For many years, even centuries, some sincere students of the Bible have been eager for the return of Christ, and willing to lay down odds on the timing of that event. In some cases, denominations have been started by the followers of those who attempted to predict Christ's coming. Though the predictions have fallen flat time and again, there are still some who are willing to take up the challenge to "do the math" on biblical timing; balancing out the dates of Daniel with the images of Revelation and so forth.
I came to know Jesus Christ in the early '70's, a time of great prophetic enthusiasm, filled with words of Hal Lindsey and images of "Thief in the Night". The eighties seemed to many a time ripe with end-time implications. Indeed, one student of the subject published a book entitled, "88 reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988." Full of dates, numbers and other evidence, it was, if nothing else, an interesting study in date-setting. And it turned out to be, indeed, nothing else. The author attempted to tweak his numbers the next year with a sequel that promised "89 Reasons" for the same prediction. When that failed, he faded back into obscurity.
The whole subject then quieted down for the most part, aside from a few folks waiting to be taken up in a spaceship or that sort of thing. Even the "Left Behind" series, while selling a lot of books, didn't attempt to sell a date for its predictions. But now, with the whole Middle East scene and the militant Islamic threats and the European Union, etc., not to mention our nation's apparent descent into moral relativism and post-modern rejection of absolute truth, there's more than a little temptation to speculate about emerging Anti-Christs and approaching tribulation for the world.
Many, many efforts to "read the signs" and add up the numbers have failed, enough to discourage all but the hardiest of date-setters. I'm not denying that are some very "interesting" things happening, events and trends and movements that could well be the run-up to a scenario of the end. But "times and epochs" are still not in our job description while awaiting Christ's return. We have a commission which is far from completed. We have a calling, with still more than enough to keep us busy as we wait.
It's understandable that those who love the Lord Jesus would be glad to be rid of this sin-sick world and settle into the heavenly mansions as promised. And I fully appreciate the longing of Paul "to depart and be with Christ", for that is very much better. But, to paraphrase a comment I once read from an African church, "We'll have eternity to rest; now it's time to work!"
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Who's really "calling"?
One of the most controversial subjects among those who in any way regard the Bible as the revealed Word of God is the very personal matter of discerning the valid voice of God. So many people have, in some way or another, said, "God told me...", in connection with some decision or action they felt "moved" to do.
Some of those who claimed to have heard that divine Voice went on to do good deeds, such as acts of charity or social improvements. Others proceeded to commit acts of violence against some perceived "enemy", or even against their own children, supposing they were "saving" such little ones from an even worse fate.
And then there's some who feel "called" of God to choices and lifestyles that are clearly prohibited in Scripture. Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson spoke last week with a TV host, and very confidently declared, "If something were to happen to me, I would know that I am doing what I discern God is calling me to do.”
Now, the Bishop was not speaking of taking the Gospel to hostile nations, or taking a vocal stand against an immoral and vicious government. He was talking about a proposed civil union ceremony he is planning with his same-sex partner. And Robinson feels postitively apostolic in his campaign to open the church's doors even wider than they already are to those who claim to be both Christian and homosexual. He stated, “I’ve come to understand that this is a particular historic role that God is calling me to play at this moment."
Such statements, made with all the confidence and certainty of an old-time evangelist, sound strange to those who believe very opposed to Robinson's convictions on the subject of homosexuality. Some would wonder, "Is he reading the same Bible as I am?" The problem of discerning the Voice of God from reading the Bible is, however, not as simple as reading from the same translation.
It is clear enough what the Bible is actually saying. Any careful reader can understand most of what this Book says by the use of its language. But, from there it gets very fuzzy, at least in terms of arriving at a consensus on the meaning and application of what is said. Many people, unacquainted with the Bible's teachings, may despair of ever truly understanding the Holy Book, because there are, in many cases, so many different interpretations offered for the same text. And some who are outright opposed to the Bible point to this fact as if to say, "See, we knew it was just a human book!"
