The Assembly Of A Bible Study: There is no room for creative liberty!

I had recently wrote an article, located here, where I discussed that although there is no right or wrong time to spend time studying God's word there are times when it is unwise to study Scripture. One such time is when your fatigued and frustrated from the stresses of the day. The reason for this in order to glean the message that God has for us in his word one has to take into account both its historical and philosophical influences. The Bible is a theological book but its theology is not written in a vacuum; it has a historical backdrop and it provides its own philosophy so to understand its theology. This means that Scripture isn't merely a theological book that contains some historical facts and provides various ways to look at various aspects of life - it is a historical, theological and philosophical book. And in order to recognize how these academic studies are knitted together one has to be fully alert in both mind, heart and body.

Another point to consider is that Scripture has an overall message and various acute messages for the Christian to learn and represent. In the aforementioned article, I alluded to the fact that the natural instinct of the human mind is to gravitate to its own form of thinking, a form that is corrupted by sin. Therefore one hard task that the Christian has to overcome is to let the Bible teach them and not have them use the Bible to teach their perspective. Scripture has specific morals and perspectives on various aspects of life; such aspects include views on the nature of right and wrong, various sexual practices, relationships between people in various social roles such as government officials, employers, teachers, friends, family and strangers. Scripture also teaches about the nature of God and how he responds to human sin and obedience and what constitutes as sinful and obedience. It is important to interpret its teachings through its own philosophy instead of the various philosophies adopted by sinful mindset, (cf. Colossians 2:8). In some when Studying Scripture there is no room for creative liberty.

In the article alluded to above I indicated that I have recently gotten into assembling plastic model vehicles and the lessons I learned through the assembly of various models. One of my first models I did was a Ferrari FXX. With this model, my goal was to mimic the picture on the box, right down to the right shade of red and the smallest decal. However the latest model I did, a Kenworth T900 "Australia" truck, things were different. Although I did want to mimic the picture on the box I chose to veer off on the aesthetics and give the body a personalized paint job. The picture on the box required that I airbrush the body of the truck in a rich desert type of yellow. However in order to do this I had to mix three different kinds of base paints in specific portions. The problem was however I didn't have those three base colours nor an airbrush. I didn't want to make the trip back out to the store to get those three paints nor spend over $100.00 on an airbrush and so I compromised. Instead I painted the top half of the body a dark metallic-blue and the bottom half metallic black and then hand painted flames over the bottom half with red and yellow paint.

Was their anything wrong with compromising on the intended aesthetic design of the truck? Considering that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" of course not. I did a simple google image search of the 'Kenworth T900' for inspiration and I was presented with hundreds of pictures of this truck with a variety of paint-jobs ranging from white or dark-green with decorative stripes to solid colours like dark blue or red. However what if I compromised on a physical aspect of my model T900 by neglecting the trailer hitch, also known as the fifth-wheel? Outside of making it look incomplete, nothing as I am not going to invest the money into building a box for my toy truck. However what if Kenworth compromised the physical design of the T900 and left out the fifth-wheel? The T900 would loose its purpose, that is to haul heavy loads.

Is there anything wrong with compromising on the facets of Christian theology? Truth is not akin to a paint-job for a vehicle; it is akin to a vital piece of the vehicle. If the owner of a T900 gave their truck a new paint-job or changed another aesthetic feature like giving it new hubcaps the only cost for the driver would be to his or her bank account. The truck's ability to function would be still intact. However offering alternative perspectives to what is truth, as an alternative to truth is akin to the T900 truck driver replacing their properly calibrated GPS with one that is mis-calibrated. A GPS has no preferential value; it doesn't make the vehicle look nicer nor cause it to function better; it simply allows the driver to successfully get from point-A to point-B.

However it could be argued that the GPS is not a vital piece of the vehicle. If the driver knows where to go and how to get there a GPS is useless. This is true however there is a difference between knowing the truth of getting somewhere because of one's mental roadmap and knowing the truth of reality. Answers to the big questions such as the meaning of life and the true nature of God is something that the naturally sinful mind is oblivious too. Jesus points this out. In a discussion with the Pharisees about who their God was Jesus states:

“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” - John 8:42-47

Jesus is using linguistics to make his point. His point is the sinful human being's natural mother-tongue is lies and deceit. The natural sinful state cannot speak nor understand truth. Human beings cannot know God on their own cognitive ability because they are naturally driven to recognize God but not treat him as such (cf. Romans 1:21). Jesus states that if the sinful human being really knew him we would love him, in sum recognize him as God and treat him as God. This is why human beings are naturally incapable of knowing the true God as everyone recognizes God's existence but are blinded to who this God is. Scripture is a correctly calibrated GPS that will guide us to the truth of reality. It is this truth that allows the correct perspective on truths throughout academia.

