My Son - Revisited

My previous post about my son Patrick (9/06) relayed my deep and unflinching love for Patrick - but also the confusion and sometimes searing pain I felt in response to the direction he had taken. It is time, I think, to update my odes to my children - starting with my oldest.
I am so VERY proud to say that my son Patrick is now serving in the U.S. Army. It is improper and imprudent to live vicariously through your children, but he has had the opportunity to do that which his father was not allowed. I am not a little envious of my son - but even more proud. The young man who commands the deepest emotion his father is capable of feeling now commands the respect of his father as well.
It is one of a father's deepest desires, I think, to reach that point in life where his son becomes his equal. At least, it has been one of my deepest desires. To see my son mature into manhood - to be able to truly call him friend as well as son - is answer to prayer indeed.
The sleepless nights have passed - I no longer lay awake wondering if he's safe, praying he's not in harm's way. Although his journey is still far different than mine, it is now one that I understand. He and I still do not look at life through the same prism, but that is good. I have raised a man who is his own person - each day becoming more trustworthy, more dependable, more mature, more of a Godly man - but still his own person.
And oh the mighty love I still have - it catches my breath - my love for my son. The golden-haired boy God allowed me to raise is now a soldier's soldier - but still my son. I am eternally grateful to my God that He has allowed me to see Patrick grow into a man. The struggles continue - as they always will - but the peace of knowing he now has the tools to handle them is an abiding peace indeed.
I love you Patrick and no father has EVER been more proud of his son. Again, there is a passage which speaks to the relentless nature of God's love for His children; it is that, "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our lord." While I certainly am not God, inasmuch as I am physically, emotionally, and spiritually able, the same is true of my love for my son. There is NOTHING that can separate my son from my love.

I have not blogged in several months - I must admit that I do not thave the passion to blog that I once had. A story I read this weekend, however, reignited a bit of that passion. It seems that a British teacher was jailed in Sudan for allowing her (predominantly Muslim) students to name a class teddy bear Muhammed - and this in spite of the fact that Muhammed is one of the most common names for men in Sudan. And, if that were not bad enough, the Sudanese government assented to a raucus demonstration by angry Muslims demanding that this teacher be executed for her actions. What evil we can excuse in the name of religion!
Islam is not to blame for the blatant ignorance and intolerance displayed in Sudan any more than Christianity is to blame for abortion clinic bombings. What is to blame, however, is blind devotion to evil, intolerant, and egotistical leaders who thrive on being able to coerce their loyal minions into frothy hoards of mongrels who forego any sense of TRUE religious behavior in the name of whatever false god their leaders are touting.
And, while the two examples cited above are extreme displays of higher than usual ignorance and hatred, we see more discreet forms of the same behavior every single Sunday morning. How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet maintain an attitude of intolerance toward someone of another race? How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet adamantly demand their way in regards to Sunday morning worship music choice? How can someone claim to be a follower of Christ and yet 'gang up' to oust preachers or deacons or Sunday School teachers? James, I believe, said it something like this: "Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so......if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, ......this does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, and demonic. (James 3:10-15)
Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35) Love is not displayed through intolerance, racism, backbiting, selfishness, envy, greed, arrogance, or lust. Rather, love is displayed through forgiveness of wrongdoings and seeking each other's well-being above our own. Anything less is not of Christ.

