planning to me. What were they planning to do, wait for some passerby?
- When the Angel gave them the news of the Resurrection of Jesus, their reaction was fear, awe, trembling, and bewilderment. What is our modern reaction to Easter? A lot of times, it seems like we are bored with the Christian faith. Been there, done that. Why are we more bored than terrified or awed? Why does the Bible have so many encouragements of "be strong, do not be afraid"? Because people used to be afraid of the crazy things that they'd run into in pursuit of God. I don't think I'm taking enough risks in pursuit of the gospel if I'm bored rather than trembling in my faith.
- I never grew up with Easter, and I always viewed it (and Christmas) as pretty nice days when the Church elected to celebrate some of the major things about Jesus's life. And yes, they were founded on pagan origins and mixed with pagan traditions, but God's grace has, in some big ways, turned it around so that Christmas and Easter are very valuable spiritual experiences for a lot of believers these days. More power to them.
But I never really knew how to treat the Resurrection. Christ's death took away our sins, Christ's sacrifice paid the punishment for our fallen nature, Christ's suffering and crucifixion were the ultimate act of love that allowed us to reconcile with God. What am I to make of His Resurrection? And I've always tried to rationalize it. I understand why Christ came and died, but what was the logical need for the Resurrection? Well, if Christ had only died and not resurrected, then here are the such and such implications...so clearly it makes sense that He resurrected. Nothing really made sense to me when I tried to figure out all the why's behind it.
Babe Ruth once had a legendary moment where he stood at home plate, pointed his finger at the crowd in the stands behind center field, then took the pitch and bashed a home run right where he predicted. Every sports fan remember that story and thinks, "That's awesome!" The Bible predicts in Isaiah 53:10 about Jesus's restoration to life and glory, and Jesus himself even calls it in Mark 8 and 10. And then, boom, three days later, He is risen. That's awesome! And I really want to live in that "That's awesome!" reaction to an amazing feat, rather than that need-to-understand-why approach that I've always had about the Resurrection.
Romans 6:3-4 gives some insight into the why. Actually, Paul talks a good deal about the centrality of Christ's Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:14, and I've always walked away with the understanding that the Resurrection is somehow important, but okay, He's alive again, what's the big spiritual significance? I had the thought that it's like in basketball, if you make a spectacular dunk for two points, then get the foul call, everyone will shout "and one!" for the bonus free throw you're about to receive. It's like, boom, dunk in your face, sin and Satan and evil, and then, and one!, Resurrection. Maybe it's something like that. But Romans 6:3-4 is a little more biblical, and it basically makes the case that if we can share in Christ's death for payment for our sins and recoupment of our punishment, then in the same way, we share in His Resurrection for our renewed and transformed and revitalized lives. The whole "new creation in Christ" thing corresponds to our sharing in Christ's Resurrection in the same way that the whole forgiveness thing corresponds to His crucifixion and death. It's a good thought, and while not a complete and comprehensive answer to all my questions, it feels like truth.
I used to question Romans 10:9 a lot. "Believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your mouth that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved." Why is it important that I believe the latter statement? I think I found some answers today.
And I really want to keep the "That's awesome!"
It's Easter today, and I went to Grace Bible Church with Pat for the first time. We read through Mark 16:1-8, and I had the following thoughts (some inspired by the sermon):
- The women went out to go anoint the body of Jesus with spices, and when they came to the tomb, they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" Seems like poor planning to me. What were they planning to do, wait for some passerby?
- When the Angel gave them the news of the Resurrection of Jesus, their reaction was fear, awe, trembling, and bewilderment. What is our modern reaction to Easter? A lot of times, it seems like we are bored with the Christian faith. Been there, done that. Why are we more bored than terrified or awed? Why does the Bible have so many encouragements of "be strong, do not be afraid"? Because people used to be afraid of the crazy things that they'd run into in pursuit of God. I don't think I'm taking enough risks in pursuit of the gospel if I'm bored rather than trembling in my faith.
- I never grew up with Easter, and I always viewed it (and Christmas) as pretty nice days when the Church elected to celebrate some of the major things about Jesus's life. And yes, they were founded on pagan origins and mixed with pagan traditions, but God's grace has, in some big ways, turned it around so that Christmas and Easter are very valuable spiritual experiences for a lot of believers these days. More power to them.
But I never really knew how to treat the Resurrection. Christ's death took away our sins, Christ's sacrifice paid the punishment for our fallen nature, Christ's suffering and crucifixion were the ultimate act of love that allowed us to reconcile with God. What am I to make of His Resurrection? And I've always tried to rationalize it. I understand why Christ came and died, but what was the logical need for the Resurrection? Well, if Christ had only died and not resurrected, then here are the such and such implications...so clearly it makes sense that He resurrected. Nothing really made sense to me when I tried to figure out all the why's behind it.
Babe Ruth once had a legendary moment where he stood at home plate, pointed his finger at the crowd in the stands behind center field, then took the pitch and bashed a home run right where he predicted. Every sports fan remember that story and thinks, "That's awesome!" The Bible predicts in Isaiah 53:10 about Jesus's restoration to life and glory, and Jesus himself even calls it in Mark 8 and 10. And then, boom, three days later, He is risen. That's awesome! And I really want to live in that "That's awesome!" reaction to an amazing feat, rather than that need-to-understand-why approach that I've always had about the Resurrection.
Romans 6:3-4 gives some insight into the why. Actually, Paul talks a good deal about the centrality of Christ's Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:14, and I've always walked away with the understanding that the Resurrection is somehow important, but okay, He's alive again, what's the big spiritual significance? I had the thought that it's like in basketball, if you make a spectacular dunk for two points, then get the foul call, everyone will shout "and one!" for the bonus free throw you're about to receive. It's like, boom, dunk in your face, sin and Satan and evil, and then, and one!, Resurrection. Maybe it's something like that. But Romans 6:3-4 is a little more biblical, and it basically makes the case that if we can share in Christ's death for payment for our sins and recoupment of our punishment, then in the same way, we share in His Resurrection for our renewed and transformed and revitalized lives. The whole "new creation in Christ" thing corresponds to our sharing in Christ's Resurrection in the same way that the whole forgiveness thing corresponds to His crucifixion and death. It's a good thought, and while not a complete and comprehensive answer to all my questions, it feels like truth.
I used to question Romans 10:9 a lot. "Believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your mouth that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved." Why is it important that I believe the latter statement? I think I found some answers today.
And I really want to keep the "That's awesome!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