However other theists believe that their holy-books, e.g. the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Jehovah Witness', New World Translation, etc. is the correctly calibrated GPS for life? How can one determine which of life's GPS' is the correct one? ANSWER: When one examines the content of the text in light of objective facts such as history, the sciences and logic. When one takes creative-liberty with the vital piece of life, namely 'the truth' they are recalibrating reality's GPS. This will cost the person clarity and will result in, with 100% certainty, delusion. The person will believe wholeheartedly what they are offered as fact. In conclusion when studying God's word listen to what he has to say in light of the textual and academic context he provides it in. Thus don't be creative with the word of truth!

The Assembly Of A Bible Study: When is the best time to study Scripture?

Hobby: "[An] activity outside of one's regular occupation that is engaged in primarily for pleasure."[i] 

Everyone has a hobby of some kind. Some people collect stuff such as stamps or coins from around the world. Many people spend their pass time playing video-games while others enjoy the more physically demanding activities like sports or going for a walk or a jog. Others enjoy assembling model vehicles. Many people enjoy intellectually stimulating hobbies such as learning to play an instrument or reading novels or learning all about some interesting topic. Every kind of hobby has its benefit. Reading up on some interesting subject or playing some kinds of video games can be mentally stimulating. Jogging or going for a walk is physically beneficial and tackling a project like a 300 piece model vehicle or a 1000 piece puzzle enhances one's patience and fine-motor skills.

However for many Christians there is an activity that seems to get sidelined by every aspect of life including work, family and hobbies: personal Scripture study. Of course I cannot loop every Christian into the same basket so if you are a Christian you will have to see if this applies to you. In the lives of many Christians Scripture has been pushed aside by work, family responsibilities, school and leisure. This results in one of three outcomes: A) one's personal time with Jesus is at the very end of their day before they go to bed; a time when they are tired from what the day threw at them. B) They forgo altogether their personal time with Jesus or C) they merely glance over God's word instead of studying it. There is no right or wrong time to spend time with Jesus and reading his word; but please allow me to make the argument that there are wise and unwise times to set aside for your personal devotions.

Over the last few weeks I have gotten into assembling plastic model vehicles. There are a few things I consider when choosing a model vehicle to assemble but the one non-negotiable consideration for me is its complexity level. I want a challenge and so I always look for a Skill-Level -5. Essentially the difference in skill-level in plastic models is the number and size of the pieces that are involved. One such model I did, a Kenworth T900 "Australia" truck consisted of 300 pieces of which many were no bigger than a mere few millimetres in length. A model I did before the T900 was a Ferrari FXX. There is one big difference between the completion of these two vehicles: the Ferrari looks like it was in a wreck. One reason for this is my work habits. I worked on it late at night when my mind was half-off and my patience was waring thin. I worked on it consistently and for many hours at a time; and at the end due to all my irreversible mess-ups I threw away care and merely slapped on some of the main decals so to just get it done. Also after finishing the model I realized that there were some small pieces still on the plastic holder that I overlooked.

What did my tired brain and impatience cost me? The financial cost of the model kit, a number of necessary paints, glue and a modelling knife. What did I learn between the assembly of the Ferrari FXX and the Kenworth T900?

1. I had to learn to pace my self. I had to designate a time during the day to work on it. I also had to take brakes during the day. 
2. I had to remember to utilize a modeller's version of an old carpenter's adage: "Check the instructions twice, glue once". 
3. I had to think multiple steps ahead. I learned that even though the specific step I was working on required me to glue piece-D to piece-E, I had to remember that 6 steps down the road piece-K will have to fit with the D/E assembly. So I had to take care when gluing pieces D and E, otherwise piece-K might not fit properly of which then will cause problems for piece-Y. In sum I had to study each step in light of the context of the entire instructions.

What is the result of studying God's word on a tired and impatient brain?

