I, Eric, am standing in an arena, with eleven other kids, whom I'm expected to kill.
The countdown clock is running down to the start of the Games and my mind is toying with the questions I've been asking myself ever since my name was chosen in the Reaping:
Can I even do this?
Should I do this?
If I refuse to "play" the Games or try to be a hero, the Peacekeepers will kill my parents and five siblings, at the behest of the President.
However, If I choose to be a "willing" participant in the Games, it means I must turn myself into a stone-cold killer.
Is that even fathomable?
My heart seared and scabbed by murder and my hands, dripping with innocent blood.
But what is the alternative?
If I don't, Death will come to me and my loved ones, anyway...
-------------------------------------
These are just some of the moral conundrums that the teens in Suzanne Collin's book, the "Hunger Games", have to face when they are forced to participate in an annual killing-fest created by their fascist government.
In my opinion, the best SciFi and fantasy books are those where you can see yourself in the position of the characters.
How would I, as a Christian, react to being forced into a situation where I must either kill or be killed?
How would the Church react to such an edict, following the crushing put-down of a rebellion against the fascist Captiol regime?
While the story's backdrop is a futuristic post-apocalyptic North America, the book makes no mention of the Church.
If you'll excuse my speculation, this makes perfect sense to me, considering the true Church of Christ would probably have been forced underground in the rebellion against the tyrannical forces, which led to the Caption/District system and ultimately the Hunger Games, itself.
In keeping with that thought, let's suppose, for imaginative purposes, that there is an underground Church and that you and I are a part of it.
The time comes for the Reaping and our names our picked.
What do you do?
Assuming there is no escape, do you enter the Games and refuse to fight, which would appear to be the biblical option, even though you and your family will be killed anyaway?
Perhaps you will fight, pick up a bow, a spear, a hook, a knife, or an axe, and take the life of a another person, not much different in age than you, in order to save yourself and your family
Would you do that to me?
From the outside looking in, I think one viable option for me would be the "path of least bloodshed":
To not attack unless attacked, and fighting to kill only if deadly force is being used against you.
Nonetheless, something tells me that if I was actually in the Games, I probably would just sit down in the grass and wait for the inevitable...
Now I know that the Hunger Game's is fiction and I think we're safe to say that the situations that the characters in the book are presented with we will never have to face.
However, from the time of Jesus to today, March 22, 2012, there are those who are faced with the choice to deny the Lord of Glory or suffer the consequences.
If they deny Him, their lives may be spared, but if they choose to stand in their commitment to Christ, they, their families, and friends may be put in grave danger.
Do you know what you would do if you had to choose either Jesus, or your life and the life of your family?
While I may not be able to map out a sure-fire plan of what I would do in either situation or in the many trials I will face on earth, I know that because of the Spirit of Christ within me, I need not be afraid, for He, who reigns over all, has overcome the world.
And I know that if time ever came where I must either deny Christ or live, He would give me the strength to say, I do believe.
---Leave me a comment and tell me what you would do if you were in the Hunger Games or faced with a "Life or Jesus" situation ---
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
If the Whole Church Played Bible Bowl
For those of you who don't know, there is a coalition of kids from around the country who memorize pre-selected book(s) of the Bible and compete over their respective knowledge of the biblical text on the regional level, at summer college tournaments, and at an annual National Tournament.
We call it Bible Bowl.
When I joined the Bible Bowl family in '08, I was not new to competitive Bible memory ( think AWANA) and I was excited for the chance to again learn God's Word, in such a format, with people of like mind.
Historically speaking, Bible Bowl is a product of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and was started at a college of their affiliation, Lincoln Christian University.
Going into Bible Bowl, with my naiveté in hand, I assumed that we were all on the same page, theologically, more or less, and *Stone-Campbell sympathizers of varying stripes. (*the Stone-Campbell movement gave birth to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)
Yeah, I was wrong.
I'm ashamed to admit that it took me 3 years and a Facebook account to realize that the Bible Bowl community is made up of all kinds of theological viewpoints.
We have Pentecostals, Calvinists, theological liberals, theological conservatives, and, Restorationists.
You would think in a gathering of Christians with such diverse theological views, and no one being asked to compromise or accept any certain creed, that chaos and strife would ensue.
Right?
Wrong.
Bible Bowlers come together and fellowship much like a family: we laugh, play around, compete, debate, pray, reflect, and, most importantly, we love each other.
But, how is this possible?
Bible Bowlers recognize that what unites us more important than what divides us: a mutual love and respect for the game of Bible Bowl and an even stronger love and respect for our Savior Jesus Christ.
So, what if the whole Church played Bible Bowl?
If everybody was involved in this awesome game in some way, couldn't we unite the Church?
Of course there would be some odd balls who'd go against the grain, but wouldn't most people jump at the chance to be a part of such an awesome group of loving people?
I hope that you, like me, realize that no matter how much I love Bible Bowl, this is neither a practical or possible idea.
Bible Bowl is a man-made creation and, as such, is not capable of uniting Christ's Church.
In fact, there is no convention, denomination, group, activity, creed or creation of man that is capable of uniting Believers.
If it is up to us, by our own abilities, talents, and resources to construct a medium for Church unity, I promise you that we will NEVER succeed.
