Modern Life

Quick Justice and Escalation

2009-04-13T06:40:00.000-07:00

It's been interesting to follow the recent headlines regarding the rescue of a sailor who had been kidnapped by a small group of Somali thugs. The Somali thieves had apparently taken Capt. Richard Phillips hostage in an attempt to extort a large sum of money from his employer. At the time of his capture, Captain Phillips was piloting a ship carrying, at least in part, food and aid to Rwanda.

This past weekend, Navy Seals shot and killed three of the four kidnappers while capturing the fourth. While the overwhelming response of the U.S. supports this action, I found it iteresting that so many people are circulating the warning that "it could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it" as U.S. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney is reported to have said. Seems to me that it is far more likely that it will reduce violence in this part of the world. The scriptures say, for example, that "when justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers" (Proverbs 21:15) and that "when the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ecclesiates 8:11).

The quick execution of justice in this case will indeed terrorize the remaining Somali pirates and will certainly lead to a reduction in their criminal violence. I, for one, am glad that the U.S. still has the good sense to confront and destroy evil (at times) rather than tolerate the criminal conduct of evil men. Of course there are many venues where the U.S. has opted out of executing quick justice - but that is another subject for another time...

Dok vs. Doc : May the "force" be with you

2008-01-21T14:00:00.001-08:00

I'll have to admit that I'm somewhat perplexed as to where to go next since there are so many directions to pursue given the really terrific comments to the first posting. (good to see that the Weaver has joined in!) I've chosen to narrow my next post to the two comments that most attracted my personal attention and we can perhaps get to other issues later. The first is regarding the word "force" which the DoK uses twice in his comments and the second is the surprising (for me) statement that the DoK believes that Jesus has attained the highest level of revelation ever achieved by man!

FORCE: Commenting on the previous post, the DoK makes the following statement: "As a true Christian, one should not be concerned with HOW others believe and if that way is correct, only that others believe and do not force non-pious beliefs on others" and then "Everyone is entitled to their own belief, it is not anyone’s place to force them into any one direction, it is only our way to show them there are other paths that they might not see." (bold-faced emphasis is my own).

If the word 'force' is meant to be taken in the sense of 'physical coercion' such as "recant of your faith in Christ or we'll turn the lions loose on you" (used by early Rome against believers) or "confess your sins against Christ or we'll torture you" (used by the Catholic church against Jews and Muslims) then this statement is self-evidently true. It seems to me, however, that physical coercion is not what is meant here but rather 'logical persuasion'. According to this connotation , any attempt to merely persuade another of the truth of the Christian faith is somehow thought to be immoral or improper to some degree. But anyone who says that 'nobody should force their viewpoint on another' has violated the very rule that they state for they attempt to "force" that idea on someone else. This again is a self-refuting position and seems to be a way to stamp out dialog without actual debate. DoK, I know you well enough to understand that you are not trying to stamp out debate but I'm not really sure what you mean when using the word "force" in this context. Perhaps it is more related to something like 'judgmentalism' or perhaps I've completely misunderstood the issue here; it wouldn't be the first time.

JESUS: Again, commenting on the previous post, the DoK said that "None of us, that I’m aware of, have attained the same level of revelation as Jesus. Therefore it is necessary to learn how to be more like him through scripture via reading it, and via the example of others in the community (unless someone knows of a burning bush in the neighborhood that I don’t know about…)"

I'm just wondering what is meant by this. What exactly is it about the life and teachings of Jesus that is so admirable? I ask this because I'm still trying to figure out where the "source of authority" is actually located. If the response is something like "I believe that Christ is a good man because his life was lived like I think a good life should be lived" then the source of moral authority resides in the self and we're back to the "imperfect viewpoint" problem. If, however, the response is that "I believe that Christ is a good man because the Bible tells me so" then the source of moral authority lies outside of the self and is located in the mind of God since scriptures are his word.

Both the Bible and Christ himself claim that he was not just a good man, but the perfect man and also the omnipotent God of the universe. In John 8:58-59 the bible records the following conversation between Jesus and his fellow Jews. "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. There are many other examples of his claims to be God but this seems to be one of the most clear - even the people who heard him understood what he was saying since they were going to kill him for (what they believed to be) blasphemy. Other examples include John 10:24-38 and Luke 5:20-24. DoK, I'm curious as to whether you believe, as the apostle John does, that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God".