1. An improper analysis of the text. The Apostle Paul instructs us to do our "...best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." - 2 Timothy 2:15. The Bible teaches theology; however it does not teach theology in an academic vacuum. Scripture includes with its theology history and philosophy. To varying degrees all Christians are guilty of applying non-biblical philosophy to Scripture. God's word should be studied at a time of day when one is fully alert so to give it a proper analysis and therefore to be sure to not apply unbiblical philosophy to Biblical theology.   
2. Vital aspects of Biblical analysis gets forgotten. As pointed out above, Scripture isn't just a book of theology, it provides its own philosophy to understand its theology and it teaches its theology in light of history. The Bible offers its teachings to us 21st century Westernized people but its teachings were not taught to us as its audience. Its audience was a middle and near eastern culture who lived 2000-5000 years ago. As such the authors of the respective documents utilized a frame of reference for the people of their time to bring home their message; the same message that applies to us. It is important to consider who its audience was so to be abel to glean its message. Just like a how I overlooked pieces of the models I've done it is easy to forget to look at both the acute and overall messages that God has for us in light of the time they were taught and the philosophy that accompanied them. 
3. A tired and impatient brain is more susceptible to a reliance on its own nature. The human being is affected by sin in-toto, this includes how they think and rationalize, (cf. Romans 1:21-22, 25). Scripture has some concepts that for many people (if not all people) are hard to accept. These concepts go against the concepts that the sinful mind naturally gravitates to.  It is important for the Christian to keep quiet and let Scripture teach them its theology and its philosophy so to understand its theology. And it is important to analyze Scripture's message/s in light of its audience so to properly pull out how it applies to them. 

A correct division of Scripture is to read each verse in light of the entirety of the Bible, in sum in the context. And its context consists of theology, history and philosophy. Just as I had to learn to double and triple check the instructions of the model vehicles I've done so to make sure that the assembly of each step is done with the rest of the instructions in mind, i.e. the context, it is important for the Christian to make sure that there are no pieces of Biblical analysis that are overlooked or replaced with a human version. 

What is the cost of studying God's word on a fatigue and impatient mind? ANSWER: Being improperly equipped to represent God and his word. So when it the best time to study God's word? ANSWER: The time when your mind is fully alert and ready to allow Scripture to speak to you and fight against its own nature to apply its own thoughts onto Biblical theology. For some people that is late at night, others it is with their morning coffee, while others its in the middle of the day. As stated before there is no right or wrong time to study God's word, but there is an unwise time, namely when you can't divide the word of truth correctly. 

___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hobby - accessed July, 26, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: Nobody has the right to *not* have their feelings hurt! (Part 3)

A little while ago I started a series on the Christian response to political-correctness. For a quick summary political-correctness is the philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] For many Christians to submit to political-correctness is to submit to compromise on the truth of God. But as I pointed out in part one, located here  there are times when it would be wise for the Christian to be "politically-correct". In one such example is when being dogmatic against political-correctness harms the Gospel message. Yet as discussed in part two, located here  political-correctness can be detrimental if it is rejecting the truth of God; so just as there is a time to be politically-correct there is also a time to not be.

I introduced part one with a story of a fictional character, a pastor, Pastor John Peterson. Pastor John announced to his congregation that he was willing to step-down as their senior pastor because of a variety of complaints he received of which three of them pertained to how he conducts a sermon. Until now who Pastor John is, his personality, his mannerisms, his style of teaching, etc. was not important; however for our thesis today, who the man, John Peterson is, is important for context. Pastor John is a boisterous fellow and (rightly or wrongly) he give his opinions directly and without apology. This has had been received by a few of his church members as confrontative and those members made it clear that they don't like being confronted. Therefore their request was for him to change his mannerisms in how he conducts a sermon; to stop being so physically confrontative and become more personable. In his style of teaching he ought to be less loud as he tends to raise and lower his voice to vocally highlight points he wishes to make. He has been asked to offer his points as suggestions rather than commandments as not everyone believes as he does; for one example is he tells his audience that everyone should not support same-sex marriage; instead of offering up that position as a suggestion, he offers it up as a 'finger-in-your-face commandment', and so forth. These were not amendments that he was willing make as doing so is asking him to essentially not be himself, but be what everyone else wants him to be. As a result Pastor John opened his sermon with a five minute staring contest with his audience to illustrate that everything he seemed to do, things he says, things he does and things he teaches offends someone so he ought to just stand still and not say or do anything. And the irony would be if he did make those changes he would disappoint those who liked his original approach; so he can't win.

However is Pastor John right in not bending to the will of his audience? Doesn't Scripture teach to not be an obstacle for the Gospel, (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19)? If prancing on the stage, using a sharp-tone and using aggressive hand gestures makes people feel confronted does that not warrant compromise and change? A mark of a good preacher is the ability to find the fine line between being informing and being a dictator. To put it simply it is the difference is between being a teacher and being a bully. If a preacher always comes across as dictating then that is an issue that he or she aught to change. However if they are merely addressing an issue and the recipient feels confronted then that is not the preacher's burden to bare.

It is the job of the preacher to be a person of comfort. However the preacher's job also requires from time to time to be confrontational. 1 Peter 3:15 states: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and [respect.]" The greek word rendered 'respect' - φόβος[ii] (phobos) - connotes reverence or a respect that is spun from fear of an authority. So we are to be ready to give our answer with a fear of the authority that God (cf. Proverbs. 9:10) and the our mandate as Christians namely represent God has over us.

