Thursday, April 30, 2015

X-rays and love is the same

Not too long ago a lesbian couple danced in front of an xray, kissed and revealed they were gay.  Love knows no difference! Was the headline.  But what kind of love? The point that was made missed the point that should’ve been made.




All they proved was we are biological human.
It could (should) more easily be a case for common humanity.  It proves that the lesbian couple are human and worthy of human dignity just like those who disagree with their lifestyle.

It did not prove their union (which could never be proper) was equal, or even identical to a male female union. At best their point would be prove their romantic relationship is not bestiality.  

What struck me most though, was how this argument could and should be extended to their genitals (to be blunt).  It’s an argument from biology as well as the one I just made just not carried further than what is comfortable.    Their point would have been still muddled on sexuality but stronger, had they argued for their humanity.  But biology attests to quite the opposite of what they put forward as far as romantic love and gender.    

If we studied the two people dancing we would realize there is something missing (I won't be blunt here). It ignores telos (purpose), that sex is involved in reproduction and reproduction is inseperable from sex. Their union can’t create children, they are simply identical. If we add a man to the mix and take one of the women out, all of a sudden we see reproduction is possible.

Their union bears no fruit, neither does it contain the design that would. To make their argument from biology, they’d have to ignore biology.  It is a logical non sequitur, it does not logically follow.  The logical sequitur in this case is a common humanity, and a different type of love based on a male/female reproduction model.  There is a strong argument from design which works against the point they are making and the point is undercut when the logic is consistently applied.

God alone gets to define what love is.  It is possible they love each other, but is it in a way that God created it for?  There is friendly love, familial love, eros (romantic) love but to misapply any of them is to lead to ruin.  Romantic love by design is made for man and woman.  

It’s another sad case of hurting people looking for security in their identity and seeing evidence where they want it.  I disagree with their premise to begin with, but the argument that is being made is a logical non sequitur. 

It’s an example of seeing what we want to see but it also shows something that should draw us together.  Our humanity  It is a sinful behavior, but one committed by people who sin just in a different way than I do. They are human and as such are as in the image of God as I am.  The same respect any of us expect should be extended to those who we disagree with.  

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Faith and Reason, the False Dichotomy

Faith and reason are seen as diametrically opposed in todays society and we've suffered for it.

Faith and reason however are two inescapable functions of an existing being.

Most famously are the words of Martin Luther.
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has. It never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God"

Luther was referring to his disdain for the scholastics and academia of his age.  The problem however wasn't reason, Luther made the mistake of not identifying the problem as man's own sinful hearts.  Reason is an implement that serves those who wield it.  Reason is not the whore, rather it is man who has whored out his reason to his lusts.

Our contemporary culture buys into this false dichotomy.  Ironically the fideist who elevates "faith" (and abandons intellectual thought) has reasoned out that the two are opposed and that he should elevate faith. In essence, he reasoned out that reason is to be avoided.  People who take the side of "reason" believe and have faith in that statement (and as they claim, their reason).

The fideist denies the mind which was given him to enjoy the creator and delight in him.  Christianity need not run from intellectualism for we have indeed a rich history.  Bacon, Duns Scotus, Ockahm, Euler, Descartes, even Keppler and Galileo all founded their work on the belief that God created the universe. With this assumption design is expected and inquiry naturally became a personal act of love and worship.  Fideism has led to different forms of mysticism in the church and a fleeing from culture in fear.  Critical thought is no killer of faith. Doubt and sinful desire to excuse oneself is the enemy.  We have nothing to fear.  Reason is actually impossible without a theistic worldview and reason always demands the creator.  As a belief system it plays as Scientism/humanism which is really unreasonable and can't account for the very thing it claims to elevate.



The modern secular humanist ironically is incapable of true critical thought and is enslaved to his naturalism. The idea of something existing outside of his "scientism" is unthinkable. Science is said to solve all our problems in an upward evolution as we wield man's reason. He is not taught to question or think critically either so anything "supernatural" and outside of his presumption of materialism is automatically "faith".  But he believes his system too for belief at it's core is trust.

