The thing about blogging is that it is difficult to avoid shameless self-promotion. The thing about modern America is that this isn't all that bad. "Self-promotion is such a harsh way to say it. Why not call it self-motivated, ambitious, inspired" Whatever. I'd rather call it what it is: "The employment of one's interest in writing to get his or her thoughts and feelings out there, not to mention one's writing, without having to face any immediate consequences." Well, it doesn't have to be that pathetic. Not that I'm not guilty of portraying otherwise, but... one cannot think that the mere bearing of one's own thoughts and feelings can have an automatic impact without grossly overestimating oneself and/or displaying an acute deficiency of humility. (I love words)So I have decided to use this post to say something that's beyond my own internalization, something I believe objectively outside of myself, that I believe if others believe it too, that they will be better off than they are now. Therefore, I must tell it, right?
I believe that Jesus is Christ is LORD. I meant to capitalize LORD, because I believe that Jesus is the creator God of the universe. I realize the Bible says that "God is one". I affirm this too. Jesus is the one God of the universe in the form of a man. He is not a half-man, half-God hybrid. He is a human being, and He is God. He was both eternal, always existing, and born of a virgin in Bethlehem some two millenia ago.
I believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. The Old Testament promised God's people a savior, and though he was not the military savior that God's covenant people at the time, the Jewish people, thought he was going to be, He was so much more, the savior from sin and death, for all people. He died on the cross for a specific reason; to atone for our sin. Without this atonement all people would be lost in their sins, without hope, without God. And certainly the main reason for a lack of hope in an individual is their refusal to accept Jesus' atonement for their sin. But the Bible says that there is no other name by which we must be saved, that it's by God's grace, through faith that we are saved, not by works which we have done. Works would include prayer, good deeds, taking of the sacraments. If a right relationship with God could be restored by doing these things, then Christ died for nothing.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is God, thus a person, not a force. God is still one, and in the Holy Spirit he shows up in the unseen form of guidance for believers in Jesus. Ultimately, I must accept that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery.
I believe that Jesus is returning to earth at any time. When He comes back He will judge the world. Those who have placed their faith in Him, whose sins are effectively atoned for, will live with Him forever, but those who have chosen to try and atone for their own sin will of course fail to do so, since God's requirement is perfection, which is only found in His Son Jesus. They will pay the wages of sin, death, a.k.a. eternal separation from God a.k.a. hell.
I believe this is good news. We all find ourselves in this existential confusion. We all are pining for some underlying meaning and purpose to our lives. We are all going to die. We all, if we're honest, think this is a problem, and we're at a loss for why we die, and how it's remedied. Could it be that simply being good, (how subjective is that?!) solves the problem? Think about it. It cannot be. It just can't. The solution is faith in Jesus. Jesus gives our life meaning, and purpose. Because of Jesus, I know that I will live forever. That reminds me of one last thing that I believe. Jesus rose from the dead! Death simply could not contain the God-man. And to enter into the life of Christ,(true Christianity)is to enter into His way of life(portrayed in the Gospel)thus his death(spiritually(death to sin), and physically, and resurrection. And if Jesus did not rise from the dead. Forget everything I just said. If he did, and this isn't true? what do you make of Jesus' life and crucifixion. Was it all just a big show?
Jesus died for our sins and rose again. He is the promised savior of the world. This is what I believe. You can take it or leave it and/or ask questions. But I highly suggest you take it. In fact, if there was no such a thing as free will, I would just make you take it. But for whatever reason God saw fit to give us a free will, the ability to willfully come to faith in Him. Choose Christ. It will change your life. Forever.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scranton Revisited
I wrote a post about Scranton a few months ago. It was highly romanticized. Something has changed over the last few months in my overall attitude towards the city. Although it still contains much of it's charming quirkiness, reality has started to set in through a series of certain events, and I have been unpleasantly enlightened to the darkness of the city. A defeatist mindset pervades. A sense of distrust accompanied by its usual partner, the tribal mindset, is a cultural norm, and the divisions among ethnic lines is stunningly sharp, as if the city lives in a pre-enlightenment time warp, but doesn't know it.