The word gentleness -   πραΰς (praÿtēs) - connotes mildness of disposition or gentleness of spirit[iii]. So we are to always be ready to represent what Scripture says with a gentle spirit but with the respect of the authority of God and his word. Moreover, respect in Western culture can be understood to mean that that someone and something is important and thus it and they should be treated in the appropriate way[iv]. It stands to reason then that since Christ figured that his creation was important enough to rectify the damage that we humans did to it via sin (cf. Romans 5:12) we should respect him by believing that his creation is important. To have respect for the people we minister to we aught not to disrespect them by dishonesty and wasting their time with beating around the political bush. If something needs to be said - say it! To not tell someone the truth because of fear of hurting their feelings is not respecting them as an omission of truth is parallel to a positive lie. It also is a judgement call on their response; how do you know how someone who you meet on the street will respond? Passing a judgement on someone that is has no grounding in evidence is also a disrespectful.

However what if the Christian knows how the other will respond? Or based on how a person or a group of people have received the Gospel message in the past the Christian believes that it is a safe call to assume that they will receive it with the same hostility. That is still making an assumption as the past doesn't always forecast the future. However lets wave our hands in the air causing a porthole to a possible future to open up. What do we see in this possible future after telling someone (a friend, a co-worker, a stranger on the street) some hard truth about reality, (e.g. homosexuality is a perversion, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh [cf. John 1:14], etc.)? Hurt feelings. So what? Here is a trustworthy saying:

Nobody has the right to hurt my feelings, however I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt. 

To put it simply, nobody has the right to be cruel. However Christians in particular have the *obligation* to tell the truth. Sometimes confrontation will bruise egos; but sometimes egos need to be bruised; however let the truth bruise the ego, not the beholder of the truth.

In conclusion it would be wrong for Pastor John to change his demeanour as doing so will cause him to loose an un-winable battle; as, as stated above, no matter how he behaves or how he talks or what he teaches on he is going to upset someone. However changing his demeanour so much so to discontinue confrontation is a violation of his pastoral obligations; as it is his job to guide and teach his congregation the truth of Scripture and from Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16).
___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014
[ii] - http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5401&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4240&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iv] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect - accessed July 21, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: When to be correct, not politically-correct (Part 2)

In an article I wrote recently, located here, I started a series addressing the Christian's response to political correctness. I told the story of a factitious a pastor named Pastor John Peterson. Pastor John surprised his congregation with an announcement of his resignation due to complaints he received. He opted to resign as the senior pastor as he was unwilling to be accommodating with the issues that was presented to him; but he also didn't want to become an irritant either in the church's proverbial side. Lets review the complaints Pastor John received:

• A word that he tends to use when he describes someone with a physical disability - crippled. 
• That choice of word offended one of his church members. 
• The proclamation that homosexuality was sinful and associated with his encouragement for everyone to speak out against it with prejudice was responded with:
• "You can't say that as not everyone agrees with you." 
• How he walks and talks and fluctuates his voice as he leads a 40 minute sermon.
• Some of his church members felt confronted by his mannerisms and they didn't like being confronted. 

In part one I discussed the reality of there being people who seem to have their sensitivity meeter on overdrive as they seem to get offended by absolutely everything including perfectly acceptable english words such as "crippled". I concluded in part one by teaching that although it would be bowing-the-knee to political correctness to accommodate requests such as to switch out a perfectly acceptable word to describe X for another acceptable word that means the same thing. However the Apostle Paul argued that for the sake of the Gospel, such a compromise would be the right thing to do, (cf. Romans 14:1-3, 15-16).

However does this apply also to doctrines that proclaim to be fact such as, "homosexuality is sinful"? To reiterate political-correctness is the philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] Political-correctness in the minds of many Christians is demonized in-toto as a compromise on the truth of God. But as pointed out in part one there is a time for the Christian to be politically-correct namely when being dogmatic against political-correctenss is harmful for the Gospel. However should one compromise on doctrinal truth - truth that will ultimately bring one into a relationship with their creator? In short, no, as there is a difference between being accommodating to one's hypersensitivity to a term and one's disagreement with a doctrinal view. In fact Paul instructs people to steer-clear of those who compromise on the truth of Scripture:

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. - Romans 16:17

So if you succumb to political-correctness and believe and teach doctrines that is counter to Biblical teaching you should be treated as a heretic. Compromising on a proclamation of Scripture may it be Jesus is the only way (cf. John 14:6) homosexuality is sinful (cf. Romans 1:26-27), there is only one God (cf. Isaiah 46:9), etc. would be an obstacle that is contrary to Biblical teaching. Romans 16:17 is where Paul is wrapping up his letter; he has said all that he wanted to say in the first 15 chapters and so when he encourages his readers to watch out for those who cause divisions and present obstacles that are "...contrary to the teaching you have [learned]" he is referring to what he has just finished saying. Paul opens up the book of Romans by explaining in relative detail The Fall (cf. Genesis 3).

