Mohler on Pope Benedict XVI

I just read an article by Dr. Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY) on Pope Benedict XVI's present visit to the US. You can access the article by clicking here. Mohler is thoroughly biblical and has, in this (short) article, concisely given his take on the pope and his present and future involvement in Christianity as a whole. At the end of the day, although Mohler applauds the Pope in his steadfast conviction, he does not foresee the Roman Catholic Church, under Benedict's leadership, making the changes that we Protestants feel convicted are necessary.

Here is a little blurb from the article:

"Perhaps the most clarifying moment since his election came last July when the Vatican released the document known as "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" – a document that reasserted the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.

The secular press and a good many non-Catholic church leaders expressed outrage and offense at the Pope's comments – assuming that such teachings were simply out of place in the modern world. But Benedict was restating the tradition and teaching of his church – and he did so because he cared for those he believes are outside the blessings of grace he is certain are given to those in the communion of his church – and to that communion alone.

I actually appreciated the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church."

I am not a Catholic-hater or anything like that (in fact, I have Catholic friends), but I can say that the Scriptures lambaste any doctrine which teaches that people are saved (or disqualified from being saved) for any reason other than faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict clearly teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. He expresses concern for anyone who rejects the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, I guess I fall in that boat. With Luther I cry out my allegiance to Christ and his word. I affirm the Catholic Church in so far as they have faithfully interpreted and applied the Scriptures, but I knowingly separate ties where they part ways with the Scriptures.

I am not one of those who says that you cannot possibly be a Christian if you are a part of the Catholic Church, however I can say that you cannot possibly be a Christian if your hope (confidence) of salvation lies anywhere but in Christ and what he has won for you on the cross.

The Bible as God's Very Word

When I was a youngster my mom would never leave the house without making a list of chores for me and my two brothers. I am sure many of you were afflicted in this same way. When my mom came home the chores were usually done. However, sometimes my brothers would get side tracked and mom would come home to a pig sty (notice that I said "my brothers." Usually they would try and con me into doing their chores). About 10 min before mom was supposed to get home we would scurry around the house trying to finish what we could. When mom would walk through the door we would hear her yell, "Luke! Clint! Jimmy! Get down here!" We would walk with our heads down knowing we were in trouble. Mom would then say, "Boys, why are your chores not done?" Usually we would come up with all sorts of excuses. Many of which were down right lame. What do you think mom's response would have been if we would have said, "Duh Mom, you never told us to clean the kitchen, mop and vacuum the floors, mow the lawn, and make our beds you wrote it. We would have done these things if you would have told us to do them, but you didn't. All you did was write us a list." First of all, this would have royally ticked my mother off. My Mother usually never loses her head when she is angry. I am sure that her response would have been something like this, "What? You know full well that when I write something it is no less from my mouth than when I speak it. You are merely looking for a way to not do your chores. GET THESE CHORES DONE NOW!" We all know that both speaking and writing are forms of communication. When my mom wrote us a chore list it was just as much from her mouth as if she had spoken it. Writing, in a sense, is speaking in written/codified form. This is why you would go to jail if you recieved a letter from President Bush commanding you to go to court house and sign up for the draft and did not do it. Just because President Bush did not tell you to go to the court house with his mouth does not mean that he did not tell you to go. He told you in written form.


The Bible is God's Word. God has spoken. The Bible is no less the very words of God because it is in written form. Imagine if right now God were to come down to you in the form of an angel and command you (in His God voice) to go to Wal-Mart and buy as many tubes of toothpaste as you could fit in your shopping cart. Would you not immediately drop whatever you are doing to go to Wal-Mart to do what He told you to do? Of course you would. I mean come on, God actually told you to go to Wal-Mart. Only a fool would not take it seriously. Why then do we not take seriously what God has said in His Word. That is right, what God has said in His word is no less from His mouth than if He were to appear to you in the form of an angel and specifically tell you something. Why do we seem to have this disconnect today? Why is it that we do not equate the authority and truth of the written Word with the spoken Word? Do you take God's word as seriously as you would if He were to come to you in the form of an angel and tell you something? Would you take the command to "not store up treasures on earth but in heaven" more seriously if God were to manifest Himself to you and speak to you audibly? Probably, because God is invisible, we do not take His written Word as seriously as we do His spoken Word.

Once we realize that the Bible is the very Word of God there is no going back. Once this is realized, why would we want to look anywhere but to the Bible for answers. If I want to know how to shoot a basketball I am not going to call Bill Gates. No, I am going to call Michael Jordan. If I want to know how to shoot a basketball I am going to call the basketball expert. If I want to know how my wife is feeling I am not going to call her brides maids. No, I am going to go to the source and ask my wife how she is feeling. If I want to know who God is, how He works, what He thinks, and what He expects of me I am going to ask God. So many people today develop their idea of who God is without taking into consideration what God has already said about who He is. Did you catch that? They have not taken into consideration what God has already said about HIMSELF.

Who is God? What does He expect of you and Me? Well, I could really care less what you or I think. What I want to know is what God thinks. This may come as a blow to your self esteem, but your thoughts on God are worthless to me and should be worthless to you. I do not say this because I think I am smarter than you. No, I say this because God is smarter than you AND He has spoken. What counts is God's thoughts on Himself, because He is the expert on who He is, how He works, and what He expects of us. Your thoughts on God are only good in so far as they are shaped by what God (the expert) has said. Sorry to be so up front, but if your ideas conflict with God's then you are wrong. This is why innovative theology is worthless. As a theologian, it is my goal not to come up with new ideas, but to conform my ideas to those of God's. It is my goal, as a theologian, to think God's thoughts after God. To do anything else is down right silly.

More on this later...

Believing God Like A Child

Sola Scriptura has been the theme of this blog site. The Bible read in context is the only sufficient way of knowing what is true and what is false. One of the things that hinders a person greatly from fully embracing Sola Scriptura is previously held beliefs.

We have all heard it. "OH! I can't believe that. That goes against everything that I have believed my whole life. I can't worship a God like." First of all, never ever say, "I can't worship a God like that." God does not always meet our expectations (Lord willing, we will discuss the Character of God in a later post).

Let me share the first time I had to come to grips with the fact that the things I had been taught my whole life might not be all that correct.

I was a Jr. in high school. I had just decided to pursue the ministry. I started getting involved in church leadership. My older brother had just become a Christian and felt the Lord calling him to the ministry. He ended up going to a small Plymouth Brethren Seminary in Iowa. At this seminary he was introduced to all sorts of teaching that seemed strange at first.

One weekend he came home and told me that God chooses who is going to be saved and who is not going to be saved. He told me that God is in complete control over everything including salvation. Upon hearing this I immediately got angry. I said, "Luke, that goes against everything we have been taught our whole life. I can't believe that."

Luke answered back, "Slow down Jimmy! Do you know what Scripture has to say about this?"

I said, "NO! But, this goes against everything we have been taught our whole life."

With incredible wisdom Luke answered back, "Ok, I don't want to argue with you about this. I have become convinced of this through the Scriptures. What I want you to do is read Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1 twice a day for the next two weeks and then come back and talk to me."

I immediately ran to my Bible. I opened it to Romans 9. I began to read, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."

I just sat and stared. I read it again. I remember thinking, "I just know that this can't be right. There has to be another way of looking at this passage." I prayed a bit and read it again. Still I had no answer. I was stunned, but I was very reluctant to embrace it.

I went to bed that night saying to myself, "It just can't be right. It just can't be right." The next morning I got up and did as Luke told me, I read Romans 9 twice and then I read Ephesians 1 twice. I was stunned again. I sat there and stared at my Bible. "This just can't be right."

All throughout the day these passages were on my mind. After school that day I went straight home and read Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 again and again. Finally it hit me like a ton of bricks. "Jimmy, who are you to stand over the Bible and decide what is true and what is not? Do you actually think that your ideas of what is fair and true are better than God's ideas of what is fair and true. Last time I checked God is the one who defines truth and fairness."

Then it hit me even harder, "Do you think that God is going to lead you astray? What He has said in His word is right and true? Are you going to love God as He is, or are you going to refuse Him love unless he conforms to your ideas of what is right and true."

Finally I gave up. I said, "God, if this is who you are, if this is how you decide to rule your world, I want you to know that I will still love, serve, and obey you."

This was two days after I had the conversation with my brother. He just so happened to stop by the house that night. I went up to him and said, "You were right. I was wrong. God chooses. God is in control of everything--including salvation."

Then I began to tell him of how I had been dealing with it all. I started asking him the tough questions. "Luke what does this mean about our unsaved friends and family? Are you going to tell me that their only hope is that God chooses to save them? I mean, isn't that hard to swallow? Oh and what about hell? Are you going to tell me that God had the ability to choose everyone but only decided to choose some? Isn't that unfair. Doesn't this conflict with what we believe about the love of God?"