But, thanks be to God we don't have to invent some scheme or plan for church unity, because He himself has already given us the basis for uniting His people.
For as Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Christ, we are to be in God.
And while the whole Church cannot play Bible Bowl, we have an even better basis for unity: our shared relationship with the God of Heaven, Creator of the Universe and Lover of Our Souls.
It is in our relationship with Jesus that true unity is found and, somehow, that seems very fitting.
John 17:20-23
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
We call it Bible Bowl.
When I joined the Bible Bowl family in '08, I was not new to competitive Bible memory ( think AWANA) and I was excited for the chance to again learn God's Word, in such a format, with people of like mind.
Historically speaking, Bible Bowl is a product of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and was started at a college of their affiliation, Lincoln Christian University.
Going into Bible Bowl, with my naiveté in hand, I assumed that we were all on the same page, theologically, more or less, and *Stone-Campbell sympathizers of varying stripes. (*the Stone-Campbell movement gave birth to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)
Yeah, I was wrong.
I'm ashamed to admit that it took me 3 years and a Facebook account to realize that the Bible Bowl community is made up of all kinds of theological viewpoints.
We have Pentecostals, Calvinists, theological liberals, theological conservatives, and, Restorationists.
You would think in a gathering of Christians with such diverse theological views, and no one being asked to compromise or accept any certain creed, that chaos and strife would ensue.
Right?
Wrong.
Bible Bowlers come together and fellowship much like a family: we laugh, play around, compete, debate, pray, reflect, and, most importantly, we love each other.
But, how is this possible?
Bible Bowlers recognize that what unites us more important than what divides us: a mutual love and respect for the game of Bible Bowl and an even stronger love and respect for our Savior Jesus Christ.
So, what if the whole Church played Bible Bowl?
If everybody was involved in this awesome game in some way, couldn't we unite the Church?
Of course there would be some odd balls who'd go against the grain, but wouldn't most people jump at the chance to be a part of such an awesome group of loving people?
I hope that you, like me, realize that no matter how much I love Bible Bowl, this is neither a practical or possible idea.
Bible Bowl is a man-made creation and, as such, is not capable of uniting Christ's Church.
In fact, there is no convention, denomination, group, activity, creed or creation of man that is capable of uniting Believers.
If it is up to us, by our own abilities, talents, and resources to construct a medium for Church unity, I promise you that we will NEVER succeed.
But, thanks be to God we don't have to invent some scheme or plan for church unity, because He himself has already given us the basis for uniting His people.
For as Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Christ, we are to be in God.
And while the whole Church cannot play Bible Bowl, we have an even better basis for unity: our shared relationship with the God of Heaven, Creator of the Universe and Lover of Our Souls.
It is in our relationship with Jesus that true unity is found and, somehow, that seems very fitting.
John 17:20-23
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Reaching Homosexuals with Christ: Two Problems
I'm adopted.
In being adopted into a family whose race is different than my own, I have had some very unique experiences and challenges that only those who have also been in interracially adopted, in similar circumstances can understand.
In the same way, I have no doubt that there are certain things about you and your life that only those who've had similar experiences can understand and relate too.
When friends or family who have not been through what we have try to commiserate with us or give us advice concerning our experiences, they may mean well, but they ultimately fall short because of an empathy gap.
However, when we receive comfort or counsel from a godly man or woman who has been in our shoes it makes such a difference and serves as a great encouragement.
Switch gears to the issue of non-believers with same-sex attraction (SSA) .
Can you see, given my example, how a person with SSA would rebuff someone who tries to give them godly exhortations because of a lack of common ground?
Any attempt at evangelism seems shallow and is viewed with suspicion because of a lack of common ground.
This "empathy gap" between Christians without SSA and non-Christians with SSA is the first problem.
The second problem is also the solution.
Sound confusing?
Let me explain:
I think it is painstakingly clear that the best avenue by which to reach homosexuals with the gospel message and explain to them a Christian outlook on sexuality is by Christians who themselves have SSA and are living out the Christian life, either in chastity or in committed heterosexual relationships, by the grace and power of God.
They understand the hurts and the trials that those with SSA face and the freedom and liberty that Christ can bring to those who are enslaved by the homosexual lifestyle.
This, I think, is not a novel idea.
The problem is that the local body of believers, young and old, especially in the more conservative sectors of Christendom, (of which I love and am a part) have not made the local Body a safe place to tell their stories and "come out" as Christians with SSA.
Strange, insensitive, and often incorrect ideas regarding the precise nature of Christians who have SSA have created an environment that many with SSA in our churches find hostile and unwelcoming.
You can see the problem: what non-believing persons with SSA need (like everyone else) is the gospel, and those who are the most qualified to bring it to them are afraid to come out in our churches for fear of being treated like freaks or looked down upon or even cast out of our ranks.
Earlier, I said that the problem is also the solution:
When our preachers, elders, deacons, and "laity" make a conscious decision that their local churches will be places where our brother and sisters with SSA can thrive, grow, and contribute in areas related and unrelated to their attractions we can begin the process of reaping the harvest of unconverted homosexuals in our communities AND giving hope to young Christians with SSA who feel hopeless and are confused about their feelings
Essentially, when the Church begins acting like the Church we will see people coming to Christ as a result.