God warned Adam that if he was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die (cf. Genesis 2:17). This did not only regard physical death but also a mental death. One of the first recorded effects of sin on creation is not recorded in Genesis 3:14-19, but rather in verse 12: Adam succumbed to self preservation, self reliance and the reliance on the image of wisdom instead of the embodiment of wisdom, namely God.

The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it. - Genesis 3:12

Adam's response was:

1. I've got to get out of this situation. 
2. Accomplish (#1) by passing the blame to God for giving me Eve. 
3. Blame Eve for giving me the fruit.  

Even though I took it and ate it, if God didn't give me Eve she wouldn't have existed to give me the fruit so ultimately its his fault that I broke his law; and if only she didn't give me the fruit I wouldn't have been able to take it; I wouldn't have eaten the fruit on my own so by extension it is also her fault. 

Conclusion: I am the product of my environment; I am not at fault!" 

Any rational thinking person should recognize immediately that this is utter foolish thinking and "foolish" this is the exact terminology that Paul uses to describe the mind after being affected by sin.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools - Romans 1:22 (my emphasis).

To put Paul's words in context he states:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.  

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. - Romans 1:21-27 (my emphasis).

One cannot deny the connection Paul is making with foolishness to idol worship and homosexuality.

• They claimed to be wise. 

• They became fools. 

• They recognized God. 

• They did not give glory to God. 

• They exchanged the truth about God for a lie.
• They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. 

• They worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. 

• God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 

• Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 

• The men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The proclamation of wisdom when one's frame of reference is one's own mind is internally foolish as it is circular reasoning - it is relying on itself to be its own evidence of its proclamation; this is a value that political-correctness adheres to as it values human thought over Godly rationality hence its discouragement against saying that another person's view is wrong. As a result people try to rationalize their own behaviour thus treating themselves as their own God. The truth of God is thus exchanged for a lie - the view concocted by the human mind. The mind gravitates to the creation (ultimately itself) rather that the creator; and one manifestation of a self-absorbed mind is the desire for its mirror image. Therefore homosexuality is a logical extension for a self-absorbed mind when it is thinking of sex.

So to conclude to compromise on Scriptural doctrine so to cater to political-correctness is exchanging God for a man-made invention (idol worship), resulting in actions that are based on human rationality which includes in the realm of sexuality.
___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: Should political-correcntess ever win in the life of the Christian? (Part 1)

It was 9 AM and the first of two morning services was about to begin. After the choir's rendition of Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty and some announcements from the church secretary about various events happening throughout the city and within internal church ministries, Pastor John Peterson walked onto the stage as he always did with his Bible in his hand and his sermon in his brain. However unlike every other Sunday morning before where he opened his mouth and said something provocative to capture the attentions of tired brains, he just stood in front of the pulpit and stared at the crowed. The people in the pews were all attentive at this unexpected sermon introduction as they stared right back at their senior pastor. This staring contest went on for about five minutes and then Pastor John, picked up his Bible off of the pulpit turned and walked off the stage siting down in the first row of seats with his beautiful wife and their 11 year old son.  

The stage stayed empty for about 30 seconds before Pastor John stood up and walked back onto the stage. Still attentive to his most unusual and out-fo-character conduct, the crowd was hoping to hear an explanation for his behaviour.  

"This week I got five complaints, from 15 people within our local church body" he said. "These complaints varied in nature," he continued. "I got one complaint about a word that I tend to use when I describe someone with a physical aliment of sorts - crippled," he explained. "Apparently the word offends one of you. Another complaint regarded a point that I made last week about homosexuality being sinful and my associated encouragement of everyone here to speak out against it with prejudice; apparently I can't say such things as there are people here who might believe differently than I on this issue." He continued to explain. "A third complaint I received was about how I walk on this stage and how I move my hands as I teach a 40 minute sermon; and the other two complaints pertained to how raise and lower my voice; apparently there are some people who feel confronted by the way I lead a sermon and they don't like being confronted," he concluded. "I have considered these complaints with sincerity and I have chosen to respectfully decline changing how I walk and talk and the messages teach. So as your senior pastor what would you like me to do? I do not wish to, but I would be willing to step down as the senior pastor of this church and leave," he said and then turned and walked off the stage.  

