Imagine riding with a friend in his fully-loaded eighteen-wheeler truck as he approaches a bridge with a clearly marked sign bearing the warning, "Bridge weight limit: 3000 pounds". Seeing this, he says to you, "No problem, I have faith in this bridge." It would be sensible for you at that point to say, quickly and emphatically, "Fine for you, but stop right now and let me out!
Or, to put it another way, imagine another friend (the other one is still recovering from his injuries in the truck crash) who arrives safely at your house after driving his four-wheel drive SUV through a snowstorm, and states with obvious relief, "My faith got me through that one."
These may be silly examples, but the attitude that many people have expressed toward the concept of faith is not a light-hearted matter; at least it shouldn't be to anyone who understands what the Bible is saying about faith. To sum up the problem: Treating faith as a substitute for the object of that faith is to confuse the subjective experience of confidence with the objective evidence for putting confidence in an object of faith.
What does it matter if I have complete and unquestioning faith in an object (a person, a thing, and idea, etc.), if this object is insufficient to "hold me up", i.e., actually deliver on the promised outcome (especially if the "promise" is little more than an expression of my own wishes)? I can have a fanatic's faith in Santa Clause, but I'll still be losing a lot of sleep watching over my empty chimney.
Likewise, how much good will it do me to "trust" a real person for an outcome he never promised or committed his word to? My faith will simply set me up for disappointment and resentment when the hoped-for result doesn't happen. Many people have faith in God to do things the Bible doesn't promise, such as healing a loved one each and every time they pray, or getting just the job they felt they were perfect for.
And when I get through a crisis "by my faith", am I attributing my emotional survival to the feeling of peace I got by "just believing", or am I giving praise to God who delivered me? It should be obvious in today's world that many people other than devout Christians have great faith in the teachings and promises of their respective religions. And many seem to believe that God will one day respect all these various "faiths", granting admission to the afterlife on the basis of their sincerity.
Faith is simply my way of reaching out an empty hand to receive what God has, in His grace, promised to give those who come to Him in simple and surrendered faith. My faith is nothing more than an act of obedient acceptance of the promises of God, as prompted by the evidence of His trustworthiness and love for those to whom He has made such great promises.
When my children were very young, I would let them stand on something like a bed, a dresser or maybe the edge of a pool, and then say to them, "Jump to me". Their faith was active the instant their feet left the place they were standing; but it wasn't their faith that caught them and held them up, it was the one they had put their faith in. The evidence for their faith was what they knew about their father, his strength and ability to catch them, and, most of all, his love for them that would guarantee a safe landing.
Faith that is not confidence in the objective, Christ-centerd promises of a powerful and good Savior-God isn't really faith at all. It's just whistling in the dark. My faith is only as valid as the reason I have for trusting in the Object of my faith. And considering all the promises I read in the Bible, and all the evidence I have for trusting that Bible's promises, faith is truly, "The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
The question of "evil"
During the Saddleback Presidential Candidates' Forum, host Rick Warren put a question to the two contenders on the subject of evil. He asked them to affirm there is such a thing as evil, and to declare what an appropriate response would be. In both cases, the candidates described evil in terms of an undesireable effect on people's well-being.
Barack Obama steered the question of evil toward the social ills of our nation, in particular the injustices suffered by the many people for whom he seems to be aiming most of his speeches. And truly, the mistreatment of our citizens, especially the poor and disadvantaged, is a mirror of God's rebukes of ancient Israel's sins against the poor of the land, including widows, orphans and other dis-empowered individuals.
John McCain took the discussion, also true to his campaign strategy, toward the international front of the war against terror. And, also truly, there is much to be abhorred in the acts of cruelty and violence wrought by self-identified terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and his cronies.
As for a definition of the idea of evil, however, both candidates isolated the concept of evil to a specific example of evil behavior, rather than giving a comprehensive description of the nature of evil that would answer the question, "Is there evil in the world?" Granted, both men are politically motivated in perhaps everything they do and say. They may consult the polls before deciding where to stop for lunch for all I know. (Just kidding fellas.)
If there really is such a thing as evil, I think it would have to be seen from one of two views. For the evolutionist, evil would be something destructive, contrary to progression and stability and, since it is being defined by human beings, not cats and dogs, something contrary to human welfare and happiness (except maybe for PETA, who would include the animals in the discussion).
But if the Bible is true, then evil takes on a different meaning than the man-centered one espoused by politicians and judges. And that's not only my belief but the more reasonable idea, in view of the absurdity of creatures evolving by some mindless system of "natural selection" into, not only thinking, dreaming, artistic, philosophizing anthropoids, but into rational beings who universally judge the merits of each other's behavior by an idea that there is such a thing as "evil" behavior and motives.
