"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you." -Phillipians 4:8-9
I've attended several churches that were well-populated with people who believed strongly in spiritual warfare, that there are demonic influences present in the day-to-day environment which could bring harm upon one's household, finances, connection with God, etc. These people were often engaged in activities to keep certain influences from infiltrating their households or to rid themselves of demonic attacks. In other words, negative supernatural influences (demonic activity) were blamed for negative natural occurrences. A number of preventative actions could also be taken on the part of the believer to either prevent these attacks or stop them once they began.
Having been weaned in a charismatic environment, spiritual warfare appealed to me for quite some time, probably because it offered a simple, supernatural explanation for the naturally-occurring problems of life which defied explanation. What I've noticed since I left the charismatic environment is that the "attacks of the enemy" which I had often in others' lives and periodically in my own have become significantly less frequent.
This reduction in "demonic activity" is upon leaving the charismatic movement is incredibly curious, especially in light of the fact that I haven't done anything to ward off these "attacks" other than try to focus on developing my relationship with God.
After reading the thoughts of some other individuals on the matter of spiritual warfare, I have come to the conclusion that spiritual warfare teaching has the paradoxical, unintended consequence of actually allowing more room for demonic activity to occur. One problem of spiritual warfare teaching is that it continually emphasizes the fact that almost anything un-Christian can bring about some sort of demonic oppression. This leaves people in the position of living in perpetual fear that some action on their part will bring about demonic oppression. This leads to all sorts of unnecessary exercises to ward off these potential attacks.
In the end, people base many of their decisions off of fear of the demonic rather than faith in God. I believe it is far more healthy to cultivate a strong faith-based relationship with God and put all the fear of demonic influence on the backburner. One can be discerning about partaking of certain music, film, spiritual influences, etc. for the sake of maintaining a strong relationship with God. However, fear should not drive these decisions because it subverts our ability to trust God with our lives.
As a counterpoint, some charismatics would most likely argue that these attacks of the enemy are a sign that they are in God's will. "The devil won't attack you if you're walking away from God." Or so the reasoning goes. My experience generally indicates the opposite. Our destruction and oppression is far more swift when we walk away from God because we are less perceptive of impending danger and generally so wrapped up in our own selfishness that we can't take the advice of others who may see our traps along the road. Those who walk faithfully with God will certainly undergo tests of faith, but those are hardly a justification for the level of demonic activity which is spurned by the unhealthy fear of negative spiritual activity.
In short, I believe that spiritual warfare teaching does far more harm than good because it promotes fear of supernatural entities which we cannot control instead of fostering our faith in a loving God.
"There is no fear in love: but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and hte one who fears is not perfected in love." -1 John 4:18
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Simple Question
“Our woes began when God was forced out of His central shrine and things were allowed to enter. Within the human heart things have taken over. Men have now by nature no peace within their hearts, for God is crowned there no longer, but there in the moral dusk, stubborn and aggressive usurpers fight among themselves for first place on the throne.
This is not a mere metaphor, but an accurate analysis of our real spiritual trouble. There is within the human heart a tough, fibrous root of fallen life whose nature is to possess, always to possess. It covets things with a deep and fierce passion. The pronouns my and mine look innocent enough in print, but their constant and universal use is significant… The roots of our hearts have grown down into things, and we dare not pull up one rootlet lest we die. Things have become necessary to us, a development never originally intended. God’s gifts now take the place of God, and the whole course of nature is upset by the monstrous substitution.” -from “The Pursuit of God” by A.W. Tozer
To my Christian friends (and to myself) I pose the following question: all other things aside, if all God ever did for you was send Jesus to die for your sins would that be sufficient for you to seek God?
After mulling over a variety of personal spiritual experiences and doing a great deal of soul-searching I have come to believe that if our answer to that question is anything other than a resounding “Yes!”, we have misunderstood and perverted the very gospel we claim to believe.
If we cannot answer “yes” to this basic question, we have not understood the profundity of God’s unfailing love toward us, that even in our wretched, debauched state he would still send Jesus to bear our sins and remove our self-inflicted yoke of bondage. Without this awareness, how could we ever hope to communicate the depths of that love to the lost who still suffer? Without understanding the depths of God’s love, how can we really seek God with any true, pure, humble sincerity?