Luke's answers were so very helpful. He did not feel the need to defend what the Bible had to say. He simply said, "Jimmy, these things are important, and it is good that you are concerned about these things, but when God tells you that something is true you don't reject it because it is uncomfortable or because it is hard to swallow. I cannot answer all of these questions, but this does not minimize the fact this is what God has said in His word."

This, my friends, is Sola Scriptura. Many who are reading this right now will most likely reject what I am saying without even testing it to the Scriptures. Why do we think our ideas of God are more pure than the Bible's ideas of God? What I am teaching is child like faith. Do you have child like faith? Do you need to be able to understand everything fully before you will embrace it. Child like faith says, "My Daddy tells me what is true. I don't care if it makes sense to me. I don't care if it goes against the popular slogans of modern day Christianity. I don't care! My Daddy knows better than I."

Do you have this simple belief. Child like faith is not a rejection of the intellect. It is being told what to believe (by God through the Scriptures) and just believing it come what may. Obeying the call of Sola Scriptura can be so very difficult, because it is so very difficult for us to have faith like a child. We want to dig our nose in what God has said in His word. We want to manipulate it to fit our ideas of what a loving God would do or not do.

Call your life long beliefs into question. Test them according to the Scriptures as read in context. We all love the argument that says, "I can't believe that! It goes against what I have been taught my whole life." But what happens when we start evangelizing the Buddhist or the Hindu who says the exact same thing. "Come on Jimmy! I can't believe that Jesus is God. I can't believe that Jesus died for my sins. I can't believe that there is heaven and a hell. I can't believe these things because it goes directly against what I have been taught my whole life."

What would your response be? "Well Mr. Buddhist! Well Mr. Hindu! What you have been taught your whole life may be wrong. The only way to test if it is right or wrong is by looking at it in light of Scripture."

What makes you so different? Do you think that the things you have been taught your whole life are some how above the testing of Scripture because you grew up in a Christian home? Or because you had a wonderful pastor? Your parents are not infallible. Your pastor is not infallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible. Only the Scriptures can let you know if something is right or wrong.

So let me ask you, do you have child like faith? Are you ready to reject or accept anything as soon as you see it proceed from the mouth of the Father (proceed from the mouth of the Father=when you read in His Word)? Or are you too grown up to be a child of God? I love Sola Scriptura because I am far to incompetent to come to absolute truth on my own. I need my Daddy to tell me what is true and what is false.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 5

Christianity is a religion of faith. For starters, we worship an invisible God. Well, how do you know He exists if you cannot see Him? You cannot prove He exists (Oh, and by the way, this is true, you cannot prove, scientifically, that God exists. And Hey, you don't have to). It is a matter of faith.

Jesus died on the cross for our sins and bought our salvation. Well, this is well and good, but how do you know that what Jesus did was effective? It is a matter of faith.

Jesus is God! Super! but once again, you can't prove it. Christianity is a religion of faith.

A believer's hope for heaven is enjoyed by faith. The fact that we have the Spirit indwelling us is a matter of faith. The fact that we have been risen with Christ to walk in newness of life is a matter of faith.

Hope in the midst of fear and death is a matter of faith. Those of little faith certainly cannot be Christians.

What I have found in my walk with God is that my relationship with God is strongest when, like a child, I embrace the doctrinal truths of Scripture. The more I embrace doctrines like justification by faith alone apart from the works of the law, the closer my relationship with God becomes. It is not about merely observing biblical truth, but it is about embracing it--making it your very own.

Having a right relationship with God has very little to do with "feeling" His presence. It has very little to do with feeling and hearing and seeing spiritual things. It has everything to do with embracing spiritual realities by faith. Is your faith so small that you need to "feel" the presence of God in order to feel close to Him. When you go to church, do you need to "sense" the presence of God in order to have assurance that He is there? Is the Bible not enough? Or do you need glimpses of the supernatural to trust the things that the supernatural has already said in His Word?

I am not saying that God does not come in these supernatural ways. I am not saying that God will never let you "feel" His presence (whatever that means). But if your faith in Him is determined by how much you are experiencing these sorts of things then you are not basing your relationship with God on Scripture. Your relationship with God is to be based on faith, not experience. God is not near to me as my wife is near to me. I cannot see or sense His presence. Yet, I know He is near just as much as I know that my wife is near. How? Because I trust what God has said in His Word.

Do I have a vibrant relationship with God. I am not setting my self up as some sort of spiritual giant, but I answer with a resounding, "Yes!" I am close with God. I have a wonderful relationship with my Savior. Yet, I cannot say that I have experienced His presence in a physical way. I have never "felt" His love, in a physical way. Of course I have been very emotional in the presence of God, but this does not mean that I "felt" his presence.

This morning I read the book of Romans for my quiet time. I got to chapters 4-5 and was floored by the love of Christ to me as demonstrated by His death on the cross. I guess I could say that I "felt" the love of Christ. But I did not "feel" the love of Christ in the same way that I feel the love of my wife when I look in her eyes. I felt the love of Christ by faith. This morning I feasted on the love of Christ, and it was very fulfilling. But it was a feast of faith, not of sight.

We need to be careful how we communicate our relationship with God. It sets up unattainable ideas in the minds of other Christians. They feel unspiritual because they cannot say with complete honesty that they have "felt" or "sensed" the presence of God. When, in fact, those who say that they "feel" and "sense" the presence of God do not really feel and sense it in the way that we normally use these terms.

I have a wonderful relationship with God. I experience this relationship by faith. I embrace the fact that God is present and loves me by faith. I embrace these truths and make them my own, because God has told me that these things are true. He has told me this in His Word.

I will now share the most memorable experience that I have had with God.

I have been married now since May 27, 2006. In August, Kristal (my wife) started feeling sick to her stomach. She started becoming nauseous from the time she got up to the time she went to bed. We then decided to get a pregnancy test. For sure, she was pregnant! This was good news for the both of us. However, we were in for a ride. Kristal's nausea quickly got worse. Her pregnancy sickness lasted about 5 months (she is still feeling the after effects). She would lay on the couch all day long. Her diet consisted solely of Honey Nut Cheerios with extra honey.

She was absolutely miserable. At this time I was working 25 hours a week at a help desk, doing full time master's degree schooling, fulfilling the duties on an internship at my church, and doing all of the house chores that my wife was not able to do (all of the cooking, cleaning, laundry, grocery shopping etc), and I, of course, had to spend time with her. The hardest thing about Kristal's sickness was the mental stress. Leaving the apartment every morning was difficult. Everything in me wanted to stay home with her.

When at work or school it killed me to know that she was home alone. Coming home was also difficult because I knew that I was coming home to a horribly sick person. There is nothing worse than watching the one you love the most experience such discomfort and pain for such an extended period of time. The hardest thing was knowing that she was much much more miserable than I. In this period Kristal and I had many sobering conversations about the sovereignty of God.

If God is in control of everything then He must be in control of this. Why then will He not stop the sickness? Many answer by saying that God is trying the best He can, but this definitely does not come from scripture as read in context. The Scripture does not present God in such a weak and impotent way. The Bible teaches that God is in control, and that nothing happens apart from His will. The correct answer is that God is in control and He is doing this for our good.

Oh, my friends, theology is so practical. Why is God continuing to let this sickness continue to make my wife miserable? Because He knows better than me. This sickness is actually what is best (in whatever way) for me and my wife. How do you know? Because God is good. Because God loves His kids. God knows what is best for me and my wife better than me and my wife do. This is a reality that God's kids need to embrace.

Where am I going with this? Kristal's sickness had gone on about 2.5 months or so and my Intermediate Greek and Elementary Hebrew midterm exams were about 3 weeks away and I had no time to study the entire semester because I was too busy taking care of my wife. I also had to preach and teach Sunday school that weekend. At this point Kristal was at her worst. To say the least, I was overwelhmed.

It was 6:10 a.m. and I was on my way to the car because I was going to a Wednesday morning men's study breakfast. As I opened the car door I looked to heaven and said, "Why? Why God? Why won't you just heal her?"

All of the sudden I began to laugh. I should have been crying. I should have had a nervous break down, but no, I started laughing. I looked back up to heaven and started laughing. I said, "You are so stinking good! I wish I could see this situation from Your point of view. Even though I hate seeing my wife in such a state, I know that we are both in safer place here than any where else. No matter what happens, and no matter how long this lasts I rejoice in the work of the Lord. I cannot wait! I cannot wait to see what you are up to. I LOVE BEING A CHILD OF GOD! Nothing can touch me. Nothing can harm me. If God is for me, if God is for my wife, then who can successfully be against us. I AM CHILD OF GOD!"