I'm thinking of doing another blog post on how we can begin to effect a positive change in this area, but in the meantime search your own heart and see what you should be doing better in order to to reach out to those in your church who may be struggling with SSA.
In being adopted into a family whose race is different than my own, I have had some very unique experiences and challenges that only those who have also been in interracially adopted, in similar circumstances can understand.
In the same way, I have no doubt that there are certain things about you and your life that only those who've had similar experiences can understand and relate too.
When friends or family who have not been through what we have try to commiserate with us or give us advice concerning our experiences, they may mean well, but they ultimately fall short because of an empathy gap.
However, when we receive comfort or counsel from a godly man or woman who has been in our shoes it makes such a difference and serves as a great encouragement.
Switch gears to the issue of non-believers with same-sex attraction (SSA) .
Can you see, given my example, how a person with SSA would rebuff someone who tries to give them godly exhortations because of a lack of common ground?
Any attempt at evangelism seems shallow and is viewed with suspicion because of a lack of common ground.
This "empathy gap" between Christians without SSA and non-Christians with SSA is the first problem.
The second problem is also the solution.
Sound confusing?
Let me explain:
I think it is painstakingly clear that the best avenue by which to reach homosexuals with the gospel message and explain to them a Christian outlook on sexuality is by Christians who themselves have SSA and are living out the Christian life, either in chastity or in committed heterosexual relationships, by the grace and power of God.
They understand the hurts and the trials that those with SSA face and the freedom and liberty that Christ can bring to those who are enslaved by the homosexual lifestyle.
This, I think, is not a novel idea.
The problem is that the local body of believers, young and old, especially in the more conservative sectors of Christendom, (of which I love and am a part) have not made the local Body a safe place to tell their stories and "come out" as Christians with SSA.
Strange, insensitive, and often incorrect ideas regarding the precise nature of Christians who have SSA have created an environment that many with SSA in our churches find hostile and unwelcoming.
You can see the problem: what non-believing persons with SSA need (like everyone else) is the gospel, and those who are the most qualified to bring it to them are afraid to come out in our churches for fear of being treated like freaks or looked down upon or even cast out of our ranks.
Earlier, I said that the problem is also the solution:
When our preachers, elders, deacons, and "laity" make a conscious decision that their local churches will be places where our brother and sisters with SSA can thrive, grow, and contribute in areas related and unrelated to their attractions we can begin the process of reaping the harvest of unconverted homosexuals in our communities AND giving hope to young Christians with SSA who feel hopeless and are confused about their feelings
Essentially, when the Church begins acting like the Church we will see people coming to Christ as a result.
I'm thinking of doing another blog post on how we can begin to effect a positive change in this area, but in the meantime search your own heart and see what you should be doing better in order to to reach out to those in your church who may be struggling with SSA.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
What Justice?
I first heard about the man Joseph Kony while watching "Law and Order: SVU" two years ago.
The episode, titled "Hell", did a great job of painting Kony and his "Lord's Resistance Army" as the terrors that they are and it moved me to educate myself about this man and his "army".
I'm glad I did.
Recently, a video put out by the humanitarian group "Invisible Children" details some of the atrocities committed at the direction of Kony and what exactly must be done to capture him and end the madness caused by this wretched warlord.
I'm not tech savvy, but from a lay perspective, the video seemed very well done and I think all Christians would agree that we have a duty to assist our African brothers and sisters in helping their communities protect themselves from Kony's forces.
However, as I watched the video, I became uncomfortable at the secular humanism and utopianism sprinkled throughout the video.
The idea behind the whole project is that man working by himself, apart from God, can create a world of peace and justice on human merit alone.
In other words: "thanks but no thanks, God, we can rebuild our world without your help".
An idea that is as old as the Tower of Babel.
What is worse is that Christians are buying this idea without a second thought!
Excuse me, but when did social justice become an end, itself, rather than the means to an end, namely, men and women in the fold of God?
Do we really believe it's possible for man to create a world of peace and justice devoid of God?
How deep is that kind of "peace"?
And how valuable is that kind of "justice"?
The world needs to know that not only is not in fallen man's capability to right every wrong and cure all societal ills, but that ultimately when our social justice endeavors are divorced from the gospel they mean nothing.
I'm not saying they are damaged or that they hold only little value.
I mean nothing.
What does it profit a Ugandan child to be rescued from the the LRA, live a long, happy life and die and go to hell because he saw that man didn't need God to "make the world a better place"?
Or what is gained when the Church plays footsie with worldly philosophies that put man on par with God and eclipse the gospel?
When we make social justice an end and fool ourselves into believing we can effect that end apart from God, we are working against the truth of the gospel and souls will suffer as a result.
When we divorce justice from God, we are left with a form of godliness with absolutely no power.
Let me say clearly, I don't believe that Christians abstain from secular social justice endeavors.
What I'm saying is that the Body must not fall into the trap of thinking that social justice can be effectively separated from the Just One himself or that man, apart from, God can transcend his human nature and make a perfect world of peace and love.
Only in the superficial realm can man make progress, so if you want real change you'd better be preaching Christ crucified and working by his power.
