Hebrews 10 Warning

Hebrews is the most tightly argued book in the New Testament and its warning passages (2:1-4; 4:1-2; 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 12:25-29) are terrifying to read, even when the context is understood. How much more terrifying are they when the context is removed and they are applied to other contexts! One of the harshest warnings is found in 10:26-31 and it cannot be understood without carefully understanding the context.

Hebrews has just finished his magnificent exposition on the greater priesthood of Jesus Christ, begun back in 5:1 and concluded in 10:18, with the expected actions one must take as a result of these truths in 10:19-25. He "breaks" into his exposition in 5:11-6:20 in order to grab his listener's attention in preparation for the long and difficult word (5:11). This word, found in 7:1-10:18, is bracketed by the warnings of 6:4-6 and 10:26-32. It is the latter warning that I want to focus, and in particular, the "willful sin" that is referenced in 10:26:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, but a terrifying expectation of judgment..." (10:26-27a NASB 1995)

On the surface, this has been taken to mean continuing, willful sin as a Christian means loss of salvation. Isn't that what it says? This is where context is so critical. What is the willful sin that Hebrews is referring to? Is it any continuing sin that a believer commits? We must understand the "no sacrifice" statement first.

The phrase "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin" in 10:26 is the same phrase that occurs in 10:18, which is the final statement of his long exposition. In short, Hebrews concludes that because the sacrifice of Christ has once and for all taken away sin, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. This is because Christ's sacrifice is the only sacrifice and it is completed! There isn't and can never be another one. This is key to understanding this passage. The only acceptable sacrifice for my sin is Christ and it has already been accomplished.

In light of this, what does Hebrews exhort his listeners to do in 10:19-25? Draw near, hold fast, and encourage one another (10:22-24). Now for the sin. What is the concern in his book? Is it sin in general or is the entire tone of the book a concern that his listeners are considering abandoning their Christian faith due to persecution (see 10:32-36)? I think it is a fair statement to make that almost all scholars agree that Hebrews is focused on apostasy as the sin he is concerned with in his listeners. Again, context is critical. The sin in Hebrews is that of abandoning Christ, rejecting his sacrifice, and (for the listeners), returning to Judaism for salvation.

Here is the problem. If the sacrifice of Christ is the only one and therefore there is no longer any sacrifice for sin, then to leave Christ is to leave the only sacrifice! To abandon Christ means to abandon salvation. To refuse to draw near, to refuse to hold fast, to refuse to participate in community (encourage one another) is to refuse the only available means of salvation that God offers. Christ's death has forever changed how we come to God, because the veil, His flesh, has been torn so that we might have direct access to God through Him! There is no access to God except through Him. If you abandon Christ, you can't get to God!

One final observation from earlier in Hebrews: the wilderness generation of Exodus-Numbers is used as the negative example of what not to emulate in 3:7-4:13 and possibly implied in the 6:4-6 warning. The wilderness generation witnessed the ten plagues in Egypt (Ex. 7-12), crossed the Red Sea on dry land, saw God kill the entire Egyptian army (Ex. 14), ate manna from heaven every day in the wilderness and received water from multiple rocks (Ex. 16-17)), along with numerous other miracles. Yet, with their mouths full of food from heaven, they rejected the command of God to take the promised land, and as a result, were judged and died in the wilderness (Num. 13-14). For the Christian, the 'promised land' is the salvation found in Christ, and we are urged to hold fast and draw near--not to abandon or become weak in faith. Is it any surprise the very next passage in Hebrews following his long exposition and harsh warning in chapter 10 is his famous hall of faith in chapter 11? This is what he wants to inspire in his listeners! Be like these great examples of faith and draw near to Jesus! Don't abandon Christ, because He is the only all-sufficient once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

Faith in time of panic

The book of Habakkuk has been sitting on my heart since last night; it was brought to mind in my dreams and thoughts as a book very applicable to our current moment. I will briefly overview the book and then turn to some observations of his prayer in chapter 3.