I did not "feel" the presence of God that wonderful Wednesday morning, but, by faith, I enjoyed some wonderful fellowship with the Father. I knew that I was safe. I knew that my bride was safe. I knew that our baby (Jimmy Jr.) was safe. I knew, by faith, that God was in control. I still hated the thought of my wife being sick. I still hated the thought of leaving her alone. I so badly wanted to be there with her. I did want this, but I wanted what I had much much more. I would much rather have the knowledge of the goodness and sovereignty of God than physical health. Christianity is such a relational religion.

Do you want a personal relationship with God? Feast on the truth's of Scripture as read in context. Do you want fulfilling devotionals. Then study Scripture in context and embrace it. I love God! I enjoy a wonderful relationship with Him. This relationship has not grown as much through a whole bunch of introspective prayer times. The catalyst of this relationship has not been super duper long devotionals. This relationship has been fostered through obedience and trust. My friends, what happens when you no longer "feel" the Lord moving? What happens when you no longer "sense" his presence? First of all, when you no longer feel or sense these things does this mean that you are no longer spiritual? If you say yes, then show me, from scripture read in context, how you got that.

A right relationship with God can be enjoyed when you are up, down, cold, dry, tired, hurt, depressed, afraid, happy etc. It can be enjoyed and sustained while you are reading, praying, singing, listening to the radio, running, playing with your kids, doing the dishes, listening to a sermon, evangelizing, feeding the poor etc.

God loves His people. He wants His people to trust what He has said in His word. I am not saying that we should not seek the supernatural. But, the emphasis in scripture is simple belief. The emphasis in scripture is for believers to live an ordinary life while embracing the overwhelmingly wonderful doctrines of Scripture. The Spirit does work supernaturally. But the greatest supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is empressing biblical truth on the heart of believers to such an extent that they will put more weight on what the Bible has to say than on what their experience has to say. If anything is a work of the Spirit, believing the radical teachings of the Bible is it.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 4

What does it mean when someone is biblical? How does one become more biblical?

Let me answer this first by explaining what being biblical does not mean. Being Biblical does not necessarily mean that you hold fast to Biblical truth. Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics hold to Biblical truth. Athiest's hold to Biblical truth (because they affirm the necessity for love etc.). Everyone holds to biblical truth.

What then does it mean to be biblical? Being Biblical has to do with holding to everything that the Bible says. Being Biblical has to do with emphasizing the things that the Bible emphasizes, and to the extent that the Bible emphasizes it.

Many today hold to the biblical idea that Christians are to have a personal relationship with God, BUT they are not Biblical about it. In other words, they put an unbiblical emphasis on it and therefore ignore or downplay other crucial aspects of the Scriptures. This fault is most evidently seen in the modern day Emergent Church movement. I have had numerous talks with people who are embracing the ideals and convictions of the Emergent church movement.

Now, the Emergent church movement is far too diverse to generalize it on the whole, but one of the overwhelming characteristics of the movement is the pessimistic view of the institutional structure of Church. The Emergent church strives to get the church back to the way it was in the NT. Therefore, they see the value of not having formal meetings, pews, pulpits. They do not dress up when they go to church. Many of them meet in houses.

Many of them even go so far that they say that going to church really isn't all that important. The important thing is that you have your own personal time with God. The Mega Church movement, in many cases, has done the same exact thing. Many Mega Churches provide the option of becoming a member through the television. The idea is that you become a member of a church, but rather than actually going to the service, you attend church by watching the service on TV. Why? Because the matter of importance is not in going to church, but in having a personal relationship with God.

I have talked to many people who refuse to go to church, because they "don't need" it. They say that their church is in their heart. Whatever that means. "All that matters," they say, "is that I have a personal relationship with God."

Are these sorts of people Biblical? NO! Of course not. Let me ask another question. Are these people embracing biblical truth? Of course they are! They are embracing the fact that Christians are to have a personal relationship with God, BUT they are unbiblical because they are putting more emphasis on it than the Bible does so much so that they ignore and misinterpret other aspects of the Scriptures.

Are Christians to embrace this idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God? Yes, of course we are, but we are to be Biblical about it.

What does it mean, from the Bible, to have a personal relationship with God? What does this look like? Guess what! The Bible does not go into great detail about this. The Bible puts great emphasis on prayer, but, according to the Bible, what is prayer? Prayer is essentially petition. Prayer is asking God for stuff! Look at the model prayer in Matt 6. Every little part of that prayer is petition except for the very beginning when Jesus addresses God as "Our Father who art in heaven."

Prayer, according to the Bible, is not straight up communion with God. I am not saying that the Bible does not teach that we are to have straight up communion with God, I am merely saying that straight up communion with God is not prayer. Prayer is pettition.

The Bible commands us to "rejoice in the Lord always." This obviously has to do with a believers joy in the Lord. Thankfulness for who He is and what He does. The Bible says in John 17 that eternal life is knowing God. What does it mean to "know God?"

Let me look unspiritual for a moment. You cannot know God without first knowing about God. Knowing God begins with knowledge and fact. You cannot know God without first learning about Him. The more you know about God the greater your relationship with God becomes.

I believe that the Bible is much more practical than we could ever imagine. I think knowing God has more to do with every day life than it does with our devotionals.

Knowing God starts out with embracing theology. "What? Man! You must be a cold hearted seminarian! Knowing God begins with embracing theology?" Yes! Knowing God begins with the recognition of who He is and what He has done. You cannot have a relationship with God apart from the knowledge of what He has done for you in Christ.

Your relationship with God begins at conversion. The knowledge of what God has done for you in Christ fuels and sustains your relationship with God. The great bulk of a believers relationship with God has to do with over flowing (intellectual) gratitude for what God has done for us in Christ. The more the believer knows about what God has saved him/her from, the more thankful that believer is. The more the believer knows about who God is the more the believer wants to know God, the more the beliver wants to know about God, the more the beliver loves God.

Why do we believe that devotionals and prayer times are the places where the believer experiences God? Where, from the Scriptures, do we have warrant to teach and believe this? The Bible, as read in context, does teach that the Spirit is present with us while we are praying. This is why we can "pray in the Spirit." We pray what the Spirit brings to mind. The Bible also teaches that the Spirit is present when we read our Bibles. This is why David asks that he might behold wonderful things in the law. But the Spirit is just as present in the work force, and while you are driving, or while you are on the phone with your grandmother.

For some unknown reason when most Christians talk about prayer and devotions they speak as if that is where they meet the Lord. Devotionals are the place where it is just them and God, and this is the place where if they are silent enough they will hear the voice of God. This place of solitude is where the believers relationship with God is the strongest. Where does this teaching come from? It is true that Jesus went off by Himself on occassion to pray and be alone with God, and it is true that Christians ought to pray continuously, but where ever does the Bible teach that this is where our relationship with God is at it's best. Where, in the Scriptures, does it say that a believer's relationship with God will only be as strong and vibrant to the degree that the believer spends time in devotion and prayer?

Why are prayer and devotional reading held in such high esteem in today's version of Chrstianity? Are they held as high in the Bible?

Here is an honest answer: The Bible does hold them in high esteem. In fact, the Bible commands us to pray. The one who does not live a life of prayer is one who lives a life of sin. The Bible also holds Bible reading in high esteem. The Bible is the place where Christian's are informed of what is right and true. The Bible is that which forms and shapes our beliefs, values etc. The Bible holds these things in the highest regard. But the Bible does not necessarily distinguish between devotional and intellectual reading of the Scriptures. Why do we make these distinctions. When the Bible is read correctly application and devotion flow out of the text. One of the greatest enemies to context driven interpretation is devotional reading (I will speak about this in a later post).

Why do we enshrine prayer and devotional reading to be that which characterizes the truly spiritual ones? Does the Bible give us warrant to do this?

The Bible does not set up prayer and devotional reading to be that which helps us gauge another believer's spirituality. 1 Cor 13 tells us that love for the brethren is that which expresses spiritual maturity. The Corinthian church was experiencing much division and grief. One of the things that fueled this division was a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church was very charismatic. Therefore the spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy were held in high regard. Paul had no conflict with this. What Paul was concerned about was how they were using the gifts as a way of gauging how spiritual they were. The more one spoke in tongues the more spiritual he was. The use of spiritual gifts, according to the Corinthian church, was the test of true spirituality. This was causing all sorts of problems in the church. Paul confronted their problem by telling them that love, not the use of spiritual gifts, is the way to gauge how spiritual someone is.

How Spiritual are you? Well, How much do you love?