Grace and peace,


PTL

So I'm blogging with a fellow Christian this past week and end up putting my foot in my mouth (as I am too often wont to do). At any rate, some comments made by my good friend seemed to imply that I had interpreted the bible using 'man's wisdom' and she tried to interpret the Bible seeing only what God wanted her to see. I was wrong.....as it turns out, that's not at all what she meant - but I didn't find that out until AFTER I had inserted my foot into my mouth - I submitted that her comments seemed 'a bit arrogant' to me. My gracious friend and I worked through the misunderstanding very quickly and very gracefully, but I cannot say the same about other good Christian friends (of hers, that is). I am saddened at how often Christians 'jump in' to the defense of others with, I'm sure, the best of intentions - or at least to show loyalty to their friends. In this case, however, as is often the case, emotions run stronger than wisdom and attitudes are displayed that are not at all what I believe to be a reflection of Christ.
I'm not sure what the correct response should be for those who are not directly involved in a misunderstanding, but still want to show loyalty to one or the other parties who are involved. My first thought is that, unless directly involved, input from those outside the misunderstanding usually only serves to muddy the waters - and I really like my first thought in this instance. :) Yet, what would be an appropriate response when I just REALLY, REALLY feel that my friend needs help? Of the three people who joined in offering me advise (funny, didn't Job have three friends too?), one simply used humor & tried to help me see that there is no way my gracious friend would have meant the comment in an arrogant way because that just isn't who she is - I really like that kind of response as well. :)
One of the others offering input tried the 'counselor' approach and offered insight into why I might have read the comments as arrogant - I think the counsel was that I was having a personality crisis and trouble at work & needed to just cast all my cares on the Lord. While the advice about casting cares on the Lord is always sage, I wasn't too big on this response. :)
The third person, the least Christlike of the three, proceeded to accuse me of being a bigot, being high & mighty, being holier than thou, being arrogant, etc., etc. I wasn't too big on this response either. :)
Do I understand why these well intentioned (at least I assume they were) advice givers felt the need to offer their preverbial '2 cents worth'? Of course - a beloved friend of theirs had been slighted (they felt). Was it the best way to help resolve the issue? Probably not.
Why am I blogging this experience? Because, as my gracious friend and I agree, every experience is set before us by God for a reason. As I shared with my friend, the most obvious growth potential for me is to learn to question a fellow blogger and ask for clarification when I feel slighted by someone's comments - BEFORE suggesting that those comments are arrogant, or rude, or whatever else I may feel. In addition, however, it has also reinforced the belief that, if I'm not central to a misunderstanding, unsolicited comments made by me will usually serve to hinder, rather than help, clearing up the matter. Oh, how difficult it is, though, to not take up offenses for others.

PTL

The Standard

It's 4:00am - can't sleep, so I'm reading a book by Donald Miller called "Searching for God Knows What" and I'm reminded once again what this Christianity thing is all about (or rather what it's not about). It's not about 'getting to go to heaven' - it can't be, or else it would be about me. Does that make sense? If my Christianity is about 'earning crowns', then I'm doing it for the wrong reason.
I honestly don't think people set out to become legalistic hall monitors. I think that we (and yes, I'm part of that group as well) usually set out to do 'good things for God', and the reason we do that is that we've been indoctrinated into a culture where doing good things is rewarded. When you are little, you get 'presents' for doing good things. Behave in church and you'll get some candy. Don't hit your brother and you'll get some candy - maybe that's why we're an overweight society as well, but that's another blog. At any rate, we're indoctrinated into this mentality that God loves 'good little boys and girls' more than He loves 'bad little boys and girls', and so we 'learn' to try to earn God's love. The problem with that is that God's standard is much higher than behaving in Church - His standard goes to the core of who we are. When we're confronted with God, we are confronted with the depths of our own depravity - and there is no costume or make-up which will mask that depravity. As a result, we learn to pretend. We pretend that we're really not that bad by lowering the standard. And the standard is other people. That's the root of legalism. When we make other people our standard instead of God, we become legalists. Here's how it works: we can't maintain the righteous standard set by God so we make other people our standard of righteousness. In so doing, we 'develop' a set of religious rules which usually leans toward things that we tend not to struggle with. In other words, it's easy for homosexuality to be included in my 'no-no' list because that's not a struggle I have (for the record, I'm not saying that homosexuality isn't a sin, I'm merely using it for an example). Then, I can look around me and feel rather justified in my own righteousness because it's pretty easy to find people who fail to meet the standard I've set. And, if the people who fail to meet my standard are known for being Christians, then I feel much better about my standing with God because I know I'm doing better than those around me. Ever felt like that? Ever patted yourself on the back because you're a better Christian than someone else? That's exactly what the Pharisees did - they set their own rules and then thanked God that they were better at keeping the rules than the horrible sinners they were daily confronted with.
Christ took another approach, though. Even though HE WAS THE STANDARD, He didn't 'look down on people' for not meeting it - He knew they couldn't. He simply made it His life to meet the needs of those around Him.
I'll never measure up - I just can't. If, however, I can change my focus FROM either (1) trying to meet the standard, or (2) holding others to my own standard (you know - teaching as doctrine the commandments of men), and TO truly being a friend to those around me, then I'll be a lot closer to The Standard than I ever could have with my focus on me.
What a mighty change in this world would be wrought would Christians only learn to live for those around them.