Whenever we help others we need to do so in the name of the One who's name is Hope and Justice.
In the name of Jesus will the nations put their hope and then and only then will we experience the whole of Peace and Justice ~
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:8
The episode, titled "Hell", did a great job of painting Kony and his "Lord's Resistance Army" as the terrors that they are and it moved me to educate myself about this man and his "army".
I'm glad I did.
Recently, a video put out by the humanitarian group "Invisible Children" details some of the atrocities committed at the direction of Kony and what exactly must be done to capture him and end the madness caused by this wretched warlord.
I'm not tech savvy, but from a lay perspective, the video seemed very well done and I think all Christians would agree that we have a duty to assist our African brothers and sisters in helping their communities protect themselves from Kony's forces.
However, as I watched the video, I became uncomfortable at the secular humanism and utopianism sprinkled throughout the video.
The idea behind the whole project is that man working by himself, apart from God, can create a world of peace and justice on human merit alone.
In other words: "thanks but no thanks, God, we can rebuild our world without your help".
An idea that is as old as the Tower of Babel.
What is worse is that Christians are buying this idea without a second thought!
Excuse me, but when did social justice become an end, itself, rather than the means to an end, namely, men and women in the fold of God?
Do we really believe it's possible for man to create a world of peace and justice devoid of God?
How deep is that kind of "peace"?
And how valuable is that kind of "justice"?
The world needs to know that not only is not in fallen man's capability to right every wrong and cure all societal ills, but that ultimately when our social justice endeavors are divorced from the gospel they mean nothing.
I'm not saying they are damaged or that they hold only little value.
I mean nothing.
What does it profit a Ugandan child to be rescued from the the LRA, live a long, happy life and die and go to hell because he saw that man didn't need God to "make the world a better place"?
Or what is gained when the Church plays footsie with worldly philosophies that put man on par with God and eclipse the gospel?
When we make social justice an end and fool ourselves into believing we can effect that end apart from God, we are working against the truth of the gospel and souls will suffer as a result.
When we divorce justice from God, we are left with a form of godliness with absolutely no power.
Let me say clearly, I don't believe that Christians abstain from secular social justice endeavors.
What I'm saying is that the Body must not fall into the trap of thinking that social justice can be effectively separated from the Just One himself or that man, apart from, God can transcend his human nature and make a perfect world of peace and love.
Only in the superficial realm can man make progress, so if you want real change you'd better be preaching Christ crucified and working by his power.
Whenever we help others we need to do so in the name of the One who's name is Hope and Justice.
In the name of Jesus will the nations put their hope and then and only then will we experience the whole of Peace and Justice ~
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:8
Friday, December 9, 2011
In Defense of the Duggars
I was shocked and saddened at the news, yesterday, that Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar had miscarried their twentieth child, seemingly so soon after they had just announced their pregnancy.
Even more shocking were the droves of scoffers and the morally indignant who flocked to Facebook and Internet comment threads to capitalize on the tragedy.
Their message, of course, was clear: it was her fault for having so many children; she had it coming.
It was the last statement, in particular, that had me up in arms.
No one, not even Michelle herself, I think, would dispute the fact that her age and previous miscarriage put her at a higher risk for another failed pregnancy.
That is not the issue.
The comments were not simply "she had a higher risk of miscarriage so I'm not surprised" but also "she deserved her miscarriage for having so many children".
Sex before marriage? - Sure! - Cohabitation? - You bethca! - Abortion? - Why not?
How about being the loving parents of nineteen, well-behaved, well taken care of children without government help?
*Gasp* Surely not! Why that's "immoral", "unethical", "irresponsible", and "selfish"!
Not surprisingly, the Bible is at odds with contemporary wisdom on "family planning" and the ultimate controller of life and death.
Scripture is clear that it is God who gives life ( 1 Timothy 6:13) and sets the measure of a man's days (Job 14:5).
We also read that children are blessings (Psalm 127:3-5, John 16:21).
God has also given us a charge to procreate (Genesis 1:28, 9:7, 35:11).
This is a blessing AND a command.
One doesn't have to think to hard whether or not the Duggars have any biblical for their family planning philosophy.
Heck! As far as I can tell, their "unusual" family is exactly what we should see if the biblical perspective on procreation is played out in the lives of someone who can properly raise and take care of many children.
This is not hard to imagine when one understand that we are to have and raise children for the Lord and His glory. (1 Corinthians 10:31)
Or that God wishes to share Himself and His absolute goodness and splendor with as many people as possible in our world. (2 Peter 3:9)
I have to ask why anyone wouldn't jump at the chance to have and raise children (adopted or natural) in the hope that they may one day have the privilege of glorifying God and enjoying him forever.
Unselfishness and responsibility preclude abusing God's blessings not accepting them gratefully with the intention of bringing Him honor.
As long as a person is in position where they can fulfill God's command to procreate, rightly and with integrity they should have no qualms about doing so.
I must say that while birth control divorces sex from its procreational purposes, it is not explicitly condemned in the Bible and, therefore, must be treated accordingly.
In short, no child, born or unborn, should be denied the opportunity to have and share the glory of God here on earth and in heaven, especially not for selfish purposes.