Finally, I found the burning bush comment to be right on target with respect to the source of belief. As imperfect people we can only rely on revelation to truly know anything about grace and fortunately for us there is a burning bush; probably lying on a bookshelf somewhere nearby. It's called the Bible.

Grace and Peace.

Dok vs. Doc : Source of Chrisitan Belief

2008-01-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, the Dok, recently became engaged and sent me some of his thoughts on getting married in a church setting. This led to a good discussion of Christian belief which we will begin to carry out online. With respect to the teaching of the 'Christian church' the Dok made the following statement.

If the people at the core of the church hold many negative qualities such as greed, dishonesty, pride, then it is quite easy to say that the church itself is somehow corrupt because of it. It is hard to receive teachings from a corrupt entity. All of my life I’ve been taught by others and have had it proven through experience that ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true. (bold-faced emphasis is my own)

First of all I agree with the Dok that anytime a debased person (someone who is consumed by greed or pride or dishonesty) speaks it will be difficult to believe even if what they say happens to be true. Since one of the fundamental tasks of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, a message of truth, this serves as incentive for the church to live it's corporate life in such a way as to make belief in it's message as easy to swallow as possible for those who now stand outside of faith.

The important thing to note, however, is that the church is not the source of truth (regardless of what the Catholic church may teach) but is an institution that simply recognizes the authoritative teaching of the Bible as the source of truth. The Bible is itself the source of truth and the church merely recognizes this to be true. Hence, when debating Christian thought it is my task to always refer back to the teachings of Scripture, not to the teachings of a particular church or denomination or any other such group. While the church might make belief in the teaching of scripture more or less easy to believe by it's more or less pure life, the church does not make the teachings of scripture to be more or less true by it's more or less pure life.

One final note is also in order. In the Dok's initial post he indicates the premise by which he lives his life. His premise is that "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be proven to be logically correct in order to be true." He completely undermines this premise, however, since the premise itself is based not on precise logical reasoning but was established via the teaching of others and his own (imperfect) subjective experience. In addition, it should be clarified that things are true because we can prove them but they are believed upon proof. His initial statement is fundamentally self-refuting. As a christian my premise is similar but different in an important way. I would phrase my premise as "ideas, theories, thoughts, and hypothesis must be either proven logically correct or revealed in scripture in order to be believed.".

Servant Leadership or Servant Servanthood?

2007-11-06T11:19:00.000-08:00

I've been pondering the idea of "servanthood" recently for a variety of reasons; not least of which is an upcoming sermon that I am preparing from Ephesians chapter 5 on the submission of wives to their husbands. As I considered the notion of "servanthood" it occurs to me that in today's culture, the word 'servant' has literally lost all meaning and has become almost inverted in normal use.

I was curious to know how many corporations today are hiring 'servants' and so I logged on to monster.com and searched for "servant". More than 5000 jobs were listed when searching for "nurse", "engineer" or "manager" but only 32 job openings nationwide were listed as a result of searching for a position as "servant". Oddly enough, about 1/2 of these positions were not hiring "servants" but managerial leaders who were to exhibit "servant leadership". I don't know of anyone who aspires to make a career of "servanthood" - the very idea seems repulsive to most of our post-modern citizenry. But as Christians we are to be servants and we will be judged based on our performance as servants of Christ.

A servant is one who works in the interest of another; submitting his will to the will of their master. As Christians, we are all called to put aside our own will and to work to advance the kingdom of Christ but how often do we really take this view to heart? How often do we really see the scope of our life as an advancement of God's glory rather than our own? As Christians we should follow the example of Christ who, as Phillipians chapter two reveals to us: "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!"

Modern Redemption

2007-10-24T13:24:00.000-07:00

We have been working through the book of Exodus in our Sunday School class this semester and just last week began to examine the "plagues" of Egypt. These plagues are variously described as "signs", "wonders", and "acts of judgment" executed by God himself through the prophet Moses so that Egypt may know his power and so that God can claim for himself a people.

In the first chapter of Exodus we see that Pharaoh has become frightened of the growing population of the Israelites and hence embarks on a genocidal plot as reported in verse 22: "Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live." Pharaoh fills the Nile with the blood of Israelite male children and so in the first plague, God returns the favor and turns the waters of the Nile into blood. With this act of judgment God begins a series of increasingly severe punishments that eventually yield the complete freedom of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery.