Mat. 25:34-40 (NIV)
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Grace and peace,

PTL

Is Faith a Good Work?

Ok, so I'm blogging on a good buddy's site the other day and made the statement (paraphrased I'm sure), "surely saying a prayer - or even 'trusting' in God for that matter, cannot save us as they are both works." To which I received an unsolicited reprimand from one to whom I was not addressing akin to: (again paraphrased) "I'm a bit lost as to how someone is supposed to be saved prior to being justified". So, being the intellectual and theological babe that I am, I began to think - I mean REALLY think - about what exactly I believe faith to be and what, exactly, I think faith accomplishes.
To what faith is first: according to Heb. 11: 1, faith is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." and in Heb. 11:3, by faith we "understand" things of a spiritual nature that the natural man cannot understand (I Cor. 2:14). So, then, faith is a supernatural ability to understand things of a spiritual nature which blossoms into a supernatural hope and trust in Christ, God, and an assurance in God's sovereign ability to accomplish what the Bible says He will accomplish - which would include things personal (Rom. 8:28 for example) as well as things eschatological (where we go when we die for example). I think, to this point, I will be in general agreement with my 'choice' brethren - even those who are quick to reprimand me for my ideas regarding faith.
So, then, I know what I believe faith to be, but (1) how do I 'get' this faith, and (2) what does this type of faith accomplish? I will address first what I think faith accomplishes. There are numerous places in the Bible that imply that faith results in justification. Rom. 5:1 is a shining example of such doctrine. This presents a dilemna, however. If I believe that salvation is based on nothing more than God's unmerited favor toward me - and that I can do nothing to advance my salvation save for God's 'special' grace, and yet I believe that I am justified by faith, then I MUST believe that faith is not a 'work' in the sense that it is something I 'bring' to the salvation table. So, then, where does this faith come from? Is it something that I 'work up' within myself or is it something that God graciously gives to His elect? Rom. 5:1 says we are justified by our faith, but Rom. 5:9 says we are justified by His blood; are the two related? Can we be justified by two different things, or are the two things inseperately related? I believe they are related. I believe we are justified by His blood and the evidence of such is our faith which we have because of God's regenerating grace bestowed on his elect.
Eph. 2:8,9 says, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of works lest any man should boast; it is the gift of God." This passage raises at least two questions for me. (1) what does 'that' refer to (i.e. and THAT not of works), grace or faith?, and (2) what is the 'gift of God', faith or grace? For the longest time I believed that 'that' referred to faith, but I have come to believe it refers to grace. So, to restate the sentance in a manner which reflects where I'm at in my walk, "For by grace I have been saved through faith, and that grace is not of works." You see, the 'grace' that saves me also affords in me the ability to respond to God in faith - by which I know that I am justified. Does that make sense? And what is the free gift? It is the ability to believe.
So, then, the crux of this post is whether I believe that faith comes before regeneration or regeneration comes before faith. If faith comes before regeneration, it is something that I 'work up' on my own and is thus a work - and salvation is NOT by works. If, however, regeneration comes before faith, then faith is something that I have - in response to God's supernatural work of 'replacing my heart of stone with a heart of flesh'. And, the more I've studied the subject, the more great theologians I've found who adhered to the doctrine of 'reneration before faith'. This group obviously includes Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, and Sproul, but - much to my intrigue - the great Catholic theologians Augustine and Aquinas.


Grace and peace to all,

Posttinebraelux

Guiding the Errant - My responsibility?

