This book has always been one of my favorite books in the Bible. The first time I ever got serious about Bible reading, and the first time I actually made a commitment to read the Bible daily, I was seventeen, and I chose to start with the book of Acts.
I have probably read this book through more times than any other single book in the Bible. Each time I gain new insight. Each time I see a new element of the Gospel conveyed. I think the reason I like it so much, is that it is simply the story of real people living out their faith, and their calling.
I was impressed today by the story of when Barnabas and Paul went to Lystra, preached the gospel, healed a guy, and then the people of the city started saying that they were the gods come down in human form. Barnabas was Zeus, and Paul was Hermes. They almost sacrificed to them!
As weird as it may be, this passage encouraged me. It shows that even our best efforts at serving God, our most valiant attempts to please Him and to make Him known, sometimes go awry. Now, I've never had people try to worship me, but I have felt the frustration and disappointment that come with toiling in ministry, spending hours in prayer, and painstaking preparations, only to feel like it was all in vain, and that nothing worthwhile came out of it...
Of course, you're probably waiting for the silver lining in the story. The sad part is, that there isn't one. The story ends by the Jews convincing this crowd that Paul and Barnabas were bad, so they stoned Paul and left him for dead. What did they do next? They went home. The mission trip was over.
I have experienced what I consider to be some profound failures in my life and ministry. I'd be willing to bet that Paul would chalk this one up as a failure too.
The reality is that serving God isn't always rosy, it isn't always fun, and it doesn't always seem to work out. But Paul didn't quit. Not too much time passed before he decided to go back over all the cities he had previously visited, and see how the churches were doing. He went back to Lystra. He met a young guy named Timothy there. Now for 2,000 years we've been reading the letters that Paul wrote to this young man. Imagine if Paul had given up? Imagine if he had decided to skip Lystra on his second trip. After all, he wasn't very well received the first time.
The point is, don't quit. Failures are inevitable. Hardships are inevitable. But God is bigger than all of it.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Practicing God's Presence
A few simple thoughts...
As I read more of this book, and as I become more enamored with the principles it contains, I have realized a few things. First, as I have attempted to practice God's presence (more often than not, I fail to practice His presence), I have often felt like the annoying pet, constantly at the heels of his Master; or the child who keeps tugging at his father's shirt, ceaselessly seeking an audience. Brother Lawrence talks about remaining in "holy conversation" with God. I realize I don't know how to do that. I feel more like a nuisance than anything (though I know God does not see me as a nuisance). Perhaps on some level, this is part of that command to come to God like little children.
Another thing I've noticed, more negative than positive, is that Lawrence seemed utterly unconcerned for the world around him. He only cared to be in God's presence. This is a noble desire, but I think a greater desire would be to assist others in finding God's presence, specifically those who are currently without access to God through Christ. I guess this is a typical problem when you become a monk. Monks basically remove themselves from the world in order to wholly devote themselves to God. Noble, but misguided, I think. God wants us to be wholly devoted to Him, but to remain in the world, where that devotion could transform others.
So, I believe in the premises of this book: 1) that we are called to total, unceasing devotion to God; 2) that such devotion requires a great deal of grace from God; 3) that remaining in constant fellowship with God is the most efficient means of grace to that end.
I, now, would add that once we have attained that blissful state of "constant abiding," we need to take His presence into the world, to others. We need to take His grace, His power to a world that is desperate for Him. Better yet, we should practice both simultaneously. The one would feed the other. Our inward communion with God would foster a greater concern for the world around us, and give us greater access to the resources in God's storehouse. Conversely, the more we observe God at work in the world around us, the more we experience Him using us to transform others, the more we will be driven to those secret times with Him out of love.
As I read more of this book, and as I become more enamored with the principles it contains, I have realized a few things. First, as I have attempted to practice God's presence (more often than not, I fail to practice His presence), I have often felt like the annoying pet, constantly at the heels of his Master; or the child who keeps tugging at his father's shirt, ceaselessly seeking an audience. Brother Lawrence talks about remaining in "holy conversation" with God. I realize I don't know how to do that. I feel more like a nuisance than anything (though I know God does not see me as a nuisance). Perhaps on some level, this is part of that command to come to God like little children.
