It’s raining today. It’s 9am, but it’s still dark out. That’s pretty much just what happens this time of year in Fort Wayne, but it’s fitting that today is Shadow’s last day. It feels like a funeral day.
(Note: Google has no results for the phrase “feels like a funeral day.” It’s about time it did.)
Don’t you know by now why the chosen are few?
It’s harder to believe than not to
(Steve Taylor)
Steve Taylor wrote a song called “Harder To Believe Than Not To.” That song comes to my mind now and then, especially when people try to “sell” Christianity as a six-step process for life enrichment. The Apostle Paul implied that the Christian life is not one you would want to live if it weren’t for the fact that in Christ we have eternal life to look forward to (I Cor. 15:19).
So, what is it about being a Christian that is hard? Is it holding our tongue, being kind to others, helping others in need, and things like that? Sometimes those things can be hard, but I don’t think those things are what make the Christian life hard.
I want others to like me, so it’s not that hard to be kind to them. Sure, sometimes it’s hard to be kind to someone who is annoying or mean-spirited, but in general it’s not that hard to be kind.
I don’t like to see other people suffering, so it’s not that hard to offer help to people in need. Sure, sometimes I am too protective of “my time” or “my stuff,” and it can be hard to find motivation to help someone who continually makes poor choices, but for the most part, it’s not that hard to extend a hand to those in need.
High moral standards aren’t what set Christianity apart. Sometimes it’s hard to consistently maintain high moral standards, but that’s not what makes the Christian life hard. The world understands “good behavior.” The world understands the “golden rule.” What sets Christianity apart and makes the Christian life hard to live, is something that doesn’t occur to the world.
Repentance is hard
The hard thing about the Christian life is repentance. Repentance is hard. Not just confession. Confession isn’t that hard. Sure sometimes pride gets in the way of confession, but it’s not that hard to say, “sorry, I messed up.” It’s not that hard to say, “I see now that what I did was wrong.” “I knew it was wrong, and I did it anyway.” “I broke the rules.” The world understands confession. It also understands what is left unsaid after most confessions. “Now, cut me some slack.”
The hard thing is to not only confess, but then say, “I will change. I will not be like that anymore. I will live my life differently than I used to.” It’s hard for a couple of reasons. One, because often we don’t really want to change. We want to continue with what we know, avoiding the major failures, but not really changing our life. Second, because despite our best intentions we know that we’re likely to fail again. It’s hard to say, “I will stop doing that,” when we aren’t sure how long it will be before we do it again. The most challenging thing about repentance, the root beneath all areas of weakness in our lives, the thing that we are least willing to do, is relinquishing control of our lives. We want to be in control of our money, our happiness, our safety, our image, etc. The result of trying to be in control of our lives is greed, laziness, fear, pride, etc. We need to repent of living life on our own terms.
Ultimate Repentance: putting an end to the usurpation of our lives
The essence of sin and separation from God is living outside of God’s authority. When we sin, we live under our own authority (or so we think; we actually are enslaved to sin). We put ourselves on the throne of our lives. We aren’t actually ruling (we’ve actually turned ourselves into puppets), but we’ve lifted up an idol of ourselves, thinking that we know best. Repentance is acknowledging that our life belongs to God, and letting him take the reins.
The rich young ruler in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18 kept the commandments. But he wanted to keep living life on his terms. He wanted to keep his wealth. Jesus said that if we try to hang on to control of our lives, we will lose our life (Luke 17:33). The key to life is to turn our lives over to the rightful owner.
Giving up your life is hard.
Grace: the power to repent
The truth is, we won’t repent; we won’t relinquish control of our lives. Not of ourselves anyway. Everything in our flesh clings desperately to ownership of our lives. It is only through God’s grace that we can repent. Grace isn’t the overlooking of faults. Grace isn’t expressing appreciation of someone undeserving. Grace is the power to do what we could not do in and of ourselves.
In 1 Cor. 15:10, Paul makes it clear that grace doesn’t just free us from the past, it is the enabling power behind our new creation. Grace has an effect. It makes us into something we couldn’t be without grace. In 2 Cor. 9:8, Paul reminds us that the power to do good works is a result of grace. Grace isn’t just an idea or an emotion. It has legs. It does stuff in our lives. As Hebrews 4:16 says, grace helps us. It is by grace that we saved (Eph 2:8).
Grace makes it possible for us to do the hard work of repentance.
That’s right, I’m against abstinence-only sexual education.
That should make the liberals and “progressives” happy.
Before the conservatives and “obstinate, backward, Bible-thumping fundamentalists” (or whatever other labels are applied by the lib-progs) get all defensive, let me explain why.
First off, not only do I think “abstinence-only” programs should be eliminated, I also think the term “Sex Ed” should be eliminated. This implies that kids are being educated about the “noun,” the “act” of sex. Sexual education needs to be about the “adjective,” educating our children about everything that is sexual, every component of life that relates to our sexuality. (In this regard, I’m advocating for comprehensive sexual education, although not the way it’s presented by the lib-progs.)
Sexual education needs to be much more than just the mechanics of sexual intercourse, the pitfalls of STD’s and unexpected pregnancy, and how to minimize/avoid those pitfalls. Sexual education should teach healthy sexuality, which is a lot more than just the avoidance of disease and unwanted pregnancy. Sexual education should teach boys and girls how to be men and women, how to be husbands and wives, and how to be parents.
Sexual education should emphasize purity, not abstinence. What does it mean to be pure in your thoughts, in your actions when you’re alone, in the words that you say to others, in how you dress, and in how you relate to members of the opposite sex? These are the questions we need to help our children answer.