Indeed, the real nature of evil is seen in the Bible as that which is contrary to the character, will, heart and nature of Almighty God, the One true and perfect Good, by whose standard all reality is judged. And, not only is evil opposite to His character, it is an offense to His perfect justice. So, evil includes far more than what individual humans call "evil." Sin is evil, regardless of how the majority may feel about it. There is great evil in people chasing madly after things to their destruction, like a horde of lemmings over the crest of a hill called "self-indulgence".
And the "evil-est" of all is simply trying to run our own lives, ignoring or resisting the authority of God, and rejecting the price of eternal life offered by the death of His only Son, Jesus. Sadly, in this world you won't be likely to get elected campaigning against sin. The average voter may think that evil is "what feels evil to me." The good news is that God is still willing to forgive attitudes like that, like He did for me. I'm sure glad He doesn't need to run for re-election.
Barack Obama steered the question of evil toward the social ills of our nation, in particular the injustices suffered by the many people for whom he seems to be aiming most of his speeches. And truly, the mistreatment of our citizens, especially the poor and disadvantaged, is a mirror of God's rebukes of ancient Israel's sins against the poor of the land, including widows, orphans and other dis-empowered individuals.
John McCain took the discussion, also true to his campaign strategy, toward the international front of the war against terror. And, also truly, there is much to be abhorred in the acts of cruelty and violence wrought by self-identified terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and his cronies.
As for a definition of the idea of evil, however, both candidates isolated the concept of evil to a specific example of evil behavior, rather than giving a comprehensive description of the nature of evil that would answer the question, "Is there evil in the world?" Granted, both men are politically motivated in perhaps everything they do and say. They may consult the polls before deciding where to stop for lunch for all I know. (Just kidding fellas.)
If there really is such a thing as evil, I think it would have to be seen from one of two views. For the evolutionist, evil would be something destructive, contrary to progression and stability and, since it is being defined by human beings, not cats and dogs, something contrary to human welfare and happiness (except maybe for PETA, who would include the animals in the discussion).
But if the Bible is true, then evil takes on a different meaning than the man-centered one espoused by politicians and judges. And that's not only my belief but the more reasonable idea, in view of the absurdity of creatures evolving by some mindless system of "natural selection" into, not only thinking, dreaming, artistic, philosophizing anthropoids, but into rational beings who universally judge the merits of each other's behavior by an idea that there is such a thing as "evil" behavior and motives.
Indeed, the real nature of evil is seen in the Bible as that which is contrary to the character, will, heart and nature of Almighty God, the One true and perfect Good, by whose standard all reality is judged. And, not only is evil opposite to His character, it is an offense to His perfect justice. So, evil includes far more than what individual humans call "evil." Sin is evil, regardless of how the majority may feel about it. There is great evil in people chasing madly after things to their destruction, like a horde of lemmings over the crest of a hill called "self-indulgence".
And the "evil-est" of all is simply trying to run our own lives, ignoring or resisting the authority of God, and rejecting the price of eternal life offered by the death of His only Son, Jesus. Sadly, in this world you won't be likely to get elected campaigning against sin. The average voter may think that evil is "what feels evil to me." The good news is that God is still willing to forgive attitudes like that, like He did for me. I'm sure glad He doesn't need to run for re-election.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Does God read the polls?
Though the concept of "heaven" isn't one that comes in only one flavor, divided as it is among believers of world religions to include a warrior's reward, a melding into the Ground of all being, a playground with happy virgins and a reunion with all our friends and loved ones, it does seem that some kind of blessed afterlife is a nearly universal idea; with the not-blessed "bad place" getting somewhat less agreement.
But if we can just limit the conversation to "heaven" as the word is used in Christian doctrine, there is still a variety of opinions about the rules for admission. In a recent poll taken by Baylor University, it was found that "...54% of respondents said at least half of average Americans will make it through the Pearly Gates." And that "half" includes people of religions other than Christianity, to say nothing of different divisions of theology within the Christian religion. Percentage of agreement was highest on the more fortunate half of Christians (72%), but many others were also said to be eligible for heaven's blessings, including Jews (46 percent), Buddhists (37 percent) and Muslims (34 percent).
Does God read these polls? And is He, like our politicians, influenced by them? Or, to infer meaning from these optimistic poll numbers, is heaven a place for "good people", of whatever religious belief they happen to be? You couldn't get such responses based solely on doctrine, unless you're only talking to Universalists. Or maybe Mormons, who see different levels of heaven; the best for the "Saints" and coach accomodations for the rest.
It really comes again to our human ideas of "good enough" to be rewarded in eternity. And humans, as we know by talking to the average person, have their own standards for "good enough." The idea that God would define "good" on His own terms, aside from human effort or self-esteem, has never been popular among the masses who answer poll questions. But if there is truly a heaven, we would only know it through the revealed Word of God, who alone rules heaven, and He alone declares the price of admission, i.e., the blood of Christ.