Another thing I've noticed, more negative than positive, is that Lawrence seemed utterly unconcerned for the world around him. He only cared to be in God's presence. This is a noble desire, but I think a greater desire would be to assist others in finding God's presence, specifically those who are currently without access to God through Christ. I guess this is a typical problem when you become a monk. Monks basically remove themselves from the world in order to wholly devote themselves to God. Noble, but misguided, I think. God wants us to be wholly devoted to Him, but to remain in the world, where that devotion could transform others.
So, I believe in the premises of this book: 1) that we are called to total, unceasing devotion to God; 2) that such devotion requires a great deal of grace from God; 3) that remaining in constant fellowship with God is the most efficient means of grace to that end.
I, now, would add that once we have attained that blissful state of "constant abiding," we need to take His presence into the world, to others. We need to take His grace, His power to a world that is desperate for Him. Better yet, we should practice both simultaneously. The one would feed the other. Our inward communion with God would foster a greater concern for the world around us, and give us greater access to the resources in God's storehouse. Conversely, the more we observe God at work in the world around us, the more we experience Him using us to transform others, the more we will be driven to those secret times with Him out of love.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Practice of the Presence of God
So, I meant to keep a running blog to discuss this book. It hasn't happened. I'm into the last section of the book (called 'Discussions'). The previous section was several letters that Brother Lawrence had written to various people (usually Nuns - and even more usually one particular Nun).
I think I have enjoyed the letters the most, even though they were extremely redundant. He even talks about this redundancy saying that some people get annoyed with the fact that he never talks about anything else but the Presence of God. He says once, "If I were a preacher, I would preach nothing but the practice of the presence of God." But it is precisely this redundancy that I loved. Why? That basic principle of learning - repetition. I heard once that a study showed that you have to hear a thing 19 times before it is committed to memory. By the end of these letters, I feel that I fully understand what Brother Lawrence was getting at, and the methods he prescribed for attaining this kind of a life.
The first thing I noticed that he said over and over, was that he acquired this constant abiding with God, not through enormous spiritual exercises, fasting, etc., but through small, frequent acts of devotion. He even talks about how he had forsaken some of the more common spiritual disciplines (he doesn't specify, but I assume he means times of prayer, maybe), as he saw them as only a means to an end, and since he already was in God's presence, he didn't need them.
He frequently encourages the recipients of his letters to turn to God frequently throughout the day, remember His presence, say a few words like "God, I am wholly yours," or "I desire nothing but You." He doesn't give any sort of scripted prayers, only instructs that a few words be spoken "that love will produce."
He also encourages that small prayers be lifted up before the beginning of any activity - whether it be chores, daily work, meals, even before spiritual exercises like prayer, or Bible reading. In this way, he teaches the Practice of the Presence of God. These moments of turning inward are the practice, these are the difficult part, these are things that require discipline.
-----
He makes another frequent statement that caught my attention. He says that we should never pray for God to relieve our suffering, but instead to give us the strength to endure it. In other words, we should never pray, "God get me out of this!" but instead, "God get me through this!" I think this is powerful. We Americans hate feeling uncomfortable. We have all turned into the princess in the "Princess and the Pea," story. The slightest bit of discomfort makes us squirm. But imagine how much character we would gain if we learned to patiently endure our sufferings. Isn't that what the Bible tells us to do anyway?
I think I have enjoyed the letters the most, even though they were extremely redundant. He even talks about this redundancy saying that some people get annoyed with the fact that he never talks about anything else but the Presence of God. He says once, "If I were a preacher, I would preach nothing but the practice of the presence of God." But it is precisely this redundancy that I loved. Why? That basic principle of learning - repetition. I heard once that a study showed that you have to hear a thing 19 times before it is committed to memory. By the end of these letters, I feel that I fully understand what Brother Lawrence was getting at, and the methods he prescribed for attaining this kind of a life.
