I am Jamaica's husband, Foursquare's comm director, Personality's founder, and a catalyst for CFCC.
I'm also blogging at:
Personality™
Church Marketing Sucks
April 2004 Archives
April 23, 2004
Religious Tolerance, Brad
Filed under: Hot Topic
According to religioustolerance.org, religious tolerance is defined as "to extend religious freedom to people of all religions, even though you disagree with their beliefs and/or practices."
The dictionary defines tolerance as:
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Leeway for variation from a standard.
The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
For the purposes of this topic, I will assume the word "religious" means a spiritual belief structure.
In her essay, "The Origin of Religious Tolerance: Voltaire," Wendy McElroy highlights some key concepts of the correlation between money/commerce and religious tolerance. I highlight a few here...
"In the most famous passage from Philosophical Letters, Voltaire observed, 'Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt.'"
"Commerce, or shop keeping, established an arena within which people dealt with each other solely for economic benefit and, so, ignored extraneous factors such as the other party's religious practices. On the floor of the London stock exchange, religious differences disappeared into background noise as people scrambled to make a profit from each other. The economic self-interest of the Christian and the Jew outweighed the prejudice that might otherwise sour personal relations between them. They intersected and co-operated on a point of common interest: 'the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker.'"
"If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace."
Should we show tolerance toward other world religions?
The Apostle Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:16-28a, perhaps not even realizing what he is doing, attempts to explain his position on religious tolerance. He comes at it from a unique perspective. Instead of focusing on the "it" to be tolerated, he holds other belief systems up to the truth of his own realities. May I be so bold as to conclude that Paul assumes all should have a belief system, and that there is an ultimate truth of which he defends for, thus eliminating the need for tolerance. If Paul was tolerant, he probably would not have said what he says here:
"Let me come back to where I started--and don't hold it against me if I continue to sound a little foolish. Or if you'd rather, just accept that I am a fool and let me rant on a little. I didn't learn this kind of talk from Christ. Oh, no, it's a bad habit I picked up from the three-ring preachers that are so popular these days. Since you sit there in the judgment seat observing all these shenanigans, you can afford to humor an occasional fool who happens along. You have such admirable tolerance for impostors who rob your freedom, rip you off, steal you blind, put you down--even slap your face! I shouldn't admit it to you, but our stomachs aren't strong enough to tolerate that kind of stuff. Since you admire the egomaniacs of the pulpit so much (remember, this is your old friend, the fool, talking), let me try my hand at it. Do they brag of being Hebrews, Israelites, the pure race of Abraham? I'm their match. Are they servants of Christ? I can go them one better. (I can't believe I'm saying these things. It's crazy to talk this way! But I started, and I'm going to finish.) I've worked much harder, been jailed more often, beaten up more times than I can count, and at death's door time after time. I've been flogged five times with the Jews' thirty-nine lashes, beaten by Roman rods three times, pummeled with rocks once. I've been shipwrecked three times, and immersed in the open sea for a night and a day. In hard traveling year in and year out, I've had to ford rivers, fend off robbers, struggle with friends, struggle with foes. I've been at risk in the city, at risk in the country, endangered by desert sun and sea storm, and betrayed by those I thought were my brothers. I've known drudgery and hard labor, many a long and lonely night without sleep, many a missed meal, blasted by the cold, naked to the weather. And that's not the half of it..."
Paul is saying look, I don't care what other people are saying about their belief system because what I believe snuffs any light other beliefs might have. Paul's contention for his faith is evidenced by its validity to stand up against another.
Looking at the last definition of tolerance from above - "The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent" - it seems clear that tolerance is also a half-hearted way of looking at things. If you deviate from your own beliefs to accept part or parts of another, your own belief structure is weakened.
Perhaps Jesus' silence on the subject of tolerance is drowned out by his second greatest commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:39)" Love trumps tolerance any day. If I tolerate my wife doing something I do not agree with, where is the love? Love invades the space of disagreement. She will know the thing I do not agree with stands, but that my love for her doesn't let that get in the way. In the same way, Jesus does not frame the other religions of the world in a context for tolerance or acceptance, the same way he doesn't condone sin ("hate the sin, not the sinner").
Conclusions
I find no precedent or benefit to tolerance. If tolerance is accepted, ultimate truth is irrelevant because we all believe that what the other believes may also be true, thus diminishing any ultimate truth. Do I believe that I know the ultimate truth? Of course, as do most others. The question is, which truth holds up? The danger in fighting for tolerance is that we are really fighting for watered down truth. If tolerance is a band-aid for peace, truth is the wound really bleeding.
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Permalink
April 9, 2004
Justification
Filed under: Hot Topic
The dictionary defines justification as:
The act of justifying.
The condition or fact of being justified.
Something, such as a fact or circumstance, that justifies
To be "justified" means:
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid
To declare free of blame; absolve.
To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin.
