Why are we here? Why are we on this earth? Pretty much everyone asks that question at some time in their life. Just about every society has had an answer to that question. Ours, however, doesn’t seem to offer one. In fact, there are a number of popular philosophies that assert that there is no reason why we are here. To them, life is without meaning or purpose. Oddly enough, the chief proponents of these philosophies tend to commit suicide.
We have a better answer than that: “Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere Him” (Psalm 33:8).
What God wants from everyone in the world is for us to fear and revere him. However you want to phrase it — God’s will for your life, the meaning of life, your purpose — it all boils down to one simple concept. We are supposed to know God more and more and seek to help others know him. Let’s refine it a little more. “God” can be so broadly applied; many think just believing in some concept of God is enough to get a person to heaven. It’s not. So let’s take any ambiguity out of it.
The reason you and I are on this earth is to know God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and make him known.
Let’s look at this concept a little closer. In Genesis chapter 3 we get an interesting picture of God. He comes to visit with Adam after the day’s work is done — just to chat. This shows that we were made to commune with him.
In Jeremiah, the Lord says, "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me..." (9:23-24).
Skip forward to Jesus’ life. We all know John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus came, lived, and died so that we could have everlasting life.
On the night that Jesus was arrested, he prayed, “... This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).
Eternal life is more than heaven; it's knowing God. So Jesus came, lived and died so that we could know God. That's how big a deal this is.
It is amazing that a holy God would want us to know Him. Our triune God was perfectly happy communing with himself before making us, and yet he decided to create us, knowing the price that would eventually have to be paid so that he could have a relationship with us. Is it not amazing that we are invited into a closer relationship with God Almighty? He created us — for no good reason. He redeemed us out of the goodness of his heart — what more could we ask for? And yet he says he wants more — for us to know him. This is the reason we were made. This is the reason we were saved. It is the reason we exist.
Paul demonstrated this for us when he wrote, “For to me, to live is Christ …” (Philippians 1:21). We’ve all seen shirts saying things like “football is life” or “golf is life;” Paul’s t-shirt would say, “Christ is life.” Those for whom football is life are obsessed with the game. They watch it, read about it, think about it, and talk about it as often as they possibly can. It consumes them. Paul was consumed by Christ. He made his life about knowing Jesus more and more.
How can we do the same? Paul left us a glimpse into his mind that can help us to have his attitude.
“I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord…” (Phil 3:8). Everything Paul had that the world might consider of value — family, possessions, renown, pride, his own life — he looked at as garbage when compared to the “surpassing greatness” of knowing Christ more. Much as the choice between a moldy piece of bread or a steak is a no-brainer for most of us, when it came time to choose between Jesus and something else, for Paul there was no choice.
But it is not enough to simply know God. We are to share him. Jesus commanded us, “… go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
When the man who had been host to the legion of demons became a disciple of Jesus, the Lord’s instructions to him were not to build a church, tithe, or start an anti-abortion campaign. His instructions to that man were, “Return home and tell how much God has done for you” (Luke 8:39). This is not to say that building a church, tithing, or starting an anti-abortion campaign are bad — far from. But that is not what is most important to Jesus. God’s will for every Christian’s life can be stated quite simply: Know God and make him known.
Why does this matter? It’s said, “There's no point in carrying the ball unless you know where the goal is.” But knowing your purpose in life can help you filter through all the clutter and see what is important. Many Christians are looking for "God's will for my life." This is it. The truth is, in most cases, God isn't hung up on the details. And if he is, he'll let you know. As one pastor put it, most of the time, finding God's will for your life is like looking for hay in a haystack. Just pick one!
If you are doing something or if you are contemplating doing something, and if you cannot see how it could help you know God more or make him known, you don’t need to be doing it — it is out of “God’s will for your life.” If what you are doing or want to do can help you know God more and make him known, then it's good.
So the question for us all is, "Right now am I doing anything to know God and make him known?" Next time we'll look at ways to do that.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Did Jesus Say Nothing About Homosexuality?
I'm loathe to get onto this topic again, but in the wake of the Duck Dynasty/homosexuality controversy, I feel like we need to look at an objection that so frequently appears in these discussions.
The pro-same-sex marriage crowd, whether Christian or not, likes to say that Jesus never condemned homosexuality — therefore it isn't a sin. And there is no record of Jesus ever explicitly mentioning homosexuality.
He did one better.
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person" (Matt 15:19-20a).
What did Jesus mean by "sexual immorality?" He was pointing the Mosaic Law, to Leviticus 18. Your Bible probably has a heading for the section like "unlawful sexual relations." That is sexual immorality. The chapter covers incest (in some detail), adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. Jesus condemned all of those sins in one fell swoop.