The first thing I noticed that he said over and over, was that he acquired this constant abiding with God, not through enormous spiritual exercises, fasting, etc., but through small, frequent acts of devotion. He even talks about how he had forsaken some of the more common spiritual disciplines (he doesn't specify, but I assume he means times of prayer, maybe), as he saw them as only a means to an end, and since he already was in God's presence, he didn't need them.
He frequently encourages the recipients of his letters to turn to God frequently throughout the day, remember His presence, say a few words like "God, I am wholly yours," or "I desire nothing but You." He doesn't give any sort of scripted prayers, only instructs that a few words be spoken "that love will produce."
He also encourages that small prayers be lifted up before the beginning of any activity - whether it be chores, daily work, meals, even before spiritual exercises like prayer, or Bible reading. In this way, he teaches the Practice of the Presence of God. These moments of turning inward are the practice, these are the difficult part, these are things that require discipline.
-----
He makes another frequent statement that caught my attention. He says that we should never pray for God to relieve our suffering, but instead to give us the strength to endure it. In other words, we should never pray, "God get me out of this!" but instead, "God get me through this!" I think this is powerful. We Americans hate feeling uncomfortable. We have all turned into the princess in the "Princess and the Pea," story. The slightest bit of discomfort makes us squirm. But imagine how much character we would gain if we learned to patiently endure our sufferings. Isn't that what the Bible tells us to do anyway?
Saturday, August 16, 2008
More on the Prosperity Gospel
I read something interesting in Luke today. In Luke 12:15, Jesus says, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Then only a few verses later, starting in verse 22, Jesus goes on to say how we shouldn't be anxious about the things we need; that God will supply our needs if we seek His kingdom first.
Proponents of the prosperity gospel tend to start with, "God will supply all my needs," and quickly move to, "God will give me the things I want." But here, Jesus begins with a warning against the danger of covetousness, and then assures His people that God will take care of them. Interesting
Proponents of the prosperity gospel tend to start with, "God will supply all my needs," and quickly move to, "God will give me the things I want." But here, Jesus begins with a warning against the danger of covetousness, and then assures His people that God will take care of them. Interesting
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Yes.
Now that you know my opinion, allow me to share the reasons why I believe this to be the correct answer.
I am tempted to quibble over the word ‘lose,’ here. Part of me really dislikes that word because it feels too passive – almost like it’s saying that you can lose your salvation like you lose your car keys. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches this. However, I do believe it is possible to forfeit your salvation, or become disqualified. I believe that this can happen either through blatantly rejecting the truth, or through negligence. So, here’s my new title:
Can YouLose Forfeit Your Salvation?
The issue ultimately comes down to a question of God's sovereignty. Those who purport that it is impossible for a true child of God to ever fall away from Christ, come to that conclusion through a series of theological ideas and presuppositions. Here are at least a few of them:
First. God is sovereign. God's sovereignty is His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything He wants. Absolute power means that there is nothing outside of His ability. He created the universe with His word, and so for Him to modify that universe in some way, great or small, is nothing. Absolute right means that He is completely justified in whatever He does, even if we don't understand the reasons. If I were to so choose, I could go outside right now and take a baseball bat to my car, and beat the crap out of it. Even though it seems bizarre, even unthinkable that I would do this, it remains my right to do so if I choose. Why? Because it's MY car. The universe and all it contains belong to God alone. Therefore He is completely justified in whatever He chooses to do with it. That is the simple definition of "sovereignty," as it pertains to God.
Second. Every true believer was "predestined," or "elected" for salvation based on God's sovereignty. This simply means that God, long before we ever existed, essentially made a predetermined choice that we would be part of His kingdom. This is Biblical. Read Ephesians 1. However, where most Calvinists then make a leap, is in saying that His sovereignty overrides our free will. That, essentially, we would not have ever chosen God unless He had made us choose Him. This is actually part of their core theology. Calvinism uses the acronym TULIP to help define their doctrines. The "T" of TULIP stands for "Total depravity." This means that we are so fallen, so wretched, so sinful in our minds that we could never come to a place of accepting the Gospel without direct intervention from God. Second, the "I" of TULIP stands for "Irresistible grace." This means that when God calls a person, they will be unable to resist His calling.