It all comes again to the Bible: Is it, or is it not the revealed Word of God? It can't be both, and still be taken for what it says of itself. The evidence is steeped in real history for its veracity, unlike other holy books that have only tradition or the word of one prophet or such. Doctrinal wars and disagreements aside, the Bible presents a clear and unequivocal statement of eternal blessedness. "No man comes to the Father but through Me," remains the definitive terms of admission to heaven, regardless of the polls and those who answer them.
But if we can just limit the conversation to "heaven" as the word is used in Christian doctrine, there is still a variety of opinions about the rules for admission. In a recent poll taken by Baylor University, it was found that "...54% of respondents said at least half of average Americans will make it through the Pearly Gates." And that "half" includes people of religions other than Christianity, to say nothing of different divisions of theology within the Christian religion. Percentage of agreement was highest on the more fortunate half of Christians (72%), but many others were also said to be eligible for heaven's blessings, including Jews (46 percent), Buddhists (37 percent) and Muslims (34 percent).
Does God read these polls? And is He, like our politicians, influenced by them? Or, to infer meaning from these optimistic poll numbers, is heaven a place for "good people", of whatever religious belief they happen to be? You couldn't get such responses based solely on doctrine, unless you're only talking to Universalists. Or maybe Mormons, who see different levels of heaven; the best for the "Saints" and coach accomodations for the rest.
It really comes again to our human ideas of "good enough" to be rewarded in eternity. And humans, as we know by talking to the average person, have their own standards for "good enough." The idea that God would define "good" on His own terms, aside from human effort or self-esteem, has never been popular among the masses who answer poll questions. But if there is truly a heaven, we would only know it through the revealed Word of God, who alone rules heaven, and He alone declares the price of admission, i.e., the blood of Christ.
It all comes again to the Bible: Is it, or is it not the revealed Word of God? It can't be both, and still be taken for what it says of itself. The evidence is steeped in real history for its veracity, unlike other holy books that have only tradition or the word of one prophet or such. Doctrinal wars and disagreements aside, the Bible presents a clear and unequivocal statement of eternal blessedness. "No man comes to the Father but through Me," remains the definitive terms of admission to heaven, regardless of the polls and those who answer them.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Wilt thou A take B?
I suppose it was inevitable, given the progress of our society's redefining of all things traditional, especially those with any kind of gender or identity issue. According to worldnetdaily.com, the rules have changed in marriage licenses in California. The story reads as follows:
"In California, "brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry -- they have been replaced by "Party As" and "Party Bs." A marriage license for a man and woman was denied last week after they wrote "groom" and "bride" next to "Party A" and "Party B" -- the couple simply wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. The State Office of Vital Records said the handwritten words were an "unacceptable alteration."
Even if we grant an elected government the right to phrase their documents as they choose, the decision to redefine the concept of "marriage" is, as Barack Obama put it, "above their pay grade." And yet many of our elected or appointed officials have been so influenced by the arguments of the proponents of a "new" sexual identity; to the point that a married couple is now "A & B."
Traditions come and go as a natural part of social development, and not many of us would want to live entirely under the sway of our grandparents' traditions. But once a society removes the authority of a particular moral and social standard, as has been done with biblical teachings on marriage, sexuality, public morality and many other subjects, the only parameters for establishing and evaluating traditions are legal logic and the will of the majority.
How long it will take for this moral "new-speak" to reach every state and city is hard to tell, but there's nothing to stop it in the legal realm except the people who stubbornly cling to the religion, if not their guns. I just hope I don't have to be part of such a wedding, where I have to introduce the couple as "A and B".
"In California, "brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry -- they have been replaced by "Party As" and "Party Bs." A marriage license for a man and woman was denied last week after they wrote "groom" and "bride" next to "Party A" and "Party B" -- the couple simply wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. The State Office of Vital Records said the handwritten words were an "unacceptable alteration."
Even if we grant an elected government the right to phrase their documents as they choose, the decision to redefine the concept of "marriage" is, as Barack Obama put it, "above their pay grade." And yet many of our elected or appointed officials have been so influenced by the arguments of the proponents of a "new" sexual identity; to the point that a married couple is now "A & B."
Traditions come and go as a natural part of social development, and not many of us would want to live entirely under the sway of our grandparents' traditions. But once a society removes the authority of a particular moral and social standard, as has been done with biblical teachings on marriage, sexuality, public morality and many other subjects, the only parameters for establishing and evaluating traditions are legal logic and the will of the majority.
How long it will take for this moral "new-speak" to reach every state and city is hard to tell, but there's nothing to stop it in the legal realm except the people who stubbornly cling to the religion, if not their guns. I just hope I don't have to be part of such a wedding, where I have to introduce the couple as "A and B".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)