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar are doing nothing but obeying the Word of God and others would do well to take notice and follow their example.
Even more shocking were the droves of scoffers and the morally indignant who flocked to Facebook and Internet comment threads to capitalize on the tragedy.
Their message, of course, was clear: it was her fault for having so many children; she had it coming.
It was the last statement, in particular, that had me up in arms.
No one, not even Michelle herself, I think, would dispute the fact that her age and previous miscarriage put her at a higher risk for another failed pregnancy.
That is not the issue.
The comments were not simply "she had a higher risk of miscarriage so I'm not surprised" but also "she deserved her miscarriage for having so many children".
Sex before marriage? - Sure! - Cohabitation? - You bethca! - Abortion? - Why not?
How about being the loving parents of nineteen, well-behaved, well taken care of children without government help?
*Gasp* Surely not! Why that's "immoral", "unethical", "irresponsible", and "selfish"!
Not surprisingly, the Bible is at odds with contemporary wisdom on "family planning" and the ultimate controller of life and death.
Scripture is clear that it is God who gives life ( 1 Timothy 6:13) and sets the measure of a man's days (Job 14:5).
We also read that children are blessings (Psalm 127:3-5, John 16:21).
God has also given us a charge to procreate (Genesis 1:28, 9:7, 35:11).
This is a blessing AND a command.
One doesn't have to think to hard whether or not the Duggars have any biblical for their family planning philosophy.
Heck! As far as I can tell, their "unusual" family is exactly what we should see if the biblical perspective on procreation is played out in the lives of someone who can properly raise and take care of many children.
This is not hard to imagine when one understand that we are to have and raise children for the Lord and His glory. (1 Corinthians 10:31)
Or that God wishes to share Himself and His absolute goodness and splendor with as many people as possible in our world. (2 Peter 3:9)
I have to ask why anyone wouldn't jump at the chance to have and raise children (adopted or natural) in the hope that they may one day have the privilege of glorifying God and enjoying him forever.
Unselfishness and responsibility preclude abusing God's blessings not accepting them gratefully with the intention of bringing Him honor.
As long as a person is in position where they can fulfill God's command to procreate, rightly and with integrity they should have no qualms about doing so.
I must say that while birth control divorces sex from its procreational purposes, it is not explicitly condemned in the Bible and, therefore, must be treated accordingly.
In short, no child, born or unborn, should be denied the opportunity to have and share the glory of God here on earth and in heaven, especially not for selfish purposes.
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar are doing nothing but obeying the Word of God and others would do well to take notice and follow their example.
Monday, December 5, 2011
A Not So Brief Rebuttal of James White
The scriptural teaching on the purpose of baptism finds little support among today's evangelicals and none among Calvinists, most of whom operate under a flawed view of man's depravity and a faith-at-the-exclusion-of-anything-else view of salvation.
Reformed theologian and apologist James White is no exception. In his article "A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration" Dr. White seeks to "point out a basic, foundational error" of "such groups like the Church of Christ" who "have some doctrine of baptismal regeneration" and to "briefly respond to a couple of the more often used proof texts provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration".
This article caught my eye because Dr. White more than suggests that the Churches of Christ ( a capella or more mainline, instrumental he does not specify) believe that the water in baptism somehow conveys of channels grace in some form or another, a la baptismal regeneration.
This of course is a gross misrepresentation of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (SCRM) view of salvation.
The purpose of this article expose some foundational errors in Dr. White's understanding of salvation and then lay out a more accurate view of baptism and its connection to salvation taken by SCRM people.
Dr. White's full article may be found here: http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html
Part 1: Dead Men Can't Be Baptized
Dr. White writes:
"Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the response from these would-be self-made disciples indicates (8:41, 48). Men do not like to hear that they are, in fact, totally dependent upon God's grace for salvation--they do not want to know that they are incapable of saving themselves, or even of coming unto Christ for salvation, outside of God's gracious drawing (John 6:44). But as the Lord Himself said, we are slaves to sin. Slaves must be freed."
I really love this passage because it so accurately expresses man's complete hopelessness apart from God and his grace. Man's deadness in sin only serves to highlight the mercy and grace in God's universal drawing (John 12:32; John 6:44-45). Dr. White also writes:
Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just as he told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ" (Colossians 2:13).
This statement is more than humorous considering the fact that Dr. White completely ignores the time at which one is made alive, stated one verse prior to the Colossian's passage. Colossians 2:9-12 reads:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Church of Christ theologian Dr. Jack Cottrell writes about this verse:
Here two things are said to happen in baptism. First, we are "buried with Him", i.e, with Christ. According to Romans 6:3-4 this means we are buried into the death of Christ. To be buried with Christ into his death means to receive all the saving benefits of his atoning death; it means to come into contact with his justifying blood and thus to receive the forgiveness of sins.
The second thing that happens in baptism is that we are "raised up with Him". This refers to the initial act of indwelling Holy Spirit. As soon as God gives us his Spirit (as promised in Acts 2:38), the spirit infuses life into our dead souls. Our spirits our raised from the dead by the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus' body from the tomb (Romans 8:10-11; see Col 2:13). (The Faith Once for All; pg. 363)
Wow! It is no wonder Dr White skips right past this verse. He then appeals to the "total incapability " of man, trying to show that unregenerate man cannot even want to be want to be baptized.