Additionally, if we cannot answer “yes” to this basic question, we have attached conditions to whether or not we serve God whole-heartedly. God’s love for us was without condition and without regard to our sin. How much more should our love for God be without condition?
What concerns me is that for many of us, if we are truly honest with ourselves, the answer to this basic question is “No.” We’ve desired all sorts of things from God like favor, spiritual gifts, wisdom, knowledge, financial blessings, healing, etc. Are we seeking God or are we just pandering to God for auxiliary benefits which fit our self-serving agenda?
In the end, if all Jesus did was die for our sins to redeem us from our own iniquity, that ought to be enough for us to seek him and serve him with all of our strength. This one fact should compel us to serve others with the same love which was given so freely to us. Seeking God with the intention of obtaining whatever secondary blessings may exist is foolish and has lead to innumerable distortions and perversions of the gospel.
May we always live in the shadow of the cross, humbly asking God for the love and strength to carry our own, that others make take up theirs and follow.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Will of God Revisited
Many months ago, I wrote a post about the will of God. My argument then was motivated by the frustration of not knowing anything of God's will for my life. As someone who eagerly sought specific revelation on what my path in life was to be, I concluded after several years of aimlessly searching for that knowledge that God had no specific, individualized will for our live and if he did, he didn't reveal it frequently. God had instituted a certain standard of living which we were to follow and the long-term outcomes of our desires, talents, goals, planning, and actions were the primary determinant of our ultimate destiny on this earth. That is to say that God had general guidelines for human conduct, but gave no provisions for us to endeavor on a specific path.
I now wish to amend that line of reasoning based on experience I've gained in the last three months. I have come to realize that part of my original statement is correct, that God has set out a set of general principles which we are to follow. This then constitutes God's general will for humanity. Where I was wrong was in arguing against God having a specific will for one's life.
I got derailed in the mechanics of figuring out the details of God's specific will. Instead, what I have learned is that the only way to have any understanding of God's specific will is to do the general will of God, to live uprightly. Even still, I will probably never get a clear long-term picture of where I'm supposed to go in life. A clear understanding of my ultimate destination on this Earth would actually be a major disturbance. It would violate my ability to chose whether to follow God or not and it would probably leave me in a state of stagnant complacency. I do not believe that God has any interest in us being in either state. The idea of one final destination towards which we strive also presumes that God only endorses one path through life. I find this to be a rather limiting perspective of God, that he couldn't orchestrate the world in such a way to allow more than one option. I don't subscribe to the strict determinism this implies because of the many other theological problems it poses.
In the context of Christianity, the will of God is not an intellectual assent to a particular proposition. It is not an abstract ideal that is handed to us on a prophetic silver platter. Rather it is a program of action. The only place in the Bible that mentions any means whatsoever to find out what the specific will of God (Romans 12:1-2) implies a process of profound transformation which can only come from full obedience to God in the first place.
If we are never given to specific instructions on how to divine the specific will of God for our lives, why bother? My experience indicates that if I spend all my time trying to illuminate cryptic details of an uncertain destiny, I will waste my time and frustrate myself to no end. Instead, if I just try to live rightly today, it allows God room to work out the details without my fear and complacency standing in the way.
Although this path is frought with uncertainty, it ought not to frighten us since we will already be taking the necessary steps to maintain our contact with God. This intimacy of sorts allows us to trust God more deeply way the outcomes are uncertain. So let us put aside our divining rods, our parking lot prophets, our psychics, and our best-laid plans and let us do our best to love others, love God, and be of maximum service. Only then will we be fulfilled.
I now wish to amend that line of reasoning based on experience I've gained in the last three months. I have come to realize that part of my original statement is correct, that God has set out a set of general principles which we are to follow. This then constitutes God's general will for humanity. Where I was wrong was in arguing against God having a specific will for one's life.