How Spiritual are you? How close are you with the Lord? How is your personal relationship with God these days? "Well Jimmy, I pray 3 hours a day. I read my Bible devotionally 3 hours a day as well?" Well, since when is that the gauge of Spirituality?

Remember that Jesus fought against the Pharisees because of they used prayer and devotion to show others exactly how Spiritual they were. In this context Jesus teaches that humility is that which exhibits spirituality. Humility expressed in prayer and devotion divorced from the compliments of men. The Publican in the temple parable (Luke 17) also teaches that humility rather than expressive prayer is that which exhibits true spirituality. Jesus surely did emphasize prayer, but he emphasized forgiveness and love just as much if not more.

A personal relationship with God cannot be had apart from prayer, but that does not mean that prayer is the primary place where this relationship is fostered.

This misunderstanding is the result of over simplying the teachings of Christainity. How is a relationship with God fostered and strengthened? It is strengthed through a life of prayer, Bible study, singing, working, community with believers, evangelism, rearing children, believing the Words of God, memorizing Scripture, working heartily for the Lord, and many other things. This is a very difficult thing for Christians to embrace, because then it becomes a bit more complicated to judge how spiritual the guy sitting next to you in the pew is.

Spirituality and a close walk with God, in the NT, seem to always have something to do with serving others. The one who walks closest with God is the one who is not all that interested on how well he/she is performing the Christian life. He does not have time to keep a close look on how well he is performing because he is too busy serving others.

What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? If you haven't caught on yet, I haven't really answered this question with any great precision. Why? Because the Bible does not answer this question with any great precision. What I am trying to stress in this post, and especially in this blog, is that your idea of what is true and right ought to come from context driven interpretation. Most people's idea of Spirituality does not come from the Bible. It comes from the modern day slogans of pop culture Christianity.

The one who has a deep personal relationship with God will pray, but he will not emphasize prayer to the exclusion of evangelism, or Bible study or anything like this. The one who has a deep relationship with God will desire fellowship and will seek to love the brethren in practical ways. The one who has a deep relationship with God will believe certain things and reject certain things.

How does one get a personal relationship with God? It does not necessarily come through 6 hr/day devotionals. It comes through obeying the Word of God. It starts with a knowledge of what God has done in Christ. It then expresses itself in obedience to God's commands, and love for God and the brethren.

What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? I can't necessarily nail it down. God is not here with me in human form. I can't just have a flowing conversation with Him. I can't hold his hand or look Him in the eye. A personal relationship with God has to do with knowledge and joy brought about by that knowledge. It has to do with obedience. It has to do with love. It has to do with service. It has to do with identifying with the Savior in his life and death. It has to do with so many things.

In Philippians 3 Paul says that he wants to know Christ and "the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings." You see, knowing God and having a personal relationship with Him here is directly tied to suffering.

I want to form my idea of what a personal relationship with God is by context driven interpretation. I do not want to say more than what the Bible says when read in context, but I also do not want to say less than what the Bible says read in context.

Most people will not like what I have written in this post for two reasons. First of all, some people will not like this post because a Biblical view of spirituality is not quite so cut and dry. It makes it harder to judge whether a person has a vibrant relationship with God or not. The loud guy who always raises his hands in the worship service and evangelizes like a mad man and knows evertyhing about theology may not be the most mature Chrsitian in the church, because he might not be full of love. At the same time the quiet guy right next to him who is simple minded about everything and never really says anything, but prays a lot also may not be all that spiritual. How can I say this? Well, he may pray to be known as a prayer warrior (you know, like a pharisee), and he also may neglect the command to evangelize.

And second, many may not like this because it makes it harder for them. Being godly is no longer easy. Being godly consists of giving your whole life to the Lord, not just during your devotionals. This is also difficult to swallow because then it becomes all too apparent how ungodly you actually are.

Where do we get our idea of who is close with the Lord and who is not? We need to get it from the Bible. We need to get it from the Bible read in context. It is very dangerous when we start throwing our own ideas of spirituality upon the Bible. This is exactly what the Corinthian chuch did, and it created division. It turned their church into a competitive arena where Christian's would show off and compare their great spirituality. They became a bunch of pharisees.

According to the Bible what is the greatest test of a close relationship with God? From reading scripture in context I am convinced that love and humility are the greatest tests of spirituality.

From our study, how does one pursue a personal relationship with God? By obeying the Word of God. God is not all that impressed with those who pray endlessly when they neglect other pertinent aspects of His Word. Obey God! Learn more about Him! There is no secret to spirituality. It has to do with believing, obeying, and loving God. It has to do with serving and forgiving the Brethren. This is how a relationship with God is nurtured and fostered.

Many people today are running to and fro doing all sorts of crazy things to strengthen their relationship with God. They are getting all bent out of shape and nervous because they just don't seem to be close enough to God. What is their remedy? Well, I need to pray more. I need to pray more. I need to journal more. I need to fast more.

What is the result of all this striving? First of all, if they fail at it they feel that God does not love them. Second of all, they learn to trust in their good performance rather than the Cross. Third of all, if they succeed, they start to look down on those who don't pray or fast as much as they do. They then neglect the wheighter matters of the law. You know, things like forgiveness, love, and humility.

Ideas and goals that are not formed by the Word of God are dangerous.

Context Is King! Sola Scriptura! Be formed by the Word of God alone! Even if it merkys the waters a bit. This clouding of the water may be the thing that forces you to cling to the cross. This clouding of the water may be the thing that keeps you from looking down on others.

In the next post I will share those moments in my life when I knew that I was closest to the Lord.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 3

In the past few posts we have been the looking at the popular Christian cliche which says, "I have a personal relationship with God." At the stake of looking like an unspiritual doubter, I have been testing this cliche to see whether it is biblical or not. The Goal of a Christian should not be to uphold tradition, but rather to be conformed to the Scriptures.

I will briefly list the conclusions of our study thus far.

1. The most commonly quoted verses from the Psalms used to support the idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God do not directly teach this. We looked at Psalm 42; 63; and 16. Two other popular verses used to support this idea that I did not address are Psalm 37 (especially vs. 4) and Psalm 34 (especially vs. 8). In all of these Psalms the Psalmists desires the presence of God for the sake of protection, longevity, provision, or physical prosperity. He does not desire the presence of God just cause, or for the sake of being near to the heart of God (whatever that means). As stated before, just because these verses do not directly teach that we are to pursue a dynamic relationship with God, they also do not teach against this. The Bible surely does teach that we are to have a personal relationship with God. But Biblical truth does not determine the meaning of a passage, context does. We then form our idea of Biblical truth from what context conveys.

2. Modern day Christians treat popular cliches in much the same way as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) treats church tradition--they interpret the Scriptures in light of it.

3. Any doctrine, including this one, can be very dangerous when emphasized to the point of excluding other pertinent aspects of Christian theology.

Outside of Jesus and the Apostles Martin Luther is, in the opinion of many, the most influential and transitional figure in the history of Christianity. The more I learn about who Luther was, what he did, and what he taught, the more I begin to appreciate him. Luther was, to put it lightly, a genius.

As stated in an earlier post, Luther lived and taught when the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was ruling the roost. Luther is the greatest example of what it looks like when someone is dedicated to Sola Scriptura.

He grew up under the influence of Roman Catholic (RC) teaching. The seminary he attended was RC as well. Luther did not have access to the Bible upon his arrival at seminary. He was indoctrinated by the false teachings of the RCC. Therefore, when Luther finally got access to the Bible he was full of RC presuppositions and biases. He was just as thoroughly effected by RC teaching than we are by today's popular Christian cliches. Yet when Luther sat down with the Bible he laid his theological convictions aside and tested them by the Scriptures. When he did this he was able to discern the false teachings that he had believed his whole life.

One of the problems prevalent in the RCC confronted by Luther was the way the leadership of the RCC abused their authoritative power. The RCC made it illegal in Germany for lay people to have a Bible. They did this out of fear that lay people might use the Bible to fight against the teachings of the church. They were also afraid of the church splitting into a thousand different pieces (which was one of the results of Luther's reform).

The RCC also taught that an individual Christian could not pray to God directly, rather they had to go through a priest. As Luther began testing these teachings in light of the Scriptures he began to see how unbiblical they were. He realized that the New Testament (NT) teaches that every believer, upon conversion, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He realized that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and men. He also became convinced that every believer should have access to the Word of God. He translated the Bible into German for the sake of the common man.

Everyone reading this post right now ought to take a few minutes and thank the Lord for Luther's influence. Without Luther it is likely that we would not have the Bible in our native tongue. Without the influence and boldness of Luther it is likely that we would still be praying to God through a bunch of dead Saints. Without the influence of Luther it is likely that God would still be seen as a far, overly distant, cold deity who delights in judgement.