Of course, the story has a modern side since it is a magnificent and full-orbed portrayal of the nature of sin and the nature of redemption. The unbeliever is oppressed and enslaved by the power of sin but God has come to the aid of those who believe and has called them into freedom so that he can "be their God and they will be his people". God commands all people to believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ so that they might be saved. How foolish to remain in bondage to sin when perfect freedom can be found in Christ!

Modern Debate

2007-09-28T10:15:00.000-07:00

I spent last evening at an exceptionally interesting Intervarsity Christian Fellowship event as a guest panelist. The event turned out to be an open forum for students to ask essentially any questions they wished regarding the Christian faith. I was one of four panelists; the others being a colleague in an administration position on our campus, a student, and a female preacher from a local church.

The questions were mostly of the expected variety. What about evolution; How do we know God exists; Why should we pray; Who wrote the Bible and how do we know that it's true. There were a few tricky ones: What about predestination, how do I combat doubt, how should I live my life and what about "dating"?

The question that brokered the most interesting controversy involved the role of women in the church. As a man of the reformed faith my position is that scripture clearly teaches the perfect equality of men and women in terms of identity (both are made in the image of God) and scripture also clearly teaches that men and women do not have identical functions in the context of the church. When Paul writes in I Timothy 2:12 that

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

This injunction clearly prohibits women from taking on the role of Pastor or Elder within the church structure. I find it quite odd that someone can read this text and argue that women should be Pastor's when that is what the text clearly forbids. The reasoning goes something like 'in the culture of his time there were women who were mis-using their positions of teaching and authority within the church and Paul was telling them to stop that mis-use'. They thus seek to relativize the equation.

But none of that logic is to be found anywhere in the text of scriptures. In fact, we are not left to guess as to what Paul's actual reason for giving this injunction was since he clearly states it: 'For Adam was formed first, then Eve'. It is a reason rooted in the historical fact of creation and the fall. Since this historical fact is equally true in all cultures at all times, there is no room to make this a culturally relative statement on womens roles within the church. The female panelist, herself a minister, strongly objected of course, but did not mount a serious biblical case for her position.

We also, very predictably, disagreed on the position of predestination; she taking the Arminian position and myself take the orthodox reformed position that God is sovereign in electing his children and giving them 'new birth'. Putting these two (important and relevant) issues asside, however, the panel was largely united in thought and heart and I hope that people were truly encouraged and edified.

Book Review : Exegetical Falacies

2007-09-05T06:11:00.001-07:00

I've nearly completed reading an exceptionally well written text by D. A. Carson entitled "Exegetical Fallacies". It is a brief compendium (about 140 pages of narrative) of the most common logical and rhetorical errors made by preachers through the ages. As a part-time pulpiteer I understand the ease with which false arguments can be made and incoherent appeals constructed and was hence drawn to the text hoping to avoid such mistakes in the future.

This text catalogs and explains fallacies involving word studies (overgeneralizing and equating semantics with etymology for example), logical errors, improper presuppositions and a wide array of others. While Carson is himself a conservative scholar, he includes examples of errors made by a representative sampling of scholars from fundamentalists to moderates to liberals.

My interest was drawn particularly to the longest chapter; that on 'word study fallacies'. The author speaks at length and with great attention to detail on issues of grammar, syntax, etymology and literary genre. Of particular personal interest was his discussion of how often the notions of synonym and equivalence are conflated. If two words are equivalent, for example, they can be legitimately interchanged in any context without the smallest nuanced change of semantics or connotation or external referent. A confusion between similarity and equivalence can lead to a host of errors which are carefully described throughout the central portion of the text.

It is rare to find a book that is simulatneously modern, rigorous and linguistically rich. This is must reading for anyone who aspires to "rightly divide the word of truth". It gives clear instruction on how to identify likely sources of error and gives, by way of example, a vision of the well trained and renewed mind; an example that in today's postmodern academic environ, is all but extinct.

