jump to navigation

Strengthen What is About to Die April 20, 2011

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

You must become alert!  And you must strengthen the ones who remain, who are waiting to die, for I have not found your works to be fulfilled before your God.

(Revelation 3:2)

The seven letters of Revelation contain some devastating rebukes for those in the churches of Asia. Out of the seven churches, two receive no commendation and only rebuke; the church in Sardis is one of those two and is the church that receives these words of condemnation: your works are wanting, so strengthen what is about to die.

As a pastor, I must confess that this is about the last charge that any of us would want to hear. I suspect that all of us yearn to serve a church that is thriving and healthy and filled with spiritual life, where everyone who attends is hungry to be taught the word of God, to be engaged in worship, and desires to apply God’s word to every area of their life. I suspect we all dream of serving a church where God’s people will come together and act like God’s people, loving one another and not deteriorating into bickering and where marriages would be seen as a permanent covenant and children would grow up in humble submission to their parents’ teachings. And we hunger for the church body that lives out their faith in such an infectious way that they are constantly pointing others to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

At the same time, when going through the various ministerial resource catalogues, we find book after book written by a pastor of some “mega-church” somewhere who has found a way to bring people into the church by droves. My point is not to disrespect or arbitrarily write off such movements, sometimes these books contain some useful insights, my point is simply to say that such is not the model of church that most pastors have been called to. A rural church pastor, for example, may not even have 5,000 people in his town, let alone that many people in his church. In fact, according to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, nearly 60% of protestant churches in America have fewer than 100 people in them on Sunday mornings.

In addition, many of these churches scattered across the countryside are predominately made up of older members where there may not be the energy, resources, or interest in many of the things that seem to attract the droves of people that may or may not be in their community to come to worship.

Again, my point is not to extol one model of worship service and put down another; those of you who have read my blogs for any amount of time know that I have some strong opinions in some of these areas, but that is not my objective today. My point is to reflect on the nobility of this call to strengthen what is about to die and to apply it in a way that we may not have otherwise considered. My purpose is also to honor those many pastors who may not have had ministries that the church culture would consider “glamorous,” but have faithfully served God’s people, often in churches that are dying whether due to age or due to an unwillingness to change in a way that communicates the truth of the gospel to a new generation. Many, many of God’s most faithful servants labor for decades in this context.

In some ways I have had the privilege of looking at this picture from both sides of the fence. For most of my pastoral ministry, I have served either full or part-time in small, rural churches dominated by septuagenarians and octogenarians. I have also spent time working amongst drug addicts and homeless, a group that may not be dying due to their age, but are just as near to death as the octogenarians due to the lifestyle they have chosen. I have also spent quite a bit of time doing nursing home ministry, again a group of people who are very much about to die. At the same time, I also spent several years as a chaplain of a Christian school working mostly with teenagers, a group who biologically are on the other end of the spectrum. They are filled with life and energy, but also bring with them a new body of issues and problems due to the frenetic lifestyle that many of them consider quite normal. It is true that the school is not the church, but life on life ministry takes place anywhere God places us and the relationships often bear a great deal of similarity.

All of that being said, I would like to apply this statement of Jesus’ in three ways. The first, in the context that it is given, and the latter two in perhaps a little different way, while at the same time trying not to do an injustice to the text.

In the context of the passage, Jesus is giving a rebuke to a church that has been unfaithful in its calling. Their works have a reputation for having life, he states in the previous verse, but they are really dead. The church puts on a good show and they do all of the right things, but what they do is simply going through the motions. Their good works are not done as a response to God’s saving work in their lives, but they are done out of a sense of misguided duty. Later on in the passage, Jesus speaks of those who have not soiled their garments, implying that most of the congregation members have given themselves either physically or spiritually to idolatry. In the midst of that, Jesus makes two statements: first, that he is going to destroy the church and second, that the pastor there needs to strengthen the church that is about to die.

There are many churches today that have fallen into this context. They are dominated by extremely influential people (often who have money) who decide what the church will and will not do, typically on the basis of preference and not on the basis of a heart committed to the Gospel ministry. Sadly, many pastors do not discourage this, either preaching in a way that keeps this dominant group satisfied or never rebuking the people for their actions. How often I have heard stories of ministry works being cut for the purpose of paying the pastor’s salary. It is a shame when the pastor becomes little more than a pawn in the game of church influence. Yet even in these churches, there is normally a remnant that is spiritually alive and who yearns to see the church break free from the bonds of the status quo and live. It is for those in this latter group that Jesus gives the command to strengthen the church. The institution is dying; it has a disease that is killing it from within like a cancer, but through the preaching of the Gospel and the teaching of God’s word, those healthy body parts are strengthened in the midst of a great and agonizing collapse. Though this is not the calling to which most seminary students dream of going, there is a nobility to such a call and such a call, more-so than a call to a vibrant church I would argue, that will teach the minister how to pray and how to confront sin in the lives of people. This is the call to which the minister of Sardis was called, and this is the call that many pastors have had to labor through as we have sought to do ministry in this fallen world.

The second context I have already alluded to. There are times when the death of a congregation is not so much about the indwelling sin a body has, but has to do with the increasing age of the body without a younger generation that will come and accept the baton of leadership. Again, my interest in this reflection is not to attack one style of service over another, but there is a reality that many young families would rather not go to their grandparents’ church, but want to take ownership of something uniquely theirs. And we must understand that the mindset works the other way as well; many older congregations would rather not have the noise and activity that comes with young families filling the sanctuary. I suppose that I could go on and on in that area, but that is not the aim of this reflection.