If it were not for Luther it is likely that we would hear nothing about what it means to have a personal relationship with God. Luther discovered that the Bible had quite a bit to say about individuals and their ability to relate with God on their own apart from the structure of the church. This is not to say that Luther was against formalized church government structures, rather he was against the great chasm that existed between the clergy and the laity (and especially in regard to how they related with God).

Now I do not want to take away from the things that Luther said, but it is important to remember that Luther, almost all by himself, was fighting against the beliefs of the whole continent of Europe. Therefore, it was of necessity that he argue in extremes. This does not mean that you cannot trust what Luther said, but it does mean that you must understand the situation that Luther was confronting. Many of Luther's followers failed to realize this, and they took his ideas too far.

Luther was very much against those who took his teachings too far. One of the things Luther spent much time talking about was the appropriate way to respond to those with whom you disagree. Luther warned against the tendency to over react against false teaching. He used an illustration with a man and his horse. The man approaches his horse to go for a ride and in attempt to get on the horse he flips his leg up and over the horse, but doesn't quite kick hard enough. The man then takes a step back to set up his approach. He nears the horse again to attempt a remount, but this time, to avoid another failed attempt, kicks with all of his might. But the man kicks so hard that he falls off the other side of the horse.

The obvious purpose of the illustration was to show that over reacting against a false teaching actually produces just as much error as the original false teaching. Luther did not desire to make non-Catholic Christians. He desired to make Biblical Christians. It should not be the desire of a pastor to make his people Non-Charismatic Christians, or Non-Calvinistic Christians, or Non-Arminian Christians, or anything like this. A pastors desire should be to make his people Biblical Christians. God is not all that impressed if you can pick out the flaws in modern evangelistic methods, rather He is impressed when you are able to do evangelism Biblically.

It can be argued that modern Christian Culture's over emphasis on the "personal" dimension of a Christian's relationship with God is the result of taking Luther's teachings too far. Although the Protestant Reformation has effected us primarily for the good, it also has had it's negative effects, and this is one of them. This negative effect can be seen in Luther and Calvin. It can be seen in the Puritans and yes, even in John Wesley. It can be seen in Tozer, Lloyd-Jones, Ravenhill,and Pink. It can also be seen in Piper and nearly every other popular Christian author today. It is the tendency to individualize all of Scripture. It is the tendency to take verses referring to churches and groups and to apply them to individuals.

Let me give just one example from the NT.

Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may be able to prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

This verse is usually applied to individuals. Something similar to this is said, "In light of the Gospel. In light of what God has done for you (as an individual), you need to present your body as a living sacrifice. You need to expend yourself (time, talents, money, gifts, strength etc.) for the kingdom of God and this is the correct response to God for what He has done for you in Christ."

This sounds nice and all, but there is a much more accurate way of approaching this passage. It begins with an examination of the context. Paul wrote to the Romans because they were having troubles getting along. Racism was rampant in Rome. The Jews were looking down on the Gentiles because they were not descended from Abraham, and because they were uncircumcised etc. The Gentiles were ticked off at the Jews because of how they were oppressing them. The Gentiles also struggled with pride because it was becoming apparent that God had turned to them.

The tensions in Rome were great. The Jews and Gentiles were nearly at each other's throats. How on earth could anyone step in and calm things down? How could this situation be diffused? Well, the Apostle Paul decided to write the Romans a letter to diffuse the problem. He starts his letter telling them that they are all (both Jews and Gentiles) under sin. Paul went to great lengths in the first three chapters to prove that no one is exempt from this reality. Why did he go to such great lengths? Because he wanted to show the Jews that they have nothing over the Gentiles, because they were just as sinful as the Gentiles before God justified them. He also wanted to show the Gentiles that they were no better than the self righteous Jews because they were in the same boat before God justified them as well.

In Romans 3:19-5:21 Paul informed the Romans that they were all saved in the same way--By grace through faith. He did this to show the Jews that they did nothing to merit their own salvation. Their salvation was the work of God alone, therefore they have no reason to think that they are better than the Gentiles. "Salvation is a thing of grace therefore don't think that you are so hot Jews" (my little twist).

Then in Chapters 6-8 Paul sets forth to speak of the new life that the Jews and the Gentiles now share together in Christ.

Romans 8:15 says that they (Jews and Gentiles) "have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'" Notice that they cry out "Abba! Father!" Is "Father" a Greek word? Of course not! How then do you think it would be read in the Greek? The Greek word for "Father" is Pater. What does Abba mean? Abba is the Arabic word for "Father." Therefore the Greek literally reads, "we cry out 'Abba! Pater!'" What an amazing reality! The Gentiles spoke Aramaic and so they called their father Abba. The Hebrews (Jews) spoke Greek and so they called their father Pater. What is Paul getting at here? He is saying that both Jews and Greeks are adopted. They are adopted into the same family, therefore they have the same Father. There is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the sight of God other than the Language they use to address Him as "Father." The Jews and Gentiles address God as "Father" together, in unison, in their own unique languages. (The majority of commentators take "Abba, Father" to be personal reference to God, emphasizing a believers close relationship to God through the Spirit. But with the words, Abba and Pater, and with the Jew/Gentile theme throughout Romans, what I am saying seems to be much more faithful to context).

We then see many wonderful things in Romans 9-11. Paul writes Chapter 9 to show that being a descendant of Abraham does not help ones case before the judgement seat of Christ. How then are people saved if not on the basis of race? They are saved on the basis of God's predestining them unto salvation. Therefore, the Gentiles can be saved even though they are not descended from Abraham. Tis far better to be a child of the promise than to be a physical descendant of Abraham.

Then, before the Gentiles get too big headed, in Chapter 11, Paul humbles them by reminding them that they have been graciously grafted into the olive tree. He reminds them that the Jews were the natural branches which have been lopped off because of disobedience. Then he says, "Do not be conceited (O Gentiles), but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Behold the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off." Paul then ends chapter 11 informing the Romans that God is not finished with the Jews. In fact, there is going to be a mass conversion of the Jews at the end of the age.

Finally we get to Romans 12:1, "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God." In light of everything that Paul has said thus far he is going to direct them to some sort of action. Thus far he has stressed the fact that Jews and Gentiles have been in the same boat since the get-go. He has stressed 4 main things.

1. Jews and Gentiles alike were equally sinful.
2. Jews and Gentiles alike can take no ownership of their salvation.
3. Jews and Gentiles were raised up together and adopted into the same family.
4. Jews and Gentiles alike had better not think they are better than each other.

Pay attention here.

"Therefore, I urge you (this "you" is plural in Greek), brethren (this is plural in Greek), by the mercies of God, to present your bodies (this is plural in Greek) a living and holy sacrifice (this is singular in Greek), which is your spiritual service of worship."

How are those in the Roman Church to respond to what has been said up to this point? They are to present their BODIES (plural) as a living and holy sacrifice (Singular). Do you see the plural "bodies" and the singular "sacrifice." What then is the appropriate response to what has been said up to this point? UNITY! What is their "spiritual service of worship?" Unity in the body of Christ. What is one of the most crucial and God glorying aspects of worship? Unity! Forgiving one another from the heart!

Paul goes on and says, "And do not be conformed to the pattern of this world." What is the "pattern of this world?" Racism! The Jews hated the Gentiles and the Gentiles hated the Jews. This is life in 1st Century Rome. Paul is calling them away from this in light of the mercies of God.

Ok, so he wants to call them away from the "pattern of this world," but for what? So that they might "prove what the will of God is." Well, what is the "will of God" in this context? I can tell you one thing, it is not some super spiritual subjective leading of the Holy Spirit. How do I know this? Because he explains in the very next verse what the will of God is. Take a look at Romans 12:3-15:33. This is the will of God. What does this section of Romans talk about? Unity! Getting along with those in the body of Christ! Paul was calling them to unity. Romans 12:1-2 has very little to do with an individuals response to God. It has everything to do with corporate life. It has everything to do with getting along with those who are a part of the family of God, regardless of racial distinctions, social class distinctions, or any other type of distinction.

This, according to Romans, is the proper way to respond to what God has done for us in Christ. So many today totally miss this verse and what it means because they are not leaning on context. Granted, following context is not all that easy. I am not saying that all modern day pastors are lazy and stupid. Rather, I am saying that we, as Christians, ought to be putting all of our energy into context. We need to put all of our eggs in the basket of context. Context determines meaning.

There are many other passages that we mis-read because of our over emphasis on the "personal" dimension of a believer's relationship with God. I will not go through any more verses in this post. But I will say that the majority of NT texts used today to support this "personal" dimension of the Christian life are taken out of context. The majority of the NT is written to Churches confronting corporate problems (whether they be relational or doctrinal).