He quotes Romans 8:5-8 and then writes:
Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to a "spiritual man" through baptism; yet, from whence does this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible.
First of all, SCRM people believe that baptism is the occasion of salvation not the means; but what about the desire to be baptized? Where does it come from? The answer is our faith, which comes as a result of contact with the word of God ( Romans 10:17).
But the Bible says the " those who are in the flesh cannot please God".
How then can those in the flesh have faith and be baptized? We must understand the context of Romans 8 is speaking about the law not the gospel.
Dr. Cottrell writes in his Romans commentary:
What is the nature of this inability? Calvinists see in this text the concept of total inability, which is the idea that sinners are so totally depraved that they cannot respond to the gospel without God's selective irresistible grace. However, Paul's point here has nothing to do with whether a person controlled by his flesh can respond gospel. Rather his inability is related to the law. Such a person is unable to obey any command of the law as God wants it done an as the law requires.
The key words are "as long as." A person cannot be pleasing to God in obedience to his law as long as his mind remains set on the flesh. But there is no indication whatsoever in this text that a sinner is unable to respond to the gospel, or unable through the power of the gospel to redirect the set of his mind from flesh to Spirit. The context shows that "cannot please God" refers only to an inability to be subject to the law, and does not imply an inability to respond to the gospel. The failure to make this distinction is the main error of the Calvinists' interpretation of these verses. In other passages it is clear that sinners are able and expected to respond in faith and repentance (John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev.22:17; Matt. 23:37).
But Dr. White isn't through:
Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability.
The Churches of Christ see baptism as the literal occasion not means of our death burial, and resurrection in Christ. In this view the symbolism makes perfect sense. We die and our buried with Christ in the watery grave of baptism (we our saved and justified) and our raised to new life by our faith (receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the affects thereof) at that event. Baptism as a "salvation-event" is not man saving himself but man being saved after obeying the gospel. (1 Peter 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 5:8; 1 Peter 2:6-8, 4:7;)
In taking the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14).
Dr. White has defined spiritual "deadness" a priori to mean incapable of obeying the gospel. We have already shown this to be false. It is a fact of Scripture that without God's grace there is no salvation- period.
Again, in the SCRM view, baptism is the event at which we are saved by God's grace, thus baptism is a salvation-event and not a procuring cause.
The last part of his statement is rich considering that even on Dr. White's Calvinism, the elect are not saved until God unilaterally regenerates them enabling them to have faith. It Christ' death still a theory until that moment? Dr. White does not tell us. In fact saved through faith (Eph. 2:8) presupposes we are not saved until we do something, namely have faith.
In summation, we have seen that Romans 8:5-8 in no way precludes obedience to the gospel but to the law and that man is able and expected to believe the gospel (John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev.22:17; Matt. 23:37). In addition, the biblical "salvation-event" view of baptism in no way minimize man's sinfulness of spiritual depravity but underscore it, making man truly responsible for forsaking the gospel, since he can indeed do otherwise. We have also shown that said baptism does not makes man a "little helper" in his salvation but an obedient recipient of God's grace.
When the veil of "total depravity" is removed we can begin to see more clearly God's purposes in baptism and the grave responsibility man bears for rejecting the gospel. Parts 2 and 3 hopefully coming soon!
Reformed theologian and apologist James White is no exception. In his article "A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration" Dr. White seeks to "point out a basic, foundational error" of "such groups like the Church of Christ" who "have some doctrine of baptismal regeneration" and to "briefly respond to a couple of the more often used proof texts provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration".
This article caught my eye because Dr. White more than suggests that the Churches of Christ ( a capella or more mainline, instrumental he does not specify) believe that the water in baptism somehow conveys of channels grace in some form or another, a la baptismal regeneration.
This of course is a gross misrepresentation of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (SCRM) view of salvation.
The purpose of this article expose some foundational errors in Dr. White's understanding of salvation and then lay out a more accurate view of baptism and its connection to salvation taken by SCRM people.
Dr. White's full article may be found here: http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html
Part 1: Dead Men Can't Be Baptized
Dr. White writes:
"Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the response from these would-be self-made disciples indicates (8:41, 48). Men do not like to hear that they are, in fact, totally dependent upon God's grace for salvation--they do not want to know that they are incapable of saving themselves, or even of coming unto Christ for salvation, outside of God's gracious drawing (John 6:44). But as the Lord Himself said, we are slaves to sin. Slaves must be freed."
I really love this passage because it so accurately expresses man's complete hopelessness apart from God and his grace. Man's deadness in sin only serves to highlight the mercy and grace in God's universal drawing (John 12:32; John 6:44-45). Dr. White also writes:
Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just as he told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ" (Colossians 2:13).
This statement is more than humorous considering the fact that Dr. White completely ignores the time at which one is made alive, stated one verse prior to the Colossian's passage. Colossians 2:9-12 reads:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Church of Christ theologian Dr. Jack Cottrell writes about this verse:
Here two things are said to happen in baptism. First, we are "buried with Him", i.e, with Christ. According to Romans 6:3-4 this means we are buried into the death of Christ. To be buried with Christ into his death means to receive all the saving benefits of his atoning death; it means to come into contact with his justifying blood and thus to receive the forgiveness of sins.