I have never lived anywhere in which telling someone your religious heritage is the same thing as telling someone your ethnic background, and how baffled these people are when they hear than I'm a German-Irish protestant, whose mother was Roman Catholic, and whose father was Amish. In fact, they are even more baffled when they hear that I am not Protestant in any of the ways that they think of Protestant, and I've had to realize, living in this culture for most of the decade, that in order for people to understand where I'm at religiously I have to explain the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Virgin Birth, His death for our sins, Resurrection for our life, that we only can have a relationship with God if we repent of our sins and turn to Him in faith, and this is only possible by His Grace, because in this religious/cultural atmosphere, there is no name for that set of beliefs, not even "Christian". Upon sharing this I have received 2 reactions, one extremely positive, and the other extremely negative, and ought not to be surprised by this because it is the only kind of reaction that the Gospel has ever received.
It might seem ironic that folks who call themselves "Christians" would react with strong opposition to this, but it ought to lead us to conclude that their idea of "Christianity" (the majority use of the Word), is false. Thus it is not entirely false, nor should it be problematic to say that in Scranton "Christianity" is false. Now we might go about addressing this problem in one of two ways. One, we could take pains to explain what true Christianity is, which will probably confuse people more than help them, make them think that we are trying to convert them to our version of Christianity rather than Christ, and offend them more than they need to be. Or, we could just share the Gospel, and let them reject it or accept it, and in that way we are sure that they understand the Gospel. There is little confusion, and that if they reject or accept the message, we are assured that they are rejecting or accepting the message and not some new man-made/ legalistic version of the Christian religion.
The realization that Scranton is a dark dark place, while diminishing my comfort level in the city has emboldened my belief in the exclusive power of the gospel to change lives, motivated my witness, and caused me to cry out for the city with the compassion of Jesus. In Scranton, we followers of Christ cannot afford to be religious, or get bogged down in debates over terms, and eschatology. This city, this dark place, like the rest of the world, needs the light of the Gospel, and she needs it now.
I have never lived anywhere in which telling someone your religious heritage is the same thing as telling someone your ethnic background, and how baffled these people are when they hear than I'm a German-Irish protestant, whose mother was Roman Catholic, and whose father was Amish. In fact, they are even more baffled when they hear that I am not Protestant in any of the ways that they think of Protestant, and I've had to realize, living in this culture for most of the decade, that in order for people to understand where I'm at religiously I have to explain the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ, His Virgin Birth, His death for our sins, Resurrection for our life, that we only can have a relationship with God if we repent of our sins and turn to Him in faith, and this is only possible by His Grace, because in this religious/cultural atmosphere, there is no name for that set of beliefs, not even "Christian". Upon sharing this I have received 2 reactions, one extremely positive, and the other extremely negative, and ought not to be surprised by this because it is the only kind of reaction that the Gospel has ever received.
It might seem ironic that folks who call themselves "Christians" would react with strong opposition to this, but it ought to lead us to conclude that their idea of "Christianity" (the majority use of the Word), is false. Thus it is not entirely false, nor should it be problematic to say that in Scranton "Christianity" is false. Now we might go about addressing this problem in one of two ways. One, we could take pains to explain what true Christianity is, which will probably confuse people more than help them, make them think that we are trying to convert them to our version of Christianity rather than Christ, and offend them more than they need to be. Or, we could just share the Gospel, and let them reject it or accept it, and in that way we are sure that they understand the Gospel. There is little confusion, and that if they reject or accept the message, we are assured that they are rejecting or accepting the message and not some new man-made/ legalistic version of the Christian religion.