It is essentially the false dichotomy of religion vs science as sources of truth.  Two worldviews are clashing.  Both have their reason and both have their faith.

The abuses we are seeing are in a way two kinds of fideism with their own reason that can't be questioned.  What is faith then?  Faith at it's core is trust and deeply held trust at that.  I trust my family and my friends, and I am FAITHFUL and they are to me. It is also reasonably so considering how I know them. I am reasonable in that I think and inquire into the workings of this world.
 Using both faith (essential trust) and reason (thought and inquiry) is unavoidable and a function of being an existing, thinking creature.  Both these extremes are really distortions and both are dogmatic and insulated.  Neither fit the realm of reality.  Buying into this dichotomy is as absurd as asking the question "respiration vs a beating heart, which is it?" If you're alive you will do both and you cannot live without both together.  It's the black and white fallacy, offering two options as opposed and the options as faith or reason.  In fact a third option exists, a marriage of the two.

Jesus says to "consider the lillies of the field"  (Luke 12:27), reason is encouraged and actually points to the creator.  The Psalmist writes "when I consider your heavens, the work of your hands" (Psalm 8:3).  Reason actually should lead to God himself as creation testifies to him.  God tells Isaiah to "come let us reason together" in Isaiah 1:18. I've done a lot of thinking about it, I could keep going but I think the point is made.   True knowledge will always point to our creator.

In this age of Reason, it is disturbingly sad how we have become bestial in our morality. Nietzsche was right, without God it all falls apart.  We have embraced illogical and damaging lifestyles and morality.  Madness has essentially taken over in the guise of liberating intellectualism. 
 Even Nietzsche, an avowed atheist recognized this.






Until we destroy this false dichotomy of "Facts vs Values", and "Faith vs Reason" we will continue to suffer our increasingly dysfunctional decline.  Embrace faith and reason, and love God in so doing.  Theology is the queen of sciences, and philosophy is her handmaiden.

All our senses, every faculty are given to us that we may know God and fall completely in love with him.  Ask the important questions that we may do as Anselm did.

Anselm's prayer

"O my God, teach my heart where and how to seek you.
Where and how to find you.

You are my God and you are my All and I have never seen you
You have made me and remade me
You have bestowed on me all the good things I possess
Still I do not know you
I have not yet done that for which I was made

Teach me to seek you
I cannot seek you unless you teach me
or find you unless you show yourself to me
Let me seek you in my desire
let me desire you in my seeking.
Let me find you by loving you, let me love you when I find you

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Making meaning and Neil Degrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an undeniably popular
Our culture has very much made the scientist our clergy and Tyson is a particularly popular character.  Someone asked him the meaning of life. The whole article here.
child asks Tyson the meaning of life



First he takes away Pluto's status as a planet, now this :P

He was asked for a philosophical answer and gave one, which is ultimately out of the realm of the terrestrial and a question of the metaphysical.  Telling to be sure.  Further his answer is one that is particularly weak for he is not concerned with ultimate meaning.
His "Perfect" answer is only perfect when viewed emotionally as a romantic notion, not intellectually where it is bankrupt.  He is not a stupid man, but he does not dig deeply into the metaphysical because he cannot bear the possible answers and it cannot fit into his naturalistic method.  Rather he doesn't care to entertain the question and in his own words.

"I'm moving on, I'm leaving you behind, and you can't even cross the street because you're distracted by deep questions you've asked of yourself. I don't have time for that."
The week wrote an article on his intentional avoidance of the metaphysical.



"I think people ask that question on the assumption that meaning is something you can look for, then, 'Oh, I found it'...And it doesn't consider the possibility that maybe meaning in life is something that you create." 

His answer to the questioner asking him what the meaning of life is turns on contradiction.
  He proclaimed we make meaning and that is the meaning of life.

