Evil overcome

“Nothingness had power over the creature…. But it was impotent against the God who humbled himself, and himself became a creature, and thus exposed himself to its power and resisted it. Nothingness could not master this victim. It could neither endure nor bear the presence of God in the flesh. It met with a prey which it could not match and by which it could only be destroyed as it tried to swallow it. The fullness of the grace which God showed to his creature by himself becoming a threatened, even ruined and lost creature, was its undoing.”

—Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/3, 362.

(Post "borrowed" from here)

Thoughts for the day

"The usefulness of a cup is its emptiness"~Lao Tzu from Tao Te Ching

This is a quote which is probably most associated with Bruce Lee. He used it in reference to how to be a good Martial Artist but what if we lived by this principle as Christians. We are only of use to God if we are emptied. If the baggage we had and the preconceptions we hold are let go then we are ready to recieve from God and to be filled by him.

Bruce Lee also said this on a TV interview:
"Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow, or it can crash! Be water, my friend."

Same principle. What is we were water and our vessel God? I often feel like we are ice. We try to chisel ourselves into a certain shape which always fails. We then try and let church and other christians chisel us into a certain shape which also goes wrong. What if we just rested in God and just let ourselves melt into him?

Till next time!

Evangelicalism = Neo-Gnosticism?

There has been some recent discussion in articles and on many Christian blogs on what constitutes Orthodoxy. I have done one recently (see here), as has Jc_Freak (see here). It really has started to get me thinking: What does being a Christian mean? There tends to be two main Christian groups: The conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives tend to be obsessed with what is the right thing to believe usually characterised by long sermons and an obsession with the Bible, at the detriment to social action. The Liberal tends to be concerned with Social action usually characterised by RAC (Random acts of kindness-see here) and other out-reach with a lacking on doctrinal understanding.

I would like to take a few minutes to look at what the Evangelical church (although many churches will fit into this understanding) seems to believe a Christian is. There seems to be a list of doctrines one must adhere to make you a Christian and as long as you do then you're in. My worry is that:

1) Holding a certain belief doesn't mean that you live by it or, in-fact, that you are necessarily saved by it anyway. James tells us that even the Demons believe in one God! (James 2:19).

2) It is bordering on a form of Neo-Gnosticism: The Church has a secret knowledge that as long as you believe then you'll be saved, but if you don't know it then you are lost. Repeat the following creed, hold the following doctrinal basis, use the following Version of the Bible, etc.

This is not in anyway to say the have doctrinal Basis' are a bad thing. On the contrary I believe them to be a good and often vital thing for a church/Organisation to have. What it does mean however if that we need to be careful in how we approach them. If Mr. X used the TNIV instead of the KJV is that a legitimate reason to refuse him membership/leadership? If Mr.X holds to 'Christus Victor' instead of 'penal substitution' does that mean the he is not saved?

Paul tells us in Romans:
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)

We see various confessions of the sort in the Bible. If we declare that Jesus is Lord [over everything, including Caesar] and believe that he was raised from the dead [after dying on our behalf on the cross] then we will be saved. It is also worth noting that it is only a modern characteristic that we separate belief and behaviour. Neither the Greeks nor the Jews did this. To believe was to act in relation to that belief. If we believe that Jesus is Lord then we will follow him as such and do as he commands including telling others about him, caring for those in need, etc.

I do not believe that Evangelicalism has got to a point yet where it is close to Gnosticism, and there are in fact other false teachings that it needs to be cautious of (i.e. Health, wealth and prosperity Gospel-" The Lord giveth and the Lord giveth more), however it is one which it needs to address so that it doesn't develop further.

Looking forward to you thoughts as always.

Till next time!

Who has a better understanding of their eternal security?

You've really not got to be on the Calvinist/Arminian scene very long before a Calvinist will throw this beauty at you: "Because I'm predestined by God I know that no-matter what I will be saved." Which is usually followed by something of the lines, "I pity you Arminians, not knowing whether you are actually saved or not." My question then is an important one. Is this a valid deduction? Do Calvinists really know that they are saved and Arminians just live in hope that they are?

Simple answer: No!

Slightly more in-depth answer: Firstly there is a misunderstanding in Arminianism here. Arminians believe that we are saved solely by the work of God, and most definitely not due to any of our efforts. The very act of choosing is given by God (Prevenient Grace). It is not of our own works so that no-one can boast!

Secondly, I believe that the Calvinists have actually got it backwards. They are the ones who cannot really know if they are saved or not and here is why. The elect are those who are saved. For a Calvinist the only way to know that you are truly saved is that once you are resurrected and God judges you as righteous (that is saved through Christ). Nothing else is a good enough witness. You may think you believe but you may apostate tomorrow proving that you were never saved in the first place. For the Arminian however they are certain of their salvation. Now that is not to say that that is eternally sure but that is to say at each moment. If I am called and I respond to the Gospel then I am saved. I may also apostate tomorrow but that merely shows that I was saved and have forsaken so great a salvation.