I disagree with these conclusions. I do believe that we are totally depraved, but not so much that we are incapable of choosing or comprehending God! I believe that God put within man an innate understanding of His existence, "that we might feel after Him," (Acts 17:27). I believe that God presents to us the choice of following Him, and then the ball's in our court. In other words, I believe in the value and reality of human free will, and I think it is something God created...
The real issue is not whether God is sovereign or not. The real issue is: If God is truly sovereign, is man truly free? It's a profound question, and it can get you all twisted up in your thinking if you're not careful. Here's my humble solution.
I believe it is a misunderstanding to think that God's sovereignty demands a kind of micro-managing of the universe. That every drop of rain that falls, every gust of wind, every human encounter, every choice, is something directly and specifically influenced by God so that there could not have been any other outcome. Yet, I think on some level this is what Calvinism demands. That God's sovereignty means that nothing ever happens that God didn't directly intend to happen. The only problem with this, is that we know it to be false! Through scripture, and through life experiences, we observe a world that is truly fallen and depraved. Every day, people are doing things that offend God. The Bible says that sinful people are "storing up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath." God's anger is building toward sin, and one day His full wrath will break forth upon this wicked world, and wash all sin away. In fact, that's an even easier way to explain it - the existence of SIN proves that God's creation is not under a tyrannical, exacting sovereignty. We all do things that God would rather we not do, and yet He remains sovereign. How?
Think of it in mathematical terms. Calvinism sort of demands that God's sovereignty be a simple equation, like,
One of those 'variables' is human free will. The equation still equals 1, (i.e. God is still sovereign) but it's not so simple as we would think. In God's sovereignty (His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything), He created a race of people who have the power to make choices, either for good or bad - without consulting God first! God created a race of people who could make choices against Him, and against His will. Even though this must create an unimaginable divine frustration, it places such an incredible dignity on every human, that it is almost unthinkable. God, who is able if He so desires, to sway the will of every one of His creatures; who could have, if He so chose, created a race that was utterly obedient, decided instead to create a race with the capacity for disobedience, sin, malice. He created a race so endowed with free will that people could actually choose to become atheists, to deny the one truth that binds the whole universe together! For more on choice see my other blog on Choice.
Here's the other thing. On top of His sovereignty, God is omniscient. This means, quite simply, that there is nothing outside of the realm of God's knowledge. Not even the future. God has perfect knowledge of everything, with intimate detail. Jesus told us that God knows the number of hairs on our heads (Matt. 10:29-31). The Bible also says that God knows the number of the stars in the sky, and has a name for each one (Psalm 147:4). It is utterly impossible for us to understand this attribute of God. Everything God does is based on this ultimate knowledge of all things, past, present and future.
This means that before He ever said, "Let there be light," He could see, with perfect clarity, the whole of human history. He saw Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and Jesus, and Paul; He saw the crusades, He saw Luther nail his 95 theses to the church door. And God saw me. Insignificant me. And He knew me perfectly, even then. God knew that when the Gospel would be presented to me, I would embrace it, and I would love Him. He knew all of that long before He said, "Let there be light." THIS is the basis of predestination...
The key question for those who try and teach hardcore predestination, is this: "Is the election arbitrary?" In other words, was God simply playing a cosmic game of "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" when He chose me? Or was there some sort of rational, sensible selection process. Well, the Bible tells us in 1Peter 1:1-2.
PS - I recognize that I didn't actually get to the idea of 'losing your salvation.' Maybe in another blog.
Now that you know my opinion, allow me to share the reasons why I believe this to be the correct answer.