Doubting Doubt

2007-09-04T08:26:00.000-07:00

The question of "doubt" in the mind and experience of the Christian has recently arisen since I've been asked to participate on a panel discussion centering on the topic of "doubt". The discussion is sponsored by our local Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and while I'm not certain of the composition or size of the panel I expect that they will all be speaking from within a Christian mindset.

In considering this issue the I quickly realized a need to define terms so as to bring clarity to the table. Doubt, when used as a verb, is "to be uncertain about; to consider questionable or unlikely; to hesitate to believe; or to distrust". Synonyms include mistrust, disbelief, question and antonyms include belief, faith, and trust.

It should be immediately apparent that it is foolish to be certain about something that is, by nature, uncertain. It is foolish to be absolutely certain about tomorrows weather or tomorrows stock market performance or even to place your complete trust in the the word of an unreliable man. It is equally foolish, however, to be uncertain about things which are intrinsically reliable. It is foolish to doubt the historicity of the holocaust or the law of gravity or, more to the point, to be uncertain, mistrusting and disbelieving of God and his Word.

Doubt is, of course, a universal human experience but we must carefully distinguish the source and object of our mistrust. Scripturally speaking, doubt in God and his Word is never tolerated or encouraged but is to be cast off. James 1:5-7 says it well when it says that "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.." If God is the object of our mistrust then we are in error, indulging our sin and must actively seek to believe. In doubting God and his Word we implicitly treat Him as unreliable and not worthy of our trust - we do not give him the glory that is due to his name.

Jesus never said that it was OK to doubt the things of God. When Peter saw Jesus walking on water and asks to come to him Jesus replies "Come". The text then relates that "Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" When Jesus speaks, in this case "Come", the only proper response is belief and complete faith without doubt or mistrust.

Perhaps one reason the so many believers entertain doubts is that they are simply not sure what God has actually said and so are unsure of what to believe. Belief must have an object; there must be external cognitive content; and hence the elimination of doubt must begin with the study of scripture and a corresponding submission to it's teaching. Apart from true knowledge doubt is inevitable and, according to both scripture and logic, a severe weakening of faith.

Moral Diversity?

2007-08-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

The Synod of Saints has drawn our attention once again to the homosexual issue as it plays out in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). This denomination has gained a large amount of national press over the years for their inner conflict on the homosexual question and this year is no different. The only media coverage of the ELCA 2007 national assembly regarded their action to excise ELCA prohibitions on homosexual conduct by ordained ministers. As the Chicago Tribune reported it "A national assembly of Evangelical Lutherans urged its bishops this weekend to refrain from defrocking gay and lesbian ministers who violate a celibacy rule, but rejected measures that would have permitted ordaining gays churchwide." The article goes on to report that proponents of the homosexual agenda described the pain of having to choose between ministry and a life-long partner.

Mr. Modern is like all of us, sympathetic to human pain and is willing to extend the benefit of a doubt even when the pain seems embellished with tears of the croc. But this kind of pain is absurd. It is outrage over the pain of sanctification; the fury of an alcholic who feels the pain of sobriety or the rage of a slanderer who feels the cruel torment of having to control their tongue. The argument pre-supposes that homosexuality is a virtue, a positive good, and that to choose between mutually exclusive virtues (ministry and homosexual behavior) is simply not fair.

The argument really rests on a foundation of genetic diversity. The homosexual, they will say, is homosexual by virtue of genetic composition - a simple variation on the more prevalent genetics of the heterosexual. The logic of such thinking goes something like this. Premise: Human identity is defined by ones genetic makeup. Premise: It is immoral to ask others to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their fundamental identity. Premise: Homosexuality is embedded in the human genetic structure. Conclusion: It is immoral to ask homosexuals to behave in non-homosexual ways. The locus of complete human autonomy is thereby found in the genes. Any behavior with a genetic source becomes a zone of morality-free license. The real fly in the ointment however is that all behavior is genetically sourced. The Bible forbids lust in the heart of the 19 year old male heterosexual and it forbids adultry although the genetic drive is universally acknowledged. The Bible also clearly forbids homosexual conduct regardless of whether or not a genetic component is in play (and Mr. Modern is of the opinion that there probably is since Mr. Modern embraces the Reformed position on "total depravity").