Habakkuk was an Old Testament prophet who cried to God for help in the midst of a wicked nation (1:1-4) and was given a word from God that there was a coming judgment on Judah by the Chaldeans (Babylonians; 1:5-12). Habakkuk is horrified (1:13-2:1). How could a good God use such horrible people to judge His own people?! He can't believe it. And God responds to him, in 2:2-20 in a two-fold reply. First, He will judge His people (2:2-5) and second, He will judge the Chaldeans (2:6-20). In the first part of this response, He speaks what is quoted both in Romans and Hebrews--"the righteous will live by his faith." (2:4b) Habakkuk then responds in chapter 3 in a prayer to God, acknowledging His power and salvation (it is used 3x in this chapter) and a prayer of trust in the midst of the certain coming destruction.

Now for some observations. I think his prayer is a pattern for us to follow. Habakkuk begins by reflecting on the glory and power of God (3:1-4), remembers the Exodus (3:5-8, 15), creation (3:9-10), the sun standing still for Joshua (3:11), and possibly the conquering of the nations in Canaan through Joshua, the various judges, and David (3:12-14).

In times of trouble, I must remember the faithfulness and power of God that He has demonstrated in the past.

Habakkuk then acknowledges that he is afraid, that he dreads what is coming and he isn't looking forward to it (3:16-17). Things are going to be rough for him.

In time of (coming) trouble, I must remember that God hasn't promised lack of trouble, but His presence in the trouble.

Habakkuk rejoices in the Lord and and in His salvation (3:18). This seems unusual. Why would you rejoice in the salvation of the Lord when there is coming trouble? I think this is closely related to God's earlier statement of living by faith in 2:4b. My circumstances do not measure the extent or reality of God's salvation. They do not measure His love or goodness (although Hebrews will use suffering as an indication of it - Heb. 12:3-11).

I must live by faith in God's salvation--not a saving from the circumstances, but His redemption and goodness in them.

Finally, Habakkuk speaks of God being his strength (3:19), that he can walk in his "high places." In other words, God allows him to live "above" his circumstances, that by faith he can and does move to a greater place of trust and faith in God. God gives him the grace to endure and walk in them.

I must live by faith that God is my strength.

God is faithful, He is present, He is your salvation, and He is your strength. Reflect on the past, how God has been faithful to you and come through for you, and He is consistently your strength, working all trouble for the good of making each of us more like Christ.

Grace for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

In reading a bit of commentary on Romans 9 last night, the choice of Isaac and Jacob in verses 6-13 was highlighted as a powerful message of the grace of God. Paul brings back up the discussion of Abraham and the promise (4:16-21)--this promise being a son from both Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael, although firstborn of Abraham, was not this son, because the promise was by faith, and Ishmael was an attempt by Abraham to fulfill that promise on his own. However, Sarah was long past the age of bearing children, being 90 years old when she had Isaac. Thus, it had to be by faith that Isaac came, as entirely a gracious gift from God. There was no way Abraham and Sarah were going to be able to create this child of promise on their own. If anything, Ishmael demonstrates a weakness of faith in Abraham and Sarah that they thought they might 'help God out' in producing a son. But God's purpose was not to be altered--the son had to come through both Abraham and Sarah, well beyond their ability, that it might be shown to all that it was by grace through faith.

And then we come to Isaac and Rebekah, who have twins, but God does something unusual--He picks the younger through whom the blessing would continue (Rom. 9:13). Paul makes a point to observe that neither twin had done anything; they were both still in their mother's womb when God chose Jacob over Esau. The point again is that it is God's choice and God's purpose (9:11b)--that this is God's grace that is acting, choosing, and creating. It isn't on the basis of works. Certainly Jacob isn't the hallmark of integrity--he's a deceiver and a trickster throughout the story. But that is the point, and what Paul is calling attention to here. God did this to show "God's purpose according to His choice... not because of works but because of Him who calls" (Rom. 9:11b).

