I have been trying for weeks to figure out what to take and what not to take with me to Uganda, and as a friend of mine said yesterday, less is more. It seems no matter how little I take I’m still doing what I perceive a typical American would do, take too much stuff. So books are my big question mark left. I have several (actually more than several) books that I have been trying to read over the last several years and I would love to take them all with me and finish them on the first plane flight but can’t decide if I will actually read them. Three of these books at top on my list, God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards with the Complete Text of The End for Which God Created the World (yes I know, the title is very long) by John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, The Life and Diary of David Brainerd by David Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards, and The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal. I have picked up and read all three, then put down, then picked up again, and so on… for years now.
I know these aren’t your traditional quick reads, and one is quite a bit beyond my comprehension. I have all of them in Kindle eBook for my iPad, paperback, and audiobook but keep going back to the paper bound books because of the depth of their words. This morning I was going through each of these three books thinking about my time in Uganda, our sponsor child, Joanita, who I hope to meet while I’m there, I came across this chapter in The Life of God in the Soul of Man, titled “Religion Better Understood by Actions than Words”. After re-reading that chapter I wanted to share Scougal’s words here today that help remind me why we go. The text is also available in Google Books here.
Religion Better Understood by Actions than by Words
When we have said all that we can, the secret mysteries of a new nature and divine life can never be sufficiently expressed; language and words cannot reach them: nor can they be truly understood but by those that are enkindled within, and awakened unto the sense and relish of spiritual things. There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding.
The power and life of religion may be better expressed in actions than in words’ because actions are more lively things, and do better represent the inward principle whence they proceed; and therefore we may take the best measure of those gracious endowments from the deportment of those in whom they reside; especially as they are perfectly exemplified in the holy life of our blessed Savior; a main part of whose business in this world, was, to teach by his practice what he did require of others, and to make his own conversation an exact resemblance of those unparalleled rules which he prescribed: so that if ever true goodness was visible to mortal eyes, it was then when his presence did beautify and illustrate this lower world.
I know that is kind of a mouth full for only two sentences, and not in the most current English, but Scougal’s words here are pretty incredible. That’s why this book has taken me so long to read. The words are incredible but I have to read each page several times. Once you do, the value is deep and lasting. Why do we go according to Scougal? Because this is what Jesus did and He is our ultimate example to follow. As Scougal says, our actions are better represented by the inward principle they represent. This is to say our actions proceed from where our heart resides, and to me, that’s very telling, and a little scary.
Posts Related to This Topic:
I am truly amazed at how much press Dove World Outreach Church in Gainesville, Florida is receiving for it’s planned burning of the Quran, or as they put it “International Burn a Koran Day” planned for this Saturday, September 11th. It truly shows how a message, any message good or bad, can spread in our world today. This is a 50 member “church” in a small town. Fifty members. How many millions of dollars will other churches (with far better messages) spend to get their message out, and much of the time with little effect. Our church, and many others like it, are helping to change lives locally, and all the way over in Africa, but that isn’t news of course.
Sometimes it is the “shock-and-awe” that makes a message go viral, and their message, Terry Jones’ message, has reached every corner of the earth at this point thanks to Hilary Clinton, Gen. David Petraeus, Attorney General Eric Holder, CNN, Fox News (Orlando), and every high profile person who mentions the Quran burning. Even the Vatican (multiple times) and the White House has weighed in, all giving semi-credibility to this tiny little “outreach center” and their “look at us burning” party.
Other churches have tried this, like the one in North Carolina who created a sign that said “The Koran Needs to be Flushed” and was later forced to leave the SBC. If you dig into “Dove World Outreach” you will see they are a “church” who is mainly focused on the “shock-and-awe” of Islam, not on teachings of Christ and Christianity.
What I haven’t read in any of these reports however is that no matter how much stupidity they claim as their own, the lack of any true sensical Christian message they offer, and the Adolph-Hitler-Natzi-like event this seems to be, this country has fought to allow these freedoms, even if we don’t like them. We don’t fight for only those freedoms we like, but for all freedoms within the law. What would dilute their message today is to heavily vet “Dove World”, Terry Jones, and their other fifty members. Their Facebook page alone is enough to discredit them, and their “about” information for their church shows no focus on any doctrinal beliefs of Christ, yet, today, shock-and-awe wins out.
I do not use the term “idiot” lightly. The dictionary definition says this is “someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way”, and this is exactly what this group of 50 are doing, in many different aspects, but, in this country, they have the freedom to act like idiots, and others in turn have the freedom to condemn their actions as idiotic.