The great majority of the NT is not written to individuals to help them understand how to have a more dynamic personal relationship with God. The majority of the NT teaches believers to get their eyes off of themselves and on to others. The majority of the NT focuses on evangelism and living in community. Yes there is a personal dimension to the Christian life, and yes the NT does address this (John 17 for example), but this is not the emphasis in the NT.

The majority of Christians in today's culture will chaff at what I am saying here, but I am not saying this for the sake of being picky. I am saying these things because I desire to see Biblical Christianity. I am not, in any way, teaching that we should not seek a personal relationship with God, but I am saying that this certain aspect of Christianity should not be emphasized more than the Bible emphasizes it.

Now more than ever, Christianity needs to recapture the Bibles emphasis on corporate life. Christianity today is a mess. Churches are splitting left and right. It is not uncommon to have people in the same church hating one another! What sin! What awful grotesque rebellion! Bitterness! Greed! Covetousness! American Christianity could be characterized more by middle school type squabbles than by the grace and love of our Savior. HEY! But at least we are doing our devotionals! At least we have all of our Christian life verses memorized. Devotionals don't mean all that much when you live in friction with a fellow brother or sister in Christ. We need unity! Unity based on truth and grace!

Pastors are running to and fro throughout the land trying to find the remedy to the unity problems in their churches. Let me fill you in on something: The answers to your church unity problems are in the Bible. Read it in context and you will see. Drop your individualistic agenda and read the Bible in context.

In the next post, Lord willing, I will discuss what it means to have a personal relationship with God, according to the Scriptures read in context.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 2

"I have a personal relationship with God." We have been considering this popular Christian cliche. In the last post we looked at the most popular texts in the OT used to support this idea. The conclusion we came to is that these verses do not teach that the Psalmist had a personal relationship with God per se, but they also do not teach against the idea that the Psalmist had a personal relationship with God. These popular verses teach that David had a love for God and a desire for His presence. The Psalmist did not desire the presence of God because of the warm fuzzies it brought to His soul. He did not desire the presence of God for the sake of having some sort of fulfilling devotional. He desired the presence of God because he was about to be slaughtered by his enemies. God was his only protection.

Therefore, "as the deer pants for the waters so my soul longeth after Thee O God," because as long as You are not near I have no protection.

I am not attempting to do away with the idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God, rather I am showing that context determines meaning. Cliches are only helpful when used correctly. When they are used as the unquestionable determiner of any given passage then they not only unhelpful, but even dangerous.

Someone at this point may say, "Aren't you being kind of picky. You yourself agree that this idea of having a personal relationship with God is a Biblical idea. I understand that many misinterpret certain verses because they lean too heavily on this concept, but at least they are not going away with some totally heretical teaching. How then can it be so bad?"

How can you know if something is Biblical or not unless if you test it in light of Scripture? It is impossible to test something in light of Scripture if you come to the Scripture using it as the determiner (i.e. the foundation of interpretation) of what Scripture means. When context is the foundation of interpretation then everything is put in a place where it may be tested. Remember, this is why Luther got so angry at the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Because they were interpreting Scripture in light of church tradition. Church tradition was the RCC's interpretational foundation. They were never able to see their error because they were treating church tradition in much the same way that American Christian's treat popular cliche's. They used church tradition as the unquestionable foundation of interpreting Scripture. Church tradition was never put into question because it became the basis used by the RCC to determine what Scripture meant. Many today are using cliche's in the same way. Cliches are never questioned or limited because they have become the basis used by contemporary Christians to question everything else, including Scripture and what it means.

Luther stood under the text and began testing Church Tradition by the Scriptures. When he did this he began to see how in need of testing Church tradition was. American Christianity needs to do the same thing in regard to her beloved cliches. They need to test them in light of Scripture and discard the ones that do not line up. Luther was not afraid to publicly reject the most beloved teachings of the Catholic Church if they could not be found in the Scriptures. We need to be ready to do the same. We need to be ready to reject even the most fundamental ideas of modern day Christian culture if they do not line up with the Scriptures.

How would you react if I told you that the Bible did not teach that every individual Christian has a relationship with God? What would be your response? Would you start quoting Scripture correctly interpreted to me, or would you just get frustrated and call me a heretic? This is what I am trying to expose here. I am trying to show you that you are (most likely) more protective of your popular cliches than you are of the Scriptures read in context.

Learn to be a doubter! "What? A doubter?" YES! A DOUBTER! Doubt the things that you have been taught your whole life until they are either affirmed or rejected by the Scriptures read in context. There is one thing you must not doubt though and that is Sola Scriptura itself. Do not doubt that God has spoken in His Holy Word. Lean on it, rely on it. Let it be what informs you of what is right and wrong.

What exactly then is at stake when you do not let context be the sole influencer of your interpretation?

1. That which guides your interpretation may be heretical. This, of course, will lead to a heretical interpretation. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) use their other inspired writings to guide their interpretation. These writings teach that Jesus is not God. Therefore, when they go to Col. 1:15-20, for example, which clearly teaches that Jesus is God, they twist it. JW's say that Col. 1:15-20 teaches that Jesus is only human. They get it completely wrong. Why? Because that which is informing their interpretation is completely wrong.

What is at stake if you are leaning on something other than context to determine meaning? You will not be able to detect the most heretical doctrines. It may be a matter of heaven or hell. No one who rejects the deity of Christ is going to Heaven. The Book of John makes this very clear.

At this point you may say, "I get the point. But, I am not a JW. I don't believe anything that far out. Popular Christian cliches are much more faithful to the Bible than the heretical teachings of the JW movement."

How do you know that you are not that "far out?" The only way to discern if the cliches you hold to are not heretical is if you test them in light of Scripture. And so long as your cliches are informing the way you interpret the Bible, you will never be able to test them in light of Scripture.

2. Heretical teaching is not the only negative consequence of not leaning upon context for meaning. Another result of letting cliches determine the meaning of a text is bondage. "Bondage?" Yes! Bondage!

Let me illustrate by using the cliche that says, "I have a personal relationship with God." This idea has spread through Christianity like wildfire. As stated before, I do believe the Bible teaches this. You may say, "Then what is your problem?" Just because something is Biblical does not mean that it cannot be used wrongly. For example, the JW's teach that Jesus is human. Is this Biblical? Of course it is. But they abuse this teaching by emphasizing to the exclusion of the deity of Christ. They forsake the parts of Scripture that talk about the deity of Christ for the sake of those passages which talk about the humanity of Christ.

Whenever you emphasize some aspect or teaching of scripture to the exclusion of other teachings of Scripture you will be effected negatively. I personally, have been affected in a negative way by Christianity's over emphasis on having a personal relationship with God. About three years ago I got all fed up with myself. I got sick of telling everyone that Jesus is my best friend when it wasn't really true. I felt compelled to speak like this though because it was the way we gauged our spirituality.

I remember arguing with myself about my personal relationship with God. My arguments would go like such:

"Ok, God is real. God is immanent. God is near."

"But where is He? I can't see Him. I surely can talk to Him, but I never hear His voice. How can I call Him my best friend when it is such a one sided relationship. I do all the talking. How can I call someone who is invisible my best friend? How can I call someone who is invisible and mute my best friend?"

"Ok, I am going to go pray now. Prayer is exciting, because this is where God and I hang out. Prayer is to be the place where it is me, God, and no one else. This is going to be great."

"Prayer is like big fat stinky fart to me right now. I really don't want to be here. How can I call God my best friend when I would rather be playing in traffic than praying? There is something wrong with me. There has got to be something wrong with me. All the other Christians I know who love God talk about their exciting prayer times and mine are as dull as a broken glow worm. What is wrong with me? Is there some sin in my life that I do not know about? I know that I have spent the past week going through my life trying to figure this out, but there has to be something blocking my relationship with God. Am I even a Christian? If I call God my friend, yea, my best friend, how is it that I hate praying? I really would rather hang out with a bum right now than be here in prayer. Bums are much more interesting than prayer. Sure they smell a little funny, but at least they talk back. Is God really present with me while I pray? I don't feel His presence at all. All of the godly people at church say that they feel God's presence when they pray. When I pray sometimes I get excited or emotional. Sometimes I am more aware of spiritual things, but I have never felt His presence before. Heck, what does it even mean to feel the Presence of God. What is wrong with me."

Does this sound all too familiar to anyone out there? I hate to break it to you, but exciting devotionals are not the evidence of great spirituality. Feeling like you are best friends with God is also not the greatest evidence of spirituality. What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God?