My natural tendency is to keep trying to do something to somehow please God and made Him more inclined to be favorable to me. That is "the Law" mentality and one that the Christian has been set free from. But there are still habits of legalism in me that come up and this truth of grace and God's choice must continue to be pressed into me. Reading this section last night and this morning shows this powerful story of God's gracious choice of His own purposes and choice, not due to any actions on the part of these people. God's salvation has always been by grace through faith, and Paul through the Holy Spirit is showing us that truth! He chose Abraham and Sarah by His grace, He made Isaac by grace, and He chose Jacob by grace. The faith is that God can do what He has promised, although praise God their faith was imperfect, as an example to me, whose faith is also imperfect. God isn't looking for perfection. He will fulfill His purpose. By His grace. I believe He will. Do you?

Judgment in James 2

For judgment will be merciless to the one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:13)

Recently at church a question was posed about sharing the gospel and if, in light of this verse, one can judge another person's actions as sin (in terms of calling out certain activity as sin to the other person). I've thought some about this question and wanted to articulate a response, because I think there is some confusion over this verse and the idea of judgment in general. I will use the context of the passage in James 2:1-13 to highlight what James is referring to, and thus, what he is not.

For James, judgment, in this passage, is showing favoritism to certain people on the basis of certain characteristics. He opens the passage with an example contrasting showing favoritism to a rich man over a poor man, and how doing so makes one become a "judge with evil motives." (2:4) The initial point here is that showing favoritism towards people on the basis of wealth is wrong. He follows this example with a few of the ten commandments and demonstrates that showing favoritism makes one guilty of breaking all of the law (2:8-10). This is difficult to follow on the heels of his rich/poor man example. What is the connection? Why does James, who is speaking of not showing favoritism, then immediately follow it with commandments and the breaking of that law?

I think the argument that James is making is the following: just as we are not to show favoritism to people on the basis of wealth, so too we are not to show favoritism to people on the basis of sin, because our own sin condemns us -- the very act of showing favoritism is sin! One is not more valuable than another based on the sins in one's life, just like one is not more valuable than another on the basis of one's wealth. The Christian faith is one in which we are walk without playing the personal favoritism game (2:1).

Now we can see James' use of judgment differs with the idea of judging sin as sin. One who is a Christian is one who has surrendered to and agrees with God's judgments. When God states that a sin is a sin, that is His judgment. To observe that, in my life, or in the life of another, is not taking the place of God or going beyond what is appropriate. It is to call 'good' what God calls good and evil what God calls evil. We get into trouble when we start making value statements on other people based on sin (or any other thing, such as wealth). And that is what James is addressing here. There may be times where sin is to be labeled as such, in the hopes of repentance and/or restoration (recall that in James 5:15-16 we are told to confess our sins to one another to be healed). But, I go too far when I use sin, or anything else, to show favoritism to one over another.

Meat for Communion?

I was reading in Leviticus this morning and noticed that part of the sacrificial system was that some of what was brought as a sacrifice was for the priests to eat. Part of the animal was burned and part of it was (sometimes) saved for eating. The death of the animal was both a cleansing for sin and a life-provision in the form of food.

When we remember Christ's sacrifice, we celebrate his sacrifice through eating bread in communion, not meat, as a representation of his body. It might be a bit more accurate if we used meat instead of bread as a remembrance, but we do not.

Here is one reason why bread over meat was used: if we used meat in our celebration of communion, it would require death (an animal would have to die). But death is no longer necessary, for payment for sin or for the remembrance of that payment. Hebrews says that Christ's death was "once for all" (Heb. 10:10) and thus even to remember His death by needing to shed blood would confuse the reality of the actual full satisfaction of His death. Christ's death eliminated the need for an animal to be slaughtered in payment for my sin. In the very celebration of communion, in the form of using bread, rather than meat, we are acknowledging the reality that the payment for sin through the shed blood of Christ fully and completely paid for sin and no more blood needs to be shed.