What would be going through your head if your pastor made such a decision? "What decision?" you may ask as Pastor John made two decisions: 1) to step down and leave without argument if that was the consensus of the church body and 2) to ignore the complaints voiced by the 15 offended people. Would you expect your pastor to change as a preacher and a Bible teacher or leave the your church or would you vote to keep him (or her) despite their views (of which some you may agree with and others you may disagree with) and mannerisms.

Political correctness: a philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] Political correctness is a relative social phenomena as what one society may be offended but another may not be. For an example a subculture within a society e.g. the disabled community may be offended by being labelled the crippled community yet the same subculture in another society may not take an offence with such a characterization as the term crippled-community is a grammatically correct term to describe a body where the members of that body are physically disabled. So it is important to note that something to be politically-correct does not mean that it is correct; and conversely something deemed as politically-incorrect (or socially offensive) doesn't mean that, that something, is incorrect and should be offensive. So a person with a physical disability should not be offended by being called 'crippled' as that is what they are. Calling a disabled person crippled is not wrong.

However political-correctness has become the backbone for Western Society. This as such has had a grave effect on society as now truth is being compromised as the truth about anything offends someone somewhere; so it is best to not tell the truth about anything and allow someone's views to be equally true even though their views are in logical conflict with the view/s that offends them; and this has also been applied to doctrinal issues such as homosexuality and claiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven, thus condemning contrary beliefs as wrong. This is something I will touch on in a future post. As such critical thinking skills has taken a serious hit. Returning to the example of offensive words: why should one whose ears are hurt by a perfectly acceptable term like crippled expect to win victory in a complaint thus forcing the offender to change what term they use? As I will show in a future post there is nothing but irrationality being played out here. What is one to do then? Should a Christian minister like Pastor John be expected to bend to the will of those whose sensitivity-meeter is on overdrive and thus are offended by perfectly acceptable words and teaching styles? No.

However what is the cost of fighting political-correctness without any room for any level of compromise? Of course compromising on God's word is non-negotiable but is there not some wisdom in accommodating people's feelings and points of views in what one does and says and how they do it and say it? In discussing the dietary laws for Jewish converts to Christianity the Apostle Paul addresses the Christian response to those who are sensitive to the freedom that Christ brings in not keeping kosher. He states:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. - Romans 14:1-3

In application to being offended by benign terms like crippled a Christian should not judge another because they are irrationally sensitive towards the term when it is used to describe a disable person. Moreover that same person should not be so sensitive with perfectly acceptable words so it is at the level of irrationality. But the one who uses the word should not fluff off the offended party as mere overly emotional. And in talking to such people Paul states:

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. - Romans 14:15-16. 

In the same way then if your brother or sister is distressed because of a term that you use you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your usage of a known relatively offensive term destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good such as an acceptable term be spoken of as evil. So in another way, the answer to the question above: Yes, Pastor John as a pastor would be wise (if not commanded by the nature of Christianity) to accommodate his choice of words for the sake of those who are the overly-sensitive by being characterized as crippled. Submitting to this compromise is a submission to political correctness, however it is a surrendering in a battle that will aid victory for the Gospel. How? It shows those who are sensitive that you care about them to make yourself approachable of which will make the Gospel message something they may want to listen to.

___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014

Evangelism: What is the proper way to evangelize to this lost world?

Allow me to introduce you to Suzan. Suzan grew up in a Christian household where her parents brought her to church every Sunday morning, encouraged her attendance to their church's high-school youth-group and to the best of their ability instilled into her what they believed to be Biblical values. Suzan never was against going to church as her church is where she met a lot of her friends. She also agreed with the morals that were taught to by her parents and also quite a bit that was taught from the Sunday morning pulpit. 

However like in every church worldwide there were people in her church who seemed to be disabled in finding that fine line between their passion for obedience to Christ and finesses. There were people in her local church who bulldozed her with their beliefs on evangelism, Biblical interpretation, proper Christian conduct and so forth. For an example, one Sunday morning Suzan met one man who just after learning her name he asked her if she was going to die that day, where she would go: heaven or hell? Moreover, she had a Sunday school teacher in highschool who insisted that she was not a true Christian unless she was willing to do "door-step-evangelism". (Going 'door-to-door' evangelizing to people on the front doorsteps of their homes). It was, among other things actions like these that caused her to ultimately leave the church and the Christian faith all together. 