I am certain that I am saved and seek, with Gods help, to persevere to the end that I may not stumble or be disqualified.

Till next time!

The Bible is not the word of God!

Do you ever get a bit confused, or in my case, annoyed when people talk about the Bible as the Word of God, or even worse quote passages about the Bible from the Bible to back up their claims about the Bible (Anyone feeling dizzy?) Now please don't get me wrong. I am not saying we should throw away the Bible, quite the opposite actually, but rather we need to understand the Bible as we are meant to. I am sure that when we understand what the word of God is then the Bible will come alive to us in a whole new, richer way.

Protestants are a funny lot (of which I am one). They view the Bible extremely high. 'Sola scriptura' they cry but it seems today that the Bible is being seen in the same light as the Muslims see the Qur'an. For the Muslim the Qur'an it the literal word of God. Every dot, every mark is inspired. They hold that Allah himself wrote/dictated each surah. Now that’s the funny thing you see. That is NOT how the Bible came to be. Each book was written by a real person, in a real situation. It as written/revealed not over a short period (as the Qur'an) but rather over thousands of years. That is not to say that the Bible is not special. Christians talked of the Bible being inspired or God-breathed; a book written by around 40 authors over thousands of years, many of which would have never met and yet a perfect cohesion.

So why this post? Muslims place the Qur'an to bed every night, would never put it on the floor, must have it above all over books to show reverence, and say that it is only Qur'an if it is read in Arabic. Christians read their Bible whenever, put it on the floor, let it get dog eared and stained, place it on the most convenient shelf for easy access and can read it in whatever language they like. Why is that? For the Muslim the Qur'an is something of God himself but not for the Christian. Perhaps if you answer these questions it will help you understand what I'm getting at:

Q1) What is the Word of God?

Q2) Who is the Word of God?

I don't think it'd be too dangerous to assume that most people would say "The Bible" for the ‘what’ question and "Jesus" for the ‘who’ question. This is the problem: Jesus was, is and will always be the word of God. If we were to compare to Qur'an to anything in Christianity it would be Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible is not the word of God, why? Because Jesus he. The Bible is the inspired witness to this word. The word that was in the beginning that created all things. When God said "let there be light", his word, Jesus, created that light.

So what does this mean for our Bible reading? Should we bother? Certainly . The Bible has been given to us and inspired so that we can learn more about God. However is means that it id only useful when it is spoken to us by the spirit. When God speaks his word to us through the Bible, then is becomes the word of God. That’s why we can treat the Bible in the way we do. It is just a book: Ordinary paper and Ink. It only comes alive when God himself speaks those words into our hearts.

Keep reading, learning and listening.

Till next time!

Anti-intellectualism in the Church?

Warning: This is a rant!

Not that this can be said of all churches (I went to a very positive one this sunday) but do you find that on the whole most churches and christians have at least some form of anti-intellectualism? I find it comes in a few guises:

1) Its O.K. to be dumb: Now i'm not talking of people who try to learn but it takes them ages or cannot learn, and neither am I talking of ignorance. I'm talking here of people who plod along and refuse to study because they are lazy. Whether that be biblical studies or quantum physics. It happens for both men and women. For men it tends to be justified due to their practicality and for women it tends to be allowed as thier minds are on other things: Family, etc. As such any educated persons are seen as freaks and are sidelined.

2)Uniformity: Some people seem to allow intellectualism as long as the boat isn't rocked. As long as your intellegence leads you to the same conclusion they have come to and taught in thier ignorance then it is o.k. but God forbid that you come to another conclusion. You are seen as a dissenter and as at risk from falling from the true faith.

3)A danger: This links in with No. 2 but often, and I find this extremely common, you are seen tolerated when you disagree but seen as a danger to others and are therefore shadowed by all elders so they are ready to jump in incase you mention, or perhaps even convice someone of something they disagree with.

Why can't Christian intellectuals be seen as a normal thing, a blessing to the church. A people who push past what the church is teaching to test the water, so to speak, incase they discover something that we are mistaken on or have missed. People who are more obsessed with truth, the Bible, with Jesus, then they are about established 'Orthodoxy' or conformity. Yes, perhaps they will find a dead end or will be mistaken but they is part of the beautiful journey as a disciple of Jesus. What if Luther had conformed and was too scared to question the status quo? What if the church encouraged his searching rather then sought to quench it?

Perhaps if instead of trying to squash people into a box, to conform to what we think the Church could grow. What if our church is full of Luthers, Bonhoeffers, Polkinghornes and we're stopping then or slowing them? Perhaps if we let them go, let them do what they were sent to do the church would grow again, would come back to life again and there wouldn't be such an awful view of Christians as idots by non-christians.

Till next time

An amazing sermon

See here