I went through a long bout with this. I was in bondage to this personal relationship with God idea. I really thought I was doing something wrong. I questioned my salvation. I was so focused on having exciting devotionals that I forgot about all the other important things in Scripture. You know, things like evangelism, serving others, loving my enemies etc.

What is more important according to the Bible, having a dynamic and exciting prayer life or prayerfully evangelizing? Which of the two is the better gauge of Spirituality: Fulfilling devotionals or prayerfully serving the Saints? Jesus did not have great things to say about the over introspective Pharisees. Surely Jesus did often times go off by His lonesome. What were his prayers like? Were they lively? Did He feel God's presence when He went off to pray? When Jesus was in the wilderness for such a long period of time, did He have a great time? When Jesus was in the wilderness did He get distracted by the cluster of ants by the big rock to His left or was He so spiritual that he experienced nothing but a closeness to God and big fat warm fuzzy in His heart of hearts?

Agreed, Jesus is a unique figure. Jesus was closer to God than any other human, because he descended from the very court room of God. But Jesus was also human. God was still invisible to Him.

What about Paul? Were his prayers always full of reality and passion? Were he and God best buddies? Did he feel the presence of God moving in his prayers? Was God his best friend? Are you more spiritual than Paul? Are you more spiritual than me because of your dynamic prayer life?

Guess what? The Scriptures don't speak to these things. Most Christians live a lie. They say that Jesus is their best friend, but in their heart they know that He is not. They try and try and try to make him to be so, but they know that it cannot be done. How can someone invisible and silent be a best friend.

Or maybe He is their best friend, but in a different way.

Is God my best friend? I really don't know if I can answer that. What do you mean by best friend? Yes God is my friend. I love God. I desire to know God more and more. If you are going to call God your best friend then you need to be able to define what this means by the Bible. I am not saying that you are wrong if you say that Jesus is your best friend. But an invisible/silent individual cannot be a best friend in the same sense that a visible/audible individual can.

One of the greatest problems with Christians today is that we desire to be all too spiritual. We say all these spiritual things without knowing what they really mean. This is not spirituality, it is pride. We want to talk the talk in front of the holy ones. Do you think that you are more spiritual than I because I am questioning whether or not Jesus can be a best friend? If so, then where do you get your spirituality-o-meter? From the Bible? Or from Popular Christianity?

We will continue our discussion about what it means to have a personal relationship with God in the next post. Don't get all depressed that I ruined your idea of Christianity. In the next post I will explain what I mean when I say "I have a personal relationship with God." While you may think that I stealing from you your most prized possession just wait. In the next post you will see how much more wild your relationship with God can be when you base it on Scripture.

I hope this post has been liberating for some people. When I got honest with myself about what God being my best friend, it liberated me. It meant that I didn't have to play the game of spirituality anymore. This didn't mean that I stopped praying. But it did mean that I stopped trying to make my prayers something they were never going to be.

Christian Cliche #1- "Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ"

We will be looking at modern Christian Cliche’s in these next few posts. Cliche’s are helpful, but they are, by nature, simplistic. Therefore they can be very dangerous, because contrary to popular opinion, Christianity is not simplistic. I am not against using cliche’s, but I am against using them incorrectly. I am also against cliche’s that are wrong.

In short, a cliche is used wrongly when it treated as the “final word” on any given subject. The purpose of a cliche is to communicate one aspect of a thing. Cliche’s are not to be used as a foundation for theology. Christian theology is far too complex to be communicated primarily by way of cliche’s. Most modern Christian writers have done just this (used cliche’s as the foundation of their theology). The result is an overly simplistic Gospel that is more dangerous than helpful. Most Christians have a greater understanding of Cliche’s than they do of the Bible. This is a problem..

Let’s take a look at some popular Christian cliches. I will first describe how the cliche is generally used, then I look at it in light of scripture, and then I will makes some concluding thoughts about it.

Cliche 1: “I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

Christians usually use this cliche when they need to communicate that their religion is no mere matter of intellect. This cliche helps them capture the idea that Jesus is alive and well in their hearts, and that their relationship with Him does not exist in some cold set of rules, but it exists, rather, in a dynamic relationship of love and admiration. Many today use this cliche when they want to communicate that Jesus, to them is a best friend. They “hang out” with Jesus. Jesus is their “homeboy.” I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

At the outset I want to say that I am not against using this cliche, but I do think that this cliche is, as are all the rest, abused.

Nearly every Christian you come into contact with uses this phrase. I am sure that if you are reading this and are Christian, you have said this yourself. But have you ever asked yourself what this cliche means? What does the Bible say about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

First of all, it is important to know that the phrase “personal relationship with God” is not found in the Bible. Many will say to me at this point, “Jimmy, why do you feel the need to attack everything I believe? Why would you call into question such a foundational element of Christianity?” My answer to you goes as such, “Why do you consider this idea of having a personal relationship with God to be a foundational element of Christianity? Is it because the Bible makes it a foundational element, or because modern Christian Culture makes it a foundational element? By the way, quote for me what the Bible says about having a personal relationship with Christ.” We need to put ourselves in a position where our cliches are formed by the Word of God. The cliche’s we use are not infallible. The only way to test if they are correct or not is if they can be found in scripture. Popularity is not a good test when discerning if something is foundational to Christianity or not. Even if they are correct, we need to make sure that we are using them correctly.

I am not necessarily against this idea of having a personal relationship with God, if it is understood correctly–according to the Bible. The main point of bringing this up is to show you how much you throw your preconceived ideas upon the Bible. Most people go to the Bible assuming that the Bible is teeming with verses about Christian’s having a personal relationship with God.

According to the Bible, what does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? The first place we will look is the Psalms. The Psalms are the most personal, intimate scriptures in all of the Bible. In the Psalms we see men who expressed their hopes, dreams, fears, and desires. We will take a look at the Psalms most often associated with this personal relationship idea.

Psalm 42:1-2 “As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for You, O God. My Soul thirsts for God, for the living God; When shall I come and appear before God.”

The first question we need to ask of this verse is, “Why is the Psalmist so desperate for God?” To answer this questions we dare not look to the slogan’s of Christian culture, rather we must look to context. After examining the context of this verse it becomes very apparent that the Psalmist desires the Lord because he is in need of deliverance from his enemies.

See it for yourself. The rest of the Psalm sets it forth clearly. (Anything italicized is for emphasis. Anything in the parenthesis are my words.)

Psalm 42:3-11 “My tears have been my food day and night, While they (my enemies) say to me all day long, ‘Where is your God?’ These things I remember and I pour out my soul within me. For I used to go along with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God, with the voice of joy and thanksgiving, a multitude keeping festival. Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him for the help of His presence. O my God, my soul is in despair within me; therefore I remember You from the land of the Jordan and the peaks of Hermon, from Mount Mizar. Deep calls to deep at the sound of your waterfalls; All your breakers and Your waves have rolled over me. The Lord will command His lovingkindness in the daytime; And His song will be with me in the night, a prayer to the God of my life. I will say to God my rock, ‘Why have you forgotten me?’ Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?’ As a shattering of my bones, my adversaries revile me, While they say to me all day long, ‘Where is your God?’(He longs for God to vindicate him before his enemies. He also longs for God to vindicate Himself.). Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance and my God.”

This verse has very little to do with a personal relationship with God. It has everything to do with David’s desire to be saved from his enemies, and vindicated in the eyes of his enemies. Context, not cliches, determines meaning.

Let’s look at another verse commonly used to support this idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God.

Psalm 63:1-5- “O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly; My soul thirsts for You, my flesh yearns for You, In a dry and weary land where there is no water. Thus I have seen You in the sanctuary, to see Your power and Your glory. Because Your lovingkindness is better than life, my lips will praise You. So I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name. My soul is satisfied as with marrow and fatness, And my mouth offers praises with joyful lips.”

What a wonderful expression of desire for God, and thanksgiving for His goodness. Why such emotion in this Psalm? Lets take a look at the context.

Psalm 63:6-11- “When I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches, For You have been my help, And in the shadow of Your wings (this is a metaphor for protection from enemies) I will sing for joy. My soul clings to You; Your right hand upholds me (“right hand” is a metaphor for provision and protection). But those who seek my life to destroy it, will go into the depths of the earth. They (my enemies) will be delivered over to the power of the sword; they (my enemies) will be a prey for foxes. But (huge contrast here) the king will rejoice in God; Everyone who swears by Him will glory, for the mouths of those who speak lies will be stopped.”