The aim of this reflection is to state that there is a huge need for ministry in these areas. Our older/dying churches are likely not the churches that will be building numbers rapidly through evangelistic ministries, etc… Typically they will dwindle slowly until there are so few that the church closes or until there are so few that the influence of the older generation ceases to be a driving force and the church experiences a transformation and rebirth led by a few younger families with a clear vision of what the church could be. Just because someone is older or dying does not mean that they no longer need pastoral care or that the pastoral care they get should be second-class. Nursing home ministry for pastors should not be an afterthought when it is convenient, but it ought to be something of primary concern. Men and women, as image bearers of God, deserve the dignity and grace of such care and they deserve to have the kind of pastoral teaching and care that strengthens them in their faith up until their dying day. My own hat is tipped in respect to those who serve as Hospice chaplains and whose entire calling is devoted toward strengthening those who are about to die.

The third application is a very broad one, though I would argue comes very close to the context of Jesus’ original letter to those in the church of Sardis. Many are lamenting the downfall of the church in western society. Europe is all but a spiritual wasteland, though there are some wonderful (but isolated) renewal movements at work (for example the one I am involved with in eastern Ukraine). America is following suit. Many in America still think of themselves as Christians, but given the state of our culture, comparatively few are living out their faith in all of life.

The question has often been posed to me as to whether I expect that God is bringing judgment on America or preparing us for revival. There is an old axiom that you hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Of course, in some ways, I do not think that judgment and revival are mutually exclusive ends. Does not God know how to judge the wicked while preserving his own (2 Peter 2:9-10)? With that being said, I do pray for revival, but I know that with true revival there must be true repentance and typically there is not repentance until the sin to which we cling hurts too much to keep it within us.

At the same time that I am praying for revival, my heart tells me that we (as a nation and as a church) are facing judgment. Typically the church is healthiest when it faces the greatest persecution (the seven churches in Asia are an excellent illustration of that). When persecution comes and it begins to cost us something to call ourselves Christians, then the “convenience christians” will fall away and the true church will find itself being refined under fire and made strong. And it is in the presence of such a reality that pastors need to hear these words to the church in Sardis all the more: strengthen what is about to die.

I suppose that there is always a temptation to spiritualize a text, and that is not what I mean to do here, but I think you will find that history bears out a remarkable truth. Just as there is a promise of death and resurrection for our physical bodies, there is a kind of death and resurrection for the localized Christian bodies here on earth. God always preserves for himself a remnant (Romans 11:4-5); that is God’s way. He may permit a church to close its doors, but in doing so, he raises up a new witness and testimony for himself. It is right for us to lament the death of a congregation just as we lament the death of a person, yet we still move on. Our God is the God of the living, not of the dead, he will not permit a dead church to play act at being alive indefinitely but will preserve a remnant. And we who have been called to the Gospel ministry will often find ourselves in the midst of such a context where we are commissioned by God’s word to strengthen that which is about to die. Doing so won’t get us a book deal with a big publisher, but faithfully laboring in such a call will receive a “well done my good and faithful servant.” I daresay that I do not need to explain which one is more valuable.

Ego Custodiam April 16, 2011

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The fourth of the relational statements that the early church fathers made reflected God’s relationship to the church. “I will guard them,” says God of his people. At first, we might be inclined to think that this statement could be fuller or more involved. We might expect God to say Ego Redimam (“I will redeem”) or Ego Amabo (“I will love”) or even Ego Sanctificabo (“I will sanctify them” or “I will make them holy”). At the same time, if we explore this idea of guarding something, we can argue that it contains at least an element of each of these statements. One guards those things that they love or hold to be valuable and one must have something in one’s possession to guard it, thus God redeems his people from the sin that once held us captive. Also, those things that we guard and cherish, we choose to refine, removing those imperfections that we can find in the object of our affection. Thus the language of Ego Custodiam includes all of the above comments.

So, why does God choose to guard his church? Certainly it must not be assumed that God places his affections upon us because of who we are or because of what we have done. All of our works, we must affirm like the Apostle Paul, are naught but dung (Philippians 3:8). No, he places his affections upon us because of whose we are—his own—and as a revelation of his glory. What we all deserve is eternal condemnation because of our sins and the guilt of sin we have inherited from our forefathers, yet he has chosen us since before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), before we had done anything good or bad (Romans 9:11), and sent his Son to pay the price to redeem us from our just judgment, substituting himself in our place (2 Corinthians 5:21). As the value of an item is based on the price that one is willing to pay for it, our value to God is without measure, for his Son, Jesus, being eternal God, paid an eternal price for our souls. And because of that price paid, he will never let one of his own slip from between his fingers (John 10:28-30).

Beyond redemption is the idea of his guardianship. God does not save us to leave us saved but to our own devices. No, God preserves us and guides us through life. The Psalmist writes of God’s guardianship:

“For his angels he will command regarding you— 

To guard you in all of your ways.”

(Psalm 91:11)

The picture here is self explanatory; God is a jealous God (Deuteronomy 5:9) and he will not share us with any other. We are guarded, kept, and held secure for this great purpose and he will not revoke his calling upon us (Romans 11:29). Indeed, nothing on earth or in heaven can separate us from the love that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39).

