"The Invention of Lying" - A Review

The movie was a gross perversion of many things, but worst of all, the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I am ashamed that I've watched this movie. This post is intended to deter people from watching it, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ.

Spoiler Alert

The movie starts with a general exposition narrated by the voice of the main character. He explains that the human race had not yet evolved to be able to lie. He noted that his character would be the first in the history of mankind to lie. He is unattractive and would be fired from his job as a "script writer" (i.e. an exact recollection of actual events that had happened in the past). He is fired, is accused of being a homosexual, and must leave his apartment as he lacks $800 rent. His first lie is at the bank teller when asking what to withdraw he tells her $800 knowing that he only has $300. She willingly trusts him, despite the computer in front of her telling something different.

A suicidal neighbor reveals that he lives life in despair. The main character tells him that things will get better and that he shouldn't commit suicide. The neighbor willingly believes him and stops attempting to end his life.

The main character's mother is elderly and lives in "a sad place for hopeless people". She is soon on her deathbed and comments that she is saddened by the nothingness that awaits her in death. He lies by telling her that at death she will be in the happiest place she can imagine and that she will receive her very own mansion. She dies happy, but he is overheard by doctors and nurses who willingly trust him. News spreads and crowds follow him to hear what he "knows" about what happens to people when they die. He writes a list of 10 things and posts them on 2 pizza boxes, because he lacks 2 tablets (of stone). He delivers to the world via international television broadcast that there is a man in the sky who will give everyone mansions provided they don't do 3 bad things (3 strikes and you're out, like baseball). The man in the sky is responsible for everything that happens and cannot be seen. Everyone willingly trusts the main character. Buildings resembling churches are erected as "quiet places to think about the man in the sky". At a wedding ceremony, the officiating minister wears a gold cross, which upon closer inspection is just a gold representation of the main character holding out the two pizza boxes.

The main character becomes incredibly rich by defrauding a bank, casino, and the general populace. He improves his financial situation, but the woman he wants still will not marry (or procreate with) him because he is undesirable for his genetics. He decides not to lie to her about genetics even though he has opportunity to. He becomes depressed and doesn't shave nor cut his hair, and when she later rings his doorbell to invite him to her wedding to a pompous, vain rival, he answers wrapped in a bedsheet wearing sandals, an obvious allusion to stereotypical images of Jesus.

In the end, he gets the girl. Only he and his son can lie. There is no indication that he was punished for gaining money through deception or any of the lies he told. There is not even indication that anyone ever distrusts a single thing he said.

Review

The premise of the movie seemed intriguing. What would happen in a world in which no one lied. What would be inclination of the first person to lie, and what would be the result? For these reasons I was drawn to watch this movie. Nevertheless, the following are contentions I hold with the writers of it:

Contention 1:

The idea of lying being an evolution of man. The writers of this movie reveal that they believe in some sort of evolution, with the general understanding that over time improvements are added to the human race, while disadvantages are discarded. One will notice immediately that lying is an improvement according to their theory. If lying is an improvement, what about distrust? As noted in the synopsis above, no one distrusted anything the liar said. But what is the logical outcome of a person continuously saying things that are not? It is inevitably that people would eventually come to distrust one another. Is this an advancement among members of the human race? I wonder if the writers of this movie consider that what they are marking as evolution is, in fact, degeneration? Perhaps that was their intent.

Contention 2:

A confusion of hope and dishonesty. The liar on several occasions is able to temporarily improve someone's mood who is otherwise depressed or in despair. While the intention may be commendable, the idea of helping someone by lying to them is convoluted. Apparently, the writers believe that it is impossible to have hope without also being liars. It paints a very dreary world, where we see characters who wish to commit suicide because they are unattractive and others are slaves to their own vain desires. What is odd is that by setting a world in which people only speak what is truth is that they deny the possibility that things could change. The writers seem to imply that to expect change for the better is at it's root a lie. How very pessimistic! These writers paint a very depraved view of hope, for they don't portray people as having hope until the lie enters the world. Is hope dependant upon lies by it's nature? I beg to differ. Hope can be based on truth, but not on what is visible. The author of Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

The writer's definition of a lie comes to mean anything that cannot be seen. They create a world in which having faith itself has to become a lie. They create a world in which believing in the invisible God becomes, itself, a sin.

Contention 3:

The premise of the movie's writers: "god is a lie." In their scenario, the first man to discover lying also invents a god. Everyone in that world believes him because they have no concept of a lie. In effect, the writers are concluding that religion is false. We see this in the movie in that no religious symbols (or even moral labels on behavior) exist in this world where no one lies until the main character begins to tell lies.

I'll note, the religion which the main character creates is one which is very agreeable to his own character. He creates a religion which benefits himself. This is most clearly seen when he says "the man in the sky says that you can't have sex before marriage". This is a lie, of course, as he has made up the man in the sky (per the writer's plot line). The context in which this is that his love interest has mentioned that she will likely have sex with his rival. He creates a religion which is beneficial to his needs at the time. This is, by definition, a man-made religion, which is false. Oddly enough, I do not find this point as disagreeable. If their point is only that man made religion is false, I will not disagree with them. Religion which has it's doctrinal source and object of praise in man and not in God is blasphemy. Sadly, I fear that their point is that all religion is man-made and is therefore false, which I vehemently disagree with. If they've excluded the possibility that God could possibly truly exist and would actually reveal a religion to mankind, they've fallen into serious error with eternal consequences.

Contention 4:

The inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. If you didn't catch that in the synopsis above, let me repeat it: the inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. Does this sound like Jesus to you? Let's compare this with Jesus's own words:

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus identifies the devil (yes, the devil, himself) as the father of lies. The devil has nothing to do with the truth; there is no truth in him. The bible tells us that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc. are from the devil. This movie is saying that they are from Jesus. What blasphemy! Consider who Jesus is:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is truth! Not only is he truth, but he is THE truth. Jesus is truth, and in him there is nothing false:

John 7:16-18
16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

I am finding it hard to appropriately express what I feel toward the themes presented in this movie. I cannot find words to express the disconnect between what the writers of this film have presented and what God tells us in His Word. They are liars. The movie is a lie.

Psalm 119:163
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.