It is inherent within man to seek out meaning.  Without a God to ascribe meaning we end up with a very difficult urge we can neither fulfill nor account for.  He proclaims there is no meaning but that the meaning, is to make meaning.  Meaning therefore for him is created because that's the meaning of life.  With such a definition he cannot simply define or even answer this.

Why make meaning?  What's the meaning in meaning?  He in one breath denies there is a definite meaning then defines one.  He assumes meaning exists because he knows it does, but he can't explain why or define really what it is or it's purpose.  If it's created, it's entirely fabricated without explaining why we do or why we should.

It's an answer that shows the person couldn't find what they were looking for and so has to "make one up".  What meaning is there in meaning?  It's essentially escapism and avoidance.
God can't be the purpose for whatever reason, so Tyson must make one.  The truth is sadly suppressed because he is divorced from God.  He cannot accept God as creator so he cannot live consistently in God's world or fulfill what his design demands of him.

Morally this is also a disturbingly flimsy direction to take.  If a person makes the meaning of life cannibalizing as many people as possible he cannot say they are wrong.  After all they are just living out their meaning for life.  Most would shudder at the thought but to be consistent one would have to say that is his legitimate personal meaning.

Christians have an ultimate meaning and purpose, and that is founded in a person.  God himself is the purpose of all things.

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.

  Each individual is to live to glorify God in all they do.  Once that ultimate meaning is established we can pursue the use of our gifts and our lives to Christ resting securely in our relationship to him.  All things were made for and through Christ, and all things glorify him.  Without him we are detached from our true purpose.


I'm going to be a good Presbyterian and end with the Westminster shorter catechism.
1 Q.  What is the chief end of man?
   A. Man's chief end is to glorify God (1 Cor.10:31), and to enjoy him forever (Ps. 73:25-26)

*mike drop





Monday, April 20, 2015

Relevant and Rob Bell

Relevant magazine does have many good articles.  I won't contest that they do some good and neither will I make accusations and guess their intentions.  However I have noticed something.  Whenever I see an article on Rob Bell, a known Universalist and liberal who emphasizes that a loving God could never condemn anyone is portrayed in a positive light.  When he recently was taken up by Oprah and placed on her network the reaction was ecstasy.  I watched in horror as people whom I hope simply didn't know any better cheered his return. Nobody seemed to pay any attention to what he has said in the past, or the fact that a woman as heretical Oprah Winfrey could champion him as a hero.
Recently he has declared the Church will, and must change to meet the times by accepting homosexuality and gay marriage.  His reasoning? People who love each other should marry.  But where does that end?  Who defines love and what kind of love is right?
 The bible is too old he says and the times have changed.  it is not the bible he believes, but himself.  Someday too he will be dated and I suppose, his ways will have to change with the culture.
Listed below is an article and the video of his words.  He is surely no protestant for he denies Sola Scriptura.

Rob Bell denying Sola Scriptura

Some have replied well to Glorify God and stand by the bible.  My question is, why are some not?.

The church won't give

Perhaps we should champion swinger culture, hookup culture and the various other culturally accepted practices regarding sex.

And what from Relevant?  Not even a peep, and no article addressing his clear heresy.

The notion that the Gospel needs to be changed to suit the culture has not won the day in the past.  The Early Christians, had they applied this would have engaged in drunkenness, orgies, prostitution and idolatry as they were pressured to by the Roman world.  Churches that do so die because they abandon God himself.  The Gospel is and always has been relevant.  It does not need our help.  What surprises me is how unsurprised I am.  I am disappointed in how many let this happen.

I'm pointing this out, calling them out even.  They need to not shy away from exposing heresy no matter how popular a teacher may be.  They need to be more discerning, for the sake of their readers and yes even Rob Bell.  We cannot stand idly by as sheep are led astray and we certainly cannot abandon a false teacher to his fate.  Relevant sits idly by, as do many other Christians.  Be aware, put on the full armor of God, and speak the Gospel in Love.  I pray for Rob Bell, I pray for that magazine who has the burden of teaching and the responsibility to teach the truth.