But what does that mean for us? It means that there is no reason for us to despair. How often we go through life and feel as if we are standing as one person against a host of enemies and that the world’s sole goal is to tear apart the things that we have sought to bring together. How often we feel lost, confused, and abandoned when confronted by tragedy in this world. How often we feel as if God is not listening to or responding to our prayers. How often chaos seems to dominate our lives and the world around us. Yet, all of these perceptions miss the mark. Because our hearts are deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9) and from our hearts flow all sorts of vain imaginations and sin (Mark 7:20-23), we miss the glory that God has prepared for us even in the challenges of this world (1 Corinthians 2:8-9).

You see, we often get so wrapped up in the events of the moment that we forget that we do not see the big picture. Indeed, even when we begin to try and focus on the big picture of God’s redemptive history, because we are finite and grounded in this world, we still do not see with the scope and breadth that our Lord sees it. Indeed, compared to the immensity of God’s vision, our vision is minuscule to be generous. The sad thing is how often we take our minuscule vision as the whole of God’s vision and then wonder why God is permitting things to take place, all-the-while questioning his character and his goodness. There is none like our God (Psalm 77:13) who calls us not to be anxious about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34), but instead to cast all of our cares before him because he cares for us (1 Peter 5:7).

Reflect on what God speaks through the psalmist as Psalm 91 is brought to a close:

“Because he clings to me in devotion, I will save him;

I will make him untouchable because he knows my name.

When he calls me I will answer him,

With him, I will be in times of distress.

I will rescue him and honor him.

With long days I will satisfy him,

I will reveal myself to him in my salvation.”

(Psalm 91:14-16)


Ego Eripiam April 05, 2011

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

The third of our statements deals with the relationship of Satan toward believers—“I will snatch them” or “I will steal them away.” While we would affirm in our theology that the believer is held by Christ and can never be separated from his hand (John 6:37; 10:28; Romans 8:37-39), the reality of Satan’s eventual failure does not dissuade him from this attempt to make us stumble and fall away from our Lord and master. He is a persistent foe. This phrase could be embellished with some of the means that our enemy employs: Ego Territabo (“I will intimidate”) or Ego Onerabo (“I will weary” or “I will oppress”).

In contrast to Jesus, who gives life and life abundant (John 10:10), but the thief, which is Satan, only comes to kill and destroy. He comes to undermine the work of the fellowship and to frustrate our labors. Though he knows he cannot win, he strives toward that end. Peter describes him as a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8) seeking someone to devour. Jesus describes him as a wolf, seeking to prey upon the weak sheep (John 10:12). John describes him as a dragon who deceives the world and seeks to lash out and destroy the followers of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:9,17).

So, what is our response to this kind of wild enemy. Peter says that we are to be sober-minded and watchful. Being sober-minded means that one’s mind must be clear from distractions and from all of those things that would flatter us so as to lead us astray. As the man who is drunk acts in a way that is both unwise and unlike his character, so the man who is sober-minded should act in a spirit of wisdom and in a way that is consistent with the Godly character that the Spirit has instilled in us. It is to remain self-controlled even in situations where threat arises.

And to be aware of those threats, we must be watchful. This is a military term reflecting the guard that we must have on the wall to warn us of the temptation of sin (Ezekiel 3:16-21). We are not to be like the ostrich burying its head in the sand. We must not be found asleep at the post. The Apostle Paul even uses this term of watchfulness as an analogy of being alive (1 Thessalonians 5:10), a reminder that life and death are the matters with which we are dealing; a serious reminder indeed, particularly in a world that rarely takes seriously the warnings that scripture sets before us.

Though Harry Houdini may not be a model example of Christian faith (his heritage was Jewish), he is an example of what it means to be sober-minded and watchful as a Christian. Many of his stunts, from the perspective of an outside observer, were death-defying, reckless, and foolish. Yet, when you realize that Houdini never performed a stunt that had not been planned out and rehearsed many times with many safeguards in place, you must confess that reckless is not a term that can be properly applied. From the perspective of a non-Christian, sometimes the work that Christians do seems equally reckless and foolish. Christians regularly go and minister to people in plague infested areas knowing that they too might contract the disease, but doing so for the sake of the Gospel. My favorite missionary, John Paton, went to Tana Island in the New Hebrides which was populated by several cannibal tribes and his life was at constant risk. Yet, he went anyway. I have worked with inner-city drug addicts in a place where at one time the shelter’s director was stabbed by a man staying there. The Christian goes, though, because the Christian understands that the call of God is more important than the risks. At the same time, the Christian goes knowing the risks that are present and does not ever go until one has bathed himself in prayer and sought the prayers of others. Like Houdini, there are risks certainly, but the risks are approached in sober preparation.

The Devil seeks to snatch you out of the hand of God. That cannot be done, but that does not mean that the resultant tug-o-war on your life will always be a pleasant thing. At the same time, in knowing who the victor will be, it enables you to stretch beyond your limits and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Given our fallen and sinful state, there is a great deal of stretching left to be done to prepare us for God’s heaven—what are we waiting for; step into the call that God has placed upon your life.