Understanding your way

Proverbs 14:8 says: The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, but the folly of fools is deceit. This struck me as emphasizing the value of knowing one's self. Understanding one's way is knowing the why behind one's actions. Given the context of the first part of this verse, perhaps the second part is suggesting that the opposite (foolish) is to continue to lie to one's self. Not knowing one's self is folly. Not spending the time to understand one's way forces one to lie both to the self and to others. While that understanding takes great time and energy, it is incredibly freeing.

Every Little Girl is a Princess

I started reading one of my childhood favorites this morning, a novel by George MacDonald called The Princess and the Goblin.  He opens the book with the following dialogue between him and his reader:

“But, Mr. Author, why do you always write about princesses?”
“Because every little girl is a princess".”
“You will make them vain if you tell them that".”
“Not if they understand what I mean.”
“Then what do you mean?”
“What do you mean by a princess?”
“The daughter of a king.”
“Very well, then, every little girl is a princess, and there would be no need to say anything about it, except that she is always in danger of forgetting her rank, and, behaving as if she had grown out of the mud.  I have seen little princesses behave like the children of thieves and lying beggars, and that is why they need to be told they are princesses.  And that is why, when I tell a story of this kind, I like to tell it about a princess.  Then I can say better what I mean, because I can then give her every beautiful thing I want her to have.” (my emphasis)

MadDonald writes about princesses because little girls have a tendency to forget who they are and who their father is.  This is so true with the believer in Jesus Christ!  How often we forget who we are and Who our Father is!  We are reminded constantly in the Bible of our standing in Christ, who we once were and no longer are, who we are now, and what Christ is making us to me.  We are to lay aside the “old self” and put on the “new self” (Col 3:10, Eph 4:22, 24), we are adopted children of God (Romans 8:15, Eph 1:5), and we are to live as Christ by “clothing ourselves with Him” (Romans 13:14).  In short, we are to be and act like children of God because He has made us His children in Christ Jesus.  Living in this knowledge transforms our behavior.  Am I acting like a son of the good and perfect Father (James 1:17)?

It reminds me of something Lewis wrote of “an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”

What am I doing in the mud?

Reality and Faith

One of my biggest struggles is with trying to understand the relationship between reality and spirituality. I feel a lot of frustration at times with what I perceive as "spiritual" ideas or concepts because I don't feel like these reflect an accurate picture of reality and thus won't be successful or practical in the long run. A conversation with a good friend last Tuesday brought this issue back up again and as I was thinking about it the following morning, I came across a passage that beautifully gave what might be the answer.

Without become weak in faith he [Abraham] contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waiver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. (Romans 4:19-21)

Here is a man, called the "friend of God" by God Himself, who considered and accepted reality -- he and his wife's inability to have a child -- and yet even in embracing and accepting that reality (and I might even say because of his acceptance of this reality), his faith in God grew stronger. When one sees the impossibility of the situation, one is faced with either despair in the circumstance, or, in the case of the believer, hope and faith that only God has the power to work through the situation. This is what I mean by the acceptance of the reality being a partial catalyst in his faith growing stronger. Neither he nor his wife were getting younger and they were well past their child-bearing years. Yet this fact, this real situation, caused him to cast his hope and faith even more onto the God who had promised and who he believed could perform his promise.

What do I do in the different situations where I see a seemingly hopeless situation that I don't have the power or ability to change? The stories written were for our edification and encouragement -- look and see what happened to them and what God did in their lives. If God took a man and his wife and enabled them to conceive and have a son decades after that time had past, could He not change my heart and my life? Is anything too hard for Him? What will I do when faced with reality? Will I turn towards Him and increase my hope and faith in Him, or cry that the giant is too big, not seeing the greatness of God that makes any giant but a grain of sand on the seashore? Could not He who formed the earth and spoke everything into existence have the power to mold me into the image of His Son? Oh me of little faith, or as Dr. Bailey pointed out in the translation, oh little faither!