The realization that Scranton is a dark dark place, while diminishing my comfort level in the city has emboldened my belief in the exclusive power of the gospel to change lives, motivated my witness, and caused me to cry out for the city with the compassion of Jesus. In Scranton, we followers of Christ cannot afford to be religious, or get bogged down in debates over terms, and eschatology. This city, this dark place, like the rest of the world, needs the light of the Gospel, and she needs it now.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Question of the Millenium
If doubt is the essential starting point of modernism, and faith is the essential starting point of Christianity, shouldn't Christians be careful about using logic based on skepticism to defend Christian doctrine?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Life
It's silly to write poetically when writing an instruction manual. But this is precisely how many assume the Biblical writers wrote. Not to mention what's worse is that many modern writers believe that philosophy is not inherently poetic and ought to be approached as an owner's manual.
It's silly to write philosophically as if you're writing an owner's manual. In other words, if you're going to write a work of philosophy it ought not to be for the purpose of instruction but rather it ought to convey the way things are, probe the paradoxes of existence, and seek to explain the confusing decisions that confront us by the seconds. For philosophy ought to be concerned with how to live, not on what is life. The question 'what is life" is a wasteful question. It doesn't dignify an answer. Clarity is overrated on manners of life, for life is not the same thing as putting together a computer.
It's silly to write philosophically as if you're writing an owner's manual. In other words, if you're going to write a work of philosophy it ought not to be for the purpose of instruction but rather it ought to convey the way things are, probe the paradoxes of existence, and seek to explain the confusing decisions that confront us by the seconds. For philosophy ought to be concerned with how to live, not on what is life. The question 'what is life" is a wasteful question. It doesn't dignify an answer. Clarity is overrated on manners of life, for life is not the same thing as putting together a computer.
Monday, January 4, 2010
All Hail Queen Theology, and God Save Plato.
I forget who said it but someone said "Theology is the queen of the sciences" This probably sounds strange to some of you. One, because some of you might completely divorce the concepts of theology from science. Science in our day and age refers specifically to the systematized study of the physical world, but to the ancient and/or medieval person it was a reference simply to the study of a subject. In other words, theology is "the STUDY of God" therefore it is a science. Having accepted this definition of science, the proposition itself might still seem to some of you to be very difficult to swallow. I can understand this sentiment, and I'm the theological director of a church!
To thinkers of the middle ages, theology and philosophy were synonymous. Not until the the "modern age" (1400's-now)(roughly)was it really conceived that they might be separate sciences. And many theologians in our day have followed suit, implying strongly that philosophy and theology are basic enemies. My view is not the medieval one, nor do I think that theology and philosophy are at odds with one another as is the modern tendency.(By the way, "modern" is not in reference to "the latest" which is a common vernacular conception, but to a specific time period in the history of the western world). I tend to think that they are two separate circles in the same plane,randomly moving about, sometimes meeting, and most of the time not. i.e. they can help one another sometimes, but they are definitely not the same thing, nor do they need each other to exist or proceed. With this said, I think that the major difference in our day and age is how these two beasts differ in their presuppositions about truth. Philosophy essentially has no unifying presupposition about truth. Theology is united in its presupposition that there is a higher power, and is often hampered in it's pursuit because of this. For generally, the unified purpose of philosophy is to discover, if not at least to articulate the truth. Theology proceeds from one unified non-negotiable, that God exists, but from there are endless possibilities of constructions of how God's existence can explain life, and men have fought and killed each other over the differences. Philosophy is generally not afraid of opposing positions. Theology has not this luxury. And this is why I, the theological director of Steamtown Church, and more attracted to philosophy than theology. For philosophy allows me to question really anything, theology not so much. But there is on thing that philosophy has never been able to figure out, and given its general makeup, seems doubtful that it ever could, and that is the truth, and this is the dreadful irony of philosophical pursuit. One must ask two questions after years of not being able to find the treasure chest:1)Is there is a treasure chest at all,or 2)Does he have the wrong map? We're now at a time where some of our society has decided that there's no map or treasure chest, just us. some still hold with great faith that there is both a treasure chest and a map, and Christians already have the treasure chest. I cannot be interested in a treasure I already have, therefore I cannot be interested, but I have seen that this treasure chest is really the treasure it claims to be over and over, and so I succumb that theology may be in fact the queen of the sciences, but if it be so, wherein is the need for study, since we already have the treasure chest? It is because the end is not to find the treasure, but to get everyone to buy in. But theology has a very tricky means of persuading someone that we really have the real treasure chest, because most people are still more interested in the search than they are the treasure, and would much rather seek after a dead end, than have a treasure handed to them. I am in this boat, and struggling to take the first step of Peter and walk towards my LORD, but it ought to be obvious by now that if I mistake the process for the point, then I have missed the point.