Ego Decipiam March 24, 2011

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

While the pastor must confess that he will fail his flock, the world makes a different profession. The world says, “I will deceive them” or “I will ensnare them.” How much more sinister is this response than the one that went before, yet how often has this been our experience. The world promises us wealth and success if we just compromise this or that set of morals—which at first seems small, but like a drug, it demands more and more and more. At first it might take the form of justifying a little lie, then it may grow into envy coveting either the wealth or the success of another. Gradually it progresses from there onward. We end up make idols of the things of this world and in doing so, we compromise God’s law as a whole.

Jesus speaks of the cares of the age and the deception of riches as that which chokes the Word of God in our lives (Matthew 13:22). The cares of life often fill our days and rob us of sleep. We pretend that we are just trying to be responsible citizens and parents who provide for our families, but how often those words, while well intentioned, are placed in our mouths not by the Holy Spirit, but by those who are of this world. Yet this world and the things therein are passing away (1 John 2:17). While sounding noble, such cares betray a lack of reliance upon the promises of God to provide for his children.

The world masquerades its temptations as love and care for us, while in reality, the world hates us and the one we serve (John 15:19). Like a treacherous counselor, the world pretends to be our ally, all the while manipulating our thoughts and actions toward sedition against the great King and High Priest, Jesus Christ. Our ego is flattered and our lusts are excused. These are the ways of this world.

How essential it is for a person to keep their guard up against such treachery. The Apostle Paul warns us to be careful that no one takes us captive through vain or empty deceit (Colossians 2:8) and the author of Hebrews warns against the hardening that comes through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13). It is likely, though, that Paul offers the strongest warning on this matter to the church in Thessolanica when he warns that with the coming of Satan’s influence and that the reason we are ultimately deceived is because we have refused to love the Truth and in turn, rejected salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). How often we are guilty of desiring the so-called comforts of the world that we choose to allow ourselves to be deceived, yet do not consider this willful deception to be a rejection of God’s Truth!

How do we protect ourselves from this deception? The psalmist sets 8 principles before us in the second stanza of Psalm 119.

    • We must guard our way according to God’s word (Psalm 119:9)
    • We must seek God with our whole heart (Psalm 119:10)
    • We must store up God’s word in our heart (Psalm 119:11)
    • We must seek to learn God’s statutes (Psalm 119:12)
    • We must declare to others the law of God (Psalm 119:13)
    • We must delight in the testimony of God and in his ways (Psalm 119:14)
    • We must meditate on God’s precepts (Psalm 119:15)
    • We must delight in the law of God (Psalm 119:16)

Seek these things, the Psalmist insists, and you will guard the way that is before you. Deception is all around; do not fall prey to the wiles of the devil, but indeed, guard yourself with the whole armor of God which he has given to you (Ephesians 6:11).

Ego Deficiam March 19, 2011

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
6 comments

“I will fail them.” The early church fathers reflected on the relationships between pastors, the world, satan, and the church flock and developed a series of statements that described each relationship. The first of these statements was that of the pastor with regard to his people: Ego Deficiam (I will fail).

At first, our response might be to think that this is a rather pessimistic view of the relationship between shepherd and flock. How is it that a pastor could go into his role with the assumption that he will fail his people? As churches, do we want to hire a pastor who says up front, “Oh, by the way, I will fail you.” It is food for thought.

There are two aspects of this statement, that we must understand. The first is the “I.” I will fail you. I will fail as your pastor, as your counselor, and as your friend. I will fail as a husband and as a father. I will fail as an employee and as a representative of the church in the community. I will fail. Yet, this is not a pessimistic view, but a realistic view (as well as a Biblical one). For while I will fail you; Christ will not do so. Christ will gloriously succeed not because of my efforts, but in spite of my best efforts. And when I serve not in my own strength, but in the strength of Christ, then glorious things will happen—not for my praise, but for God’s.

This is the reason that a pastor (all Christians really) must be a man of prayer. And not just a prayer in the morning or evening, but a pastor must be a man of constant prayer through the day. One of the reasons that I like Nehemiah is because he exemplifies this. Not only are there formal and structured prayers recorded coming off of his lips, but also he lifts up short little “bullet prayers” throughout the day as he is making decisions. Those of you who know me or who have sat under me teaching on Nehemiah know that I am not overly fond of his model as a manager of people (even though lots of books present him that way); read Nehemiah 13:23-27 and ask yourself if you want a governor or office manager who leads in this fashion☺. I do believe, though, he provides us with a good example of perpetual prayer, seeking God’s wisdom and strength.

The second aspect that we must understand is that the fact that someone fails is not nearly as important as what someone does as a result of that failure. The true humility of a man will always present itself in failures, not in successes. If a person covers up their failures or seeks to shift blame to others, then the person’s character is such that you ought not have him as shepherd. If he is humble, repentant, and takes responsibility for his actions, then that is a man you want to lead you. The Gospel is the good news of God reconciling us poor and spiritually bankrupt sinners to himself; we are all in the same boat together within the church—wretches who have been redeemed by grace. Why should we expect our pastor of not being a sinner and thus a failure in God’s economy?

Sadly, we often create a standard that a pastor cannot hope to live up to and then make him feel like he has to hide his sin to keep up appearances. Yet, if the pastor is living hypocritically, why are we surprised when the members of our congregations live hypocritically? Our goal must be very different. We must endeavor to create a culture of honesty and transparency within our church community that is seasoned with abundant grace. Then, when one fails, the community comes together to work toward grace-filled reconciliation. It must be said, that there are some failures that must, by their very nature, remove a man from the office of shepherd, but not that ought to remove him from the church.