But even if He does not...

I was reading through the book of Daniel and came across the passage about the fiery furnace and the response to Nebuchadnezzar regarding his demand to worship him:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter.  If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king.  But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (Daniel 3:16-18)

So these three men are threatened with death by fire if they do not bow down to the king and worship his image of gold.  What struck me about their statement is not their faith that God will save them, but that His saving them from the furnace was not a condition of their obedience to Him.  They were going to obey God regardless of what God did.  If He saved them great; if He did not, they still would obey Him.  What a great example! 

In this story, God did come through.  They were saved from the furnace.  Yet there is another story, celebrated this week, where God did not save His Son.  God the Son "emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond servant, and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:7)  He did so, enduring the fiery "furnace" of the cross, and the rejection of God in order that you and I might be saved.  Here we find that Christ's obedience to the Father was not conditioned upon being saved from the cup that the Father made Him drink--He surrendered His will to the Father and drank it.  "Not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42)

Is my obedience to God conditional upon certain things?  What things are these?  Why am I allowing those things to separate me from Him?  It seems that greater faith is grown through the surrender of expectations and the abandonment of one to Him.  Even if He does or does not, will I follow Him?  Will you?

Wounded Healer (update)

I've been thinking about what I wrote previously and it bothers me for several reasons: I don't like people who write that way, it is very generic sounding and impractical, and it is very intellectual and "high-minded" which I feel is very arrogant. So I want to make a couple of observations on the Nouwen paragraphs that I hope will be more reflective of me.

I liked what Nouwen said because so often I feel like the approach a Christian gives to those outside the church can be very impractical and mystical. We say that "Christ has the power to change you" and that you can "do everything through Him" and yet I wonder just how well something like that speaks to someone who is unchurched. When we speak about our faith to others, sometimes we make assumptions of mutual understanding that very well may not be there. As one who works in computers, I may speak of such things as tags and markup in describing web pages to someone who has barely used a computer as a word processor, much less surf the internet, and therefore my words have no meaning to this person because he or she can't relate to what I am saying.

This is why I love what Nouwen says. It is critical for us to present the Christian message in a way that is practical and relevant to people in their every-day lives. And for this to be true, I think it has to be practical and relevant to our own lives. Only when we've gone through the discipline of working through Christ's message and applied it to our lives, in our current culture and present context, are we then in a better position to share that same message to others.

Wounded Healer

Why should a man marry and have children, study and build a career; why should he invent new techniques, build new institutions, and develop new ideas--when he doubts if there will be a tomorrow which can guarantee the value of human effort?

Only when man feels himself responsible for the future can he have hope or despair, but when he thinks of himself as a passive victim of an extremely complex technological bureaucracy, his motivation falters and he starts drifting from one moment to the next, making life a long row of randomly chained incidents and accidents.

When we wonder why the language of traditional Christianity has lost its liberating power for nuclear man, we have to realize that most Christian preaching is still based on the presupposition that man sees himself as meaningfully integrated with a history in which God came to us... But when man's historical consciousness is broken, the whole Christian message seems like a lecture about the great pioneers to a boy on an acid trip.

Christianity is not just challenged to adapt itself to a modern age, but is also challenged to ask itself whether its unarticulated suppositions can still form the basis for its redemptive pretensions. (Nouwen in Wounded Healer)

This is a profound set of observations. In an era of post-modernism, meaning has been removed and one is left with nothing. It is difficult to present hope to one who feels as if nothing matters. The last sentence above is one of the best, in my opinion. We cannot simply present the gospel without being aware of our underlying assumptions and beliefs that others do not share and thus changing the way we approach the presentation of the hope of Christ. Our message is meaningless to those who do not share, in Nouwen's words above, a view of ourselves as "meaningfully integrated" in history.