"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the dominant belief today and a postmodern one at that.  However what isn't being asked is a simple and essential question.
How do you define a culture? Who gets to define it?
Defining what a culture is, where it begins and where it ends is a difficult task.  The definition of how we define a culture is further culturally relative.  We talk about "western culture" but then German, or English culture.  Subcultures are often identified, but what keeps them from being their own cultures?
I am reminded of a German counselor who I worked with at a summer camp.   Bavarians are known for being way too friendly, informal and bizarre to the rest of Germany.He said once "People think pretzels are German but they're not.  They're Bavarian...." So seriously that it was hilarious.
We need look no closer than our own culture though.  People in the west of my own state are considered to have a weird vocabulary and an unhealthy pride in their football team (go Eagles!).  Or people from New England who appear to middle Americans as myself unfamiliar with the letter R.  Who think differently and act differently, yet we're all "American".

Ultimately as it stands cultures are defining what is and isn't a culture.  Each culture determines who is us and just different as opposed to who is something else.  To say truth is relative to culture (as an absolute) is an absolute claim from a nebulous construct that originates in the individuals culture.  What if another culture defines culture or cultural identity differently?  The same is true for the postmodern philosophy which it desperately clings to.  To claim there are no absolutes is an absolute.  To claim each culture defines morality is an absolute morality claim.  For most relativists they realize the futility of living it out when they tell a male dominating culture not to abuse women.

I had a friend in high school who was very much cultural relative and therefore into "tolerance".  Female circumcision came to discussion.  We both agreed it was wrong.  But she resignedly shrugged it off as I told her "you can try to be tolerant but there are some things you just can't", she agreed resignedly knowing the trouble it gave her philosophically.  I could say it was wrong and she knew it was, but she had no ability to say so since it was another culture.

The same ideology is hyper-critical of Western culture because it is "ours" while embracing others, to a point.  How they determine who within western culture is of the same culture is another story.  Can someone from an atheistic culture talk down a person from a Christian culture? Should they tolerate the Christians? It is essentially a self-refuting attempt to be nice not philosophical.  And one that tries to define culture as it wants and proclaim it true everywhere.  Who can you critique and say is wrong, and who can't you?  If one group does define cultures diffeently they will be "intolerant" of people we could consider in their own.This very thing becomes culturally relative.  We define who is what culture by our own culture and apply it as true everywhere. Yet the concept remains present all places.  People know Truth exists and must live in it, whether we acknowledge it or not.  Applying the postmodern cultural relativist method to determine who we can and cannot be critical of then, leads to a serious problem of defining who is and isn't with you. Cultural relativism is a culturally relative concept masquerading as ultimate.   The reality is Truth is all places and all should be open to scrutiny, regardless of how you may define where your culture ends and where another begins.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

The centrality of the resurrection

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
Now if Christ is preached, that has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain.  More over we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom he did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;  and if Chist has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.  