In discussions and counseling sessions with members of my congregation, one of the things that I have said over and over is: “We are going to make mistakes; we are going to mess things up.” The fact is, we are fallen and sinful and despite the grace we have been shown by Christ, we will not always show the grace we ought to show. At the same time, what I have told people is that when we mess up, if you let us know, we will fix it.

Indeed, I will fail you. But in Christ, I will repent and strive to make it right.

Evidence for the Historical Jesus February 16, 2010

Posted by preacherwin in Apologetics, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Recently, I watched a debate where a critic of Christianity made the statement that there was no historical evidence to support the Jesus of the Bible that existed in Jewish literature.  The Christian in the debate made a tolerable answer, but I felt that he had missed a major point of the argument.  In this essay, I would like to do two things.  First, I would like to pose the question as to just what does constitute historical evidence and second, what historical evidence is there in the world?

To begin with, we need to ask what constitutes “historical evidence” before we can honestly set evidence on the table for discussion.  The Historical Method, which is the method used by historians to relate the history of peoples, events, and cultures can be summarized by a series of principles[1]:

  1. Archaeological Relics are the most reliable witnesses to an event because they were actually present at the time the event took place.
  2. Primary source material is the most reliable witness, followed by secondary sources and then tertiary sources, etc…
  3. The more independent sources testify to an account, the more credible the account becomes.
  4. When looking at source data, one must take into account the sympathies, biases, and agenda of the author.
  5. The less biased a witness is, the more credible the witness.

These are the criteria of those who practice what is called the “Historical Critical” method, which is dominant in historical evaluation today.

In light of the above criteria, I would begin by suggesting that the Biblical text itself satisfies all of the above requirements to be considered reliable primary source data of the most credible degree.  Manuscript evidence of the Bible dates back to the first century AD, during the lifetime of some of the original 12 Apostles.  It is primary source data in that it records first-hand accounts of the life, the works, the teachings, the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  These early witnesses are also testified to by first and second century manuscripts, themselves constituting either primary or secondary witnesses.  Given the large amount of independent sources that corroborate the Biblical account, the biases can be recognized as minimal.  In additional, since all of the Biblical writers, save perhaps Luke, were Jewish, even the New Testament counts as primary Jewish source evidence.  Those who reject the Bible because of its religious nature have allowed their own biases to cause them to be inconsistent in their methodology.  Yet, in addition to the primary source material contained in the Bible, we additionally have references like the following to support the life and ministry of Jesus Christ:

  • Josephus (a Jewish historian in the Roman court) in Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3 mentions Jesus as “a wise man” and a doer of “wonderful works.”  Though this text is debated, here Josephus also attributes Jesus as a teacher and Christ who was executed.
  • In Book 20, Chapter 9 of Antiquities, Josephus also mentions James as the brother of Jesus “who was called Christ.”
  • Tacitus (a late 1st century Roman Historian) in his Annals 15.44 mentions “Christus” as the namesake of the Christians and that this Christus was executed in Judea during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
  • Thallus (a Roman historian writing in the mid first century) records an unusual eclipse as well as an earthquake during the time of Passover in Judea.  The eclipse was unusual because Passover was held at the time of the full moon where eclipses do not take place naturally.
  • The Babylonian Talmud (Hebraic tradition and commentary) records that on the eve of Passover “Jeshu” was hanged.  Jeshu is a Jewish name for Jesus.
  • Mara Bar-Sarapion (a Stoic Philosopher in the mid to late 1st century AD from Syria wrote the following in a letter to his son: “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given”

It should be noted that this list contains only a small sampling of the extra-Biblical evidence to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.  We have not begun to talk about some of the archaeological evidence like the “James Ossuary.”  We also have deliberately kept Christian writers out of the discussion, though there are many.  The bottom line is that there is an abundance of evidence to support the existence of the Historical Jesus—even in the Jewish writings.  If we were to include Christian writings, layers upon layers of textual evidence would be added. Ultimately, to deny the historicity of Christ is like trying articulate a new scientific law without ever having taken the time to test it in the lab; it is intellectually dishonest.  Those who deny the Bible as Historical evidence are not being honest with their methodology and the evidence that is available.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method — footnote 1: Thurén, Torsten. (1997). Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Does Your Location Affect Your Religion? December 30, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Apologetics, Reality Check, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Recently, I heard a challenge to Christianity that was worded like this:  “The only reason you identify yourself as Christian is because you were born in America; if you had been born in Iraq, you would be Muslim and if you had been born in northern India, you would be Hindu—religion is nothing more than a cultural expression of morality.”  The person making the challenge was Richard Dawkins, a popular atheist in our culture today.  Though I had not heard that objection worded in the same basic way, I have heard this objection of Christianity before, and thought that I would like to pose a response from two perspectives.

The first perspective is purely a practical one, for I know that there are many nominal Christian parents that are essentially banking on this principle, hoping that their children will remain Christian (at least in name), while never truly training their children up in the faith.  They think that of course, America is a Christian nation, so of course, my children will remain Christians all of their life.  This not only exposes a faulty understanding of Christianity (as I will mention below), but it is a dangerous assumption, for America is becoming more and more of a secular, atheistic nation, and not a Christian one.  Thus, some are estimating that as many as 80% of teenagers leave the church when they hit their college years, often without returning.  Don’t get me wrong, many of them still think of themselves as Christian, but their Christianity has no bearing on the way they live their lives and for all practical purposes, they are secular humanists in practice and thought.