I am tempted to quibble over the word ‘lose,’ here. Part of me really dislikes that word because it feels too passive – almost like it’s saying that you can lose your salvation like you lose your car keys. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches this. However, I do believe it is possible to forfeit your salvation, or become disqualified. I believe that this can happen either through blatantly rejecting the truth, or through negligence. So, here’s my new title:
Can You
The issue ultimately comes down to a question of God's sovereignty. Those who purport that it is impossible for a true child of God to ever fall away from Christ, come to that conclusion through a series of theological ideas and presuppositions. Here are at least a few of them:
First. God is sovereign. God's sovereignty is His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything He wants. Absolute power means that there is nothing outside of His ability. He created the universe with His word, and so for Him to modify that universe in some way, great or small, is nothing. Absolute right means that He is completely justified in whatever He does, even if we don't understand the reasons. If I were to so choose, I could go outside right now and take a baseball bat to my car, and beat the crap out of it. Even though it seems bizarre, even unthinkable that I would do this, it remains my right to do so if I choose. Why? Because it's MY car. The universe and all it contains belong to God alone. Therefore He is completely justified in whatever He chooses to do with it. That is the simple definition of "sovereignty," as it pertains to God.
Second. Every true believer was "predestined," or "elected" for salvation based on God's sovereignty. This simply means that God, long before we ever existed, essentially made a predetermined choice that we would be part of His kingdom. This is Biblical. Read Ephesians 1. However, where most Calvinists then make a leap, is in saying that His sovereignty overrides our free will. That, essentially, we would not have ever chosen God unless He had made us choose Him. This is actually part of their core theology. Calvinism uses the acronym TULIP to help define their doctrines. The "T" of TULIP stands for "Total depravity." This means that we are so fallen, so wretched, so sinful in our minds that we could never come to a place of accepting the Gospel without direct intervention from God. Second, the "I" of TULIP stands for "Irresistible grace." This means that when God calls a person, they will be unable to resist His calling.
I disagree with these conclusions. I do believe that we are totally depraved, but not so much that we are incapable of choosing or comprehending God! I believe that God put within man an innate understanding of His existence, "that we might feel after Him," (Acts 17:27). I believe that God presents to us the choice of following Him, and then the ball's in our court. In other words, I believe in the value and reality of human free will, and I think it is something God created...
The real issue is not whether God is sovereign or not. The real issue is: If God is truly sovereign, is man truly free? It's a profound question, and it can get you all twisted up in your thinking if you're not careful. Here's my humble solution.
I believe it is a misunderstanding to think that God's sovereignty demands a kind of micro-managing of the universe. That every drop of rain that falls, every gust of wind, every human encounter, every choice, is something directly and specifically influenced by God so that there could not have been any other outcome. Yet, I think on some level this is what Calvinism demands. That God's sovereignty means that nothing ever happens that God didn't directly intend to happen. The only problem with this, is that we know it to be false! Through scripture, and through life experiences, we observe a world that is truly fallen and depraved. Every day, people are doing things that offend God. The Bible says that sinful people are "storing up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath." God's anger is building toward sin, and one day His full wrath will break forth upon this wicked world, and wash all sin away. In fact, that's an even easier way to explain it - the existence of SIN proves that God's creation is not under a tyrannical, exacting sovereignty. We all do things that God would rather we not do, and yet He remains sovereign. How?
Think of it in mathematical terms. Calvinism sort of demands that God's sovereignty be a simple equation, like,
1 = 1.
But the reality is that there are many variables in this equation.2x + 3(x - 5y + 6) = 1.
One of those 'variables' is human free will. The equation still equals 1, (i.e. God is still sovereign) but it's not so simple as we would think. In God's sovereignty (His absolute right, and absolute power to do anything), He created a race of people who have the power to make choices, either for good or bad - without consulting God first! God created a race of people who could make choices against Him, and against His will. Even though this must create an unimaginable divine frustration, it places such an incredible dignity on every human, that it is almost unthinkable. God, who is able if He so desires, to sway the will of every one of His creatures; who could have, if He so chose, created a race that was utterly obedient, decided instead to create a race with the capacity for disobedience, sin, malice. He created a race so endowed with free will that people could actually choose to become atheists, to deny the one truth that binds the whole universe together! For more on choice see my other blog on Choice.