Posts Related to This Topic:
Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.
The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).
Brief Explanation of Exclusivism
Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.
Brief Explanation of Pluralism
Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.
Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.
One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.
The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .
Brief Explanation of Inclusivism
This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.
Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.
An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:
It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.
Reflections on Religious Pluralism
Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church. My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well. One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.
Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life. Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp. Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:
“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith. It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]
And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying
If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life. But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.
These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be. In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “
The media views what is or is not fair in two ways. One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today). Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.
A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14. In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part). The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference. Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.
Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.
[1] Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savoir (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonervan Publishing, 1994), 69-92.
Posts Related to This Topic:
I finally got back into the reading swing a few months ago and first on my list was a book that had been on my list for a long time, The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. This book, even after having finished a complete reading, is so monumental that it would require several more readings, at a much slower pace, to even begin to comprehend it’s value. First published in 1746, written around the time of the Great Awakening when “affections” were running wild (many people would have a dramatic “religious awakenings” with loud wailing and moaning but not a true change of heart), this book must have been seen by the people of North Hampton at the time as quite a controversial book. Today, The Religious Affections has the honor to be listed among the classics delivered by some of the greatest theologians, but if read in context of today’s culture, and viewed as being directly applicable today, it might be seen as even more controversial today than it did in the late 18th century.
Still, it’s truths are so relevant, it’s pious statements so profound, it tends to show how far we have come (or how far we have slid) from the “religion” of the Great Awakening. Where Edwards was once trying to discern true affections from Pharisaical outcries, we the church in the 21st century are similar to the 18th century church of North Hampton in some respects. We have and show almost no true affection in worship to God, a breaking of the will by the heart, for a God who deserves the utmost adoration for every breath we take, and yet we posses more entertainment emotion (for lack of a better phrase) than any generation in previous history.
As the book opens, Edwards puts forth nine evidences that true religion lies much in the heart of the affections. In seminary (of all places) it has often been said to me that a mature Christian needs both the head and the heart, both knowledge and true affections towards God. If you are in the camp that uses “knowledge puffs up but love edifies” (1 Corinthians 8:1) to excuse yourself from study you are missing half of what Paul is saying, and the same is true to those who only seek after knowledge. Any surface reading of scripture clearly shows that God insists on both, and Edwards certainly agrees. ”He that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion.” [1]
In these nine evidences Edwards lays out his thesis and speaks directly to the church of the 21st century.
That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above a state of indifference: God, in His word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, “fervent in spirit,” and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion (Romans 12:11) and to “Be ye fervent in spirit, serving the Lord… serving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and will all thy soul?” (Deuteronomy 10:12).
While we certainly can claim we don’t have dull and lifeless worship services (in fact we can claim the opposite since our worship “production” can rival that of the Discovery Channel at this point), we can still have a lifeless and dull heart. Paul in Romans 12 isn’t saying the dB rating of the worship should be vigorous, he is saying that “our hearts [should be] vigorously engaged” in worship. John takes it one step farther when talking about the church in Laodicea saying that Christ utterly detests a lukewarm church (Revelation 3:16).
I would highly recommend The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards to anyone who might be interested. It certainly was a challenging read, it wasn’t the most straight forward easy to read pop-Christian publication that tends to make the rounds today, but I wouldn’t expect it to be either. Books that we fully understand from a quick initial read probably don’t further our understanding in the subject at hand and Affections is one of those pieces of literature that could be read over and over again.
[1] Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, (Carlisle, CA: The Banner of Truth Trust, Versa Press, Inc., 1986), 30, 27.
Posts Related to This Topic:
I will say right off the bat that this post will be totally uninteresting to some and all of my 10 readers may dislike it, but I feel like change is coming to my blog and I am writing this post to map it out for myself. There are a lot of random thoughts here and I jump back and forth, but I will try to tie them all together over the next few months through different blog posts, so for now, just roll with me if you can.
The two taboo topics of discussion in the workplace (politics and religion) are now taboo everywhere, which slowly makes us indifferent to either which in turns makes us unwilling to discuss, learn, and grow in the history that makes up topics like politics, religion, and government. Have we forgotten in this country (the U.S.) that there are countries in this world like North Korea, China, Cuba, and parts of Africa where they can not openly discuss opposition to their government or religious ideas?