Christians are called to represent Christ and be used by Him to create disciples of all nations, (cf. Matthew 28:19). However needless to say it is the *how* in many Christian's evangelism that has been the problem. There are many Christians who adopt methods of evangelism that in some cases work but in other cases are detrimental; and unfortunately too many Christians don't consider the latter reality and proceed to use their method of evangelism to the detriment of their ministry. So there are now three questions that need to be addressed:

1. To what extent should Christians go in evangelism and how should they do it? 
• The answer to this question of course is on a case-by-case basis. It should come to no surprise though how Suzan responded to this man at her church as he didn't seem to have any interest in any sort of investment in her life; he just wanted to push his dogmatic views onto her. 
2. How should a Christian respond to people who they are ministering the Gospel to respond when they are accused of misconduct either by the person or others? 
• This man should have simply watched Suzan's response so to know how to respond: apologetically and become more personally inquisitive. Before he strikes her again with the other side of his Bible he should show interest in her as a person who is currently alive and as it stood that day, that moment going neither to heaven or hell, but rather out to lunch with her family. He should show her that he cares for her as a person who has interests, ideas, struggles, and perhaps a lot of questions and not another notch on his evangelism belt. 
3. Should evangelism stay in the church sanctuary or the public street of a society that allows freedom of speech? Or would it be okay to bring ones Christianity to the proverbial office water-cooler or in the classroom at school? 

Journalist David Barrett from The Telegraph records the story of "Victoria Wasteney, a senior occupational therapist in one of the country’s most racially diverse areas, was ... accused of bullying [a] colleague after giving her a book about a Muslim woman who converts to Christianity."[i] Wasteney ministered her Christian beliefs to a Muslim co-worker by the means of inviting her to sport related church functions[ii] and giving her a book that told the testimony of a woman who left Islam and entered into a relationship with Christ as God in the flesh (cf. John 1:14). 

What is the background to this work-relationship? Barrett explained that these women knew of each other's beliefs straight from the beginning and that both of them are proud of their theological leanings. This was a common denominator in their relationship that allowed their relationship to flourish, despite the polar opposite nature of their theological views. Barrett writes that Wasteney's co-worker was intrigued by her church's fight against human trafficking; and as their relationship developed Wasteney invited her co-worker to church events and she even prayed with her. And then when her co-worker was about to take time off for a hospital stay Wasteney gave her the book that was mentioned above. Barrett records that at the end of this ordeal Wasteney was found guilty of three offences: 

1. Praying with a colleague. Barrett records Wasteney explaining that when the Mulsim woman came into her office distraught about news about her health, she said to her co-worker: “...I can pray for you?’"[iii]  of which she replied: "OK"[iv].
2. Giving to a colleague a book about a woman's story of a conversion from Islam to Christianity.
3. Inviting her to events at her church.  

This is what was 'wrong' in the eyes of her employers: the conduct between two people who met as co-workers and developed at least a work-based-friendship - a friendship that involved religion. Wasteney did what the confrontative man in the story above should have done with Suzan: invested into her life. 

To conclude as Christians we are not to keep Christ in church but bring him everywhere we go: school, the store, the office, etc. However we are to invest into the lives of everyone we meet as that is what Christ wants to do - restore back to himself a creation that has been broken and that is in need of restoration (cf. 2nd Corinthians 5:20) - and not treat the Gospel message like a door-to-door sales-pitch. This isn't to say that we have to become best friends with everyone; but as you can, show everyone that you care; and this is to be done even in the face of a world who can't look past political-correctness; a world that believes that giving someone a book and inviting them to social events with a religious overtone is inappropriate conduct. So here are the answers to the aforementioned questions above:

1. To what extent should Christians go in evangelism and how should they do it? 
• ANSWER: To the extent where the truth is not compromised and obedience to Christ is honoured and offer said truth in an non-offensive and investing way.
2. How should a Christian respond to people who they are ministering the Gospel to when they are accused of misconduct? 
• ANSWER: If the accusation has merit: repent; if the accusation is from a place of political correctness: fight against moronism; and if the accusation comes from a place of ignorance: teach, (cf. 2nd Timothy 3:16)
3. Is it okay to bring Christ into the classroom or the office? 
• ANSWER: Yes.

______________________

[i] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10933206/NHS-worker-who-bullied-Muslim-by-praying-for-her.html - accessed July 12, 2014

[ii] - Ibid. - accessed July 12, 2014

[iii] - Ibid. - accessed July 12, 2014

[iv] - Ibid. - accessed July 12, 2014

The Christian's Addiction

A few years back I had gotten together regularly with a friend, for whom I'll refer to as John for Monday's half-priced Buffalo-Wings night at a local sports bar. He and I would chat it up till last-call about pretty much everything; but one conversation that was always on the menu was Scripture: what does Scripture say about this or that subject, what is the proper hermeneutic to properly interpret this passage or that passage, etc.