The Chicago Tribune article concludes with this final sentence: "The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in St. Louis, believes the Bible is literally true and does not ordain gays." The use of the term"literally" is worth noting. First Corinthians 6:9-10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to read this non-literally as "homosexuality is a non-wicked positive good in the eyes of God"? The Missouri-Synod position does not require belief in a literally true Bible - any belief will do. A belief that is obviously lacking in the ELCA.

Genetic Diversity and Liberal Positivisim

2007-08-17T06:47:00.000-07:00

A recent study by Harvard professor Robert Putnam is gaining attention from the press. His study addressed the effect of genetic diversity on society as a whole. The study surveyed about 30,000 individuals asking them about such things as their level of trust in neighbors, police, and government officials; how they spent their own leisure time; how often they voted in public elections; their level of participation in civic organizations and other such indicators.

The finding indicated that genetic diversity is inversely related to civic health. As the Boston Globe put it "The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings...the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."

After decades of propaganda and positive-think touting the virtues and benefits (especially the academic benefits) of genetic diversity the liberal mind is being challenged by actual data. This study strikes at one of the central questions of human life, the question of "how can we live in harmony (as united people) in the face of so much difference (genetic and ethnic diversity)?" With almost our entire attention focused on an increase of diversity simply for diversities sake, we overlook the far more fundamental issue of what will hold us together? An increase in difference cannot possible lead to a healthy society without a clearly defined and universally embraced unifying ideology.

The unification sought be the liberal mind seems to be found in the political and intellectual spheres. They seek a political system that will institutionalize the "unifying" ideal of increasing genetic diversity while forcing academics to walk in lock-step with propagandistic opinions that support this ideal. Even Professor Putnam, a liberal-minded supporter of diversity, concludes his study with a profound example of anti-scientific positive-think when he says that "[these social trends] have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed". Apparently, despite the evidence, Professor Putnam clings to the notion that there must be a way to bow down to the god of genetic diversity without consequence.

The Christian church has held the answer to this dillema for millenia. The church is united by the Spirit of God, is uniform (united and non-diverse) in what it believes intellectually; how it behaves morally; and even genetically since we are all made in the image of God. It is diverse (non-uniform) in irrelevant genetic ways and in terms of function for God has given his gifts to men as he has choosen. Putnams study just recently discovered this to be true. In his study he found that the Evangelical Mega-Churches had the most healthy of civic lives and sees them as something of a model for political change. Good luck Professor Putnam - you'll need it to grow a church without Christ.

(D)Evolutionary Extinction

2007-08-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

Most major news outlets reported this past week on the probable extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin. The baiji are a species of freshwater dolphin found only in the Yangtze river in China and there have been no reported sightings of a baiji dolphin in several years.

A group of scientists recently spent six weeks scouring the river for any sign of the baiji dolphin but failed to spot a single one. The expedition was led by Swiss scientist August Pfluger. After reaching the conclusion that the baiji dolphin are probably extinct in spite of efforts at preservation, Mr. Pfluger comments that "We have to accept the fact that the Baiji is functionally extinct. We lost the race. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world. We are all incredibly sad."

Given that evolutionists believe in the "survival of the fittest" and the "death of the least fit" it is difficult to understand saddness at the loss of a species. Under evolutionary theory, the loss of a species is the fundamental law of nature and one which cannot (and I think most evolutionists would argue) should not be altered since it is the mechanism by which this entire universe has come to be. The reaction of the evolutionist to the extinction of a "weak" species should seem to be one of optimism and joy as the fitness of all living things for this planet has increased; that is to say, that when viewed in a global sense, things will have improved for all remaining life! Perhaps they would posit that simply the existence of the baiji dolphin provides some net gain in the ever-ascending evolutionary staircase of man, a kind of prostration before the supreme ideal of biological "diversity"; but such an axiom seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary reality.

Of course the Christian has a well-founded motive to preserve species and a well-grounded reason to be saddened at the loss of life. God himself has placed man as ruling steward over all of his creation and has commanded him to manage it with wisdom. Since all of creation reflects the creative glory of God it is with sadness that we see the dimming of this reflection and the failure of man to preseverve this reflected light. From the Christian perspective then, the extinction of the baiji demonstrates more than anything the devolution of modern man since it demonstates an internal conflict between what is true and what is desired. What the evolutionist believes is at odds with what the evolutionist feels.