I have recently been dealing with the issue of what, exactly, my responsibility is as a Christian. I've decided it isn't proselytizing, but I've also decided it isn't 'making' others conform to my interpretation of the Bible. As Christians, we read and study God's Word, commentaries on God's Word, and study books on God's Word. As we study these different media regarding the Word, we develop opinions which, at some point, become beliefs, convictions, and philosophies. Some are WAY off base (as with the wise men at the manger) and some are pretty universally accepted within Christendom (as with the virgin birth). In between, however, lies the vast expanse of 'opinion'. And, within that expanse, are the opinions of well learned scholars and the opinions of obstinate, ignorant oafs. I mean no ill will toward anyone but, to be honest, there are many professing Christians who devote NO time to the study of God's word, but are still willing to proffer opinions about the Bible - often based simply on what someone else has told them.
As anyone who spends any time at all in 'blogosphere' will realize, the blogworld is a fascinating place to witness this phenomenon. There are, in blogworld, bloggers whose Biblical prowess ranges from not being able to quote John 3:16 (i.e. pretty ignorant of things Biblical) to those who are PhD or DDiv professors in Christian universities. And, as most are aware, people are often VERY defensive of their own beliefs/convictions and are easily offended when someone else disparages these strongly held beliefs.
One particular blog I frequent has, as a ground rule, 'no attacking the blogger - just the issue'. On some level, however, isn't even an attack on someone's dearly held belief an attack on that person? For instance, it is easy for me to get offended when someone refers to the doctrines of Grace as a 'radical 5-point belief'. Am I radical? I don't think I am, but others may take issue with my perception of myself. :)
At any rate, I have become keenly interested in what my responsibility is with regard to helping others along the road to Spiritual wisdom. And, over the past few weeks, as I've studied how Christ responded to similar situations, I've begun to understand that it is not my repsponsibility to make sure others have 'good doctrine' - that's God's responsibility. Christ said that the Holy Spirit would 'guide us into all truth' (John 16:8). I noticed - for the first time it seems - that He didn't say that 'Greg' (my first name) would guide others into all truth. So, then, how does the Holy Spirit do that without me helping Him 'beat' the truth into someone else? I think that maybe I am to share with others what I believe, why I believe it, and why I hold that belief so dearly - and then allow God to guide my brother or sister as HE chooses to guide them. Whether or not they agree with me is not my concern - that is between them and their God.
Ever notice who Christ spent most of His time arguing with? It was not with those who disagreed with him (I'm sure there were legions of that type), but rather it was those who 'forced' others to accept their own interpretations of the Bible - i.e. the Pharisees. I DESPERATELY don't want to be a pharisee.
I am becoming more and more convinced that phariseeism is not just 'parading' my religion for others to see, but - and the but is MUCH worse than the parading - rather coercing others into their own form of religion by using peer pressure and fear tactics.
To use an example, do I believe Mormonism to be a wrong path? Yes. Am I obligated to share with a Mormon (or anyone else for that matter) what I believe to be the right path? Yes. Am I to force them to believe like I do? Never.
to use an example closer to home for most of us, do I believe the doctrines of Grace to be a correct interpretation of salvation? Absolutely. Am I obligated to share with others why I believe this? Absolutely (I Pet. 3:15). Am I to 'beat' others down until they agree with me? Never.
May God grant me the grace to accept that others may not agree with me - and to love them without regard of our differences.

Grace and peace,

Posttinebraelux

Evangelism - My responsiblity?

Recently, I've been inundated from several sides regarding a particular issue. Have you ever noticed that, when God is impressing on you the need to study and respond to a particular issue, He uses many media to get your attention. In this particular case, I had been re-reading the Gospels, blogging with a couple of different people, reading a book (Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller), fellowshipping about this issue in my Sunday school class, and then hearing it from the pulpit during a service. I have found that, when God uses so many different media to get my attention, I'd better listen and respond - or, as has been my experience, God will gently (or not so gently) and lovingly continue the lesson until I do respond. :)
The issue I've been confronted with over the last couple of weeks is the issue of what, exactly, my first and most important responsibility to God (I've always thought is was evangelism).
I've long been convinced of God's sovereignty with regard to every aspect of life - including salvation. One of the basic tenets of this type of belief is that God 'saves' who He saves when He wants to save them and how He wants to save them - regardless of what anyone else wants, needs, desires, or demands of Him (Holy Trinity excepted). An extreme view of this doctrine is what some call 'hyper-Calvinism' which is the philosophy that it doesn't matter if we 'spread the Gospel' because God will save who He will save with or without us. This is NOT Christianity and, I'm afraid, most of those who hold this type of belief will have missed the boat, so to speak. True Christianity, as I see it, is 'spreading the Gospel' as we're commanded to do (Mat. 28 & Rom. 10) with both our mouths and our lives. But I've recently begun to understand a difference between 'living out Christ' - which is the 'spreading the Gospel with my mouth and life' - and evangelizing. I see evangelism as more of a proselytizing thing now than before. And, I've become convinced that it is not my responsibility to help God save those whom He has elected to save. Salvation is God's responsibility - period. My responsibility, I've come to understand, is to: love God with all my heart strength, mind, and soul.