Furthermore, many of these children will openly reject Christianity because they see how self-serving, jaded, lazy, and corrupt so many churches have become.  Many embrace the atheism of their college professors, but others are embracing false religions like Islam because they are attracted to the self-discipline and rigid lifestyle that such religions offer.  We should not need to be reminded that one of the reasons that the Byzantine empire fell so easily to the Muslim expansion was due to the corruption and self-seeking nature of the church—people saw its weaknesses and rejected it as diseased and dying.  Such an observation has been made of much of the church in America.  Thus, it is not enough that we are actively pursuing the Christian faith, it is essential for us to recognize that our children must be actively pursuing the Christian faith as well.

That is the purely practical perspective, now for the theological one…  While many religions may very well be simply cultural expressions of morality, Christianity, by definition, is different.  For in Christ, we are called “new creations” (2 Corinthians 5:17)—in other words, we are changed from the outside in.  Christianity is not a mere self-help program, it is a total change of lifestyle that can only be accomplished if one is supernaturally changed by God—we refer to this as being “born again” (John 3:3).  This change is impossible to do for oneself, but God must effectively draw us to Christ as well (John 6:44).  God draws us from the world, God gives us new life, and God makes us a new creation.  This is more than mere morality, it is transformation.  And, it is a transformation that takes place all over the world, even in countries where you can be put to death for claiming Christ as Lord and Savior.

The sad thing is that too many Christians simply treat Christianity as a self-help program, and when that happens, they do not live like new creations and Christianity becomes nothing more than a social norm—a norm that is quickly being redefined in America.

What is Truth? December 28, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Apologetics, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

“Sanctify them in the Truth; Your Word is Truth.”

(John 17:17)

“Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’  And saying this, he again went outside to the Jews and said to them, ‘I do not find any ground for a complaint with him.’”

(John 18:38)

“Your righteousness is righteous forever!

And your law is truth.”

(Psalm 119:142)

“The fullness of your word is truth;

everlasting is the judgment of your righteousness.”

(Psalm 119:160)

“And the woman said to Elijah, ‘And now this I know, that you are a man of God and the Word of Yahweh in your mouth is Truth.’”

(1 Kings 17:24)

As we reflect on the nature of God’s word being truth, it is worthwhile for us to ask the question that Pilate rhetorically asked, that is, “what is truth?”  Indeed, this is a question that many have asked through history and many are yet asking today in our own culture.  So, what is truth?  The English word for truth comes from the Germanic word, “true,” which essentially refers to something that is in accordance with reality.

This raises an interesting question, because the post-modern thinker will argue that truth is relative to context.  In contrast, older thinkers have asserted that there is such a thing as absolute truth—something that is true no matter who or where you are.  What is very interesting about this is the implication for reality.  In other words, what defines reality—the individual or reality itself?  If, as the postmodern suggests, truth is relative to one’s context, and truth is what is in accordance with reality, then the post modern is suggesting that reality is defined by the individual, her perceptions, and perhaps even his context.  Yet, gravity affects everyone on earth in the same basic way; fire will burn you if you put your hand in it regardless of what you might prefer, and gasoline will ignite if you drop a burning match into it no matter what your perception might be.  So, if scientific truth can be considered absolute, then why not moral truth also?

For truth to be universal, it must appeal to an outside absolute force.  Even what we refer to as the laws of nature must appeal to an outside force as these “laws” are simply descriptive of already exists—in other words, the book will still fall to the ground if the shelf breaks regardless of whether we have defined and articulated the law of gravity.  The law simply describes what takes place.  In terms of the appeal, one seems to have two basic choices.  If one is a naturalist (one who rejects the supernatural, holding that all things are part of the natural order), one must appeal to the structure of nature as a whole.  Such a person would hold that the laws of nature “are” simply because of the structure of the whole of Nature.  The obvious problem with this view is that it assumes an undersigned natural system, which is remarkably improbable and statistically impossible if one would calculate the likelihood of an entire natural system developing “by unguided forces” into the highly structured and predictable universe that we currently observe.  Interestingly enough, science is predicated on the assumption that we live in a predictable universe, yet the only way to reasonably have a predictable universe is through a supernatural design.

The naturalist might argue that the complexity of nature is due to a very simple, overarching rule that then orders the development of all things, thus creating what appears to be a statistically impossible complexity from a very simple rule that is much more probable.  Of course, were this the case, one would expect to be able to find a Grand Unified Theory of science that can explain all things—something that does not exist and has frustrated the brightest minds for many years.  In addition, the complexity of such models is self-defeating, because for the statistics to work in the naturalists favor, the model must be extremely simple and basic, but with the ability to bring forth tremendous complexity.  Yet again, were such a simple principle to have the capacity to bring forth the unimaginable complexity of our universe that we see, it seems that such would again be evidence of design.