I can hear the objections already: "But that's the Old Testament. If you're going to apply those rules, you have to apply the ones about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. Jesus said, 'not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.'"
I love it when y'all quote the Bible, and I'm glad you brought up that passage. It actually explains why we don't have to worry about shellfish and polyester. The entire verse says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18 emphasis added).
The Law will not pass away, but most of it has been fulfilled.
Jesus himself, in the first passage I quoted, threw out the dietary rules, and probably the whole "holiness code." The parallel passage in Mark explicitly says, "Thus he declared all foods clean" (7:19). Simply touching something or eating something doesn't defile you, he says; it's what you decide to do.
The rest of the New Testament takes that view of the Law. Hebrews describes it as an illustration that was put in place until a "new order" was established by Christ (9:8-10, 10:1-12). Paul said it was given to teach us about sin until Christ (Rom 7:7-13, Gal 3:19). When the apostles had to determine what part of the Old Testament applied to Christians, they said, "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:24-29). There's that word again.
There are different parts of the Law of Moses. Some of it was supposed to tell them how to run a country; it gave them their legal system. Some of it was to make them realize how hard it is to come to God and how dirty we are just because we're human. Those parts don't apply anymore. They've served their purpose. The moral instructions — the ten commandments, the rules about sexual immorality, the rules about mistreating the poor and your neighbor, etc. — still apply.
So to sum up, Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," which includes homosexuality, in a way that lets us off the hook for shellfish and polyester.
I can hear the next objection: "But when he said that, he did also mentioned 'evil thoughts, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, slander.'"
Yes, that's a great point. All of those thing defile us.
But there's only one thing in that list people are trying to make into a good thing. There's one thing people are trying to tell us we can't call sin. It's not murder. It's not slander. It's not adultery (though that's probably coming soon).
The truth is, homosexual relations are only one sin out of many that defile people. We should want to stamp out greed and theft and covetousness. Homosexual relations are not a special sin. But it's one that is hateful to God and destructive to the sinner, and yet we're being told we can't call it a sin.
I was a child during the "greed is good" era. I don't know how the Church responded to it. I hope there were many voices crying out that greed is not only not good, it is evil and toxic.
You know what else greed is? It's natural. Humans, in their natural state, are greedy. Humans are also lustful — where do you think adultery comes from? They're selfish and petty and violent.
There are a lot of things that come naturally to human beings that are wrong. Jesus died to put them all to death. But he requires us to call them sin and then to repent.
-------------
Related:
Hate the Sin ...
The pro-same-sex marriage crowd, whether Christian or not, likes to say that Jesus never condemned homosexuality — therefore it isn't a sin. And there is no record of Jesus ever explicitly mentioning homosexuality.
He did one better.
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person" (Matt 15:19-20a).
What did Jesus mean by "sexual immorality?" He was pointing the Mosaic Law, to Leviticus 18. Your Bible probably has a heading for the section like "unlawful sexual relations." That is sexual immorality. The chapter covers incest (in some detail), adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. Jesus condemned all of those sins in one fell swoop.
I can hear the objections already: "But that's the Old Testament. If you're going to apply those rules, you have to apply the ones about eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. Jesus said, 'not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.'"
I love it when y'all quote the Bible, and I'm glad you brought up that passage. It actually explains why we don't have to worry about shellfish and polyester. The entire verse says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18 emphasis added).
The Law will not pass away, but most of it has been fulfilled.
Jesus himself, in the first passage I quoted, threw out the dietary rules, and probably the whole "holiness code." The parallel passage in Mark explicitly says, "Thus he declared all foods clean" (7:19). Simply touching something or eating something doesn't defile you, he says; it's what you decide to do.
The rest of the New Testament takes that view of the Law. Hebrews describes it as an illustration that was put in place until a "new order" was established by Christ (9:8-10, 10:1-12). Paul said it was given to teach us about sin until Christ (Rom 7:7-13, Gal 3:19). When the apostles had to determine what part of the Old Testament applied to Christians, they said, "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:24-29). There's that word again.
There are different parts of the Law of Moses. Some of it was supposed to tell them how to run a country; it gave them their legal system. Some of it was to make them realize how hard it is to come to God and how dirty we are just because we're human. Those parts don't apply anymore. They've served their purpose. The moral instructions — the ten commandments, the rules about sexual immorality, the rules about mistreating the poor and your neighbor, etc. — still apply.
So to sum up, Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," which includes homosexuality, in a way that lets us off the hook for shellfish and polyester.