Legalism: a definition

I've recently been thinking about the subject of legalism. I've come to the conclusion that no matter which branch of the body of Christ a person belongs to he will agree that legalism is wrong. Imagine going to hear a sermon and the pastor beginning by saying, "well, I hope everyone is enjoying being legalistic! Today I'm going to preach on why legalism is great". Legalism is generally held in disdain and for good reason. Legalism is contrary to Christianity. The problem I've found, though, is that legalism, while unanimously condemned is not often well understood. I've been thinking for the last few weeks on a good definition. Here's what I've got:

Legalism is one of two things:
1) an attempt at conformity to a good law for a substituted purpose
2) an attempt at conformity to a substituted law for a good purpose

Allow me to explain. Legalism is a word that has at it's root what is "legal" or "lawful". People who are legalistic either pervert a good law into something for which it was not intended OR they begin with good motives but seek to meet proper ends with an improper law. A Legalist person is aware of and concerned about law, though, which the inverse, an Anti-nomian or Licentious person would not. Biblical Christianity, in contrast to both, has an aspect of attempt at conformity to a good law for a good reason.

The Letter and The Spirit

Let's take a law: "You cannot drive over 70 MPH along X stretch of highway". This may be, and for the sake of discussion let's say that it is, a good law. A law has a letter and a spirit. The letter of this law is that it is wrong to drive at any speed greater than 70 MPH. If a person were to drive 70.000001 MPH, he or she would be breaking the letter of the law. Consider, though, that the example law is not an isolated thing. Behind the creation of this law there is an intention of whoever wrote the law. We might say, and for the sake of discussion let's conclude that, the intention, or spirit, of the law is "Do not drive in a way which puts persons or property at risk of harm or damage." This is rooted in the second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Suppose a man is driving 69.999999 MPH. He is swerving to the left and right as he weaves through traffic. He cuts off a bus full of children. To save a few seconds off of his commute, he drives through a person's front yard and flower bed. Is he obeying the letter of the law stated above? Yes. Is he doing it for the intended purpose? No. He is obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law. He is a legalist by the first definition. His utter contempt for the spirit of the law reveals the wrongness of legalism.

Suppose, now that a young woman desires to protect life and property. She learned from her parents to always drive 10 MPH below the speed limit. As she enters the highway she cautiously accelerates to 59 MPH. As people pass her traveling at speeds of 65 or 68 MPH, she smiles at them but wonders in her heart, "Why are all these people breaking the speed limit?" She finds another car going her speed and carefully paces them, preventing anyone following from going above 60 MPH. Is she being legalistic? This is where we enter the second definition of legalism, and to be completely honest this part is a bit more difficult to see the error. She is keeping the letter of the law. She is even keeping the spirit of the law to some extent. I'd say she is being legalistic, though. What makes it difficult to determine is the idea of Hedging.

Trimming the Hedges

Hedging is, simply, to impose a boundary upon one's self to help prevent transgression. Let's take the speed limit example above. If I decide that to help myself obey the law I will always drive 2 miles below the speed limit, I am building a hedge. Building a hedge for one's self is OK, provided it is for the correct intention (i.e. toward the spirit of the law). Hedges are not a problem so long as they are kept only for one's self. Hedges become legalism when the hedge is substituted for the law. This is portrayed clearly for us in Mark 7:

7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash [1] their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. [2] And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. [3]) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

The elders of the Pharisees and scribes had developed hedges to help themselves obey the letter of the law. Generations later, the hedge had been mistaken for the law it surrounded! We see the horror of this when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of leading his disciples into sin. What a bold thing to do! The Pharisees accuse Jesus, who is God, of breaking the God's law! God is perfect and cannot deny himself. We see the rebuke they receive is well warranted. By replacing God's law with man's traditions, the Pharisees were the ones who were rejecting God's law.

As followers of Christ, we need to guard against confusing our own hedges with God's perfect law. God's law is perfect as we are reminded in Psalm 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, [3]reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; ... 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Since God's law is perfect, we must not substitute our law for His. We must continually trim our hedges to make sure that they do not impede upon the spirit of His law.

The Greatest Commandment

So, how do we ensure that we are keeping the spirit of the law? What is the spirit of God's law? Jesus tells us the greatest commandment, and I do not think it is just another law to add on top of the rest, I think it is the spirit of all of God's law:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

All other laws God gives are only extensions of this fundamental law: that God is one and that mankind is to love him wholly. Even the second commandment to love one another flows out of the first. We love one another because we love God. We love God because He loves us.

1 John 4:

19 We love because he first loved us.

A Guardian that is Good

The law is rooted in that we should love God. We know God first loved us because of the gospel. Paul the Apostle was quick to point out that the law should point us to the gospel. The law is good in that it drives us to Christ.

1 Timothy 1:

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, ... and whatever else is contrary to sound [3] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Paul even calls the law our guardian, imprisoning men until they are justified by faith:

Galatians 3:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

As Christians, we should oppose legalism. It is either a misuse of God's law or a rejection of God's law in favor of man's law. In either case, legalism destroys the laws power to draw us to Christ. If we are not drawn to Christ, we will never have love for God who is a just judge. If we have no love for God, we will be forever doomed to fail at meeting the spirit of the law: to love the holy God with the whole of our being.

on the label "Apostolic"

I've recited the Nicene Creed before. Many Christians have. In this creed, we affirm the findings of the council of Nicea, mostly which are affirmations of the Triune nature of God. It also affirms that we "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Today, I'd like to focus on the word "Apostolic".

To be Apostolic means to agree with the Apostles. Apostle is from the Greek word, ἀπόστολος, which means "messenger, or one who is sent". The Apostles were sent with the good news of Jesus Christ. To be Apostolic means to accept the Apostle's teaching as sent from Jesus Christ, himself. Some modern Christians may jerk their knees at this. Shouldn't we follow what Jesus said? Well, yes, we should follow what Jesus said, and He said to follow the Apostles:

John 15:
20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

These last words are very direct. If we keep Jesus' words, we will keep the Apostle's. To be Christian means that we must be Apostolic. We cannot claim to be followers of Jesus Christ if we do not accept those whom He sent. The question then rises, who were the Apostles? The Catholic church would rephrase the questions saying, "who are the Apostles?", and answer that they believe the archbishops and pope are Apostles. Is this accurate? Let's look into this matter:

Following verse 20 of John 15 (cited above) there are the following verses:

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will bear witness to Jesus first. God himself is the first witness, there is no greater witness than Him. He tells the apostles that they will bear witness with the Holy Spirit because they have been with Him from the beginning. From this, we should take note that the Apostles have had personal encounters with Jesus himself. He is speaking, at this point, to the 12 Apostles, those who shared the last meal with Him in the upper room. Judas was among these 12, but I don't think that we're to listen to Judas, as he was soon to betray Jesus:

John 13:
2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, ...

So, we're supposed to follow the 11 Apostles, right? Well, no. The 11 soon became 12 again as is recorded in Acts 1:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

Peter suggests the 11 find a 12th from the 120 who followed them. They do so, and the criteria which they used is recorded in the verses that follow:

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

When the 11 seek to find a 12th, they chose only from someone who had been with Jesus. It is mentioned from when Jesus was baptized by John (Mark 1) until he ascended (Acts 1:6-11). Essentially, they are only choosing among those who have witnessed all of Jesus' public ministry! The passage continues:

23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

After selecting from only those they knew had been with Jesus through it all, they narrowed it down to two, prayed for God to make the final selection, and cast lots (a way of determining God's Will, see Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33). This is recorded openly for us, so they did not make the selection privately. All together, this means that they understood that the selection of Apostles was not an action done by men, but by God. We see this same thinking when Paul speaks of his Apostleship in Galatians 1:

1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Remember that Paul was not one of the 12. How, then, did he become an Apostle? Did the 12 add him to their number the same way Matthias was added? As the first verse in Galatians says (quoted above), Paul is an apostle 'not from men nor through man'. He underscores later in the same chapter that He was directly called by Jesus Christ:

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [3] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul became an Apostle because Jesus chose him. The 12 Apostles became Apostles because Jesus chose them. Since Jesus chose them and told us to listen to them, we need to listen to them. How do we do so? Well, the way we hear the Apostle's teaching is by reading what they wrote. The Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament. Other parts of the New Testament were written by close followers of the Apostles. We ensure that we are paying heed to the Apostles by hearing and doing what is written in the Bible.

To reject the Apostles' writings is to reject God who ultimately sent them. Jesus speaks to this effect as he sent out the 72 in Luke 10:

16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus even prays to The Father to for us to believe the Apostles in John 17:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

"Save Yourself and Us!"

"You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

I heard a great sermon this morning from the Independent Reformed Church which has been recently formed in Columbia, MO (http://independentreformedchurch.org/). A point which particularly caught my attention was that Jesus had to die in order for us to be saved. He could not have saved himself and us.

Luke 23:

32 Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. ... 39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, [4] saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

Jesus came to earth to do God's will, and it was God's will that Jesus should die for the sins of His people. When this dying thief said, "Save yourself and us", it was not a mere plea of a dying man. Consider the implications of what he said: 'If you are the Christ, you can save us however you want... it doesn't matter what God has willed... just save us and you could save yourself, too.' To do such a thing would, perhaps, save the lives of the thieves. Jesus could raise people from the dead physically, surely he could 'save' many people from dying at all. But to do so would be to deny the true salvation that Jesus came to provide. He does not save people in the flesh. He saves them to an eternal life. We will die (even Lazarus later died). Jesus had to die in the flesh to give us eternal life. The pleas of the dying thief were truly the mocking of Satan. Consider a similar dialogue Jesus had with Peter:

Matthew 16:

21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! [5] This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [6] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Jesus would not be tempted by the suggestions of Satan. He knew that to save His people, He would have to do so as The Father had commanded. To attempt to do so and still save his own life would have failed. He would have sinned against God. In sinning He would have been unable to fulfill God's righteous requirement. We would be without a savior.

Am I tempted by Satan's words? Do I attempt to follow Jesus' footsteps but still keep some vestiges of sin alive in my body? Do I try to save myself? I pray that God would give me strength to follow in Jesus, who has saved me, who has fulfilled God's requirements on my behalf when I never could. Praise be to God the Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ!

Theology of Twilight - Implications on Purity

So, while we're on the subject of Theology... let's talk about vampires. I'm referring to a recent collection of novels which center around the life of a high school aged girl who falls in love with a vampire: Twilight. I've read them. I'm admitting it to the world, "I'm a man in his twenties who has read and enjoyed the Twilight saga." While I realize the books have been most popular with teenage girls, the reason I started reading them is a theological one. Let me explain.

I started by going to watch the movie "Twilight" with my wife. I started to get nervous when we were in the ticket line with what looked like a sorority recruitment camp. Nevertheless, we took our seats and were thrilled to enjoy a great movie (and an additional soundtrack from the audience). As I mentioned above, the movie (and books) are about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. The girl is named Bella (which, itself, means "beautiful", and comes from Isabella, which means "My God is bountiful. God of plenty. Devoted to God", made popular by queens of Spain) and the vampire is named Edward (which means "wealthy guard", made popular by kings of England). The two fall in love, of course, but the nature of their relationship is ever determined by the facts of their natures. Bella is human, young, in many ways weak, and very clumsy. Edward is a vampire, and due to that nature is incredibly attractive: has fantastic bronze hair, bright amber eyes, and stone skin (which sparkles in sunlight). Also, as a vampire, he has nearly limitless strength and speed and thirsts for human blood. Of course this last attribute is the most critical source of tension in the entire series. If he were like every other vampire the book would have been very short. Bella would have taken her first steps into biology class and been met by brilliant white teeth... the story would have been over. What makes this love story possible is that Edward is not like all other vampires.

Edward is different from others of his kind because he is a follower of Carlisle Cullen, the first vampire who has denied his thirst for human blood, choosing, instead, to drink the blood of lesser creatures. Edward has decided to not give into his natural desire to drink the blood his body desires. Edward can also read minds, which is a gift unique to him, but I don't think that's why Bella (and every teenage girl) loves him.

Let me give away my main point: The real reason Edward is amazing is not the bronze hair, amber eyes, or stone skin, it is because he desires to be righteous. When Edward and Bella fall in love, he is hesitant to even kiss her for fear that he would lose control. Edward firmly states (in the book) that he will not have sex until marriage. Edward won't have sex with Bella for the same reason he won't drink her blood: to do either would kill her and reveal the monster that is his nature. He is incredible because he loves her and loves her righteously. The hair, eyes, skin are products of his vampiric nature... and those alone would leave Bella dead. He needed to also be upright.

What I saw in the movie, and saw again when I later read the books, was a metaphor for the life of a Christian. Edward had a nature which made him a monster. All mankind has a nature which makes them monsters: a sinful nature which is opposed to God and opposed to His law. Edward has been changed by his relationship to Carlisle, who, though a vampire himself, has never (ever!) given into his vampiric nature. Christians have been changed by our relationship to Jesus Christ, who, though a human himself, has never (ever!) sinned.

I also see a parallel for a specific scenario that I've dealt with in my own life and I'd imagine most teenagers themselves are or will soon deal with: purity. Take a situation where a girl and guy fall in love. They probably will have a desire to elevate the relationship physically. To elevate the physical intimacy to inappropriate levels is against God's law. God has a context for intimacy, and it is within a covenant relationship called marriage. To have sex before marriage is immoral. God calls it sin:

1 Corinthians 6:

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

I bring this up because I see a parallel between the natural desires of unmarried couples and Edward's thirst. Consider with me for a moment that Edward thirsts for Bella. Part of his desire for her is good and right and true, but it is always stained to some degree by his inner urges. So it is with a young man who has met a young woman he loves. He longs for her, and this can be a good longing, yet part of him desires to take things beyond the appropriate boundaries. It is a constant struggle for a Christian.

Consider next that if Edward were to, even for a few moments, give in to his pressing thirst. It would literally kill Bella. If you've read Midnight Sun, you'll know that it would kill Edward, too. He would forever live with the monster that he had become. When unmarried people perform acts that were intended for marriage, it kills them. Please don't think I'm being over dramatic here. Consider what God tells us in the book of James:

James 1:

14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Please understand, I am not saying that sex is wrong. Sex is wonderful. It is a gift from God for mankind. It has a right context, though. The right context for sexual intimacy is marriage. Bella calls Edward "old fashioned" when he wants to wait until marriage (Eclipse). Sadly, it is seen as "old fashioned" by much of the world, today. The way God intended things, though, should not be considered "old fashioned" as if not relevant today, at least by those who are called by God to be His own. God holds marriage in such high regard that he wants us to protect it:

Hebrews 13:

4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Marriage in this life is not the final end, though. Marriage, like so many parts of this life, is intended to give us a picture of that which is to come. Marriage is the most intimate relationship for a human to have with another. What is amazing is that God has decreed that his people will one day be united to Jesus Christ. He describes this union as a marriage.

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Revelation 21:
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Marriage is worth protecting, worth waiting for, because heaven is worth waiting for.

As I recall the teenage girls screaming when Edward first appeared on screen, I think to myself, why did they adore him? Why is Edward worth screaming for? I'll tell you that it is not because of the hair, the eyes, the skin... or even because he can read minds or is old-fashioned. Young women love Edward because he would protect their virtue in a society which wishes to exploit it. Edward is someone they can trust because he has shown himself to be trustworthy. As these young women look for someone love, I pray that they would find a man who is, in this sense, like Edward.

“That’s it, isn’t it?” The short laugh that escaped me was more shocked than amused. “You’re trying to protect your virtue!” I covered my mouth with my hand to muffle the giggle that followed. The words were so . . . old-fashioned.

“No, silly girl,” he muttered against my shoulder. “I’m trying to protect yours.”

-Eclipse (Book 3)

Cooperating 002

I'm still pondering the essay I need to prepare for my application to Seminary:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

As I was considering my answer, I picked up a Manual of Interchurch Relations from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). The small booklet gave a scriptural proof for an excerpt from the Covenant 1871 (found in the constitution of the RPCNA, section 4, page I-9). Here is the excerpt and below I'll give their summarized points:

That, 1believing the Church to be one, and that all the saints have communion with God and with one another in the same Covenant; 2believing, moreover, that schism and sectarianism are sinful in themselves; and inimical to true religion, 3and trusting that divisions shall cease, and the people of God become one Catholic church over all the earth, 4we will pray and labor for the visible oneness of the Church of God in our own land and throughout the world, 5on the basis of truth and of Scriptural order. 6Considering it a principal duty of our profession to cultivate a holy brotherhood, we will strive to maintain Christian friendship with pious men of every name, and to feel and act as one with all in every land who pursue this grand end. 7And, as a means of securing this great result, we will by dissemination and application of the principles of truth herein professed, and by cultivating and exercising Christian charity, labor to remove stumbling-blocks, and to gather into one the scattered and divided friends of truth and righteousness.

The numbers are my addition. They correspond to the following points, which were given to summarize the above paragraph:

1. The Church and Christians are one.
2. Denominational divisions result from sin.
3. The blessing of unity is to be looked for in the future.
4. Visible unity must be the goal we work toward.
5. Unity must be based on Biblical truth and order.
6. Fraternal relations are to be fostered.
7. Stumbling blocks are to be removed so that organic union will be secured.

I think these points make sense... I'm pondering them as I consider how we as Christians ought to cooperate, even though we do come from different theological backgrounds.

on the label "Presbyterian"

ARTHUR:  ...I am your king.
WOMAN:  I didn't know we had a king.  I thought we were an autonomous collective.

I remember a newspaper cartoon which had two dogs standing next to each other. The first said to the other, "I'm a St. Bernard". The other replied, "I think I'm a Presbyterian."

I'd like to start by saying, Presbyterians (though often loyal) are not a breed of dog. Presbyterianism is not a particular series of doctrines or beliefs either, which may be confusing as the word "Presbyterian" occurs in the titles of some denominations, which do have doctrines and beliefs. Presbyterian refers to a type of church government. Presbyterians may generally hold some beliefs in common, but this is not always the case. While I, myself, am a Presbyterian, I don't necessarily agree with other Presbyterians on all their theology. I will agree with their form of church government.

Definitions, please?

ARTHUR: ....Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?

So, what is a Presbyterian form of church government? First, the word "Presbyterian" is from the Greek word "πρεσβύτερος" which means elder. As I'll show later, the whole of Presbyterian government is based on elders.

The United States Government was formed by many Presbyterians, from it I'll pull some examples. In the US, there are city governments, county governments, state governments, and the federal government. Each level has representatives from the people over which they preside. The mayor of a city has to be a citizen of that same city. A US Senator must come from the state which elected him. These are representatives. Representatives from several cities form a county government. Representatives from a number of counties form a state government. Representatives from all the states form the federal government.

When we think of a Presbyterian denomination, we'll see the same pattern. At the basic level, there are individual local churches (or local bodies, as in "the body of Christ", I'll use the terms synonymously throughout this post). The decisions which affect each of these local churches are made primarily by a group of ruling elders which are also members of this same church (called the session) and thus each has it in his interest to keep this local body in good health. A group of local churches together form a presbytery. A presbytery is a group of elders - representatives from the sessions of each of the local churches which make up the presbytery. Representatives from several presbyteries form a synod. If a denomination is large enough to require it, representatives from several synods make up a general assembly.

Here's a short diagram of what I've covered so far:

a city is comprised of citizens.
city -> county -> state -> nation (federal)

a local church is comprised of believers.
local church (session) -> presbytery -> synod -> general assembly.

Why?

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

Why do Presbyterians choose to govern themselves the way they do? What is their reason? What is the advantage? Why aren't they governed by a hierarchy of bishops (episcopacy)? Why doesn't each local body govern itself completely (congregationalist)?

A basic premise is that there is strength and wisdom in seeking many counselors. This is a biblical idea:

Proverbs 11:
14 Where there is no guidance, a people falls,
but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

Presbyterians hold that oversight is good for a church. If a church is only held accountable by it's pastor, what happens if he were to lead them astray in some way? Would they follow him? How far? A larger body to which a local church can appeal decisions and seek counsel is helpful in keeping that local church healthy. This is why Presbyterians avoid placing too much power in a small number of people in the local church; why they are not congregationalists.

In addition to taking precautions against too much power in the local body, Presbyterians do not want to place too much power outside of it. Just as a local pastor or a small group of elders without accountability could lead the local body astray, a ruling hierarchy without accountability could do the same. The presbyteries and synods are composed of elders from each local body, thus they are responsible and accountable to them. They also have equal voting power to prevent placing too much power in any single person or small group within each presbytery.

Ultimately, each elder is also accountable to God, and must be above reproach. These are things which Paul told Titus:

Titus 1:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, [3] and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, [4] as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound [5] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Notice that the term "overseer" or "bishop" is used synonymously with "elder". The elders are instructed to hold firm to the trustworthy word and called to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine. When a local church selects an elder, they are to use Paul's criteria to select upright men.

Applying the Label

I am a Presbyterian. I submit to the authority of the elders of my church as they instruct me according to God's Word. I appreciate the accountability they receive from the elders of my denomination. I intend to hold my elder accountable to their post regarding the local church and the church at large. I'm thankful to God for these ways in which He maintains, builds, and defends His church.

Quotes of Monty Python and the Holy Grail can be found at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

Faith Alone? ... yep.

I was recently in discussions with a friend of mine over what the gospel is. My friend is a Catholic and I am Evangelical. We disagreed. He directed me to a website from the "Bible Christian Society". I'm a fan of the bible and am a Christian, so I gladly checked out what was there. My friend asked me to download and listen to a lecture called "Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone?". I happily obliged.

The lecture was by a man named John Martignoni, and John began by introducing 3 false assumptions that Protestants make. As a Protestant, I was eager to understand what I had been assuming falsely. These false assumptions that I had apparently been making were:

1. You have to believe either the (Roman) Catholic Church or the bible.
2. The (Roman) Catholic Church teaches a salvation by works.
3. And a third one... Scripture teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

The third struck me as odd. I'll assure you that I didn't know then what the Roman Catholic Church's teaching was on these matters, so I didn't mind being accused of misunderstanding them. The third, however, was a shock to my system... as an Evangelical, the accusation was preposterous. The doctrine of Faith Alone is central to the gospel itself, how could someone assert that is wasn't in the bible? This is a very serious accusation, indeed, as the apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 1 verses 8 and 9 in no uncertain terms that anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed.

As I listened on, John Martignoni read verses from the bible that he felt Protestants misinterpreted. Each of these, he countered with verses which he felt proved his point. If you'd like to take a look, he's got them listed on his website. For each of the verse responses he gave, he remarked that the bible taught faith and works. He even accused Protestants of misunderstanding Ephesians 2:8-9 by not also reading Ephesians 2:10.

At the capstone of his argument, John Martignoni read from James chapter 2. Particularly, he said that the only verse in the bible which has "faith" and "alone" next to each other is James 2:24:

James 2:
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

John Martignoni claims that this verse teaches against the doctrine of faith alone. Is he right? Well, first it would be helpful to identify what the doctrine of faith alone is and also get some context for the verse in question.

What is Faith Alone?

Faith alone is the doctrine rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation. It basically identifies the instrument by which a person recieves salvation. The Reformers held that God justifies (accounts as righteous) a person based on the work of Christ applied to them through faith. Because Christ's works are perfect, the faithful person is immediately acceptable to God, and thus has eternal salvation. The question then comes up:

'what about good works?" If a person is saved by having faith in Jesus Christ, do they need to do anything else? Shouldn't they also be trying to be good people?'

I've mentioned this in another post, but I think it should be mentioned here: faith and good works are distinct, but not separate. The Reformers certainly held that "we are justified by faith alone" but also that "the faith by which a man is justified is never alone." In other words, a person who is justified is also being sanctified. When John Martignoni points to passages in the bible which call for good works in believers, I agree wholeheartedly with the passages, but can't help but feel that John Martignoni doesn't understand the entirety of the doctrine he opposes.

James's Argument.

So, concerning John Martignoni's argument clinching verse, James 2:24, is James correcting a false doctrine? The context will help us. James actually asks the question he intends to answer in verse 14:

James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

James asks the question: 'can someone have true, saving faith but lack good works?' The answer James goes on to give, and the answer with which that the Reformers wholeheartedly agree is "NO!". Saving faith is always accompanied by works. These are distinct but never separate. Does a person exist who is justified but not being sanctified? NO.

From the context, we see that the verse which John Martignoni claims argues against the doctrine of faith alone is actually an argument against a wrong understanding of faith itself. We should understand verse 24 in light of verse 14.

The faith which James speaks against in James chapter 2 is so inherently different than the faith which Reformed Theology holds to, that to say that James is speaking against the doctrine of "faith alone" is either a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine itself, of what James is saying, or of both.

I disagree with you, John Martignoni. When I read Ephesians 2:8-10, I see the doctrine of faith alone...

Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

...and yes, that includes verse 10.

Cooperating 001

I'm applying for seminary. I'm incredibly excited at the prospect of learning more about God. At the same time I feel incredibly unprepared. I suppose I think of men in seminary as really smart, godly men. In my mind, they are people who can say in less than a minute all the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. They're probably people who have read through the bible 3 times, at least. Often, lately, I've felt that I'm not good enough for seminary.

Q. What makes me think that I could ever go, spend money, time, and effort to study God?

A. Jesus.

I'm reassuring myself, as did the apostle Paul, that...

Philippians 4:
13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

I can't do this on my own. It's even true that I don't deserve to go to seminary. I'm not super-pastor. I'll never be super-pastor. But Jesus is my savior... and I cannot be separated from Him.

Romans 8:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be [8] against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ... 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jesus is my strength. He is my salvation. He is my Lord. So, when I ponder the essay question on the entrance application to my seminary of choice:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

A. Jesus.

What other answer do I have?

Distinct vs. Separate... FIGHT!

When I say that something is distinct, I don't mean that it is necessarily separate. Let me explain:

I might say that we can distinguish between parts of a piece of fruit. Take, for example, an orange. An orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Each of these are essential to this particular object. An orange has each: a peel, fruit, and seeds (unless it is genetically sterilized to be seedless...). As I speak about them, I distinguish between the peel and the seeds. These parts are distinguishable... I could separate the peel from the fruit. If I did so, I would no longer have an entire orange. I would only have a part of an orange. To have a complete orange, you must have all the parts.

I think the example of the orange introduces the difference between calling something distinct and separating its parts. It is critical to understand this difference when either term is used to describe a theological concept. I'll introduce two:

In the testimony of the church to which I belong, there is the following statement:

(13.4)

Sanctification is inseparably connected with justification, but is distinct from it. By justification the sinner is acquitted from condemnation; by sanctification he is made holy, and prepared for the happiness of heaven. Justification is complete at once, and equal in all believers; sanctification is neither equal in all, nor perfect in any, while in this life. Nevertheless, all who are justified shall be completely sanctified.

In the above, we see distinction and separation used in a theological assertion. Specifically, justification and sanctification are mentioned. I won't go into the details of what each is just yet, but I will affirm that they are distinct, but not separate. What I mean is that if a person is justified then they are also being sanctified. These are not separate, indeed they cannot be. The testimony uses "inseparably connected" to describe this. This is like saying that an orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Take away one, and you no longer have an orange. Take justification away, and we can't expect sanctification. Take sanctification away, and we shouldn't presume that there ever was any justification.

There is also distinction in the assertion above. It identifies how justification is different from sanctification. Justification is different from sanctification. They can be distinguished from one another because they are not the same thing. We can distinguish between a seed and a peel. They are different. They are not the same thing.... but they are parts of the same thing: an orange. Justification and sanctification are parts of the same thing: the work of God in those He saves.

Distinction is important. I hold that we are justified by faith alone. I also hold that this same faith by which we are justified is never alone, it is always accompanied by good works. I don't want to go over that too quickly, because I think it is extremely important. God pronounces men just when they have faith in Jesus Christ. God also brings about change in a faithful person's life: He makes them better people: people more like Jesus Christ. This is the same as saying that justification is always accompanied by sanctification. The two are always found together because they are both works of God's grace in those He is saving.

This has some profound implications:

• We should not presume that we have been justified if we do not also see ourselves being sanctified. (i.e., we should judge a tree by its fruit).
• If God has brought us to have faith in Him, we can trust that we are saved, because the same God who justifies also sanctifies.

The above may seem contradictory. Indeed, it is hard for my finite mind to comprehend all that God has done and is doing in my life. I hold to them both, because I don't know how else we're to read Ephesians 2:8-9 with Ephesians 2:10 any other way:

Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Praise God who justifies and sanctifies His people.

on the label "Fundamentalist"

Am I a fundamentalist?

Those of you who have read much of this blog will probably be able to tell me if I am or am not. I'll go ahead and say that I think I am a fundamentalist, and that is why I started this blog post. While writing it, I came across an article, though, that has caused me to think again about the term. In his article, http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm, Scott Bidstrup asserts his definition of "fundamentalist" in his first paragraph:

In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

Well, according to the definition above, fundamentalists seem like heady, heartless people. I can't imagine I'd like such people. How, then can I still hold that I identify myself as a fundamentalist, if the definition is so clear. Well, for one, I hold a different definition of fundamentalist:

It seems to me that the word fundamentalist is tied to the word fundamental. I'll define a fundamentalist as someone who understands, believes, and applies the fundamentals of some set of knowledge, principles, or doctrine.

Allow me to provide an example: There is a textbook called : Fundamentals of Biochemistry. Suppose a professor of Biochemistry assigned this as the text for a class he was teaching. On the first day of classes, one of the new students storms into the classroom, points a finger at the professor and yells "You're a loveless fundamentalist! You're trying to indoctrinate us with your fundamentalist agenda! I'm never coming to class again." Imagine the absurdity of this. The word "Fundamentals" as used in the title of the textbook is synonymous with "basics" or "essentials". This is the same as I use it in the word "fundamentalist". A fundamentalist is someone who understands, believes, and applies the basics or essentials of some thing.

It should be easy to see from my definition how I can hold the word "fundamentalist" without contempt. The word itself is morally neutral. There can be and are good fundamentalists. Consider students of the Biochemistry professor above. Some of them would grow up to graduate and become practicing Biochemists. Now, if these Biochemists are any good, they still would understand, believe, and apply the fundamentals of Biochemistry they learned in college. These Biochemists can be understood to be Fundamentalist Biochemists. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact it is what defines them as being good at what they do if they know, believe, and apply the essential parts of their profession. Thus there can be good fundamentalists. This also shows that it is not the fundamentalism which is necessarily good or bad, but the principles or doctrine which governs this fundamentalism.

I am a Christian fundamentalist. I realize that there are people (even many Christians) who have qualms with these terms in such close proximity. I'd like to ask those people, "Do you not believe in the fundamentals of Christianity?" or, "Does your Christian belief not have anything which is fundamental to it?". I've already asserted in a previous post that I hold Jesus' role as Savior and Lord are essential to Christianity. They are fundamental. It is the fundamentals of my faith which lead me to correct action. It is Jesus who instructs me that I should love.

Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

I am not a fundamentalist who has had his heart surgically removed (thanks to Scott Bidstrup for this vivid picture). In fact, it is the very fundamentals of my faith which have changed my life. I have a heart of flesh and not a dead heart of stone because Christ has made me alive. I know how to love others because God tells me in His word what love is and how to do it. The fundamentals of my faith lead me to love, compassion, and caring. Let's put the "fun" back into "fundamentalist". OK, I had to say it. Aside from the jokes, though, I hold that fundamentals are important... that's why we call them fundamental.

Reasons why I love the Psalms 001

I was just watching this video on a new revision of the psalter. The psalter is, of course, a copy of the book of psalms but arranged to be sung. At my church, we sing the psalms. I realized somewhat recently that I love singing the psalms. I love them. So, let me share with you a reason why.

As Duncan Lowe (the elderly gentleman) points out in the video, "sometimes the psalms can be bold in saying certain things... that a hymn writer wouldn't have the right to say." Pretty profound. I think immediately of psalm 13. Consider the first 2 verses:

Psalm 13:
13:1 How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

These are words that God led David, the man after His own heart to pen. These are words specifically meant for God's people to sing. I'll be honest, if it weren't for God giving me these words to sing, I wouldn't be able to express this emotion. And this gets to my point: I see so much of praise music these days focused on expressing emotion. It seems that there is a general feel that if things aren't flowing with free emotion that the Holy Spirit isn't working. Are modern praise choruses, written by men, capable of expressing a feeling that God has forgotten me? Can they express without blasphemy that I'm overcome with sorrow all day? Should they?

I'll stick to the psalms. I love the psalms.

Subordinate Authority

My church recently had the joy of receiving new members. During the service, there were vows taken before God which I witnessed. Also witnessing these vows was a friend of mine who was only visiting the church this particular Sabbath. He later asked me some questions which got me thinking about the issue of authority. Here's what he asked:

How do you rectify proclaiming that the Bible is the source of truth and that you must submit to the authority of the church? I noticed that [the new member's] vows are book-ended by these two statements. The first is about the Bible being the only source of truth, the last is affirming submission to the authority of the church. Maybe I misunderstood the statements, but I know they were both mentioned. ... It just seems to contradict if you claim sole authority in the Bible and yet you submit to the authority of the church as well.

The vows that my friend took notice of are as follows (also found in the Constitution of the Church):

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?
4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?

The questions my friend was asking led to a discussion on the topic of authority, particularly subordinate authority. I have an example which I believe demonstrates what I mean. My wife is the nanny for 3 young boys (you can read about her adventures here). My wife was hired for this job by the 3 boys' parents. These parents have authority over their children. When my wife watches them, the only authority she has is the authority that the parents give her. In a sense, she is under their authority as pertains to how she treats their children. If they commanded the kids to not eat dirt and my wife said it were OK to eat dirt (or fed them nothing but candy, or had them watch violent movies, or instructed them to bite one another, etc. (which she doesn't do!) ), she would be removed from her post and replaced by another. Her authority is a subordinate authority. If the church fails to exercise it's authority in accord with what God prescribes in the bible, He may choose to cut off that branch of believers and grow a new shoot elsewhere (just as He did with unbelieving Israel).

I believe that the bible is God's way to tell His church what He wants them to know. But then the question comes up, what are the key things which the bible teaches? How are we to interpret it? This is one reason why the church to which I belong is a confessional church. The WMCF, Testimony, WMLC, WMSC are standards which are subordinate to God's word in the bible. They summarize what the church believes the bible says. If any error is found in these standards, these errors are to be removed so to align them with the scriptures. I submit to them only because I believe that they accurately summarize what the bible teaches. I submit to the authority of the church because I believe it is being true to the Word made flesh.

The issue of authority is very important... especially for people who consider Jesus their Lord. The church each of us attends has an impact on what we believe and how it plays out in our life. This is a good thing provided the church teaches truth. But if a church's teachings are marginal, eventually the belief of its members become marginal as well. Whether explicitly or implicitly, members of a church submit themselves to the doctrines (and dry theology) they receive there. This makes the issue of choosing and committing to a church important.

Questions I'm challenging myself with:

Have I read all of the confessional standards of my church? Do I challenge them against the scriptures (rather than challenging scriptures against them)? Am I submitting to the church I belong to as a subordinate authority?

Credo for Today?

While on a date at our local bookshop, my wife and I settled into comfy chairs and did some reading. Always interested in what God is doing in other branches of Christianity, I picked up "Credo for Today ~ What Christians Believe". I am a Christian, so I generally like books which talk about what I and my fellow Christians believe. This book was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed to be an exposition on the Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church.

The first thing I turned to was the index. I skimmed down to something which I would find interesting. I flipped to Chapter 3, which is titled "Creation: Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution". I was expecting to discover a contrast made between the belief that Christians hold and the theory of evolution. For those of you familiar with my blog, you'll remember that I hold that God literally created the world and believe in a young earth model. I am a Creationist. I was shocked to discover that Cardinal Ratzinger was not affirming the biblical account of creation, but was seeking to reconcile it with a man-made theory. In the short read I had of the chapter, I learned that he dismissed the importance of how God created the world. His emphasis, instead, was that God created the world. He believed (and asserted that all Christians believed) that it doesn't matter if God created the world in the way He said He did, it only matters that He created it. I think this has a profound significance on one's view of God and how that God reveals Himself. If God reveals Himself in falsehood, is he a good God? So, from the first chapter I read, I disagreed with the pope. This was not looking good.

I read on. I was looking for something with which I could agree. I turned back to the index. I saw that there was a chapter entitled "Jesus: The Only Begotten Son of God". At last! A chapter I thought I could agree with. Five pages devoted to our savior. Then I noticed the next chapter, which is entitled: "Incarnate of the Virgin Mary: 'You Are Full of Grace'". This particular chapter was 19 pages. Five pages for the savior, 19 pages for his mom. I decided to put down this book. I'd need to look somewhere else to find something on the topic of "What Christians Believe".