The second thing that happens in baptism is that we are "raised up with Him". This refers to the initial act of indwelling Holy Spirit. As soon as God gives us his Spirit (as promised in Acts 2:38), the spirit infuses life into our dead souls. Our spirits our raised from the dead by the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus' body from the tomb (Romans 8:10-11; see Col 2:13). (The Faith Once for All; pg. 363)
Wow! It is no wonder Dr White skips right past this verse. He then appeals to the "total incapability " of man, trying to show that unregenerate man cannot even want to be want to be baptized.
He quotes Romans 8:5-8 and then writes:
Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to a "spiritual man" through baptism; yet, from whence does this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible.
First of all, SCRM people believe that baptism is the occasion of salvation not the means; but what about the desire to be baptized? Where does it come from? The answer is our faith, which comes as a result of contact with the word of God ( Romans 10:17).
But the Bible says the " those who are in the flesh cannot please God".
How then can those in the flesh have faith and be baptized? We must understand the context of Romans 8 is speaking about the law not the gospel.
Dr. Cottrell writes in his Romans commentary:
What is the nature of this inability? Calvinists see in this text the concept of total inability, which is the idea that sinners are so totally depraved that they cannot respond to the gospel without God's selective irresistible grace. However, Paul's point here has nothing to do with whether a person controlled by his flesh can respond gospel. Rather his inability is related to the law. Such a person is unable to obey any command of the law as God wants it done an as the law requires.
The key words are "as long as." A person cannot be pleasing to God in obedience to his law as long as his mind remains set on the flesh. But there is no indication whatsoever in this text that a sinner is unable to respond to the gospel, or unable through the power of the gospel to redirect the set of his mind from flesh to Spirit. The context shows that "cannot please God" refers only to an inability to be subject to the law, and does not imply an inability to respond to the gospel. The failure to make this distinction is the main error of the Calvinists' interpretation of these verses. In other passages it is clear that sinners are able and expected to respond in faith and repentance (John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev.22:17; Matt. 23:37).
But Dr. White isn't through:
Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability.
The Churches of Christ see baptism as the literal occasion not means of our death burial, and resurrection in Christ. In this view the symbolism makes perfect sense. We die and our buried with Christ in the watery grave of baptism (we our saved and justified) and our raised to new life by our faith (receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the affects thereof) at that event. Baptism as a "salvation-event" is not man saving himself but man being saved after obeying the gospel. (1 Peter 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 5:8; 1 Peter 2:6-8, 4:7;)
In taking the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14).
Dr. White has defined spiritual "deadness" a priori to mean incapable of obeying the gospel. We have already shown this to be false. It is a fact of Scripture that without God's grace there is no salvation- period.
Again, in the SCRM view, baptism is the event at which we are saved by God's grace, thus baptism is a salvation-event and not a procuring cause.
The last part of his statement is rich considering that even on Dr. White's Calvinism, the elect are not saved until God unilaterally regenerates them enabling them to have faith. It Christ' death still a theory until that moment? Dr. White does not tell us. In fact saved through faith (Eph. 2:8) presupposes we are not saved until we do something, namely have faith.
In summation, we have seen that Romans 8:5-8 in no way precludes obedience to the gospel but to the law and that man is able and expected to believe the gospel (John 3:16; Rom 1:17; Rev.22:17; Matt. 23:37). In addition, the biblical "salvation-event" view of baptism in no way minimize man's sinfulness of spiritual depravity but underscore it, making man truly responsible for forsaking the gospel, since he can indeed do otherwise. We have also shown that said baptism does not makes man a "little helper" in his salvation but an obedient recipient of God's grace.
When the veil of "total depravity" is removed we can begin to see more clearly God's purposes in baptism and the grave responsibility man bears for rejecting the gospel. Parts 2 and 3 hopefully coming soon!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
In Defense of Bible Bowl
I am a Bible Bowler. No, I do not participate in a Christian bowling league but rather I compete in a national Bible memory competition with other teens every month at my church as well as with teens from around the country at our annual national tournament. Our local round-robin competitions include devotions to start off the day and times for prayer before every round. The competitions can run pretty long but I always have fun and enjoy fellowshipping with other Believers. The individual rounds, which are set up in a College Bowl format, can get tense at times but it is up to us to police ourselves and make sure we are acting in step with Jesus. I have seen my life and the lives of others changed by God's Word through this program and I feel like this is a great way to empower youth AND adults through the power of Christian love. It's not perfect program but it sounds pretty good, right? Well, some would disagree. For example: I was accosted by a youth leader who accused me and hundreds of other Bible Bowlers of being divisive and implied that there is something unethical about "competing for cash prizes", as he characterized the Christian college scholarships which are given out at our summer tournaments and national competition in addition to added gift certificates. He impugned my character as well as the character of hundreds of other kids in programs such as AWANA, Bible Bowl, Bible Quiz, and Bible Bee. This is my defense of these great programs promoting biblical literacy.