I can hear the next objection: "But when he said that, he did also mentioned 'evil thoughts, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, slander.'"
Yes, that's a great point. All of those thing defile us.
But there's only one thing in that list people are trying to make into a good thing. There's one thing people are trying to tell us we can't call sin. It's not murder. It's not slander. It's not adultery (though that's probably coming soon).
The truth is, homosexual relations are only one sin out of many that defile people. We should want to stamp out greed and theft and covetousness. Homosexual relations are not a special sin. But it's one that is hateful to God and destructive to the sinner, and yet we're being told we can't call it a sin.
I was a child during the "greed is good" era. I don't know how the Church responded to it. I hope there were many voices crying out that greed is not only not good, it is evil and toxic.
You know what else greed is? It's natural. Humans, in their natural state, are greedy. Humans are also lustful — where do you think adultery comes from? They're selfish and petty and violent.
There are a lot of things that come naturally to human beings that are wrong. Jesus died to put them all to death. But he requires us to call them sin and then to repent.
-------------
Related:
Hate the Sin ...
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
How Should I Give?
Christianity Today asks "Should I Give a Cow or Cash for Christmas?" They look at giving to the poor in the world via animals, cash (whether as gifts or loans), and digging water wells. It's well worth reading.
If you want to give an animal, cash, or water, I'd like to commend World Vision to you out of the many good options. That's where our family gives.
For your convenience, Heifer International is another popular place to give.
If you want to give an animal, cash, or water, I'd like to commend World Vision to you out of the many good options. That's where our family gives.
For your convenience, Heifer International is another popular place to give.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Devoting Your Mind in 2014
It's that time of year again. Not for Christmas shopping — for picking out a daily devotional for next year. If that is something you tend to do, and even if it's not, I'd like to recommend a different approach this year.
Instead of spending the next year reading someone commenting on one Bible verse taken out of context (I'm not a big fan of the daily devotional books, I admit), take the time and learn a little about God, Jesus, Bibliology, world views, the resurrection, and church history.
Rick Cornish wrote a little series of books: 5-Minute Theologian, 5-Minute Apologist, and 5-Minute Church Historian. Each has 100 chapters of 2-3 pages apiece. Five minutes on a theology or apologetic topic will not give you a seminary level understanding of that truth, but it will give you a better understanding. And that is a good thing for you and for the Church corporately.
(Theology: I don't agree with everything he says, but he's fair and thoughtful about everything. Apologetics: He's a typical evangelical, even when that's not always a good thing, but I think you'll be OK. Historian: I haven't read it yet, but it's harder to screw that up, so I'm comfortable saying "let's read it".)
Reading one chapter a day will take up 300 days. Double up here and there and you can be done by the fall. After that, I suggest a different kind of daily devotional. (I know what I said above, but this one's better. A lot.)
John Stott's Through the Bible, Through the Year is designed to start in September following the church year. It starts in the Old Testament, builds to Advent, goes into the life of Christ and Easter, then finishes out the New Testament. Being Stott, each entry is well-written, insightful, and based in a solid understanding of the passage of the day.
If you don't want to read the 5-Minute books, you can pick this one up and just start a quarter of the way through it (week 18).
I know I'm asking you to buy four books instead of one, but it won't be so bad if you space the purchases out. And I think you'll read these books again or loan them out. In short, you'll get your money's worth, and you'll get an solid couple of years of learning to better love the Lord with your mind.
Instead of spending the next year reading someone commenting on one Bible verse taken out of context (I'm not a big fan of the daily devotional books, I admit), take the time and learn a little about God, Jesus, Bibliology, world views, the resurrection, and church history.
Rick Cornish wrote a little series of books: 5-Minute Theologian, 5-Minute Apologist, and 5-Minute Church Historian. Each has 100 chapters of 2-3 pages apiece. Five minutes on a theology or apologetic topic will not give you a seminary level understanding of that truth, but it will give you a better understanding. And that is a good thing for you and for the Church corporately.
(Theology: I don't agree with everything he says, but he's fair and thoughtful about everything. Apologetics: He's a typical evangelical, even when that's not always a good thing, but I think you'll be OK. Historian: I haven't read it yet, but it's harder to screw that up, so I'm comfortable saying "let's read it".)
Reading one chapter a day will take up 300 days. Double up here and there and you can be done by the fall. After that, I suggest a different kind of daily devotional. (I know what I said above, but this one's better. A lot.)