Grace and peace to all,

Posttinebraelux

Baptism - Did you do it right?

So I've been blogging on a good buddy's site about what baptism is and is not. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church so, aside from horror stories around the campfire on dark nights, I had no idea that any 'true' Christians actually practiced the rite of sprinkling (as opposed to dunking) until I was an adult. In fact, I remember going to a Presbyterian church in my late teens and seeing a 'coloring page' for the youngsters which depicted John the Baptist 'sprinkling' Jesus. I was appalled! I half expected God to rain down judgement on that church at any moment and was afraid someone would associate me with this pagan group (sorry my Presbyterian friends) just because I had visited. I felt the strong urge to proclaim, "I had nothing to do with this blasphemy!"
I have since become aware that many great theologians and Bible students have had baptism experiences different than I. This has, in turn, forced me to reconsider why it is we are baptized, what baptism accomplishes, and whether or not deviation from the SB norm is acceptable in God's eyes.
Why are we baptized? Is it for the 'remission of sins' as indicated in Acts 2:38? Is it part of the salvation process as indicated in Gal. 3:27? Is it merely because we're commanded to do so in Mat. 28:19? How important is it, anyway? Well, with respect to the first two questions, I think it imperative that we make a distinction between 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and 'baptism with water'. I do believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the salvation experience and does, in fact, accomplish remission of sins. I believe, however, that baptism of the Holy Spirit is that spiritual act of 'death and resurrection' as alluded to in Rom. 6. Our old selves are 'buried' and our new, alive spirits are 'raised to walk in newness of life'. I cannot believe that baptism with water accomplishes either remission of sins or salvation in the baptizee. If it did, salvation would be, at least in part, based on a work of ours - and I adamantly believe that it is not.
So, then, if baptism of water doesn't 'accomplish' anything in us, why are we commanded to do so. Well, Scripture doesn't seem nearly so clear as to 'why' as it is that we are to do it (Mat. 28)As best as I can glean, it is a public proclamation of our association with Christ and it is a 'picture' of what Christ accomplished - through His death and resurrection physically and our death and resurrection spiritually (Rom. 6).
So, if we believe that 'water baptism' is nothing more than a symbolic representation of what has occurred spiritually - and that it accomplishes no spiritual feat, then how important is it that: (a) we are baptized at all, and (b) we perform it by immersion as opposed to sprinkling or some other symbolic gesture? I believe it is important primarily because we are commanded to do so. Secondarily, water baptism almost always follows proclamations of faith in the new testament writings, so that we have strong precedent to do so. Finally, I truly believe that it serves as a public proclamation of association with Christ. The second part of the question, however, is more difficult for me. If water baptism truly accomplishes nothing spiritual within us (and I don't believe it does), then I personally am willing to accept as fellow brethren/sistren those who have been 'sprinkled' assuming that: (a) they did it in honest obedience to Christ's command to be baptized (as opposed to an attitude of rebellion against immersion), (b) they did it in an open and honest desire to be associated with Christ's death and resurrection, and (c) they did it in full recognition that the rite of water baptism carried with it no supernatural significance (i.e. that is was not part of the salvation experience).
Do I believe immersion baptism to be the strongest picture of what Christ accomplished according to Rom. 6? Absolutely. Am I willing to exclude brethren/sistren from Christian fellowship because they believe sprinkling to be as symbolic as immersion? I am not.

Post Tinebrae Lux