1. Bible Bowl and other such programs engender divisiveness.
My view is that Bible Bowl doesn't bring out or put into a person any feelings that are not already present consciously or subconsciously. Bible Bowl doesn't make people divisive in any scripturally, sinful sense BUT a person can use Bible bowl as an object of division. We can control our feelings and are responsible to make sure that it is us who are in control over our feelings and not our feelings controlling us. If a person chooses to be divisive it is not a Bible Bowl issue but a heart issue. We don't shut down a program because it can be abused rather we exhort each other to keep everything in proper context and that is what happens all the time at Bible Bowl. Nearly every month at our local round robin whoever gives the devotion will stress the point that the verses that are embedded in our minds need to make it to our hearts and hands. We cannot force someone to not feel a certain way but we can encourage and correct them. This is all that can be asked of those parents sponsors coaches and players who are part of the Bible Bowl family.
2. You can't undergo discipleship simply from rote memory.
Perhaps, but as my coach always says the Scripture has to be in your head before it can be in your heart. Bible Bowl is under no obligation, spiritual or otherwise, to teach theology or Bible studies to go along with the memorization. With that in mind, prayer and student led devotions are always apart of the program schedule. Because Bible Bowl does not have a Bible study type format does not make it unprofitable, to say the least, RATHER when a person goes into a Bible study they are equipped with biblical knowledge they have received from their Bible Bowl studies.
3. "Ca$h Prize$"
There is nothing wrong with incentive monetary or otherwise for a job well done as long as that is not the end goal. Show me a verse in the Bible that implies otherwise. Any added prize or even a trophy becomes sinful when it characterizes the program or takes away from the overall goal of the program or eclipses the spiritual aspect of the program.
4. There are /better/more productive/ more uniting/ insert benefit here/ ways to learn the Bible.
Maybe. There are probably worse ways too. What's your point? Bible Bowl has proven itself productive and biblically sound even if it's not perfect. As for the unity issue, kids need to know that they are not the only ones out there with a desire to know God's Word and being around the like-minded in a such a setting fosters much unity and church awareness.
5. Why give the prizes if it's all about learning God's Word?
Fair question. Some of the awards such as scholarships and mission trips go back into the Kingdom. But things like gift certificates are given not because God's Word is not sufficient but because people like gift certificates. Seriously there's no complex reason and it does not take away from the overall goal so I don't see a problem.
There are so many more better questions and better answers but these are some of the ones I've come up against. I hope that we would support and encourage programs that promote biblical literacy rather than demonize them and in all things we should voice our objections in love. Anyone wanting to know more about Bible Bowl should go to www.biblebowl.net.
1. Bible Bowl and other such programs engender divisiveness.
My view is that Bible Bowl doesn't bring out or put into a person any feelings that are not already present consciously or subconsciously. Bible Bowl doesn't make people divisive in any scripturally, sinful sense BUT a person can use Bible bowl as an object of division. We can control our feelings and are responsible to make sure that it is us who are in control over our feelings and not our feelings controlling us. If a person chooses to be divisive it is not a Bible Bowl issue but a heart issue. We don't shut down a program because it can be abused rather we exhort each other to keep everything in proper context and that is what happens all the time at Bible Bowl. Nearly every month at our local round robin whoever gives the devotion will stress the point that the verses that are embedded in our minds need to make it to our hearts and hands. We cannot force someone to not feel a certain way but we can encourage and correct them. This is all that can be asked of those parents sponsors coaches and players who are part of the Bible Bowl family.
2. You can't undergo discipleship simply from rote memory.
Perhaps, but as my coach always says the Scripture has to be in your head before it can be in your heart. Bible Bowl is under no obligation, spiritual or otherwise, to teach theology or Bible studies to go along with the memorization. With that in mind, prayer and student led devotions are always apart of the program schedule. Because Bible Bowl does not have a Bible study type format does not make it unprofitable, to say the least, RATHER when a person goes into a Bible study they are equipped with biblical knowledge they have received from their Bible Bowl studies.
3. "Ca$h Prize$"
There is nothing wrong with incentive monetary or otherwise for a job well done as long as that is not the end goal. Show me a verse in the Bible that implies otherwise. Any added prize or even a trophy becomes sinful when it characterizes the program or takes away from the overall goal of the program or eclipses the spiritual aspect of the program.
4. There are /better/more productive/ more uniting/ insert benefit here/ ways to learn the Bible.
Maybe. There are probably worse ways too. What's your point? Bible Bowl has proven itself productive and biblically sound even if it's not perfect. As for the unity issue, kids need to know that they are not the only ones out there with a desire to know God's Word and being around the like-minded in a such a setting fosters much unity and church awareness.
5. Why give the prizes if it's all about learning God's Word?
Fair question. Some of the awards such as scholarships and mission trips go back into the Kingdom. But things like gift certificates are given not because God's Word is not sufficient but because people like gift certificates. Seriously there's no complex reason and it does not take away from the overall goal so I don't see a problem.
There are so many more better questions and better answers but these are some of the ones I've come up against. I hope that we would support and encourage programs that promote biblical literacy rather than demonize them and in all things we should voice our objections in love. Anyone wanting to know more about Bible Bowl should go to www.biblebowl.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)