 Easter was just this Sunday, the day of the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection which is much denied in today's world even by so called Christians.  Or Socinians to be more accurate.  These embrace supposed human wisdom and deny the necessity of believing any part of the Apostle's Creed.  Instead the ideas are important, the morality is important and if man can't reason it, well then it can't be true.  These liberal and postmodern churches see no need for doctrine especially as timeless.  Whose doctrines of course fall on themselves as an interesting doctrine on doctrine that reflects only the time.  
One 19th century adherent named W.Robertson Smith when accused of denying Christ’s divinity went so far as even to claim such as “to never have denied the divinity of any man”.  If you’re beliefs are wholly other than that before you they are of a different character you can’t claim them as your own.  To have changed and deviated from what that faith has historically been you are no longer that thing.  Instead you have become something else entirely having stepped out of the tradition of those who came before you.
  Theological Liberalism and unbelievers alike deny the resurrection.  Evey once in a while something gets published saying something like "Jesus had a wife" or we "found his tomb with him in it".  Inevitably it ends up being another man with the then common name Jesus. Many never seem to think of that until it gets in print and makes them money and gives them a name.  When inevitably disproven it is almost never loudly recanted but quietly redacted.  For many it simply can't be true, because it is not how we want God to be.  Today there very much is an air of "scientific superiority" more accurately known as chronological snobbery.  The logic goes, since we don't see miracles every day they can't have happened.
Paul was speaking to those in Corinth about false teachers who said they knew Christ as well.  Their disapproval of the resurrection was a horrible mistake to make.  The resurrection was as much under attack then as it is today.  There are two ways the resurrection is denied.  Either there is no life after death (as certain Jews believed and some do today) or the body itself would not be resurrected (as the Platonists believed and many still do).
For Jewish groups like the Saducees this life was all there is.  There was nothing after death, not in spirit or body since the Old Testament was largely absent of such things.  Likewise the idea of a resurrection to Platonists is absurd for different reasons.  The body was evil, so who want to be resurrected in it?  When the prison of the body was escaped why would you want to go back into that prison?  Though it looks different it looks the same for the same heart of doubt and trust in man's "wisdom" is at work.  This is why Paul was mocked after his address on Mars Hill in Athens and likely one reason immorality flourished since the body was viewed as of no consequence.
Acts 13:32
Now when they head of the resurrection of the dead some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you [k]again concerning this.”
No doubt there were many reasons the resurrection would be denied by both Jew and Gentile.  Then and today there are false teachers and false apostles who accost this central doctrine.
Death is a harrowing doorway we all must walk through.  It is impossible to go through this life in the world today and not see or experience it.  Our culture and time is very humanistic, a world very centered on man and post-enlightenment rationalism.  Which is irrational to think man is the measure of the universe.  We today are very overly focusing on what we can do and the world of our sense.  I've seen tragic hopelessness that comes from the inevitability and finality of death with no resurrection that this produces.  Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die is how those consistent with this belief live.

1 Corinthians 15

 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
    for tomorrow we die.”[a]

Often when asked what happens after death I would hear some heresy if anything spiritual at all. 

There is also increase in people saying there is nothing after death.  Often the answer is simply 

nothing at least for the body.  I remember as a child growing up seeing death.  The neighborhood cat 

that went prowling would attack varioius small animals.  One time we found a rabbit that had been 

killed and I looked it.  It was lacking visible wounds wondering why it wouldn't and couldn't move. 

 Its body looked fine but there was no life in it.  Another time we found a bird with it's head torn off. 

 that was more obvious.  Sad as those experiences were those were but animals.  What of people?

You can't live too long and not have someone you knew or were close to die.  I've been to three 

funerals and lost my grandmother.  She was cremated and I never got to say goodbye or see her one 

last time.  The thought of her or any of those people being gone and not just existing in another way but ceasing to exist is deeply disturbing.

The we are all simply material and death is just a stopping of our electrical impulses deeply troubles 

us.  But without God what is bigger than death? Without God what hope is there?  Yet many today 

who claim Christ deny his resurrection work and in so doing deny him.  You might as well eat drink 

and be merry for tomorrow you die.  For what else would there be?  Without the resurrection death 

would reign as king and nothing would be of eternal value.  For all the answers our secular 

humanism  gives it can't explain why we yearn for eternity.  At best it would be some cruel trick, a 

lie created by evolution or random chance.  The bible provides a far bette answer.  We are wired this 
way the same  way we are wired to desire food and water.  There really is something more and life eternal and we are made with that knowledge

Church history is very useful in guiding us to know true teaching.  The Apostles creed, speaks of the necessity of the resurrection and its key role in identifying who is a Christian.  Then and today the resurrection has been a hard doctrine to swallow because we don’t see dead bodies suddenly gain life.  I’ve heard and seen many people joke about “Zombie Jesus day”.  As if he’s as a zombie, some horrid abomination and profaning of the Gospel resurrection.  Zombie films are totally different.  They are oddly a bizarre resurrection.  They die, rise again to life and feed on the living converting (if you will) others to death and having no soul of their own.  Christ Died for us rose again and speaks of us needing to feast on him to live.  He gives life to draw others to him and renews the body and soul.   He is not “zombie Jesus”.  The explanation for the joke is that it is laughably absurd to some people that anyone could come back from the dead. 
Whether people deny Christ’s resurrection, either because people believe the body is evil and the spirit good or as we do today believe we are only matter.  Further put with our over scientism “we don’t see it happen every day it can’t happen”.  But a miracle is a miracle because it doesn’t happen every day in nature otherwise we might simply call it a common or a typical.
If there is the supernatural and a divine agent in the natural world of course he could do such things.  It would not be a violation of the laws of nature but simply natural.  A miracle is God breaking into the world to exercise his power and authority to accomplish his purpose.  It sounded equally absurd to the Greeks of Paul’s day not because of some naturalism.  The idea of a resurrection of the body was absurd and undesirable. 

Paul was speaking to those in Corinth about false teachers who said they knew Christ.  Their denial of the resurrection is a horrible mistake to make.  The resurrection was as much under attack then as it is today.  In Paul's day it was more likely Proto-Gnostic and Platonic.  The idea of a resurrection to a Platonist is absurd since the body itself was seen as evil.

So who would want to be resurrected and placed back in?  You just escaped and you would go back into prison?  The body was evil and a cage.  Spirit was good so dying would set you free.  What need would Jesus have to put his spirit back in the body and give it life?  Though it looks different the same heart of doubt and trust in man's "wisdom" is at work.  It would have been pointless and absurd to the Gnostic and this belief has persisted.  I spoke to an unknowing Gnostic once who said we have "new bodies" not of flesh but spiritual.  She cited Paul in a translation to support a belief identical to those who opposed him.

1 Corinthians 15:50

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Context is key and she without it she fell into a false belief.  In Greek the word that was used was sarks (σαρξ), flesh (as in a nature).  Soma (σωμα) is the term used for body elsewhere and never of the sinful nature. The Greek points to something within the fleshly nature as corrupt.  The problem then is something that is not the body itself but attached to the body like a leech.  Paul is showing something is wrong with creation that needs redemption and restoration.  It is this nature that Paul focus’ on, and the reality that a person’s birth doesn’t earn salvation. Christ is in his body for eternity lest we say that he will lose the incarnation.  If we were to gain new (spirit) not renewed bodies Thomas would not have been able to put his hands in Christ’s wounds.
  Paul affirms the goodness of the body as well in the work of Christ. God made both body and soul, and so Christ took on flesh to become a man, that the whole of man might be saved. If the body were evil God would not take it on himself.  If the body were not made new, the whole of man would be left tainted.  God had to come down in the body, born of a virgin and do it himself for no mere man could overcome death.  If death still reigned over the body it would never be defeated.  The curse of sin would still and forever be supreme over mankind.   Mankind very much is not a spirit with a body; we are spirit and a body not just one or the other. To redeem man therefore he had to become and resurrect as one completely.  Only then would he conquer what we could not in his death and resurrection.  He paid the price of our sin in his death and overcame it in his resurrection.
I don’t think those animals will resurrect one day.  If animals do I will have an awkward time with many delicious animals I was previously acquainted.  But you and I will.  I know you and I if we pass before Christ returns will resurrect on the Day of Judgment. It’s a matter of which resurrection.  Either you will come to a resurrection in Christ and life or one unto eternal death.  Even the atheist and the skeptic know the importance of this and we can see it in the questions we all ask.  We ask about life after death, purpose here, and to ask these is not taught.
 There is something deep inside every person that longs for eternity.  We are unsettled by the so called fact of materialism that when we die there is nothing.  So we try to make the most out of what short lives we have.  If death was but natural and we were built for a short life why do we ask and desire a life after death?  If such were true our desires and longings would be just a cruel trick of fate and evolution.  Pure chance, even our recognition of such things would be equally suspect for all would be nothing.  What we all experience is that we were made for eternity. Why? God wants us to know him and the resurrection is very much a part of the center of having relationship with God. 
If Christ was not raised, your faith is nothing.  For you have not this victory over death now or ever.  In this age where man is the center of all understanding miracles and the divine are denied, even in so called churches.  According to many Churches that have lost their way “the idea of the resurrection is what’s important.” What is really the central to the “idea” is that it actually happened.  The idea is that it was real and is real and as an empty notion it is not a hope.
 If Christ was not raised, neither will we be.  Christianity is not just a spiritual sense of the morality or idea of death being defeated or Christianity is fruitless.  If we believe Christ did not conquer the grave Paul is right in saying that we are indeed most to be pitied.   Without the reality of that hope is an empty, foolish delusion.  It becomes a sick escapist fantasy which death would abruptly end.   Still under death, we would have no forgiveness without his resurrection.  His resurrection affirms his sinlessness and that death therefore has no claim to him.  It very really did happen and there were witnesses to it. In any court of law it helps to have a witness, two is better, 12 would be great, and hundreds would be outstanding. 
Hundreds saw Jesus after his resurrection.  That many witnesses grew to include Paul who had been persecuting Christ before he encountered him on the road to Damascus.   The body indeed disappeared from the tomb and many saw him after he died, with the wounds in his physical body, a body with which he even ate.  Christ was no spirit or group illusion. Christ very much did die and was raised again, and that is remarkable, joyous and very REAL thing.
We proclaim it in sacraments such as Baptism which shows a death, and a resurrection (Romans 6:4).  If Christ did not die and be resurrected neither can you die to yourself and find new life in him.  I’m Presbyterian, and when we baptize we don’t keep pouring the water on you forever.  I’ve been in a few Baptist churches and they don’t just hold the baptized under water (I hope not).  Baptists don’t stand there and say “now think about the idea of coming out, think about how great that would be.”  Believing the idea is what’s important is likewise as foolish.
 Instead you get pulled out and dried off, to show the resurrection and our new life in Christ. What good is it to be baptized proclaiming newness in life and victory over death in the name of someone who is still dead and still under deaths tyranny?  This modern Jesus who lost is a hippy teacher who was a liar and a lunatic and who was not really lord.  He is not Jesus but a caricature. There is no renewal and life without the resurrection. The resurrection is paramount.  Death is Christ’s enemy and the last to be put under foot, subdued forever. 
1 Corinthians 15:25-26
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

One day the horrid aberration death will be totally destroyed.  Christ’s victory is our victory as well.   The deniers would be right if it were a miracle of but a man.  Resurrection is impossible, for you and me in this world by our own strength.  It is only reasonable if Christ were just a man we wouldn't be here today for there would be no church.  Such a church would be a monument to mass delusion.  But Christ, coeternal and equal within the triune God, raised himself up just as he gave up his own spirit on the cross. 
John 10:17
For this reason the father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again.\

That’s the whole point.  He was no ordinary man, but God and man fully.   This is all the testimony of the early Church, which the Apostle’s creed articulates so beautifully.  In Christ because of Christ’s work, which he did for us he was not just resurrected for his own sake but ours, can we be one day resurrected to life everlasting.  The truth of our loving God, who for us and our salvation took on flesh that sin and death may be conquered in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  He died and rose to newness of life joined to him we do also.  This is what the apostles taught and bore witness to and the Church does to this day.  In the reality of the resurrection we can look forward to the new heavens and the new earth.  Sin and death will pass away, for Christ has conquered.
The Apostles Creed
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:


12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Poem: Sorrow Tree

Here's a poem I wrote.   It's one of my outlets and I thought I would share it with you.  If God gives you a gift or a passion I think we can pretty much guess we're meant to share it.

He hung there on that sorrow tree
Dying the death of a man most sinful
That we might enter his rest peaceful
And a kingdom of men from sin be free
His enemies surrounded him
Seeking to destroy him at their whim
Not for wicked deeds his hand had done
Died God’s only begotten son
He gave up his life of his own volition
Fulfilling from his father his given mission
On that tree of sorrows he was pinned
For all the redemption of own who sinned
He himself our sins he surely bore
That his children’s salvation he would assure
To set free the helpless captive
The overburdened helpless and restive
Through his death on that tree given peace
That through his death sins curse would cease
Rising again death was at an end
Former foes now made friends
As he for sinners to their God made amends
Only by that sorrow tree

Are the captives made free

See you tomorrow.

Friday, April 3, 2015

The Folly of the World and the Wisdom of the Cross


Today is the day of the Cross. The Cross is a stumbling block to those perishing and remains beautifully mysterious to Christians everywhere.  A God who dies for his people?  Many have derided such, the ancient Romans would depict Jesus crucified in the carvings known as Alaxemenos graffito, with a Donkeys head.  
But the wisdom of God is greater than that of man.  He is certainly not the God we would have made for ourselves.  Neither the God we would imagine.  Truly the wise of the world have been made foolish and the wisdom of God is folly to men who are perishing, but not so to us.  
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[a] to save those who believe. 22 ForJews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[b] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[c] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[d] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

 It should stir us each day to marvel, “What love is this?”  God ordained from before the foundation of the world that his people would be so reconciled to him.  The glory and significance of the cross is astounding.  So great is the love and glory of God in the Cross, history was made to pivot on it.  What is it about the cross that confounds the lost and hope to the found?
2 Corinthians 5:21
"For our sake he made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God"
This is often called the most profound single verse in scripture.  Christ took on our sin and suffered in our place.  In our fallenness we want to earn salvation.  We fool ourselves into thinking we can bear our sins but we cannot. We think we may even live a sinless life but neither is true.

Romans 3:30-23 
20 For by works of the law no human being[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.  21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

What we could not bear and atone for He did and on our behalf.  By this we are cloaked in His righteousness.  Martin Luther developed this doctrine, which he called the great exchange.  Christ took our sin upon Himself on the cross and gave us His righteousness.  This attests to Christ’s righteousness.   Good Friday is not called good in spite of His suffering.  It is actually because of the act of love that it truly is.  His suffering and his death was not and is not the end.  For all the sorrow, the victory we have in it, it truly is a Good Friday. 
This Good Friday we commemorate this most unique and spectacular truth.  The Cross remains the true greatest example of love that reconciled man to God.  In suffering on our behalf, He provides us with the perfect example of truly selfless love.  Even when upon the cross, He  pleaded with his Father over and over. 
Luke 23:34
"But Jesus was saying, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves
The same God who was holding their very being together was being crucified by them.  He could have righteously destroyed them, but instead, (repeatedly) pleaded for them.  He was the one who expressed His desire for them to be in heaven with Him.  We should desire no less.
What we rightly earned was placed upon him.  Truly he was God in the hands of angry sinners.  Yet through this, as He did with even the evil done to Joseph, He provided a salvation for His people.  He lived out truest love “to lay down one’s life for his friends.” More so, He died for those who were even his enemies that they might become the children of God.  

 John 15:13 
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends"


"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in the while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"

I think an old German hymn puts it quite well:

1. Ah, holy Jesus, how hast thou offended, 
that we to judge thee have in hate pretended? 
By foes derided, by thine own rejected, 
O most afflicted! 
2. Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee? 
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee! 
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee; 
I crucified thee. 
3. Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered; 
the slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered. 
For our atonement, while we nothing heeded, 
God interceded. 
4. For me, kind Jesus, was thy incarnation, 
thy mortal sorrow, and thy life's oblation; 
thy death of anguish and thy bitter passion, 
for my salvation. 
5. Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay thee, 
I do adore thee, and will ever pray thee, 
think on thy pity and thy love unswerving, 
not my deserving.


Sunday we celebrate the resurrection.  Easter is the anniversary of Christ’s victory over death and the vindication of our righteous substitute who evermore lives and reigns.  But without His incarnation, and the death on the cross He came to fulfill, we would never have that ultimate victory.  This is what we have, and what those still lost can know as well.  Pray for those to whom the cross is folly and be a living witness of Christ to them.   May God bless you the rest of this Holy week.