Just AND Justifier

"I'm just saying..." "I was just about to..." "Just to the left of that..."

The word "just" is used commonly. The word "justifier" is not. Both of these words are used in Romans 3:26, and understanding both terms is crucial to understanding Paul's argument.

26 It was to show his [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let me present two definitions:

Just - Rightly judging something and assigning the appropriate punishment or reward.

Justifier - A person who declares someone to be righteous.

The word "just" is, perhaps, easier to understand by examples of what it is not. Consider a judge in a courtroom. A thief is on trial who stole $10,000 from a poor elderly lady. After hearing the extensive evidence which proves the thief committed the crime, the judge prepares to pronounce the verdict. The defendant, lawyers, witnesses, and clerks wait with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant not guilty, he is innocent; a free man". (!) Imagine the thoughts going through peoples heads if such a thing happened. "Was the judge paid off?" "Did he hear all the evidence?". The prosecuting attourney gains approval to approach the bench and upon arriving asks, "Your honor, this man is guilty, why did you pronounce him not guilty?" The judge responds, "Oh, I know he's guilty. I just wanted to be merciful, so I pronounced him not guilty."

In the above example, the judge is certainly merciful to the thief... but is in no way just. He is an unjust judge. In the example above, this same judge is the justifier in that he does declare someone (the guilty thief) righteous. This is an example of someone who is unjust and justifier. In the next example, I'd like to demonstrate the inverse...

We'll start with a similar scenario... a judge in a courtroom... A thief is on trial. He stole $10,000. After hearing conclusive evidence, the judge prepares to issue his verdict. The courtroom waits with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant guilty of all charges. He must repay the $10,000 and any other penalties the law requires". This time no one is surprised. I doubt anyone reading this would be surprised. This is because the judge's ruling was just. A just judge issues the correct ruling according to the law. Notice also that in this scenario that the judge's ruling was that the defendant was guilty. This judge is just but is not a justifier.

I think these two scenarios prepare us for reading Romans 3:26. Putting it in context shows that Paul has just underscored that no one is righteous. In verses 9-19, Paul declares that all people have sinned. We are all like the thief in the above scenarios... only worse. The thief's crime was theft, and his penalty was relatively small. Our crime is punishable by death. Our crime deserves death. So the question of whether our judge is just and whether our judge is justifier is terribly important.

Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see in this passage:

• All have sinned.
• God is a just judge.

If these were the whole of the story we would have to conclude that God justly condemns all because all sinned. If these were all the facts, the judge would already be able to give His sentence, and He would not be a justifier. Indeed, this is the way God could have left it... there is nothing which forces God to be merciful... and yet He has been merciful. God is a justifier. He has declared those who have faith in Jesus to be just. The crucial point:

• The righteousness of God has been manifested in Christ Jesus to be received by faith.

God declares faithful men to be righteous (he justifies them) because through faith they are 'clothed in Christ's righteousness'. God is not like the judge in the first scenario... he doesn't simply render a verdict which is false. God retains His justice. He also justifies men - through Christ. He justifies sinful men... even someone as sinful as I am. I know I am guilty of the charges against me. Even so, God has, through Christ, paid the penalty for my sins and accounted me righteous.

I recall a professor in college had a sign posted on his office door which read something like "Justice is eye for an eye. Anything less than justice is mercy." (I'll note that while I never had a class with this professor I knew from others that he was not known for his mercy.) I think the statement definitely made me think. I think it is definitely true that where there is no definition of justice that there is no possibility of mercy. I don't think, though, that mercy always has to come at the expense of justice. As I've discussed above, God is just. He has shown His people mercy in the purest sense of the word. This is a marvelous thing. For this, I praise Him.

The gospel of ... linux?

My wife and I recently purchased a new laptop. It came with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic. I had decided a while back that I would stop purchasing software from Microsoft when other better (or, more importantly, free) alternatives were available. So, I decided to try linux. I planned to install it in parallel with Vista to allow use of either operating system. Long story short, the install was easy and painless and Ubuntu (the version of Linux I chose) has been pretty easy to use so far.

Once Ubuntu was installed, I wanted to take my nerdiness to the next level. I started looking at the Ubuntu forums. I downloaded a Ubuntu pocket guide and reference by Keir Thomas. It's a fun read, really, but one thing I noticed in the first few paragraphs irked me a bit:

The fact you’re reading this book might mean you already know about Ubuntu, but one or two readers might have bought the Print Edition of this book (or downloaded the PDF) on a whim to see what the fuss is all about. These people might lack specifics, and remain unconvinced of the benefits of Ubuntu. So, I’m going to burn through some precious pages of this slim volume to evangelize and explain just a little.

The author wants "to evangelize" his readers. The root of the word evangelize is the greek word for gospel or good news. He wants to share the good news ... of Ubuntu linux? I realize that linux is good news to a lot of people. It is free. That is great news. It is constantly being made better, has a spirit of community in people that use it, works right "out of the box", is powerful for accomplishing lots of things, and did I mention it's free? This is not the gospel. This, in fact, is terrible news next to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The good news that Jesus has come to Earth and become human so that He would save His people from their sins is the best news ever. Literally. Ever.

Philippians 3:
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Next to the news that Christ has come, the news that there is a free operating system is like trash... pungent trash. I think this fits with what Jesus said:

Luke 14:

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

I don't think Jesus is negating the 4th commandment, as He elsewhere affirms:

Matthew 15:

4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

I think that Jesus wants us to love our fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers and sisters. The important thing here is the degree of love. Compared to one's love for God, these other loves should so pale in comparison, that they appear hate. Jesus is showing the degree to which we should regard the first and greatest commandment above the second:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

So, I ask myself as I write this... Is my love for the one God primary to my being? Do I love God with all my heart? Do I love God with all my soul? Do I love God with all my mind? Do I love God with all my strength? Do I love my neighbor as myself? Is my love for God so strong that the love for myself and others like hate in comparison? Do I hate my wife in comparison to the love I have for God?

I have no problem saying that linux sucks in comparison to God. Am I ready, though, to tell myself that I suck in comparison to the God of the universe?