To thinkers of the middle ages, theology and philosophy were synonymous. Not until the the "modern age" (1400's-now)(roughly)was it really conceived that they might be separate sciences. And many theologians in our day have followed suit, implying strongly that philosophy and theology are basic enemies. My view is not the medieval one, nor do I think that theology and philosophy are at odds with one another as is the modern tendency.(By the way, "modern" is not in reference to "the latest" which is a common vernacular conception, but to a specific time period in the history of the western world). I tend to think that they are two separate circles in the same plane,randomly moving about, sometimes meeting, and most of the time not. i.e. they can help one another sometimes, but they are definitely not the same thing, nor do they need each other to exist or proceed. With this said, I think that the major difference in our day and age is how these two beasts differ in their presuppositions about truth. Philosophy essentially has no unifying presupposition about truth. Theology is united in its presupposition that there is a higher power, and is often hampered in it's pursuit because of this. For generally, the unified purpose of philosophy is to discover, if not at least to articulate the truth. Theology proceeds from one unified non-negotiable, that God exists, but from there are endless possibilities of constructions of how God's existence can explain life, and men have fought and killed each other over the differences. Philosophy is generally not afraid of opposing positions. Theology has not this luxury. And this is why I, the theological director of Steamtown Church, and more attracted to philosophy than theology. For philosophy allows me to question really anything, theology not so much. But there is on thing that philosophy has never been able to figure out, and given its general makeup, seems doubtful that it ever could, and that is the truth, and this is the dreadful irony of philosophical pursuit. One must ask two questions after years of not being able to find the treasure chest:1)Is there is a treasure chest at all,or 2)Does he have the wrong map? We're now at a time where some of our society has decided that there's no map or treasure chest, just us. some still hold with great faith that there is both a treasure chest and a map, and Christians already have the treasure chest. I cannot be interested in a treasure I already have, therefore I cannot be interested, but I have seen that this treasure chest is really the treasure it claims to be over and over, and so I succumb that theology may be in fact the queen of the sciences, but if it be so, wherein is the need for study, since we already have the treasure chest? It is because the end is not to find the treasure, but to get everyone to buy in. But theology has a very tricky means of persuading someone that we really have the real treasure chest, because most people are still more interested in the search than they are the treasure, and would much rather seek after a dead end, than have a treasure handed to them. I am in this boat, and struggling to take the first step of Peter and walk towards my LORD, but it ought to be obvious by now that if I mistake the process for the point, then I have missed the point.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
This is not about New Year's. Why? Because according to the universe, this is just another day.
Don't think that I am done writing or that I have run out of things to write about. This is the first post of 2010, and boy is it riveting.
By the way, my favorite relationship status on facebook is my friends Rick, who's has been happily married for a myriad of New Year's says it's complicated. In order for that not to be corny, you have to know Rick. You have to know Rick anyway.
I am done wasting your time. Be good.
By the way, my favorite relationship status on facebook is my friends Rick, who's has been happily married for a myriad of New Year's says it's complicated. In order for that not to be corny, you have to know Rick. You have to know Rick anyway.
I am done wasting your time. Be good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