Does sexual purity involve abstinence? Certainly! But it’s much, much more than simply not having sex until married. (Speaking of which, the “stay pure until marriage” pledges have got to go too. What, once you’re married, purity goes out the window?)
Unfortunately, the lib-progs don’t like purity-based sexual education any better than abstinence-only. (If anything, they like it even less, because it dares to instill “values.”) Also, the proponents of abstinence-only programs really want the same things I’ve advocated.
My issue is really the terms of our engagement as Christians. Sometimes we try to “soften” our ideals to make them more palatable to the world.
“You don’t like our idea of ‘sexual purity’? Okay, how about ‘abstinence’?”
It’s a cheap substitute, and they’re not buying it.
You don’t like ‘creation’? Okay, how about ‘intelligent design’?”
Now the argument shifts from “is there a Creator?” to “is Intelligent Design repackaged Creationism?” I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile argument. But, that’s a topic for another time.
As Christians, we need to raise our standards. We need to define our terms appropriately, and make sure we’re pursuing the right goals. “Pro-life” is not just a positive spin on “anti-abortion.” It’s much bigger than that. “Purity” is not the same as “abstinence.” It’s much bigger than that. Let’s pursue purity, and health, and wholeness, and do so without reservation.
Christianity Today just released their list of the 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2008, and it reminded me of something I’ve been thinking about lately.
In fact, the article starts out asking something along the lines of the question I’ve been asking myself: “what’s a ‘redeeming’ film?” CT’s definition is “movies that include stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer; all of them have characters who experience redemption to some degree—some quite clearly, some more subtly. Some are ‘feel-good’ movies that leave a smile on your face; some are a bit more uncomfortable to watch. But the redemptive element is there in all of these films.”
I’ve been wondering if Christians are too quick to praise a story because it’s supposedly “redemptive.” Usually these stories involve someone who did some bad thing(s), and by the end of the story they do something good. Is that really enough? Is something like The Blues Brothers really a “tale of redemption”?
If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify spiritual redemption, isn’t it necessary that there be a redeemer who takes on the burden of past sin? Should we be satisfied with stories that imply someone can redeem themselves?
If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify the state of redemption, shouldn’t we expect an admission of sin and repentance from sin? Is it possible to redeem someone if they’re not a captive? If sin is denied, how can there be redemption? Is it really redemption if it doesn’t result in repentance?
Obviously, we shouldn’t expect a story to mirror every aspect of the gospel. It’s not necessary for a story to be an allegory for it to display truth. However, I’m wondering if we should raise the bar of what it takes to reflect biblical truth. I think we should be on the lookout for “feel good” movies that are only redemptive from a humanistic, man-centered viewpoint.
Several weeks ago I took a look at the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) as examples of the earliest Reformed confessional statements that still have widespread usage today. These documents were of Dutch origin, the first two written in the 1560’s, with increasing acceptance through the Netherlands and other parts of Europe. In the early 1600’s they were established as authoritative statements of Dutch Reformed Theology.
Although I didn’t mention it in my previous post, another early Reformed confession is the Second Helvetic Confession, also written in the 1560’s, by Henry Bullinger, with widespread acceptance throughout Switzerland and other germanic countries.
However, probably the most widely recognized doctrinal statements of the Protestant church are the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. These were developed in the 1640’s in England. The historical background (aside from coming about 80 years later) is rather different, due partly to the political environment at the time.
The break of the English church from the Roman church in the 1530’s was driven more by political desires than theological differences, but it created an environment that allowed the theological moorings of the church to veer away from Roman Catholicism. As the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer drafted the first doctrinal statements of the Anglican Church that distinguished the Church of England from the Roman church. It took a while for the English church to find its identity (during the reign of “Bloody” Mary I, it moved back towards Catholicism), but when Queen Elizabeth I came to power in 1558, she established a church that was entirely distinct from the Roman Catholic church. The Thirty-Nine Articles become the official doctrinal statement that defined the distinctive “middle path” (via media) of the Church of England, which was no longer Roman Catholic, but not as Lutheran or Reformed as the Reformation churches on the European continent.
With the break from the Roman Catholic church complete, the debates in the Church of England became less “Catholic vs. Reformed” and more “Episcopal vs. Puritan.” Episcopacy retained characteristics more similar to Catholicism, while Puritanism desired further reform, and favored presbyterian or congregational polity. The Puritan faction of Parliament attempted to enact further reforms to the Church, but found themselves stymied by King Charles I and his supporters. Finally in 1643 (without the assent of the king), Parliament appointed the Westminster Assembly to undertake the restructuring of the Church. Although it was intended to encompass episcopal influences as well as presbyterian, congregational, and others, the episcopalians did not participate, and the presbyterians were the majority.
Initially tasked with revising the Thirty-Nine Articles, the assignment was shifted to that of formulating the basis of a church that would be “nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed Churches abroad.” (The Protestant Church in Scotland, under the influence of John Knox, and the Scots Confession that he and others wrote in 1560, shared much in common with the theology of John Calvin.)
The resulting Westminster Confession, Shorter Catechism, and Larger Catechism (plus a few other documents) that the Assembly produced were adopted by the Church of England for a short period of time, being revoked in 1660. However, they were adopted by the Church of Scotland and remain the definitive doctrinal standards for many Presbyterian denominations and other Reformed groups.
The history and content of many Christian creeds has been well documented by church historian Philip Schaff in his work, Creeds of Christendom.