I got derailed in the mechanics of figuring out the details of God's specific will. Instead, what I have learned is that the only way to have any understanding of God's specific will is to do the general will of God, to live uprightly. Even still, I will probably never get a clear long-term picture of where I'm supposed to go in life. A clear understanding of my ultimate destination on this Earth would actually be a major disturbance. It would violate my ability to chose whether to follow God or not and it would probably leave me in a state of stagnant complacency. I do not believe that God has any interest in us being in either state. The idea of one final destination towards which we strive also presumes that God only endorses one path through life. I find this to be a rather limiting perspective of God, that he couldn't orchestrate the world in such a way to allow more than one option. I don't subscribe to the strict determinism this implies because of the many other theological problems it poses.
In the context of Christianity, the will of God is not an intellectual assent to a particular proposition. It is not an abstract ideal that is handed to us on a prophetic silver platter. Rather it is a program of action. The only place in the Bible that mentions any means whatsoever to find out what the specific will of God (Romans 12:1-2) implies a process of profound transformation which can only come from full obedience to God in the first place.
If we are never given to specific instructions on how to divine the specific will of God for our lives, why bother? My experience indicates that if I spend all my time trying to illuminate cryptic details of an uncertain destiny, I will waste my time and frustrate myself to no end. Instead, if I just try to live rightly today, it allows God room to work out the details without my fear and complacency standing in the way.
Although this path is frought with uncertainty, it ought not to frighten us since we will already be taking the necessary steps to maintain our contact with God. This intimacy of sorts allows us to trust God more deeply way the outcomes are uncertain. So let us put aside our divining rods, our parking lot prophets, our psychics, and our best-laid plans and let us do our best to love others, love God, and be of maximum service. Only then will we be fulfilled.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Three Minutes of Mental Gymnastics
If we define space as the absence of matter or its constituents, it is inextricably linked to the existence of matter. Without matter there is no space because space is defined in opposition to the presence of matter. Space is simply a void which has the potential to be filled with matter or energy. That potential is what defines it as space. In other words, if nothing is the absence of something, something must exist for nothing to exist relative to it.
Space and time are also inextricably linked. Movement through space affects movement through time and vice versa. This is one of the fundamental principles of general relativity. Without matter, there is no space. Without space there is no space-time continuum. Because matter and time are absolutely interwoven, without matter time does not exist.
Taking this strain of thought to its ultimate conclusion (or ultimate beginning), the beginning of the universe represents an instantaneous appearance of matter, energy, and space. Without matter and energy, there was neither any time or any space in which the matter could possibly exist. Therefore, either the cause of the universe exists both an extra-temporal and extra-spatial state, or the sudden appearance of matter has absolutely no cause at all. Which do you think makes more sense?
Space and time are also inextricably linked. Movement through space affects movement through time and vice versa. This is one of the fundamental principles of general relativity. Without matter, there is no space. Without space there is no space-time continuum. Because matter and time are absolutely interwoven, without matter time does not exist.
Taking this strain of thought to its ultimate conclusion (or ultimate beginning), the beginning of the universe represents an instantaneous appearance of matter, energy, and space. Without matter and energy, there was neither any time or any space in which the matter could possibly exist. Therefore, either the cause of the universe exists both an extra-temporal and extra-spatial state, or the sudden appearance of matter has absolutely no cause at all. Which do you think makes more sense?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thou Shalt Not Ask Questions
One trend that has cropped up in certain churches, particularly those of fundamentalist or charismatic dispositions, that deeply disturbs me is the idea that to ask questions of church leadership is tantamount to rebelling against them. Additionally, these churches often teach strongly that those in authority at the church are appointed by God should not be questioned. The classic sections of scripture used to justify these beliefs are Psalm 105:15 (cf. 1 Chron. 16:22) and Romans 13.
There are many possible reasons as to why this idea has grown popular, but here are a two of the most plausible possibilities. The first reason people are told not to question is simply that church leadership does not want the people to question its teachings or practices. There could be many reasons for this but the most common is either the leadership is un-informed on a particular subject or that the leadership is teaching or doing something that is out-of-line. In either case, the strong discouragement to ask questions is dangerous because it removes the mechanism of correction within the church. It also teaches people to be entirely dependent on the minister for one’s opinions, beliefs, and practices. This is entirely un-Christian. Ministers and elders are appointed for our instruction, edification, and correction, not to dictate our lives. They are a supplement to the work that the Holy Spirit already does within us, not a replacement for it.
The other main strain of thought that contributes to this dangerous notion is that asking questions somehow indicates a lack of faith or disrupts the faith of others. Questioning leadership does not necessarily correlate to a lack of faith. In fact, if one is stable enough in one’s faith to engage in the psychologically taxing act of asking difficult questions, it is safe to say that person’s faith is probably stronger than another person who intentionally ignores difficult questions in order to preserve his/her faith. Ignoring difficult questions only preserves a faith which is blown about by every wind of doctrine and is intellectually dishonest. People who refuse to ask critical questions are those who are most often disturbed by claims controvert what they’ve been taught. Their subsequent reactions are often erratic and do greater damage than would have been done if questions were asked in the first place.
Questioning leadership does not necessarily disrupt the faith of others either if done correctly. In fact, many of the questions posed by brave, cordial inquisitors may be the same questions that others are afraid to ask. In other cases, the questions may simply provide clarification of the teachings and practices of the church. How then is questioning authority a dangerous thing if done in love for the edification of oneself and others?
I challenge those who believe that questioning authority is wrong to provide me with scriptural evidence that it is. In my readings of the Bible, I have found nothing to indicate that asking legitimate questions is wrong or that such a practice should be construed as an act of rebellion against church leadership. If one asks questions in an inflammatory manner with the expressed purpose of stirring up strife, confusion, and disobedience within the congregation, then questioning the leadership should be considered inappropriate behavior. However, if one asks questions for the purpose of clarifying his/her own understanding of a teaching, rooting out heresy, asking if certain church practices are ethical or effective, or discerning the wisest course of action, how can such questions be considered wrong?
There are many possible reasons as to why this idea has grown popular, but here are a two of the most plausible possibilities. The first reason people are told not to question is simply that church leadership does not want the people to question its teachings or practices. There could be many reasons for this but the most common is either the leadership is un-informed on a particular subject or that the leadership is teaching or doing something that is out-of-line. In either case, the strong discouragement to ask questions is dangerous because it removes the mechanism of correction within the church. It also teaches people to be entirely dependent on the minister for one’s opinions, beliefs, and practices. This is entirely un-Christian. Ministers and elders are appointed for our instruction, edification, and correction, not to dictate our lives. They are a supplement to the work that the Holy Spirit already does within us, not a replacement for it.
The other main strain of thought that contributes to this dangerous notion is that asking questions somehow indicates a lack of faith or disrupts the faith of others. Questioning leadership does not necessarily correlate to a lack of faith. In fact, if one is stable enough in one’s faith to engage in the psychologically taxing act of asking difficult questions, it is safe to say that person’s faith is probably stronger than another person who intentionally ignores difficult questions in order to preserve his/her faith. Ignoring difficult questions only preserves a faith which is blown about by every wind of doctrine and is intellectually dishonest. People who refuse to ask critical questions are those who are most often disturbed by claims controvert what they’ve been taught. Their subsequent reactions are often erratic and do greater damage than would have been done if questions were asked in the first place.
Questioning leadership does not necessarily disrupt the faith of others either if done correctly. In fact, many of the questions posed by brave, cordial inquisitors may be the same questions that others are afraid to ask. In other cases, the questions may simply provide clarification of the teachings and practices of the church. How then is questioning authority a dangerous thing if done in love for the edification of oneself and others?
I challenge those who believe that questioning authority is wrong to provide me with scriptural evidence that it is. In my readings of the Bible, I have found nothing to indicate that asking legitimate questions is wrong or that such a practice should be construed as an act of rebellion against church leadership. If one asks questions in an inflammatory manner with the expressed purpose of stirring up strife, confusion, and disobedience within the congregation, then questioning the leadership should be considered inappropriate behavior. However, if one asks questions for the purpose of clarifying his/her own understanding of a teaching, rooting out heresy, asking if certain church practices are ethical or effective, or discerning the wisest course of action, how can such questions be considered wrong?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Cessationism: A Practical Solution?
With regard to the operation of spiritual gifts within the Christian church in modern times, there are basically three positions. The first holds that all spiritual gifts ceased after the original apostles of the early church passed away. A second option, pentecostalism, says that none of the spiritual gifts ceased in operation because God is unchanging and the gifts were passed on by the first century apostles to their disciples. A third position, cessationism, argues that most of the spiritual gifts in the early church still operate, however, there are a few gifts that were given as "signs" to the early church through the apostles.
For the record, there are two definitions of an apostle. The strict definition of an apostle defines an apostle as one who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (see Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 9:1). The second defines an apostle simply as "one who is sent". In the case of spiritual gifts and their operation in the church, the former definition typically applies.
Cessationists posit that the gifts of healing, tongues, prophetic foreknowledge, and apostleship (in the strict sense) were signs given to the apostles of the early church in order to establish the church.
Instead of rehashing a multitude of theological arguments about cessationism, I'd like to point out that the three gifts that cause the most problems in the modern church are prophecy, tongues, and healing. These are the very gifts that cessationists argue are no longer in operation within the church. (Cessationists do not argue that these three phenomena are necessarily impossible, but rather that the apostolic gift to operate in them on a regular basis has ceased.)
Prophecy is probably the most abused spiritual gift of them all and it can cause the most damage if misused. Many people have put their hope in so-called prophets who make pronouncements in the name of God that never come to pass. This can cause those who have listened to the false prophets to doubt God, make poor life decisions, and generally end up in a state of despair. Prophecy has also been used frequently to manipulate others.
In addition, the Bible makes several forceful warnings about false prophets. We should not doubt that the consequences are severe for those who claim to speak in the name of the Lord and use that privilege for personal gain.
The gift of tongues was always somewhat of an embarrassing practice to me, even when I attended a charismatic church. In the early church, every indication we have is that the tongues used by the early apostles were real languages that could be understood by native speakers of the languages. If a person spoke publicly in a tongue during a Christian gathering, Paul instructed us in his first letter to the Corinthians to wait for an interpretation. If no interpretation was given the person who gave the tongue was asked to remain silent in the gathering.
Even if tongues function in non-human languages (i.e. "tongues of angels") they should still sound like languages. My linguistic curiosity got the better of me at a few points and I started analyzing the tongues I heard other people using and, to be frank, most of them weren't languages at all.
Additionally, when I've heard charismatic evangelicals stereotyped in the media and elsewhere, speaking in tongues is almost always the first point mentioned, usually in joking fashion. I have a feeling that it is stumbling block for those who are first exposed to Christianity through charismatic churches, but are looking for simple, sensible Christianity.
Lastly, the gift of healing, though wonderful, can also be misused. This happens mostly with faith-healers who tell people that all they need to be healed is faith. If a person has faith and does not get healed, what then? Is God somehow to blame? Is God a liar for making promises He didn't fulfill? Surely not, but if someone is exposed to this sort of intense disappointment, it is easy to forego this logical problem and blame God. Either that, or the person realizes the minister has mishandled the scripture and that person extrapolates his/her disillusion with the particular minister to the church at large and never darkens a church door again.
I've seen all of these things happen on many occasions. I've seen many people leave the church and abandon Christianity because of them. Either these three gifts are no longer in operation in the church and their presence indicates false practitioners within the church, or church leaders have displayed an embarrassing lack of discernment and wisdom in their application. Is it better then to simply adopt a cessationist position regardless of its validity given the abuse resulting from these three gifts? Which is more valuable: a few spiritual gifts that can appear in miraculous signs and wonders or the spiritual well-being of those who would be lead astray if the gifts were misused?
For the record, there are two definitions of an apostle. The strict definition of an apostle defines an apostle as one who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (see Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 9:1). The second defines an apostle simply as "one who is sent". In the case of spiritual gifts and their operation in the church, the former definition typically applies.
Cessationists posit that the gifts of healing, tongues, prophetic foreknowledge, and apostleship (in the strict sense) were signs given to the apostles of the early church in order to establish the church.
Instead of rehashing a multitude of theological arguments about cessationism, I'd like to point out that the three gifts that cause the most problems in the modern church are prophecy, tongues, and healing. These are the very gifts that cessationists argue are no longer in operation within the church. (Cessationists do not argue that these three phenomena are necessarily impossible, but rather that the apostolic gift to operate in them on a regular basis has ceased.)