Christian Unity and Doctrinal Uniformity

2007-08-09T07:45:00.000-07:00

Our modern culture trumpets diversity, unqualified and undefined, as the ultimate social good and then asserts that all mankind is united and connected; a Disney-like vision of the "Circle of Life". While modern culture provides no basis unity and no substance to the ethereal term "diversity", the Christian Church is united in well-defined and substantive ways and is dependent upon the well-defined and substantive diversity of it's members.

As Ephesians reminds us, we are united in identity since we have one Father. The church is united by "spiritual genetics" in much the same way that siblings are united to each other through being raised in the same family and sharing the same genetic fingerprint. We are also united in purpose since we share in one baptism. The trajectory of every Christian life is toward the glory and honor of God and of building up his kingdom. The church is united in thought since we have one faith. It must be emphasized that faith is first of all cognitive. There is always a substantive content to faith and the content of the Christian faith has been well-defined over the centuries. The sinfulness of man, the just wrath of God on sin and the volitional sacrificial atonement of Christ are central elements of this faith and all Christians must, but definition, confess these elements as true. In these ways then, unity is indeed dependent upon uniformity or sameness. All Christians have the same Father but to the extent that they fight against their purpose in life and to the extent that a Christian is alienated from the objective truth of scripture they are to that extent alienated from the body of Christ and unity suffers.

Of course, any attempt to articulate a well-defined core of truth to which all Christians must adhere is doomed to failure. Well-meaning Christians have always, and will always, disagree over issues of faith but it must be remembered that all such "denominations and tribes" are still of one family and are still more tightly united in mind (by confession and belief) than any large non-Christian organization or entity.

Christian unity both allows for and depends upon the diversity of it's members. Not a diversity of identity (since we have one Father) nor in a diversity of belief (since we have one faith) but in a diversity of function (since we have varying gifts). In this way the church is a reflection of the divine economy which exists as one-in-essence but three-in-person. Within the godhead there is a single perfect essence, purpose and unity of mind while there are different roles or functions played by the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

Christian Unity and Diversity

2007-08-07T08:27:00.000-07:00

Church unity allows for, and is dependent upon, the diversity of it’s members. In Ephesians chapter 4 verses 7 and 11 we read “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers”. The disjunctive term ‘but’ indicates that while the emphasis in the previous verses had been on church unity, Paul is now changing emphasis and examining the diversity that occurs within the church united.

As Christians we are monotheists, we believe that there is only one God and that God is one. However, as we read in the Apostles creed, we also believe in God the Father, and God the Son, and in God the Holy Spirit. God himself is one – completely unified in substance and essence, but God is nonetheless many – for God exists in the persons of the Father and the Son and the Spirit. In the same way, the church is one body; a unified and organic whole which is nonetheless composed of diverse members each having a diversity of spiritual gifts which is meant to build up and serve the body.

We tend to confuse the concept of unity with the idea of uniformity or sameness. It’s tempting to believe that in order to be united we must all be exactly the same in every respect. We can mistakenly believe that we should all be identical, much like the mass-produced precisely-machined cogs of our industrial world. But the unity of the church is dependent upon it’s very diversity and Christ has given each one of us roles and gifts which are to be used to strengthen the church body. Make no mistake, we have all been given a unique and vital role for verse seven says that ‘to each one of us grace has been given’ and verse 16 reads “From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work”.

As individual believers we are enabled by God to do the works of service which God has called us to perform. God never calls someone into service without also empowering them to excel in that service. When Paul says that “to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it” he means that you and I have been given sufficient power to succeed in whatever role Christ has chosen in building up the church body. Exodus 31 gives a great illustration gods grace being apportioned to men for the building up of the church. God says in that text “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship. Moreover, I have appointed Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, to help him. Also I have given skill to all the craftsmen to make everything I have commanded you”. Wherever God leads our local church and whatever task God gives to this local body, we can be sure that God has given this corporate body the skill, and knowledge, and ability to succeed and excel.

Unlike this modern world where unity is pursued but without a basis and diversity (genetic and behavioral) is pursued as it's own end, the Christian church has a solid foundation for both unity and diversity. We are united by having one Lord and one Father and one Baptism; we are united in identity but diverse in function for God has given different gifts to men.