One conversation we had however caused a temporary rift between me and John. John, like many Christians (myself included) has a passion for an acute topic within Scripture. John's Scriptural passion was the study of the end times, namely eschatology. And like too many Christians who have a heavy interest in this topic he sought for information from Scripture that simply wasn't in the Bible thus causing him to pull conclusions from Scripture that simply were not there. He tried to interpret what every symbol in Revelations meant and by comparing the modern political state he tried to figure out who the Antichrist was, etc.

Now John isn't alone in this type of behaviour towards Scripture as every Christian, to varying degrees (myself included), has some concentration that they feel passionate about; for John it was eschatology; for many others is social concerns (helping the hungry and homeless); for others its political issues (same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.); for many its the branch of Christianity called apologetics (a concentration on defending the Christian faith) and so on. And of course a passion for Biblical study is always a good thing and a necessary thing as a passion for something forces the one with the passion to be more thorough with their analysis with the issue or topic; this is something where perhaps someone else who doesn't share the same passion would do. And again it doesn't mean that if someone has a passion for a theological topic like eschatology that they are not genuinely concerned about the needs of others or fighting to see Godliness be implemented into society via the political realm.

However it is very important to be sure that one's passion doesn't turn into an addiction. Addiction is defined as:

[A] strong and harmful need to regularly have something ... or do something...[i]

When important Biblical topics get forgotten due to a passion the passion may be an addiction and thus can be harmful. I am a recovering drug-addict. As a result of my addiction to booze and street drugs important things in my life like food and sleep were ignored. It is very important to ensure that ones passion for say social services (Christian living) doesn't drown out Scripture's teaching of Godliness in all of its forms; or that one's passion for locking horns over deep topics like evidence for God's existence doesn't overtake simple evangelism. In sum answering the Philippian jailer's question:

The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" - Acts 16:29-30[ii]

One might justifiably argue then that this shouldn't be as no Biblical topic is more important than another because the entirety of Scripture is good for teaching, instructing and rebuking (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16) and the edification of the believer, (cf. Ephesians 4:12 [KJV]). On one hand this is true as the sanctification of the Christian is due to the implementation of the entire word of God into their life (cf. Matthew 4:4). However it is wrong to not recognize that there is a hierarchy of doctrines within Scripture. It is true that we are called to love our neighbours and also to teach that philosophy (Christian living). We are to be prepared to answer questions that this unbelieving world has and explain what we believe and why we believe it, (cf. 1 Peter 1:13, 3:15b) (apologetics). It is true that we are to represent and encourage Godliness in the political arena such as by the act of speaking out against issues like same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so on; but is it these things that we called to do? Yes, as our primary mandate is to represent God in our lives. This means we represent God's morals and policies. Christians are commissioned to represent the image of God. And we represent God's morals, policies and image in how we treat others on the street. By our political values: if a Christian lobbies to support same-sex marriage they are saying that God likewise supports same-sex marriage; and if God does *not* support it then the Christian has failed to represent God; and by our ability to represent God and his morals in light of objections made against him.

However the answer is also, no, as Jesus' commission for us is to be used by him to bring the sinner to salvation, (cf. Matthew 28:19, Luke 5:32). It is important for all to show active love to our neighbours and this can be done in a variety of ways: giving food, being a friend,  providing a warm bed and clothes, etc. But food in one's belly and a clean shirt on their backs will not save them from eternal damnation. It is gross negligence for the Christian to fill one or even a few important roles but fail to fill the role by which Christ has commissioned them, namely to "...go and make disciples of all nations..." - Matthew 28:19. It is important to be able to answer questions such as "What evidence is there that God exists?" or "If God created the universe, who created him?" and so on. But it is pointless to provide someone with such information if they do not learn what it all means, namely that there is a God out there who loves them and who wants them to be reconciled back to him, (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20.)

However the other way around is equally valid. It would be equally wrong for someone to be obsessed with the Gospel message if they neglect answers to questions such as the ones mentioned above. It is verging on hypocrisy for someone preach about God's love and not show it in the mere basic ways God showed his love, namely looking after their basic needs, food, clothes, etc.

I had recently went to a friend's youth-group whose clientele (as it were) is a band of hard-done-by, unbelieving youth. The preacher stood up and did an 8-point sermon on first basics such as courage, faith and Christ's love and forgiveness for their sin. In sum she spoke to the needs of her audience. Although the youth would have benefited from receiving apologetic information such as mentioned above (and they did benefit from the food that they received at youth-group on that Friday night), what they really needed was to her the truth of the God who loves them and is looking for them to seek him.

It was proclaimed above that there is a hierarchy within Scriptural doctrines. It is true that all Biblical doctrines are important, but it is the first basics namely the Gospel message that can never be forgotten and should always be reiterated. It is important that one's doctrinal focus is God and his message that he came to give. 

_________________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction - accessed, July 8, 2014
[ii] - My emphasis