With that being said, if one is a naturalist, rejecting anything that is outside of the natural order, one must reject any notion of an absolute morality—all is determined by one’s cultural context.  Yet, if one adapts this view, how is it that anyone can condemn the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews during WWII, the American treatment of slaves in the 19th century, and the Communist Chinese abuses of power when it comes to human rights?  According to consistent naturalism, each of these should be judged not on absolute standards, but according to their own context—a context in each case that allowed for such abuses (and in the case of China, still allows such abuses).  David Hume, the naturalistic philosopher of the 18th century, correctly argued that “is” cannot give rise to “ought”—this is referred to as “Hume’s Guillotine.”  In other words, what Hume was arguing was that there are some things in nature that can be objectively demonstrated to be true (gravity for example).  Yet, ought is not a brute fact, but is a moral argument and one is not able to derive a moral argument from what is observed in nature. Hume recognized that we use the word, “ought,” he argued that this word was simply a convention of habit that contained no real meaning. Yet, while the naturalist’s arguments undermine his ability to make “ought” arguments, they will be quick to tell us that we “ought” to save the whales, that we “ought” to conserve energy an reduce our carbon footprint, and that we “ought” to not chop down trees in the rainforests.  As an atheist once said to me, “thank God for inconsistent naturalists…”  Such is true, because were it not for inconsistent naturalists, this world would be a dangerous place with everyone determining their own morality given their own context and preferences.  Indeed, there would no longer be a king in the land and every man would do what was right in their own eyes.

If, though, we admit design and the reality of a supernatural designer, then we have not only an explanation for the complexity of creation, but we also have a basis for a universal morality, so long as the nature of this designer is such that he would impose a sense of morality upon his creatures.  The Deists, for example, have a god that is hands-off and is considered so far removed from the created order that he would impose nothing upon it.  One might suggest that there is still a possibility of an absolute morality with this kind of God (on the basis of his perfect character), but who can know this kind of God and how can we know his character if he will not condescend to us to reveal himself?  It is only when you come to the Judeo-Christian God that you have a God who condescends to humanity to reveal himself in a trustworthy way, recognizing that while the god of the Muslims is said to condescend to his people, he veils himself from even from his own and is known to deceive others only to suit his own purposes.  Similarly, while the God of the Jews is the same God that the Christians have, because Jesus is the fullness of the revelation of the invisible God, the Jews do not have the complete revelation of the transcendent, creator God.  Thus, as Christians, we do claim that morality is absolute, moreover, we would argue that the absolute nature God’s morality is seen even in the moral codes of various pagan cultures.

So we are back to our original question, what is truth?  If there is clearly such a thing as objective truth when it comes to morality, it follows that there is objective truth to other areas so long as we appeal to the same authoritative source (God).  And how has God revealed himself to us?  He revealed himself in the Bible, in the 66 inspired books covering Genesis through Revelation.  This, of course, is the consistent testimony of scripture—that whatever God speaks is truth.  The question we must ask is twofold.  First, if God’s word is the source of objective and absolute truth, why is it that we tend to spend so little time reading and studying it?  Shouldn’t we pursue Truth with all of our strength?  How sad it is that so many professing Christians wander around wondering what truth is when they have been given the truth in God’s word.  How sad it is that so many professing Christians are so timid when the truth is challenged by unbelievers—because we have the truth, we should be confident that what we stand upon will not shake, yet that which the unbeliever stands upon is made on a foundation of sand and will fall.

The second question that we are left with is what are the ramifications of believing or rejecting this truth that God offers.  The Apostle John records some strong words in answer to this question.  Jesus, we are told, speaks the word of God (the words of absolute Truth), and the one who believes (or places his trust in) Jesus (the source of Truth) is given eternal life.  In turn, when one rejects Christ, one rejects the Truth and in turn has sealed his fate, condemning himself to eternal perdition.  The wrath of God will remain upon his head.  Beloved, there is a stark contrast between these two states, which side of the matter will you be on?  Will you accept or reject the absolute Truth of scripture?  This does not permit you to pick some and reject other aspects, you must accept the word of God in toto!  Truth works that way—it either is or it is not, there is no middle ground.  Which will you choose?  And will you seek to live like it—applying the Truth of God to every aspect of your life.

“The one who comes from above is above everything.  The one that is from the earth is from the earth and speaks from the earth; but the one who comes from heaven is above everything.  The one who has seen and who has heard testifies to these things, but no one received his testimony.  The one who receives his testimony acknowledges that God is true.  For he who God sent speaks the words of God; indeed, he gives the Spirit without measure.  The Father loves the Son and he has given everything into his hand.  The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who disobeys the Son will not see life and the wrath of God remains over him.”

(John 3:31-36)

An Urgency of the Reforms of Church and Society: Calvin 500 September 19, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

This year marked the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, the theologian of the Reformation.  While Luther’s preaching sparked the fires of reform, it was Calvin that God had raised up to articulate the theology of those who protested against the Roman Catholic Church.  To commemorate what God did through Calvin, there are conferences that have taken place all over the globe.  I was given the great privilege of speaking at the international pastors’ conference held in Moscow.  I was one of three representatives from the USA, joined by representatives from Holland, South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, to encourage the Russian Reformed pastors.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the Roman Catholic Church was oppressing the Reformers, Russia opened its doors to the Protestant refugees.  Since the Russian Orthodox Church had already fought their battles with the Roman Catholic Church, they took the attitude that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Thus, many Calvinistic Christians found their homes in Russia.  These Christians not only brought their faith with them, but also quite a lot of technology from the west.

When Peter the Great began modernizing Russia in the late seventeenth century, it was the Calvinists he turned to for support.  The Russian Orthodox Church preferred the “old ways,” but these Russian protestants proved to be very progressive and built Peter the Great’s navy, army, and artillery as well as much of the Russian infrastructure to support the modernization of the nation.  These protestants, along with Peter’s vision for a modern Russia, are responsible for making the nation a European power.