John Stott's Through the Bible, Through the Year is designed to start in September following the church year. It starts in the Old Testament, builds to Advent, goes into the life of Christ and Easter, then finishes out the New Testament. Being Stott, each entry is well-written, insightful, and based in a solid understanding of the passage of the day.
If you don't want to read the 5-Minute books, you can pick this one up and just start a quarter of the way through it (week 18).
I know I'm asking you to buy four books instead of one, but it won't be so bad if you space the purchases out. And I think you'll read these books again or loan them out. In short, you'll get your money's worth, and you'll get an solid couple of years of learning to better love the Lord with your mind.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Is Homosexuality a Birth Defect?
It's time we change the way we think and talk about homosexuality.
The other side says homosexuals are "born that way." Even if they're not entirely right, it's unlikely they're entirely wrong. Living the lifestyle certainly requires a choice, but I don't think many would choose the burden of same-sex attraction (SSA) if they had a choice.
So let's just give the other side the "born that way." What then?
In biology, what do you call a genetic trait (or congenital condition) that makes a person less likely to successfully pass on their genes? A negative mutation. In layman's terms, a birth defect.
Whether SSA turns out to be the result of a gene that people inherit, of a faulty genetic process, or of hormones/chemicals gone wrong the result is a person with tendencies that deviate from the biological (never mind the social) norm.
What would it mean if we chose to think of SSA as a birth defect? I think there are two potential benefits. First, it changes the debate from "how do we stop these people from doing these things" (however you may feel about the things — the right and left have very different views) to "what should we do about this condition these people have." It makes the conversation less confrontational and also less about "rights" and more about healthy and normal.
Second, it could make us change how we approach these people and the whole topic. If homosexuals are simply people who make (to the rest of us) completely inexplicable choices, they are treated the same way we would treat a compulsive liar. They choose to do wrong, and they need to stop it right now.
If they are the victim of their circumstances, they are to be pitied and helped and understood. It makes us realize that being "normal" is impossible for them and acting normal is a huge uphill battle. Even those who, by the grace of God, find an opposite sex mate and build a normal life will always be plagued by this bug in their programming.
The obvious objection from the right is "Wouldn't this make homosexuality OK?" No, I don't think it would. Think about some of the other problems people can have. People with Tourette syndrome are still expected to learn to control their impulses. Kids with various mental problems are still expected to learn to sit quietly and not hit or bite. We don't decide something is fine because their birth defect causes it. But we are more patient with them.
The obvious objection from the left is "It's mean." But it's neither unkind nor small minded. It's accurate. It may not seem nice, but it's the best explanation for their situation. It's also a way to make the right more understanding which you have to agree is a good thing.
-------
Related:
One Among Many
The other side says homosexuals are "born that way." Even if they're not entirely right, it's unlikely they're entirely wrong. Living the lifestyle certainly requires a choice, but I don't think many would choose the burden of same-sex attraction (SSA) if they had a choice.
So let's just give the other side the "born that way." What then?
In biology, what do you call a genetic trait (or congenital condition) that makes a person less likely to successfully pass on their genes? A negative mutation. In layman's terms, a birth defect.
Whether SSA turns out to be the result of a gene that people inherit, of a faulty genetic process, or of hormones/chemicals gone wrong the result is a person with tendencies that deviate from the biological (never mind the social) norm.
What would it mean if we chose to think of SSA as a birth defect? I think there are two potential benefits. First, it changes the debate from "how do we stop these people from doing these things" (however you may feel about the things — the right and left have very different views) to "what should we do about this condition these people have." It makes the conversation less confrontational and also less about "rights" and more about healthy and normal.
Second, it could make us change how we approach these people and the whole topic. If homosexuals are simply people who make (to the rest of us) completely inexplicable choices, they are treated the same way we would treat a compulsive liar. They choose to do wrong, and they need to stop it right now.
If they are the victim of their circumstances, they are to be pitied and helped and understood. It makes us realize that being "normal" is impossible for them and acting normal is a huge uphill battle. Even those who, by the grace of God, find an opposite sex mate and build a normal life will always be plagued by this bug in their programming.
The obvious objection from the right is "Wouldn't this make homosexuality OK?" No, I don't think it would. Think about some of the other problems people can have. People with Tourette syndrome are still expected to learn to control their impulses. Kids with various mental problems are still expected to learn to sit quietly and not hit or bite. We don't decide something is fine because their birth defect causes it. But we are more patient with them.
The obvious objection from the left is "It's mean." But it's neither unkind nor small minded. It's accurate. It may not seem nice, but it's the best explanation for their situation. It's also a way to make the right more understanding which you have to agree is a good thing.
-------
Related:
One Among Many
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)