Christian Humility as a Means of Unity

2007-08-06T12:05:00.000-07:00

In Ephesians 4, Paul lists four key traits that characterize a life that is worthy of God’s calling; these traits are the true and only means of church unity. We are instructed to “Be completely humble and gentle; to be patient, bearing with one another in love. [and to] make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”.

It is of course no accident that humility is the first trait listed since it is the foundational Christian virtue and is the starting point of the Christian life. It is, after all, an affront to pride when we admit to the evil that resides in our hearts and when we admit our complete impotence to overcome it. John MacArthur notes that “Although humility is the basis of Christian virtue, it seems to be a completely foreign concept to the world at large. The word humility is a compound word in Greek that literally means to think or judge with lowliness, and hence to have lowliness of mind. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks even had a word for humility. The very concept was so foreign and abhorrent to their way of thinking that they had no term to describe it. Apparently this Greek term was coined by Christians, probably by Paul himself, to describe a quality for which no other word was available. To the proud Greeks and Romans, their terms for ignoble, cowardly, and other such characteristics were sufficient to describe the “unnatural” person who did not think of himself with pride and self-satisfaction. When, during the first several centuries of Christianity, pagan writers borrowed the term, they always used it derogatorily – frequently of Christians because to them humility was a pitiable weakness.”

I peformed a biblical word study on "pride" and "humility" and I was really struck by how often the terms humility and unity are mentioned in the same passage: humility being the way of obtaining unity. Humility is described in scriptures as an attitude that “considers others better than yourself” and an attitude that “doesn’t think too highly of oneself” but I’m afraid that John MacArthur is right. We live in a culture of self-esteem where we are taught to think very highly of ourselves and to consider ourselves to be at least as good as everyone else. We are taught to be strong-willed and independent; to demand that others treat us as the all-knowing and perfectly-righteous people that we believe ourselves to be.

None of us is immune to pride – it is one of the cardinal vices of the fallen human heart and it lurks just below the surface of our skin. As Christians we get pretty good at masking our conceit but doesn’t it all too often flare up uncontrollably in a glance of irritation; a quick and furtive look of contempt; or in a smug curling of the lips. How many of us are after all proud of our jobs, our house, our spouse, our children, our intelligence, our beauty, our skill, our wisdom or, perhaps the worst of all, our own righteousness, piety, or humility? And how often do we react badly when these things don’t receive the praise we think they deserve?

It seems to me that true humility is a very difficult virtue to obtain. We can’t really become humble by thinking to ourselves something like “Today I’m going to be humble. I’m going to think lots of bad things about myself and lots of good things about everyone else and finally my pride will die.” It seems to me that the best way to combat pride is to not think about yourself at all but to keep our eyes fixed on the author and perfecter of our faith. The best way to eliminate pride is to walk in the Spirit, to be so filled with the humility of Christ that we give no room to the flesh. And let’s not forget that we are called to “complete” humility. We are to consider everyone else better than ourselves at all times and in all situations. Only then will our lives be in balance with our calling.

Philippians chapter 2 describes the perfect humility of Christ. Notice also in this passage the emphasis on the unity that flows from humility. “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very natureGod, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very natureof a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Of course we are all inclined to a self-righteous false humility. False humility seems based on a man-made and legalistic notion of righteousness and is usually based on things that we don’t do. Colossians 2 teaches that “while human commands and teachings indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, they nonetheless lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence”. Jonathan Edwards comments on the danger of false humility. “It may be observed that the more excellent anything is, the more it will be counterfeited. Thus there are many more counterfeits of silver and gold, than of iron and copper: there are many false diamonds and rubies, but who goes around counterfeiting pebbles? The more excellent things are, the more difficult it is to make anything like them; the more prevalent will the counterfeits be, and the more skill and subtlety be displayed, in an exact imitation of the outward appearance.

So it is with Christian virtues and graces; the subtlety of Satan, and men's deceitful hearts, are inclined towards counterfeiting those things that are in highest repute. So there are perhaps no graces that have more counterfeits than love and humility; these being virtues wherein the beauty of a true Christian does especially appear.”

How do we know whether we have the attitude of Christ? How can we gauge whether we have truly adopted the nature of a servant? That question may be best answered by how we react when we are treated like a servant. If you react as a servant when others treat you as a servant then and only then do you have the heart of a servant and an attitude of true humility.