Prophecy is probably the most abused spiritual gift of them all and it can cause the most damage if misused. Many people have put their hope in so-called prophets who make pronouncements in the name of God that never come to pass. This can cause those who have listened to the false prophets to doubt God, make poor life decisions, and generally end up in a state of despair. Prophecy has also been used frequently to manipulate others.
In addition, the Bible makes several forceful warnings about false prophets. We should not doubt that the consequences are severe for those who claim to speak in the name of the Lord and use that privilege for personal gain.
The gift of tongues was always somewhat of an embarrassing practice to me, even when I attended a charismatic church. In the early church, every indication we have is that the tongues used by the early apostles were real languages that could be understood by native speakers of the languages. If a person spoke publicly in a tongue during a Christian gathering, Paul instructed us in his first letter to the Corinthians to wait for an interpretation. If no interpretation was given the person who gave the tongue was asked to remain silent in the gathering.
Even if tongues function in non-human languages (i.e. "tongues of angels") they should still sound like languages. My linguistic curiosity got the better of me at a few points and I started analyzing the tongues I heard other people using and, to be frank, most of them weren't languages at all.
Additionally, when I've heard charismatic evangelicals stereotyped in the media and elsewhere, speaking in tongues is almost always the first point mentioned, usually in joking fashion. I have a feeling that it is stumbling block for those who are first exposed to Christianity through charismatic churches, but are looking for simple, sensible Christianity.
Lastly, the gift of healing, though wonderful, can also be misused. This happens mostly with faith-healers who tell people that all they need to be healed is faith. If a person has faith and does not get healed, what then? Is God somehow to blame? Is God a liar for making promises He didn't fulfill? Surely not, but if someone is exposed to this sort of intense disappointment, it is easy to forego this logical problem and blame God. Either that, or the person realizes the minister has mishandled the scripture and that person extrapolates his/her disillusion with the particular minister to the church at large and never darkens a church door again.
I've seen all of these things happen on many occasions. I've seen many people leave the church and abandon Christianity because of them. Either these three gifts are no longer in operation in the church and their presence indicates false practitioners within the church, or church leaders have displayed an embarrassing lack of discernment and wisdom in their application. Is it better then to simply adopt a cessationist position regardless of its validity given the abuse resulting from these three gifts? Which is more valuable: a few spiritual gifts that can appear in miraculous signs and wonders or the spiritual well-being of those who would be lead astray if the gifts were misused?
A Brief Statement of Purpose
I used to write much more than I do now. Upon gleefully looking back at past writings, I realized there was so much more to say, but my inhibitions, lack of adequate vocabulary, immaturity, or simple ignorance often prevented me from doing so.
Thus, I decided to engage in an new cathartic adventure. This blog will probably contain a small bit of poetry interspersed with a wide variety of prose.
In years past I've written about a plethora of subjects, usually whatever came to mind. That will
likely continue.
Since I've recently been exposed to many theological issues within modern Christianity, the majority of posts to this site will probably concern Christian belief, history, and practice. I don't claim to be a formally trained theologian or church historian, but rather someone who is passionate about the fundamental truths of Christianity and enjoys studying them.
My hope is that these writings bring enjoyment to whomever reads them, but more importantly that they lead others to ask important questions. Answers cannot be sought until we ask critical questions, but I find few even reach this point anymore.
Thus, I decided to engage in an new cathartic adventure. This blog will probably contain a small bit of poetry interspersed with a wide variety of prose.
In years past I've written about a plethora of subjects, usually whatever came to mind. That will
likely continue.
Since I've recently been exposed to many theological issues within modern Christianity, the majority of posts to this site will probably concern Christian belief, history, and practice. I don't claim to be a formally trained theologian or church historian, but rather someone who is passionate about the fundamental truths of Christianity and enjoys studying them.
My hope is that these writings bring enjoyment to whomever reads them, but more importantly that they lead others to ask important questions. Answers cannot be sought until we ask critical questions, but I find few even reach this point anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)