At the very least, in view of how common it is for people to read the same Bible and come away with so many different meanings, we should, all of us, be more humble than to confidently declare, "God called me to do this or that," until we have first arrived at a reliable method of interpretation and application. "This is how it seems to me," is not good science, whether interpreting the Bible or the laws of nature. And, if we are claiming to have "heard the voice of God" while reading the Bible, we'd better be sure that voice is at least consistent in tone and spirit with the one heard by the majority of others who have also studied that same text with equal diligence and objectivity.
Bishop Robinson is quite sure he is hearing the "call" of God in regard to his lifestyle and personal philosophy. So sure, in fact, that he gladly rejects the opinions of sincere and godly students of the Bible who have gone before him, even in his own denomination. It seems more likely that Robinson is hearing, not the voice of Almighty God, Who never changes, but the echo of his own voice on a "dead" line.
Some of those who claimed to have heard that divine Voice went on to do good deeds, such as acts of charity or social improvements. Others proceeded to commit acts of violence against some perceived "enemy", or even against their own children, supposing they were "saving" such little ones from an even worse fate.
And then there's some who feel "called" of God to choices and lifestyles that are clearly prohibited in Scripture. Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson spoke last week with a TV host, and very confidently declared, "If something were to happen to me, I would know that I am doing what I discern God is calling me to do.”
Now, the Bishop was not speaking of taking the Gospel to hostile nations, or taking a vocal stand against an immoral and vicious government. He was talking about a proposed civil union ceremony he is planning with his same-sex partner. And Robinson feels postitively apostolic in his campaign to open the church's doors even wider than they already are to those who claim to be both Christian and homosexual. He stated, “I’ve come to understand that this is a particular historic role that God is calling me to play at this moment."
Such statements, made with all the confidence and certainty of an old-time evangelist, sound strange to those who believe very opposed to Robinson's convictions on the subject of homosexuality. Some would wonder, "Is he reading the same Bible as I am?" The problem of discerning the Voice of God from reading the Bible is, however, not as simple as reading from the same translation.
It is clear enough what the Bible is actually saying. Any careful reader can understand most of what this Book says by the use of its language. But, from there it gets very fuzzy, at least in terms of arriving at a consensus on the meaning and application of what is said. Many people, unacquainted with the Bible's teachings, may despair of ever truly understanding the Holy Book, because there are, in many cases, so many different interpretations offered for the same text. And some who are outright opposed to the Bible point to this fact as if to say, "See, we knew it was just a human book!"
At the very least, in view of how common it is for people to read the same Bible and come away with so many different meanings, we should, all of us, be more humble than to confidently declare, "God called me to do this or that," until we have first arrived at a reliable method of interpretation and application. "This is how it seems to me," is not good science, whether interpreting the Bible or the laws of nature. And, if we are claiming to have "heard the voice of God" while reading the Bible, we'd better be sure that voice is at least consistent in tone and spirit with the one heard by the majority of others who have also studied that same text with equal diligence and objectivity.
Bishop Robinson is quite sure he is hearing the "call" of God in regard to his lifestyle and personal philosophy. So sure, in fact, that he gladly rejects the opinions of sincere and godly students of the Bible who have gone before him, even in his own denomination. It seems more likely that Robinson is hearing, not the voice of Almighty God, Who never changes, but the echo of his own voice on a "dead" line.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Legislating change?
Barack Obama has made a living talking about "Change we can believe in." And, he's probably right in thinking that some things need to be changed about the way we do business in our government, our health care, our business ethics and all kinds of other things. But, aside from the greater difficulty in doing such change than in talking about it, there's another implication of his convictions that disturbs me.
Mr. Obama stated in a recent speech that the way to change America was to change Washington. In other words, if I understand him rightly, we will be able to make the needed changes in Amercian society and life if we can just change the way our government functions to administer the public business of just laws and programs.