Do you understand your assumptions, your presuppositions, the foundation of your beliefs? How do these differ to what the post-modern man thinks? In reflecting on the differences, what might change in your approach to speaking about your beliefs in a way that might be relevant to the post-modern man?

NOT Evangelism

On Monday, my coworker told me about a conversation he had with a man at a flea market over the weekend. The man put a tract in his hand, asked him if he had ever disagreed with his parents, and told him he was going to hell because he had violated one of the commandments. My coworker is Muslim and politely told the guy that he did not agree and after a few more minutes of conversation, left. I have shortened the story intentionally, because I don't want to focus on the story, but on the method.

I don't even know where to begin with this. This "evangelist", for lack of a better term, makes me sick. How can one even think that approaching someone and telling them they are going to hell will change a lifetime of beliefs? If one's beliefs are swayed so easily, I might question the certainty of one's belief. I'd like to go over the absurdity of this approach.

Being in violation of God's law, in the example of disagreeing with parents, means that you are going to hell and therefore in need of Christ.

1. Who said I believe in God?
2. Who said disagreeing with parents was wrong?
3. Why should I accept the Bible as an authoritative source of truth for me?
4. On what basis do you state that hell exists? See question 3 when you respond.
5. If I did believe hell exists, why is Christ the only way?
6. You are stating things that you believe to be true--and I disagree with your beliefs--why do you think you are right and I am wrong?
7. I believe in X (for a Muslim it would be Allah, who is believed to be the same God as the Jewish and Christian God); why am I wrong?
8. Who is to say that what you claim is God's law is actually God's law? My religious books say otherwise.

Frankly, I am embarrassed by this guy's approach to sharing the gospel. It makes me think of the times when I so firmly believe something and passionately try to tell others, only to find them not as receptive to what I firmly believe is true. Perhaps telling people what we believe isn't a very effective way of communicating our beliefs, especially in the context of not knowing the person. I am finding that the older I get, the less I really ought to talk and the more I really ought to listen. And I am really bad about both.

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"

Heaven

I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard called The Divine Conspiracy and in a section where he discusses going to heaven, I found this particularly convicting:

I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place... There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart? (p. 302)

Willard goes on to suggest that unless our belief results in life transformation, we really haven't believed. My actions will follow my belief and if my actions aren't consistent with what I say I believe in, then what I say I believe in isn't what I really believe in.

I find this convicting because in the last several months, almost a year now, I have slowly allowed things in my life to "slide", excusing myself from following through in areas I am pretty sure a whole-hearted belief in Christ would not be excused. In areas I find myself to act selfishly, rather than ruthlessly going after the selfishness and crucifying the flesh, I tell myself that it doesn't matter anyway--I am single so I can be selfish. In other areas of self-improvement, I have grown lazy and thus have regressed to locations below rock walls that I had once scaled.

Why do my actions not match my beliefs? I have no excuse--"[I]n the final analysis we fail to be disciples only because we do not decide to be. We do not intend to be disciples. (Willard)"