When the Bolsheviks revolted in the beginning of the 20th century, the Calvinists in Russia supported the monarchy, thus, when the Communists took over, the Reformed Christians were systematically eliminated.  When “Perestroika” took place in the late 1980s, the Protestants rushed back into Russia to evangelize and at first were largely successful. As a result, people were leaving the Russian Orthodox Church at a rapid pace; something that the Russian Orthodox leaders did not much care for.  Thus, they began pressuring the government to restrict the ability of the Protestants to meet and organize.

A year ago, one of the Russian pastors, who was connected with a Reformed movement from South Korea, decided to separate from the liberals in his denomination and re-form a conservative and evangelical church from the “dry bones” of the older Russian Reformed church.  He was joined by three other pastors, and the four of them formed the Russian Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church.  One year later, they had grown to nine churches scattered around the greater Moscow area.  The primary purpose of this conference was to encourage and help equip these nine pastors to continue to build as God would allow them.  As a result of the conference, three churches in St. Petersburg, who were in a similar situation, decided to join the other nine in fellowship.  In addition, the two representatives from Holland were there to determine the possibility of fraternal relations between their denomination (a conservative sect in the Dutch Reformed Church) and this new Russian denomination—something that seemed to go very well.

The Russian churches are still in need of a lot of prayer as they face a great deal of obstacles—some that we face and others that we are not currently facing (though may in time).  It was a privilege for me to represent Westminster Presbyterian Church, Milton as well as the PCA to these pastors.  Seeds have been planted, I am excited to see what our Lord will do with them in the years to come.  Please commit Pastor Ten and this infant denomination to your prayers.

-Pastor Win

Two Group Pictures from the Convention

100_0414

100_0423

Defending Job’s Wife July 09, 2009

Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Recently, I read an article that really came down hard on Job’s wife because of the statement that she makes to her husband, to “curse God and die.”  The author went as far as to suggest that this was a woman who clearly had no faith and was a blasphemer because of the statement that she made and her unwillingness to follow her husband’s example.  Granted, Job’s wife does not follow her husband’s example, but that being said, we need to be very careful about making judgments about her character and about her faith.

All too often, when folks come to texts like these, the matter of primary concern is, “What is the doctrine in question?” or “What moral or ethical principle can I learn?”  And while texts like this do raise moral and ethical questions, when we look to answer these questions first, we oftentimes lose the people who are living out the event.  Job and his wife are not fictional or allegorical characters, but they are real, historical people—human beings like you and me.  They come complete with worries and fears, good days and bad days.  They struggle with the same kind of struggles that you or I would struggle with, and Job’s wife, more-so than others in the narrative, needs to be looked at through this lens.  We need to see her humanity and her hurt and as a result, we need to discuss her character flaws with compassion and not analytical scorn.

Look to other characters in scripture that have committed equally heinous sins.  Look to King David who had his friend murdered to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba.  Look at Peter who denied our Lord three times and then later, after Pentecost, still falls into fear of the Judaizers and had to be rebuked by Paul, “to his face.”  Look at Abram and Sarai who doubted God’s promise and tried to force God’s hand through Hagar.  Look at God’s people through history and their stumbles and failures, their doubts and their fears, and when we look at Job’s wife in this light, we see her very differently.  Granted, we never see her recanting her statement, but she is restored in the end alongside of her husband.  Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are strongly rebuked in the end; Job’s wife is not.

Remember something as well, it is not just Job that is going through this trial, but Job’s wife is going through the testing and trial as well.  Are not Job’s children also the children of his wife?  Are not the lands, the wealth, and the property of Job also the lands, wealth, and property of his wife?  Thus, in all these things, she has lost and suffered and hurt and grieved right alongside of Job—and been faithful, according to the account.  Now, though, she sees the hand of trial turn upon her husband to the point where he is reduced to a wretched state, covered with sores and scraping himself with pottery shards, sitting in ashes.  And it is here, at this point, that she breaks down and makes the comment that is recorded above.

Let me pose the question, how many confessing Christians have you known through the years who have come to this point?  How many Christians have sought euthanasia for a loved one to end their suffering?  Is this not the same thing as what Job’s wife is advocating?  How many confessing Christians have been so overwhelmed by the grief over the loss or suffering of a loved one, that they have railed against God in anger and rage?  Even many of the theological giants have gone through such crises—C.S. Lewis does us the favor of allowing us to see his inner doubts and fears about God as he watched his wife, Joy, wither and die of bone cancer.  Friends, if you do not see her grief in these matters, you will interpret her badly, but when you see her grief you will see that these are not the words of a faithless blasphemer, but are the words of a fearful, hurting believer who is not able to bear what she sees taking place in the body of her husband.

The beauty of this whole event, and of our own lives when we face such trials, is that God is bigger than our grief.  He is gracious in our doubts and merciful to us even in our anger.  And sometimes we need to be brought by God to that point where we can just stop and be still, finding peace in Him—even in the midst of our lack of understanding.  He is like a loving Father that once he has loved and held his child through a fit of rage, sits calmly with them and comforts that child in the wake of the fit.  The beauty, loved ones, is that we don’t need to understand, simply trust that God understands and will work even the most horrendous things for our well-being.  Thus, the next time you are ready to condemn Job’s wife, remember that she is human and remember that you are too; that ought to show her in a different light.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers