Fundamental #4: Christ’s Resurrection

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I believe it literally happened. He rose again, in his body, and presented himself alive to the world. Christ’s literal, bodily resurrection has always been a central article of historic, biblical Christianity. It’s one of those dividing lines. Some doctrines leave a lot of latitude. Reasonable Christians, reasonably interpreting the Bible, can disagree, and still be faithful to God, Jesus, and the Scriptures.

Other doctrines, like these fundamentals, are non-negotiable. We won’t hate those who disagree. We won’t slander, gossip, or act in any unloving way. But we will disagree, and though we can be friends, we can’t have the deep fellowship of co-followers of Jesus — followers who are “like minded” and “of one mind” on the definitional stuff about Christianity (Phil. 2:2). “In essentials, unity!” declared Augustine. And the resurrection is an essential. I have a zero tolerance policy for diversity on this one, sorry. We take our stand on a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

You might ask, “Is there any other kind of resurrection?”

That’s just the problem. Some, within the church, now assert that Jesus rose spiritually, but not bodily, from the dead. They say his resurrection was a spiritual, psychological event for his followers, who then  enhanced the story when they wrote our Scriptures. It didn’t matter, the argument goes, that Jesus’ body lay rotting in the grave. What mattered was that his followers felt him to be alive in their hearts, and they preserved that feeling in the stories (myths)  they wrote down.

Taking the lead in this spiritual resurrection theory is a group calling itself the Jesus Seminar. A group of scholars founded by Marcus Borg and popularized by John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels and others have done their best to preach the gospel that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and that if we knew where to look, we just might find his bones.

The seeds of this denial are as old as doubting Thomas. Our generation saw the publication of The Myth of God Incarnate (1977), a small booklet urging a “demythologized” Jesus upon the world. Remove the supernatural. Uproot the miraculous. Overturn the unscientific. Extirpate the narrow-minded. Edit out those things in Scripture which are unworthy of Scripture, and we will come to a kernel of truth, the original truth of Jesus, minus the barnacles of mythology that have grown on him over the centuries.

Ahemmmm.  Exactly who sits in judgment on these doctrines? Who gets to decide what is unworthy of Jesus? of Scripture?

[Here's a paragraph from my upcoming book, Four Letter Words. Subscribe to the email newsletter and I'll let you know when it's out.]

Thomas Jefferson gave this bandwagon a shove. He stitched together his own Bible by literally using scissors to cut out verses from the gospels that were miraculous or “unworthy” of Jesus. He said that the true history and sayings of Jesus shined out from the false, “like diamonds on a dung heap.” He left the “nonsense” behind, and pasted up a 48-page Bible. It told the story of Jesus from his birth (minus angels and a virginal mother) to his burial (minus a resurrection).

Every Easter and every Christmas, the major TV networks trot out “scholars” to talk about the beauties of an “Easter message” without a resurrection, and a “Christmas spirit” without an divine incarnation. You should know that most of these scholars are members of the Jesus Seminar.

Not to demonize these people, just to disagree with them. And to know where they’re coming from:  a naturalistic premise.

Premises are everything.

If we believe that there is a God who transcends the created order, and is at liberty to intervene in that order… if we believe he can — and does and has and will — temporarily suspend the laws of physics and nature to effect what we call a miracle… then it makes perfect sense to believe the simple story that Christ rose from the dead. Indeed, we must press further and say with the Apostle Paul…

“And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.” 1 Corinthians 15:14, NKJV.

“And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” 1 Corinthians 15:17, NKJV.

It all depends on your premise. Supernaturalistic or naturalistic/materialistic.

The Jesus Seminar people operate from a materialistic premise, i.e., all that happens is explainable by science, physics, or psychology. Such scholars are essentially Deist, or perhaps Atheist, or maybe even Buddhist (indifferent) in their thinking about God. In any event, God does not intervene in the laws of nature… and so the miracles of the Bible must be explained away in scientific terms. All things are made of energy and matter (hence the term, materialist), and whatever laws govern energy and matter governed the resurrection of Jesus.  His body decayed. His soul dissipated into nothingness when his brain ceased functioning. All that remains are our memories of his teaching and love and personality and spirituality… and through those memories we keep him alive forever… a spiritualistic kind of resurrection.

That faith, says Paul, is in vain. I agree.

No resurrection, no salvation. No salvation, no sin to save us from and/or no holy God to condemn that sin. Deny the literal resurrection, and the whole cloth of Christianity unravels. Deny the resurrection (which ONLY God can do) and you invent a salvation not worthy of the name (something ONLY humans can do). Deny the resurrection, and our faith is in vain.

For anyone who has ever been bitten by the Jesus Seminar bug, might I recommend a wonderful little innoculation I stumbled upon some years ago.  Written in response to The Myth of God Incarnate, this booklet is called The Truth of God Incarnate, and it’s worth finding (click here). Edited by Michael Green, this book wonderfully answers the objections of the first book, and leaves the reader with a great appreciation for the Scriptural premise that God reigns on high and that he reaches his hands into the affairs of earth.

I love G.K. Chesterton’s comments on the result of materialistic premises:

Now it is the charge against the main deductions of the materialist that, right or wrong, they gradually destroy his humanity; I do not mean only kindness, I mean hope, courage, poetry, initiative, all that is human. For instance, when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force. It is absurd to say that you are especially advancing freedom when you only use free thought to destroy free will. The determinists come to bind , not to loose . They may well call their law the “chain” of causation. It is the worst chain that ever fettered a human being.
[source here, The Maniac]

Yes, Jesus lives within my heart. Yes, I keep alive the memories of his words and life as described in Scripture. And yes, his resurrection is spiritual… but that’s not all. It is also literal, physical, and bodily. In a body, Jesus died. In a body, Jesus was buried. In a body, Jesus rose again. In a body, he ascended to heaven. In a body, he sat down at the right hand of God. In a body, he will come again.

The body of the God-man is an essential part of his humanness. To deny him a body in his resurection is to deny his humanity, post-Calvary. It is to deny the exaltation of one of our own to the throne of the cosmos. To deny Jesus a future is to deny all humanity a future. To deny Jesus an afterlife is to deny me an afterlife. Don’t sugar coat this denial with platitudes about Jesus’ love  and wonderful teachings, and how he inspires hope, and how his message (once we’ve skimmed off the supernaturalistic dross) contributes to the moral improvement of mankind. Don’t give me neo-Gnosticism. I’ve read the DaVinci Code, and guess what…IT’S FICTION.

Give me that old time religion. Christ died. Christ is risen. Christ is coming again.

Fundamentals #3: Substitutionary Atonement

Today’s post is part 3 in a series on some biblical fundamentals. If you want a little context, scroll down and read the previous posts, especially the first one.  Thanks.

If the central moment in history is the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus, and if we claim to follow that Jesus, it follows that we ought to have a pretty solid idea of why Jesus died and rose again. Anyone raised in Sunday School might answer, “For our sins” or “For our salvation.” Yes, that’s why.  But what do these words mean? And, what did the Cross (when I say that, please include the Ressurection in your thinking — it’s to much to always say “the Crucifixion/Resurrection event complex”) mean?  Why did Jesus come? Why did he die? Why did he rise from the dead?

Churchy types have suggested a variety of answers over the centuries. Collectively, these answers are called: THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT. I’d like to describe only 3 of the biggies, and center on one of them.  Let me say at the outset, that all three theories contain truth.  We’ll never exhuast the riches of the atoning work of Christ, no matter how much we contemplate, theorize, or write.  But that shouldn’t stop of from trying. Just because we can’t come to exhaustive truth, it doesn’t mean we can’t come to true truth.

So each of these theories has its beauties. If you want more, or to read about other theories, go here or here or here.   Here’s a synopsis of three:

1. THE MORAL EXAMPLE THEORY.

Key idea:  Jesus died and rose again to show God’s love, thereby influencing us to a life of love.

a.k.a., the Moral Influence Theory, the Subjective View

Proponent: Abelard, a monk

Example: The beautiful hymn, “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” flows from a Moral Example stream: “Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all.”

Critique/Comments:  The Moral Example Theory is true; but it can’t stand by itself. If this is ALL that is true of the Cross, it makes no sense. Was the horrific death on the Cross really God’s only option to show forth his love? Was it his only way  to melt our hearts and change our ways?  Leon Morris points out that, unless Christ’s death actually accomplished something beyond being an example of love, it’s as pointless as a man who sees a person about to drown, jumping into the water — not to save the drowing victim, but simply to drown with him.

This is the theory that’s winning the day in the postmodern, emerging church.  Jesus loves us.  Jesus proved it. Now we should love others too.  Sacrificially.

It’s true, but it’s not enough truth to make the Cross make sense. The biggest drawback is that by making the moral example theory preeminent, you minimize the sin problem (which the Cross addresses), you minimize the alienation between humans and God, and thus, you open the door to universalism, and salvation by good works or love or world service.  (Go here to read how Brian McLaren espouses this very thing, and Michael Horton challenges him on it.)

2. CHRISTUS VICTOR

Key Idea:  Christus Victor is Latin for Christ, the Victor. Through the Cross/Ressurrection of Jesus, God body slammed Satan, Sin, and Death, and now wears the championship belt in the cosmic conflict of the ages.

Leon Morris: “Because of their sin people rightly belong to Satan, the fathers reasoned. But God offered his son as a ransom, a bargain the evil one eagerly accepted. When, however, Satan got Christ down into hell he found that he could not hold him. On the third day Christ rose triumphant and left Satan without either his original prisoners or the ransom he had accepted in their stead. It did not need a profound intellect to see that God must have foreseen this, but the thought that God deceived the devil did not worry the fathers. than Satan as well as stronger. They even worked out illustrations like a fishing trip: The flesh of Jesus was the bait, the deity the fishhook. Satan swallowed the hook along with the bait and was transfixed.”

Later theologians rightly softened the “bait” analogy and took away the deceptive scheming of God.  If Satan chooses to be self-deceived, so be it. The devil has been routed. Evil has been crushed at its source. Christ reigns supreme. He is head over all, the Kosmokrator, the Lord of the Universe, and the Cosmic Powerhouse.

a.k.a., The Atonement as Victory Theory, goes hand in hand with the Ransom Theory.

Proponents: most of the Church Fathers, Gustaf Aulen, my friend, Jonathan H.

Example: the rousing hymn, “Up from the Grave He Arose… with a mighty triumph o’er his foes / He arose a victor from the dark domain / and He lives forever with his saints to reign…”

Comments/Critique: This theory it is not only true, it has abundant testimony in Scripture. And, to me, it’s thrilling. I love the thought of Jesus my Champion. The only drawback I see, and I’d love to hear Jonathan on this one, is that it makes the Atonement a question of “Who’s Stronger?”  It can (not that it necessarily does) bypass questions of righteousness… and make God the toughest guy on the block, in a “might makes right” sort of way.

3. SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT THEORY

Key idea: Christ died on the Cross as our substitute; he paid the penalty for our sins, so that God could be JUST and the JUSTIFIER of the person who believes in Jesus.

a.k.a., Vicarious Atonement.

Proponents: Traditional, Historic Christianity, especially Protestants and conservatives.

Example: “I need no other argument / I need no other plea / It is enough that Jesus died, / And that he died for me.”

Comments/Critique:  Only this theory makes all the other theories work. Jesus died for a REASON: to rescue us from sin by “being made sin for us.”  To deny that is to deny the bulk of Scripture.

That’s why Subsitutionary Atonement is one of the marks of a faithful Christian. It is a non-negotiable, an essential… AND IT HAS BEEN UNDER ATTACK in the halls of religious academia for 100 years.  That’s what made it a fundamental… a sine qua non of Christianity… during the early 1900’s in a debate now called the modernist/fundamentalist controversey.

Modernists denied the deity of Christ. They denied the supernatural elements of the faith. They denied a need for salvation (except from economic injustice) and they denied a Savior.  They redefined Jesus as a moral example (theory 1) and rigorously denied Substitutionary Atonement.

Conservatives countered that only Substitionary Atonement respects the sinfulness of sin, the holiness of God, the alienation between us, and the need for redemption, propitiation, satisfaction of divine justice.  In fact, to deny Substitutionary Atonement was to deny the Cross, and to deny the Cross was to deny Christ, and to deny Christ was to deny Christianity.

I agree.  I have blogged a whole lot about Substitutionary Atonement… Click here for a sampling.

If we want to claim apostolic authority, we have to follow apostolic teaching… and the clearest, most concise summary of the gospel is SUBSTITUTIONARY:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins [subsitutionary atonement] according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, NKJV.

I AM SO THANKFUL THAT JESUS TOOK MY SINS AWAY. I AM SO THANKFUL THAT HE PAID FOR THEM, IN FULL, ONCE FOR ALL. I WOULD HAVE NO HOPE, NO FREEDOM FROM GUILT AND SHAME, WITHOUT SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT.

This does not erase other theories, it puts them in context and gives them their meaning.

One hymn comes to mind that beautifully balances different theories of the atonement… and I LOVE IT.  It’s been updated, and I love that one too. Here are the lyrics, with some underlining (I can’t help myself, I’m a teacher).  And then some links to hear it sung.  After all… theology (when you do it right) becomes doxology and doxology becomes love for the world.

Original Trinity Hymnal, #689

One day when heaven was filled with his praises,
One day when sin was as black as could be,
Jesus came forth to be born of a virgin—
Dwelt amongst men, my example is he! [Moral Example Theory]

Living, he loved me; dying, he saved me;
Buried, he carried my sins far away;
Rising, he justified freely, for ever:
One day he’s coming—O, glorious day!

One day they led him up Calvary’s mountain,
One day they nailed him to die on the tree;
Suffering anguish, despised and rejected:
Bearing our sins, my Redeemer is he! [Substitutionary Atonement!!!]

One day they left him alone in the garden,
One day he rested, from suffering free;
Angels came down o’er his tomb to keep vigil;
Hope of the hopeless, my Saviour is he!

One day the grave could conceal him no longer,
One day the stone rolled away from the door;
Then he arose, over death he had conquered;
Now is ascended, my Lord evermore! [Christus Victor!]

One day the trumpet will sound for his coming,
One day the skies with his glories will shine;
Wonderful day, my beloved ones bringing;
Glorious Saviour, this Jesus is mine!

(by Pastor Wilbur Chapman)

To sing along with the old hymn, and have a cross-cultural experience, click here.

To worship with the excellent updated Jeff Johnson version, click here.

Boxing’s Main Event

For today’s post, I’d like to interrupt the series on the Fundamentals.  I want to invite you check out my article in this month’s In Touch Magazine, a publication from Charles Stanley’s ministries.

It’s about legalism.

It’s an unconventional approach to Jacob’s wrestling match with God.

Click here to read it.  If if you like the article, please share it with your friends, your blog, your twitter, and your facebook.

Thanks.

Fundamentals #2: Deity of Christ

I’m continuing a series on the fundamental truths of Christianity, as outlined 2 generations ago. The so-called “fundamentalist/modernist controversey” pitted conservative theologians against liberal theologians in the early 1900’s.  Marsden’s book, Reforming Fundamentalism, gives an excellent history.

Today’s fundamental is one of those truths that highlights the nature of theological development.  Theology is clarified and articulated in times of CONTROVERSY. When there’s doctrinal slippage — as in the outright denial of the deity of Christ — the church rightly reemphasizes historic truth.

Most conservative theologians hold fast to the deity of Christ; it’s the true humanity of Christ that needs emphasis today, but that’s for another post.

Here are some of the notes I use when I teach college/seminary classes on theology… Be nice… this is more of a fat outline than a well-written article, and it’s more academic than populist…

The Deity of Christ

The deity of Christ “may be called a prime article of revealed theology; effecting not only the subsistence of the Godhead, but the question of whether Christ is to be trusted, obeyed, and worshipped as God, the nature and efficacy of His atoning offices, the constitution of the Church, and all its rites.  He who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian; he who does not (whatever his profession) is a mere Deist.” (Dabney)

We call ourselves Christians.  What do we believe about Christ, or more importantly, what do the Scriptures reveal about Christ?

I.  The Scriptural Texts Testifying to His Deity.

A. Isa 7:14, cited in Mt 1:21-23.

Jesus is Immanuel – God with us.  Isaiah chapters 7-12 are often designated the Book of Immanuel and constitute a growing revelation of the person so named.  So, in 7:14 Immanuel is to be born of a virgin.  In 9:6 this same person is specifically named as God. NOTE: the phrase translated “Everlasting Father” is better translated “Father of Eternity” (S.L. Johnson).  In ch. 11, Immanuel is seen as ruler of earth.  This is one and the same individual, later named Jesus in the first gospel.

B. John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word..
en  archee    `een  ho logos
and the Word was with God….
kai ho logos `een pros ton theon
and the Word was God.
kai theos `een ho logos.

This verse sets forth John’s clear teaching that Jesus is God.    The opening phrase, an allusion to Gen 1:1, takes us beyond the beginning of creation.  The word “was”  is durative – it expresses an ongoing period.  The word “in”  is temporal – it expresses a “time when”,-here in language of accommodation.  There is no way for a human to describe the dateless past other than to simply say “In the Beginning…”

Logos is a Jewish-Platonic-Stoic term very familiar in intellectual circles in John’s day.  It had become a technical term just as “Messiah”.  “Neither term is a complete presentation of the Person of Christ, but both are useful.  It is however, very difficult to translate Logos into English because of the double idea in it of Reason and Expression.”  (A.T. Robertson)  John uses the term to indicate the eternal relation of the Logos to God and to outline broad features of the Incarnation.

The Logos “was with God.”  There are two important conclusions from this assertion: 1) that there is a distinction of some sort between God and Logos; and, 2) that there is an intimate, ongoing (the durative verb “was” again) relationship between God and Logos.  Thus, the two are distinct yet possess a certain relationship.  The next phrase states this relationship.

“And the Word was God.”  The literal word order in Greek is correctly rendered in this translation.  Greek word order differs from English word order.  Here is the rule: “In copulative sentences [sentences with the verb "is"], if expressions are convertible, then the article [the word "the"] distinguishes the subject from the predicate, though there are exceptions.”  (Moulton,Howard, and Turner, v.3, pp 182,3).    Therefore, in the Greek word order, the subject of this sentence comes after the verb, but we know that it is the subject because of the article.  So, while Gk word order says “god was the word” the  correct English order is “the Word was God.”

Note John’s use of the imperfect tense of the verb “to be”.  If John had simply stated that the Word “IS” God, using the present tense, he would have set up a confusing equation (God=Word).  But by using the imperfect (ongoing past) tense John avoids a complete equation, which is consistent with the distinction of persons implied by verse one.  Therefore, he says that the Logos is God, but not that all of God is the Logos.  The equation does not work both ways.  To say that Bill is human is not to say that all humans are Bill.  The only conclusion from this verse is that the Logos is eternal God yet distinct from the Father.

The Jehovah’s witnesses display a profound lack of integrity in their exegesis of this verse.  They claim that the Word was “a god”, overly pressing the fact that there is no article with “theos”.    First, this view mis-states the use of the article in copulative sentences.  Second, granting the blatantly false translation that the Word is “a god”, we wonder what this means?  It is inconceivable that there be a plurality of divine essences.  Are there many equal gods?  Or is Jesus the only one who fits in this category?  Or is Jesus an inferior God (which is non-sensical)? John had the option of a perfectly good word for “godlike” – instead of saying “theos”  he could have said “theois.”  Third, how are we to explain the role of the Logos in creation (v. 14), especially in light of the 1st chapter of Genesis?  Finally, how can we deal with the rest of John’s claims regarding the essential deity of this person?  The JW’s distort Scripture to suit their purposes.

Fundamentals: #1 God’s Inspired Word

Today’s post continues from yesterday’s post; it will make more sense of you scroll down and read it first.

When we hold a Bible, we often fail to appreciate its significance.  We possess a treasure of ancient documents, miraculously preserved, accurately transcribed, painstakingly translated (at great peril along the way), and laboriously explained – all in order to bring us face to face with the Supreme Person of the Universe.

How can we know anything about God?  We must in the last analysis simply believe what God has told us.  We believe in the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration [theo-pneustos] of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV.

Benjamin Warfield observes:

Theo-pneustos —very distinctly does not mean “inspired by God.” This phrase is rather the rendering of the Latin divinitus inspirata… The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of divine “inbreathing” into the human authors, but that it “breathed out by God” or “God-breathed.”
In a word, what is being declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them.
No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the divine production of Scripture that that which is here employed. The “breath of God” in Scripture is the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. “By the word of Jehovah,” we read in a significant parallel of Ps 33:6, “were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” . . . God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paul declares, then, that “every scripture” is a product of the divine breath, “is God-breathed,” he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is a product of a specifically divine operation. (Warfield, ISBE 3:1474 s.v. “Inspiration”)

One Bible scholar defines inspiration as “that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology).

What Inspiration Isn’t

• Inspiration is not mechanical. God did not use the writers as dictaphones.  They were intellectually and emotionally involved in writing what they wrote.
• Inspiration did not destroy the individuality of the authors. Matthew,  Moses, Peter, and Paul each had their individual styles.  They brought their experiences, viewpoints, and beliefs to their writings. God worked through them, not in spite of them.
• Inspiration does not mean every word of the Bible expresses the will of God. The Bible contains the words and deeds of ungodly, evil, and confused beings (men, women, demons, Satan, etc.)  In some cases Satan misquotes the Bible.  His words are recorded accurately, but they are not the will of God.  Job’s wife advised Job to “curse God and die.”  The recording of the event is inspired, but the words are not the will of God.  Similarly, a lot of the counsel in Ecclesiastes and Job come from messed up counselors. A divinely inspired record of confused humans!
• Inspiration does not rule out the likelihood of differing accounts. Although there are differing accounts of the same event (e.g. in the life of Jesus), they are not contradictory. They merely give different viewpoints on the same incidents.  But most importantly, the description of events is specifically crafted to contribute to the author’s particular argument, while still being a faithful account of the event.
• Inspiration doesn’t mean that all modern translations are ideal. Inspiration applies to the original autographs of Scripture, not, technically to  translations.  Most translations are highly accurate and extremely fair, but our theology must be based upon Hebrew and Greek studies, or upon resources that unfold what was written in the original tongues.

How Far Inspiration Extends

1. Extent – inspiration extends to all 66 books of the Bible. Liberal theological systems hold that only parts of the Bible are inspired.   But Scripture clearly affirms that “All Scripture is inspired by God.”  This is called “plenary (full) inspiration.” If only parts of the Bible are inspired, will somebody tell me which ones aren’t, because I’m basing my life on this book! Thomas Jefferson created his own gospel account by literally clipping out verses that contained no supernatural or judgmental or miraculous elements, and pasting them to fresh sheets. The Jefferson Bible was 48 pages long.
2. Intensiveness – inspiration is applied intensively to the very words of Scripture. This is called “verbal inspiration.” (We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration.)   Jesus taught that Scripture would be fulfilled down to the last “jot and tittle” (Mt 5:17,ff), a reference to two very small letters of the Heb. alphabet.  Furthermore, verbal inspiration is demonstrated by the fact that NT authors argue from precise wording and even letters as they make their case from the OT. (See Jn 10:35, Mt 22;32 where tense is conclusive, Mt 22:44, Gal 3:16 where number is conclusive.)

Jesus and Inspiration

Here’s a preview of some material from my current work-in-progress, called Four Letter Words (touchy ideas in an ultra tolerant world, a conversational apologetics [sign up for the newsletter so I can notify you when it's out.]

Jesus, the Living Word put his personal seal of approval on the Bible, the Written Word. Don’t forget that two-thirds of the Bible was complete by Jesus’ day. Growing up Jewish meant growing up Bible-smart. Picture barefoot little Jesus trotting off to synagogue holding Mary and Joseph’s hands. He grew up with a written Word from God.

As an adult, he put his stamp of approval that Word. Here are some of his teachings:

• “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
• The Bible is indestructible until “all has been fulfilled,” down to the letter (Matthew 5:18).
• The Bible is “that which was spoken to you by God” (Matthew 22:31).
• Every part of the Old Testament unfolds truth about Jesus—about who he would be and what we would do when he came (Luke 24:27,44).

This doesn’t mean he was right, of course. It’s logically conceivable Jesus was wrong. But what isn’t conceivable is that Jesus was both a Great Teacher, worthy of our devotion, and that he staked his life on a book of mistakes. In the mind of Jesus, everything he was and did and believed resonated perfectly with every syllable of the Scriptures.

It doesn’t make sense to honor Jesus and disrespect the Bible he based his life on. The Living Word and the written Word shared the same harmonic frequency.

Maybe that’s because they were both tuned to the same Heart of Love.

One last thought: it’s one thing to endorse the inspiration of Scripture. It’s another thing to wear out your Bible, through it seeking to know your God. I hope you do both.

[To be continued...]

Give me that Old Time Religion…

The little church that reared me belonged to a group that called itself Fundamentalist. I grew up thinking that fundamentalists were marked by what they didn’t do: no dancing, drinking, movies, playing cards, rock ‘n roll, or hip attire. Later, a movement arose called Evangelicalism, with the same core THEOLOGICAL beliefs, but a more accommodating stance toward CULTURE.  I was happy, because I could be an old-fashioned fundamentalist in my theology and still enjoy a good movie.

Since the 1980’s, “fundamentalist” has taken on a sinister meaning: a heavily armed, hard-line lunatic ready to start a war over his/her beliefs. I reject that sort of fundamentalism as sinful, unbiblical, and against God. You couldn’t find a violent bone if you tried among the kind of fundamentalists that reared me.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal [not physical, not tangible, not a weapon you can buy in a store] but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5, NKJV.

As a theological system, old-time fundamentalism, and later evangelicalism, were right on. We just have to come up with new labels for these historic Christian truth-packages.

Today, even evangelicalism is being redefined. Various movements, like the emerging church (with its tendency toward universalism), Open Theism (which suggests that God doesn’t know the future), and old-fashioned  liberalism (racing toward pluralism), are each trying to reform evangelicalism, and attempting to claim the mantle of historic Christianity.

We’re like toddlers at a theological smorgasbord– too short of stature to see the big picture,  too greedy for anything sweet,  and too untrained to discern true nutrition from junk food.

We have sincere, sacrificial, great-hearted pastors and authors who are woefully untrained in theology, leading the church in directions the church shouldn’t go.

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” Hebrews 5:12, NKJV.

Every generation needs to LOVINGLY, but FIRMLY rearticulate what is theologically good and what is theologically bad for the church. Where do we draw the lines on our theological playing field? What is in bounds? What is out of bounds?

I believe our church leaders from the 1920’s drew the line perfectly when they identified five non-negotiables, or fundamentals, of the faith.  These define what came to be called fundamentalist theology, and later evangelical theology.

Five core truths have defined Christianity for generations:

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible
2. The deity of Christ and His virgin birth
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death
4. The literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. The literal return of Christ

These fundamentals are like fences around a five-sided yard. Within the yard, there’s plenty of room for debate on plenty of major theological issues. Just stay in the yard.

Each generation has to reaffirm the old truths of historic Christianity. The language may change, but the underlying truths must remain the same. Over the coming few posts, I’m going to review these 5 fundamentals… and I think, in our day, we need to add one more doctrine to the list. I hope you have a chance to stop by again a few times this week.

I’m glad I was reared with a theological foundation. I’ve never moved from it. My faith has an anchor that has stood the test of time. Does yours? Were you taught these fundamentals? Do you still believe them?

Radio Interview

Last week, I was interviewed on a south Florida radio station about the Inner Mess book. The interviewer, Jerry Newcombe, is the director of Coral Ridge Ministries.

You can hear the interview here (about 15 minutes).

You can get the book right now at a reduced price… normally $13.99, now $10.49 (plus tax/shipping).  Click here.

How Big Are We?

“Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”” Genesis 15:5, NKJV.

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,” Psalms 8:3-6, NKJV.

A Delicate Subject

Today I prepare for a routine medical procedure that all normal humans dread. I don’t know which is worse, today’s preparation or tomorrow’s procedure. Both involve yucccchhh.  And both involve indignities which — if done without signed consent — would send the perp to prison for a very long time.

My son has a toy rocket ship that’s powered by vinegar and baking soda.  You put the vinegar in the bottom, the baking soda in the top, and when you attach the two parts, and tip it just right, look out. You have maybe three seconds to get out of the blast zone or else get spewed upon.

I will be imitating his rocket ship by tonight.  Please don’t think about me.

But, in the interests of men’s health everywhere, I am chronicling my misery — er, uh, journey.

I’m depressed that I don’t get to eat anything today except clear liquids, broth, and jello.  What the…?!?  How can anything clear be considered food?  What planet is this? Today  our church staff’s has a rib cookoff.  Waaaaaahhhhh.  Waaaah.  Sniff.  Sniff.  I’ll be the doofus slurping gelatin — except it can’t be red.

But I’m not bitter.  Because tomorrow I get to show up at 6:30 a.m. and wear a hospital gown.  Yessir.  I — an exalted servant of the King of kings — will be… oh, forget it. Martin Luther referred to his body as “Brother Ass.”  That, right now, seems so appropriate on so many levels.

I’m a big boy.  I can handle it.  Just pray for a clean bill of health. And pray that today’s ribs look burnt.  Thanks.

Here is the Bible verse I’m clinging to for today and tomorrow:

“Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city.” Genesis 44:13, KJV.

Reflections on me trusting you

“I can’t trust you.”

“I don’t trust you.”

“I’ll never be able to trust you again.”

Okay, we’ve all either said it or heard it. That terrible pain of trust broken. It happens in dating relationships, marriages, churches and jobs. It happens between parents and children and among friends, and coworkers. Pastors, leaders, church people, teammates, soldiers…  wherever two or three are gathered, there will be broken trust in their midst.

When that happens, then what?

It’s tricky, because we have to navigate between two rocky shoals:  GULLIBILITY on the left and CYNICISM on the right. Neither is wise, and neither expresses Christ’s life in us.

As always, Jesus is our example.  There’s some cool stuff tucked away in the original language of John 2:24 (here it is in a few translations, same verse):

• “But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,” John 2:24, NKJV.
• “But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people” John 2:24, NRSV.
• “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,” John 2:24, NAS95.
• “But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.” John 2:24, NIV.

This is really important.  The text has a double object, one direct and the other indirect. It doesn’t say, “Jesus didn’t trust them.” It says, “Jesus didn’t trust himself to them.”

There’s a difference.

To say, “I don’t trust you” implies that you expect  other people to live up to your expectations, and if they don’t, you will sever (distance, break, minimize, ignore, divorce, cold shoulder) the relationship. I don’t think this was Jesus’ way of relating.  He didn’t run around setting up moral hurdles and expecting people to jump them before they could be his buddies.

Jesus did not weigh people down with the burden of trustworthiness.

“I can’t trust you anymore” is a relational sledgehammer. Whoever says it has total control, and sends the other person on an endless quest: to prove yourself trustworthy.

How? When do you finally earn that merit badge? How perfect must you be?

Doesn’t the “I don’t trust you” statement reveal as much about the person who says it as about the person who violated the confidence?  Shouldn’t we be honest and say, “I think you’re going to ______ [betray] me again, so I’ll keep you at arm’s length.”  The other person can say,  “No way!” or whatever, but THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT.

And there never will be.

“I don’t trust you” forces a relational stalemate, which is exactly what the person who says it wants.  Call it revenge. Call it fear. Call it control.  Call it passive-aggressiveness.  Call it HEALTHY BOUNDARIES. Call it anything but lack of trust.  You do trust the person TO BE IMPERFECT to some degree — big or small — and you might as well say so.

Soooooo…. does that mean Jesus just trusted everyone and let them use him as a doormat?

Nope.

He didn’t entrust himself to them, says the Scripture.  That means, he could be in relationship, and expect people to be people:  imperfect, flawed, hormonal, inconsistent, self-seeking, while simultaneously generous, kind, fun, giving, and honest.  “For he knew all men.”

YOU CAN’T HAVE LOVE WITHOUT RISK.

YOU CAN’T HAVE LOVE WITHOUT A LEAP OF FAITH…

He neither sacrifices his power…

Nor does he weigh them down with the burden of trustworthiness!

Instead…

“who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;” 1 Peter 2:23, NKJV.

Commit yourself to God, and trust everybody else to be themselves, as you have seen their lives, able to be beautiful and horrible on the same day.

When my youth group kids would ask me, “Don’t you trust me?” I would say, “Of course I trust you.  I trust you to be exactly what you are: a good-hearted, hormonal, adolescent with mushy values and immature judgments.”  Okay, maybe not that exactly, but that was the gist.

I trust you to be you.  That’s a mixed bag, isn’t it.  And you should trust me to be me.  Yes, I’m a pastor, but I’m a human, and a man, and a big boy too.  Trust me on that basis.. and don’t pin your hopes on me.

Does that excuse me from trying to be a trustworthy person?  Or you?

No.  But it does mean that we can be in relationship, in spite of our relative untrustworthiness.  We’ll each keep our shields up as much as needed to not be in danger, and not be devastated when we let each other down.

And, we will gradually lower our shields as time goes on, and enjoy an intimacy as deep as flawed people can enjoy.

Don’t entrust yourself to abusive people.  Don’t entrust yourself to evil people. Don’t entrust yourself to dangerous people.  Jesus didn’t.  You don’t have to either.

“Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; But we will remember the name of the LORD our God.” Psalms 20:7, NKJV.