Here's the other thing. On top of His sovereignty, God is omniscient. This means, quite simply, that there is nothing outside of the realm of God's knowledge. Not even the future. God has perfect knowledge of everything, with intimate detail. Jesus told us that God knows the number of hairs on our heads (Matt. 10:29-31). The Bible also says that God knows the number of the stars in the sky, and has a name for each one (Psalm 147:4). It is utterly impossible for us to understand this attribute of God. Everything God does is based on this ultimate knowledge of all things, past, present and future.
This means that before He ever said, "Let there be light," He could see, with perfect clarity, the whole of human history. He saw Abraham, Joseph, and Moses and Jesus, and Paul; He saw the crusades, He saw Luther nail his 95 theses to the church door. And God saw me. Insignificant me. And He knew me perfectly, even then. God knew that when the Gospel would be presented to me, I would embrace it, and I would love Him. He knew all of that long before He said, "Let there be light." THIS is the basis of predestination...
The key question for those who try and teach hardcore predestination, is this: "Is the election arbitrary?" In other words, was God simply playing a cosmic game of "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" when He chose me? Or was there some sort of rational, sensible selection process. Well, the Bible tells us in 1Peter 1:1-2.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,Notice those two important words - according to. Those two little words say a lot. They tell us that our election was in fact not arbitrary. It was based on God foreknowledge, God's perfect understanding of all things that will ever happen. He looked through time, saw those who would embrace the Gospel message (though anyone could have), and sort of 'marked' those who would accept Christ. If we understand election this way, than the idea that some are elected to salvation (based on His foreknowledge) and some are elected to judgment (also based on His foreknowledge) is not so difficult a concept to accept. No one's free will is violated, and neither is God's sovereignty. It's win - win...win.
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
PS - I recognize that I didn't actually get to the idea of 'losing your salvation.' Maybe in another blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Rant
Recently I was at a church where I heard the prosperity doctrine preached. It disturbed me. I honestly just cannot understand how people are able to buy that crap! I have no problem with someone believing God to meet their financial needs (God knows I have done a lot of that in the past few months!). What I have a problem with, is the doctrine that basically says that the manifestation of a godly life, or a life of faith, is the presence of wealth in the life of the believer. This preacher actually tried to teach that "prosperity" was part of the atonement. He taught that when Jesus died on the cross, he was stripped of every possession, and in this was was made "poor." Then he quoted 2 Cor. 8:9, "...that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich."
To be fair, the context is talking about money and giving, etc. However, Paul never makes the leap to say that we are guaranteed wealth because of the cross!!! He is urging this church to give financially, and he uses the churches of Macedonia as an example, saying that they basically made themselves poor by "giving beyond their means." And THIS is the context in which Paul uses Christ as the ultimate example of making Himself poor for the sake of others. He wasn't preaching that Christ will make us rich!! He was preaching that we should follow Christ's example of impoverishing ourselves in order to bless others! What a beautiful scripture, and how horrible it is made by those who preach this filth!!
Furthermore, I nowhere does this verse say that Christ gave up his wealth on the cross! I think the clear interpretation would be that He was rich in heaven, but gave up the wealth of heaven when He came to earth. Why do I think this is the accurate interpretation? Because other scriptures back it up...
Philippians 2:6-8
Amateurs.
To be fair, the context is talking about money and giving, etc. However, Paul never makes the leap to say that we are guaranteed wealth because of the cross!!! He is urging this church to give financially, and he uses the churches of Macedonia as an example, saying that they basically made themselves poor by "giving beyond their means." And THIS is the context in which Paul uses Christ as the ultimate example of making Himself poor for the sake of others. He wasn't preaching that Christ will make us rich!! He was preaching that we should follow Christ's example of impoverishing ourselves in order to bless others! What a beautiful scripture, and how horrible it is made by those who preach this filth!!
Furthermore, I nowhere does this verse say that Christ gave up his wealth on the cross! I think the clear interpretation would be that He was rich in heaven, but gave up the wealth of heaven when He came to earth. Why do I think this is the accurate interpretation? Because other scriptures back it up...
Philippians 2:6-8
Amateurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