Wayne Grudem, in "Systematic Theology" defines it as "an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ's righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight."
Grudem says "The primary issue in the Protestant Reformation was a dispute with the Roman Catholic Church over justification. Once Martin Luther realized the truth of justification by faith alone, he became a Christian and overflowed with the new-found joy of the gospel. "
John Murray says "If justification is confused with regeneration or sanctification, then the door is opened for the perversion of the gospel at its center."
Thomas F. Torrance, in his book, "Theology in Reconstruction," says, "Justification is not only the forgiveness of sins, but the bestowal of a positive righteousness that derives from beyond us, and which we have through union with Christ. It is a perpetual living in Christ, from a centre and source beyond us. To be justified is to be lifted up above and beyond ourselves to live out of the risen and ascended Christ, and not out of ourselves."
Robert D. Brinsmead, in his book "The Dynamic, Ongoing Nature of Justification by Faith" says, "Justification by faith is a dynamic, ongoing action in the divine-human relationship. This important concept is so completely foreign to most evangelical circles today... Most evangelicals think of justification by faith as a final, once-in-a-lifetime act. Justification is not static, it is dynamic and ongoing. As we constantly believe, God constantly justifies. Justification is no mere initiatory action in the soteriological process - no mere filling station along the way..."
Alister McGrath, in his book "Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification" says, "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that the distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two with the context of the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
Conclusions
Justification is serious business. It is perhaps the fulcrum of the entire Gospel message. We must be justified in order to be saved. Justification is was bought through Christ's sacrifice and God's relentless love and pursuit of his children (us). I like Grudem's point that "God declares us to be righteous."
On a more personal level (as opposed to a theological one), Jennifer Knapp, in her song "Romans" sums up the concept well...
I don't have to be condemned.
Jesus saved me from the laws of sin.
If I fall I'll try again.
With the spirit as my guide
I'll never have to hide again.
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Permalink
April 2, 2004
Lust
Filed under: Hot Topic
The dictionary defines lust as:
Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
An overwhelming desire or craving.
Intense eagerness or enthusiasm.
Defined by one person as "an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body," lust is number four on the list of seven deadly sins. It is often connected with sex and, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, sex is second only to food in basic human motivations. The drive and desire for sex appeal is apparent amongst all humans and animals. As a man once said, "God has given men two wonderful organs, their sexual organ and their brain... But only enough blood to run one at a time."
In October of 2002, Charles Rush preached a sermon titled "Lust, the Vice" and detailed some of lust's roots during Greek and Roman history. Quoting Julius Caesar, as Julius was commenting on the Cataline's army in 63 b.c. said "Maidens and boys were raped; children were torn from their parents' embrace; married ladies were subjected to the conqueror's pleasure; temples and homes were looted; there was slaughter and arson. In short, everything was filled with weapons, bodies, blood, and lamentation (Catiline 51.9)."
Rush translates the names of some Greek gods - one particularly interesting god "family" emerged - "the god of violence (Ares) and the goddess of lust (Aphrodite) had an affair and together they bred the twin children panic (Deimos) and dread (Phobos).
Rush goes on.. "just after Jesus died, Gaius Caesar became emperor in 37 a.d., and he openly slept with all three of his sisters, treating one of them like his wife. He had a fund raiser once using the wives of the Roman senators and other boys to set up a brothel. In his own life, excess led to excess, much as one can say about the broad outlines of the Roman Empire as a whole. Gaius Caesar is more popularly known by his nickname, Caligula.
The scary thing about lust is that it is never satisfied. It always needs more. Daily, we are in the process of becoming who we are becoming. When lust is a part of our lives, that daily "becoming" is infiltrated with desires and passions that take our "becoming" to different places that in the end might not have been what we saw at the beginning.
St. Thomas used to say that desire was not bad in and of itself. It becomes a problem when it is misdirected. Then it becomes a perversion of the good. That is what evil actually looks like, it is a perversion of the good.
The Bible has a lot to say about lust...
Job 31:1-4
"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl. For what is man's lot from God above, his heritage from the Almighty on high? Is it not ruin for the wicked, disaster for those who do wrong? Does he not see my ways and count my every step?"
Proverbs 6:23-29
"For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light, and the corrections of discipline are the way to life, keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes, for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished."
Matthew 5:28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Choice words from the The Message version put it this way: "Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body." And in reference to those who do mess up and decide to make excuses through divorce or separation, "You can't use legal cover to mask moral failure."
Ephesians 4:19
"Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more."
Colossians 3:5
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry."
1 John 2:16
"For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does - comes not from the Father but from the world."
Galatians 5:16-24
"I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
Is it possible to take our lust and re-direct it? To strive for what Paul outlines - love, joy, peace, patience, etc.? To live life by the spirit and not by our eyes?
"An enemy to whom you show kindness becomes your friend, excepting lust, the indulgence of which increases its enmity." - Saadi
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Permalink