I just love websites I go to that say no talking about politics or religion. In some cases that may be appropriate, but that has bled over into everything in everyday life. I am tired of hearing and seeing fellow Brothers and Sisters that avoid talking about politics (and matters of “other” faiths) because it is divisive. Newsflash, if you call yourself a Believer in Christ, you have chosen a side. Although Christ is open to ALL who believe in Him, we know not everyone will. It is hard to think of God as a God of love, and who leaves people out of his Heavenly kingdom but we also can’t even start to think we understand God from God’s point of view. On the flip side, there is “the world” (that would be those who don’t choose Him) that also refuse to talk about religion because it is divisive in nature.
We are quickly becoming a socialist society that no longer wants to listen to an opposing side and are guided to lean towards a muddy middle ground on everything. In the “can’t we all just get along” world, we move to the center of the undecided’s (those who can’t seem to make a decision until someone tells them how they should feel about the topic at hand) where we can all come together and get nothing done. Problem is, that is the most boring and uninformed place to sit, and is not only a cop out, but dangerous.
We have to be careful to not speak badly about another “religion” like extremist Muslims who’s plan is to do harm, and ignore comments by people like Helen Thomas of the White House press corp when she says things at Mr Obama’s “press conference” like “so-called” terrorists when speaking about people who terrorize other people. Don’t know what I am talking about… you could be guilty of political indifference yourself.
Why does this matter? It matters because we are now so far removed from our government, those who make the laws, and how it effects our lives, that we have become indifferent. Indifferent to a government that doesn’t blink an eye to spend $800 billion (about the size of our current national debt, in other wards, doubling the size of the national debt) for things like Frisbee golf courses and digital TV converter boxes, that we don’t even take notice. We just go merrily about our business and hope it doesn’t eventually intrude on our own life.
What did Jesus come to this earth to do? Reach over the isle and make friends, being careful not to be divisive? No, he came to fulfill the Torah, the law. Many times as Believers we ignore or are indifferent to politics because it is divisive. We want to make sure we don’t exclude anyone we could proselytize to by saying the word Democrat or Republican, or liberal or conservative like either of those determine who we are as a person. As one conversation went today, Jesus was not a Methodist, I promise. He was a person who spoke about principles, ideas, and how to change the status quo of thinking.
When we choose to ignore (by ignore I mean not discuss openly for means of not offending someone) divisive people, comments, or conversations, I don’t think we can grow. I am more than happy to listen to an opposing side to my own beliefs if it can be presented in an intelligent manner. I can talk to or converse with right wing religious fanatics and atheistic agnostics until if they can speak intelligently about their own point of view, but it is hard to do that if you don’t know why you stand where you do.
All that to say I am going to be doing some minor changes to the categories on my blog to speak my mind about topics of religion and politics. I am moving my photography category into Media since it is a media form, Faith will be Religion, etc etc. Like I said, if you don’t like politics or religion, stick to my Journal or Media categories.
Anyone who really knows me, knows that I have a great desire to please everyone all the time, so this is a pretty big change for me, but I hope this brings more transparency to my blog and my way of thinking. I am tired of being politically correct in my speech and writing and tip toeing around on my blog. I don’t plan on doing so from this point forward. If you don’t like divisiveness (meaning standing, and knowing where you stand), then read my “journal” section and ignore the politics and religion posts, I will keep those posts to the activities in my life.
If you would like to know where I come from, I do have some starting points, and as stupid as I thought Facebook’s “25 Things About Me” goes, I think that is a starting point to getting to know someone. I mention these things so you know the very basis of where my future opinion may stem and how I come to certain conclusions. I will list these on Facebook shortly (I think), but to get rolling…
- I am not for a political party, but I am for certain principles and ideas like smaller government and lower taxes.
- I do not consider myself to be part of a denomination but part of the body of Believers of Christ. I work at a Methodist church but I am currently a member of a Baptist church in Dallas. I don’t care much for non-doms because often they don’t know what they Believe
- I watch and read news and politics from all over the place, not just one single source or location
- I believe the solutions to the problems of this country are going to be solved by people, not government
- I think people forget all about what history teaches. I am slowly trying to relearn what I did not learn in school when I found it useless but now find it priceless
I picked up this book the other day called “I am a Christian” by Jesse R Wilson, written back in 1935 and as I flipped through the book and read a passage to a friend of mine who said “good call” sarcastically. Point is, we don’t always have to just scratch the surface. Everything is up for discussion and debate except the death and resurrection of Jesus, that I hold to be an uncompromising Truth.