IBC, Women, and Changes

I am really sad to read that Dr. Bailey has stepped down from the teaching team at IBC over the recent decision of the elder board regarding women's role in the church. I also read in the Dallas Morning News that Tommy Nelson at Denton Bible has strong disagreement over this decision. The full decision of the elders can be read here, but in brief, "At IBC we recognize that God created both man and woman in His image, that He offers the same Holy Spirit to both men and women at salvation, and that the same spiritual gifts are available to both men and women for service. While the New Testament seems to imply that eldership is reserved for men, the elders of IBC affirm that women in all other roles are scripturally qualified, spiritually blessed, and directly called to use their spiritual gifts to build Christ's Kingdom." Now, this is something that I initially agree with and think it is a good decision. I am stunned that Dr. Bailey would step away from IBC because of it, although in his position as president of DTS, it is not one that would be good for him to be associated with (when did we get to the place where truth, if it is truth, must be avoided because of political or economic reasons? Another subject entirely). I must say I have a great amount of respect for Dr. Bailey and will have him as my teacher starting tomorrow for the Bible Study Methods class I am taking at DTS. I feel really sad about Dr. Bailey not being at IBC or teaching there. I think he added a lot to the teaching staff. I hate to see the church divided over this issue (and yet it is only one of the many). I've been thinking a lot about the decision and have been wondering... Did the elders make the right decision? What was their motivation for doing what they did? And then I realized: I can disagree or agree, as I am convicted and study the subject myself. These are fallible men who make wrong decisions too. Please don't misunderstand me--I am not saying I think they are wrong. I still think they are correct, and if anything, I have serious doubts about why Paul would say some of the things he did about women. But this certainly has caused me to take a step back and think a little more about this. I hope to post more on this in the near future--tonight I just wanted to share what is going through my head and heart as I start to see some of its impact.

Post DTS First Semester

I finished the Intro to Theology class I have been taking at DTS this semester and have been reflecting on how different it was from what I expected and what changes have taken place because of it. I was scared of going to DTS, for fear that it would be a return to a religious dogmatism that for so long I've been walking away from. I expected DTS to be like my dad and was guarded and defensive going into the semester. I was not and am not interested in being brainwashed into the "Christianese" way of thinking, where you are a good boy or girl if you always start your sentences with "the Bible says…" And yet for a long time I have wanted to take some Bible classes and deepen my understanding of Scripture. My attitude was: "If this is anything like I think it might be (closed-minded, dogmatic, 'thus saith the Lord'), I'll be sad that the door was closed but I won't continue." Well, I have been very surprised in my experience at DTS. It's difficult to put into words what I feel about it now. I feel like this class introduced me to some concepts that have made the gospel of Christ more relevant and life-giving. I'd go so far to say that the Lord has given me hope. I suppose most Christians in every age have struggled with this question: how is the Bible and Christianity relevant to my culture, in my time, in this place; and yet also relevant to your culture, and in your place, and perhaps even in a different time? Does what the Bible says apply both literally and globally, without variation due to culture? I admit I expected the DTS answer to be YES! To the praise of Christ, it was not! The answer is more like: it depends (more to come on this in the future)!

If you have done any construction, there is quite a lot of preparation of the ground before any concrete can be poured. I expected my DTS experience to be like trying to construct a house without a foundation. The approach to "Christian truth" I was trained in by my parents was riddled with holes. It's a house built on a lot of sand. I was worried that DTS would only mix some clay with the sand and tell me to join the people saying the emperor's clothes were amazing. "But Dad, he's NAKED!" Instead, a crane was brought in, the house was lifted off the sand, trenches dug, pipes laid, pilings dug, and framing for the foundation has been laid. And while it is making a mess, it is a mess that I am excited about! I'm not sure what to expect, but I like what I've seen so far!

There is a scene in the first Lord of the Rings movies where Galdalf is leading the Fellowship through the dark, underground caverns of Moria, the dwarven city. He decided he can "spare a little more light in here" and as his walking stick starts to shine brighter it reveals an enormous cavern with pillars as far as the eye can see. The Fellowship gasps in amazement at the magnificence and enormity of it all. Rather than hitting the bottom and being disappointed with the shallow insufficiency of it all, what I learned this semester has expanded my horizons and made me realize Christ is so much more!

The "D" Word

Dispensationalism. I just finished a book by that title this morning, which is the last of the seven I had to read for a class I am taking at DTS. Wait, don't stop reading! This post may not be what you think it is about to be. I found the material presented in the previous books to be very interesting, relevant, and thought-provoking. This last book was, in a word, boring. I felt frustrated reading this book because I felt like it was splitting hairs. So, I have analyzed my feelings and frustration towards this and have a few thoughts to share.