The Democratic party has a long history of supporting governmental programs designed to balance out the distribution of blessings of our nation's prosperity and freedoms. And, it has sometimes in history required the strong hand of a president like Franklin Roosevelt to bring needed corrections to the tendency of our capitalistic economy to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to just get whatever they get. And even a Republican president like Franklin's cousin Teddy Roosevelt could swing a "big stick" against the monopolization of wealth by a few.
But has all this legislation, including that of later presidents like Kennedy or Johnson or Reagan, brought a truly "great society" to a nation that still tends to spread the blessings quite unevenly across the whole? And that's just the economic picture, not to mention the unhappiness that many citizens endure of a moral or physical or social nature. Now, if we make sufficient "changes" in the way Washington politicians do their work, will we at last usher in that American utopia our candidates have long promised? I wouldn't bet on it.
No doubt, just laws and just administration of those laws will make a more just society than one rampant with corruption and favoritism toward the wealthy and powerful. No question, politicians devoted to the welfare of every citizen will make a better life on the whole for all of us. But, is the "good life" really something that can be required by law, or regulated by an act of Congress? And, for that matter, what's a "good life", if not a life lived in the will of our good and gracious God?
As long as men are in charge of government, they will have laws and programs subject to the weaknesses of men as well as the ideals and altruistic values of men. And even fair and just laws, at least as just as men can make them, will be subject to the hearts of the men who are required to follow them. And ultimately, as we have learned with the most perfect laws ever given, those of our God Himself, the Law can advise men of their duty and convict men of their unlawfulness, but it cannot change the heart of men toward true obedience. Only Christ living in our hearts can do that, and only when we surrender daily to His will and the authority of His Word.
So, let's try to improve the way we do government. But let's not get any dreamy ideas about finding the legislative key to a better society until we've solved the real problem: Not better laws, but better hearts.
Mr. Obama stated in a recent speech that the way to change America was to change Washington. In other words, if I understand him rightly, we will be able to make the needed changes in Amercian society and life if we can just change the way our government functions to administer the public business of just laws and programs.
The Democratic party has a long history of supporting governmental programs designed to balance out the distribution of blessings of our nation's prosperity and freedoms. And, it has sometimes in history required the strong hand of a president like Franklin Roosevelt to bring needed corrections to the tendency of our capitalistic economy to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to just get whatever they get. And even a Republican president like Franklin's cousin Teddy Roosevelt could swing a "big stick" against the monopolization of wealth by a few.
But has all this legislation, including that of later presidents like Kennedy or Johnson or Reagan, brought a truly "great society" to a nation that still tends to spread the blessings quite unevenly across the whole? And that's just the economic picture, not to mention the unhappiness that many citizens endure of a moral or physical or social nature. Now, if we make sufficient "changes" in the way Washington politicians do their work, will we at last usher in that American utopia our candidates have long promised? I wouldn't bet on it.
No doubt, just laws and just administration of those laws will make a more just society than one rampant with corruption and favoritism toward the wealthy and powerful. No question, politicians devoted to the welfare of every citizen will make a better life on the whole for all of us. But, is the "good life" really something that can be required by law, or regulated by an act of Congress? And, for that matter, what's a "good life", if not a life lived in the will of our good and gracious God?
As long as men are in charge of government, they will have laws and programs subject to the weaknesses of men as well as the ideals and altruistic values of men. And even fair and just laws, at least as just as men can make them, will be subject to the hearts of the men who are required to follow them. And ultimately, as we have learned with the most perfect laws ever given, those of our God Himself, the Law can advise men of their duty and convict men of their unlawfulness, but it cannot change the heart of men toward true obedience. Only Christ living in our hearts can do that, and only when we surrender daily to His will and the authority of His Word.
So, let's try to improve the way we do government. But let's not get any dreamy ideas about finding the legislative key to a better society until we've solved the real problem: Not better laws, but better hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)