I am just as guilty as anyone for splitting hairs over theological subjects (and for that matter, any subject). I have a love-hate relationship with debating. I love it for the mental exercise it gives, but hate it because it can be so divisive and emotional, not to mention I don't like being wrong. Sadly, I (and probably most humans) have a tendency to build a good part of my self-worth based on how I think I am being perceived by others and I feel it necessary to "help" that perception by coming across as "smart" and "right". That being said, I don't think the author of the book (Ryrie) wrote it because of this.

Let me say, to the disagreement of some, that I agree with the material presented in the book. But, and here is the question I have been pondering for some time now: to what end? What does this subject add or subtract to my life practically? It changes nothing of my belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It changes nothing in how I am to relate to fellow believers. I was tired after reading the book, not because it challenged me mentally, but because it was so nit-picky.

This question (To what end?) has been very convicting to me because it has provided a good look at how much time I waste, in the words of Christ, "straining out the knat but swallowing the camel." (Matt. 23:24) Jesus said this in context of condemning the religious leaders of His day, who focused on the letter of the law, to the neglect of "the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Matt. 23:23)

Thus, I follow this with another question to myself: what is my purpose of going to DTS? If I am not growing in my relationship with Jesus Christ and in loving His people through this experience, then it profits me nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). If it serves to give me more material to buttress my position with and finer strands of hair to split, it is wasting my time. This is not to say the study of Scripture is pointless. I love how Vincent Van Gogh put it: "You read books to borrow therefrom the force to stimulate your activity… but I read books searching for the man who has written them." In my reading and studying the Bible, am I searching for the God who wrote it? Are you?

Grace

This one little word represents an immense struggle in my life. I was thinking this morning that if I just understood grace, then I wouldn't be so hard on myself. Then I realized: the very definition of grace excludes understanding it! Grace is unmerited (unearned) favor. It is a good gift that I don't deserve. It is forgiveness in the midst of law and my violation of it.

The older I get, the more I see that my struggle with giving to and receiving grace from others is rooted in the lack of grace I give myself. And the lack of grace I give myself comes from my fear of losing control. Grace is very control-free. It is very unnerving to realize that my entire standing before God is completely because of Him and nothing that I have done, am doing, or will ever do. By fully accepting God's grace, I am essentially acknowledging my helpless state!

Now, theologically I believe in God's grace and the reality that it is undeserved. But it does seem that there is a disconnect between my mind and heart. For example, I think about how I am not a loving person. Then I start getting onto myself about not being as loving as I want to be. Then I start thinking about what I need to do in order to become more loving. And then I get discouraged because it seems overwhelming. And then I get frustrated because I am not loving, I want to be loving, but it seems impossible. And I keep trying to figure things out, figure out what I need to do, think, say, etc. in order to be what I want to be.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. I think this goes back to an earlier post where I felt God was telling me to "Be still and know He is God." I am not a standard for myself and maybe what He wants from me is the surrender of this standard of measure by which I measure myself (and others). He wants me to accept His Word about who I am in Him, regardless of what I think or feel about myself. And, He wants me to accept the fact that I won't be able to understand why He gives grace, or how deep His grace is, or how He is going to change me, or the million other questions I keep trying to solve. I'm the patient who keeps trying to tell the doctor what to do.

Motivation

My therapist asks a question frequently that is finally starting to sink in to my brain. When I am evaluating a choice or action I might make, what is the motivation of my heart? This question can apply to all decisions. And is it uncomfortable! I was reminded of this just now as I thought about something as simple as an email. What is the motivation of my heart in... saying this, doing this, writing this, not saying, doing, or writing this (whatever "this" may be)?

Morality

I found the following article interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

What the article suggests is that morality is part of the "base" or core part of our brain. I find this fascinating and it rings true with what Scripture says about our creation. Sin is a distortion of our design, not our intended design, so one would expect that evil is a perversion of the design and not part of the design itself.