Once again we see that Psalmist longs for God, which, in this context, means that He (God) be present to protect him from his enemies. I do not want to in anyway communicate that we love God only because He does a lot of cool things for us. We are not brats of God, but rather children of God. In the midst of trouble the child wants his Daddy near. When he realizes that his Daddy is not near he begins to sob. The more afraid he becomes the louder he yells “Daddy! DADDY! DAADDY!” So it is with us. The child is not selfish when he cries Daddy. When the Father hears the voice of his child he runs to him, scoops him up, and begins to assure him that everything is ok. The child then tells his father that he is so glad that he is near. His fears are relieved. WHAT A BRAT! WHAT A SELF CENTERED BRAT! No, what a scared and helpless child who is thankful for his loving father. So it is with the Psalmist’s in these two Psalms.

I do not deny that these verses do teach something of a personal relationship with God. There is definite intimacy shared between God and the Psalmist. This circumstance, I am sure, gave David a greater love for God. But the Psalmist’s reliance upon God is what is emphasized here. This Psalm does not communicate some sort desire for God to be present just cause. He isn’t desiring God to come down so they can play some kind of spiritual nintendo or something. The Psalmist desires and longs for the presence of God–the safe/protective presence of God.

Let’s look at one more.

Psalm 16:11- “In your presence is fullness of joy; In your right hand there are pleasures forevermore.”

What a wonderful line. Remember though that context determines meaning. What does this verse, at this point, ripped out of context, mean? Well, lets put in it’s context.

Psalm 16:1- Preserve me, O God (He is asking God to keep him alive), for I take refuge in You (in other words, Presever me because I trust in you for my life). I said to the Lord, ‘You are my Lord;’ ‘I have no good besides You.’ As for the saints who are in the earth, They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight. The sorrows of those who have bartered for another god will be multiplied; I shall not pour out their drink offerings of blood, Nor will I take their names upon my lips. The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup (In other words: You are all I have. Without you I have nothing. Not even life); You support my lot (in other words: everything that I have is sustained by You). The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places; Indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me. I will bless the Lord who has counseled me; Indeed, my mind instructs me in the night. I have set the Lord continually before me; Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken (in other words: I will not be defeated or killed or taken advantage of because I lean upon the strength of the Lord). Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will dwell securely. For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol (Sheol means death- in other words: you will not let me die); Nor will you allow Your Holy One to ungergo decay (in other words: you will not let me die, you will sustain my life). You will make known to me the path of life (i.e. you will get me out of this death trap); In your presence is fullness of joy; In your right hand there are pleasures forevermore.”

The last line is a summary of everything David had said up to that point. David was going on and on about how God is the sustainer and preserver of his life. Without the presence of God, David would know nothing but death. But because God was with him, he had assurance of safety and longevity. Context determines meaning. What is “fullness of joy.” The joy of being protected by God. The joy of living a long and safe life. What does he mean when he says that at his “right hand” there are “Pleasures forevermore.” First of all, it is important to remember that the “right hand” of God is where all of his blessings come from. This Psalm is emphaisizing the blessing of provision and protection. Why would the last verse of this psalm suddenly change direction. Context determines meaning.

I do not want minimize the fact that there are many more wonderful things that come from the right hand of God, but this particular Psalm is only speaking of 2 or 3 of them.

Why am I doing this? Am I just being picky? Of course not. The Bible is to be the thing that forms your ideas and beliefs. When you approach these three Psalms and interpret them in light of the slogans of modern day Chrsitianity then you will miss the great portion of what it is trying to say. Psalm 42 should be a pastors key verse for someone who is in the throws of battle (whatever kind of battle that may be), but so long as we let it cater to our present “personal relationship” agenda, it never will. I am not saying that Christian’s do not have a personal relationship with God. I am saying that context, not popular teaching, determines meaning.

If you are seeking to be molded by the scriptures, what good does it do you to take your own preconcieved idea(s) and lay it on the text. You will merely come out the other side just believing what you already believed, with just a bit more emphasis. But if you want to be formed by the Bible, you must let the Bible do the talking. Here is a good rule for reading the Bible: “SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!” Keep your thoughts to yourself. Silence yourself. If you have to, wear tape over your mouth when you sit down to remind you that you are the learner. Let the Bible speak. Be, in a sense, passive when you read the Bible. Let it tell you what to believe. Let it tear you to pieces. Let it break to pieces those things that you presently believe, so that it might build you back up twice as strong.

In the next post I will say more about this popular cliche. What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God? Don’t tell the Bible what it means, and then force it (the Bible) through your hoops. The Bible is not to conform to your ideas, rather you are to conform to the Bibles ideas. The last thing we need is the Bible to look like a bunch of sinners. No, we need a bunch of sinners to look like Jesus–Jesus as He is revealed in Scripture.

Postmodernism A Movement of God?

No one is above influence. Every one's beliefs, thinking patterns, actions, values, fears, dreams etc. are shaped by something. No one believes something "just because." No one can escape the reality of influence. Even those today who so boldly call themselves "free thinkers" are not above influence. Isn't it a funny thing that the majority of Americans are free thinkers. Free thinking is the thing to do in America. Free thinkers are the product of our popular postmodern society. You may say, "I like to think out of the box." To this I say, "Oh how original."

What I am teaching here is mild postmodernism. That's right, postmodernism does have it's values. Postmodernism really is an over reaction against the all too confident modernism. Extreme Modernism basically taught that anything could be attained by reason alone. Centuries went by and discovery after discovery was being made, which fueled an overly optimistic view of the abilities of the human mind. Those who embraced modernity to it's fullest extent ended up rejecting the Christian Faith, because, in their system, there was no room for the supernatural. The Modern mind could come to know everything fully, including God Himself. A few philosophers came along in the 18th and 19th Centuries and began to play with the basic thesis of Modernism. They began to ask questions like, "Where do morals come from," or "What drives a person to risk his life for the sake of someone he does not know?" The result of their questioning was the humbling reality of the feebleness of the human mind. No, the human mind does not have the ability to understand everything exhaustively.

What a wonderful God exalting discovery. God has been trying to convince humanity since the fall that they are helpless without Him. Modernity had placed man on an equal playing field with God. Modernity, of course, did have it's strengths. Modernism taught that you can come to absolute truth. This is a definite strength of modernity, especially since the Bible is full of absolute truth. Also, modern medicine and transportation, for example, would not be what they are today without the ambition of the optimism created by Modernism.

In the same way that Modernism had it's strengths and weaknesses, Postmodernism also has it's strengths and weaknesses. Postmodernism has done Christianity a great service by proving the limit of the human mind, but it would be a grave mistake to consider Postmodernism to be a Christian movement. Postmodernism, at it's most fundamental level, teaches that everyone is shaped by their context. The idea of Post (after) modernism (Modernity) is that we all see reality through a lens which has been shaped and molded by our surroundings. Postmodernism embraces the fact that everyone is unique. Everyone sees things differently, values things differently, emphasizes things differently, and defines things differently. Each individual sees any certain thing from a unique vantage point, namely from the vantage point that has been shaped by his/her experiences.

Postmodernism has the same sort of fault that Modernism had. Modernism embraced the fact that the human mind is capable of coming to absolute truth, which is good and true. The problem with Modernism is that they took this thought too far and ended up deifying the mind. Postmodernism embraces the fact that the human mind is limited because of experiential influences, which is good and true. The problem with postmodernism is that they take this too far and end up saying that we are so influenced by our experiences that we are incapable of coming to absolute truth.

Christianity is having a hay day dealing with all of the problems produced by postmodern thought. This has caused many Christians to reject postmodern thought altogether, which is a mistake. Modernism produced many problems for Christianity, yet most Christians would celebrate it's strengths. Christianity needs to do with the same with Postmodernism. I am in no way suggesting that we receive the movement as a whole, but we must embrace those ideas that are right and true.

Everything said so far in all of my posts has been the result of postmodern thought. I have been trying to expose those things that have influenced the way you read the Bible. We have been influenced by many things whether it be secular culture, christian culture, the beliefs and teachings of our parents, the beliefs and teachings of our younger or older brothers and sisters, the beliefs and teachings of our peers, the beliefs and teachings of our teachers, media, country, pastors, songs, movies etc. All of these influences have, to some degree, distorted our ability to decode (interpret) with precision. I agree with this. Postmodernism is right up to this point. But, contrary to the popular postmodern opinion, correct interpretation is not impossible. Difficult? Yes! But not impossible. It can be done. Yea! It must be done if we are going to be passionate about the call of Sola Scriptura.

Those who want to be faithful to the Bible must understand both sides of this reality. First of all, we must understand that absolute truth is attainable. And second, we must expose our presuppositions and those things that make our reasoning unique so that we might be able to interpret without bias. Correct interpretation does not happen naturally. Correct interpretation involves a lot of hard work. It involves letting go of one's presuppositions for the sake of building better ones--presuppositions crafted by the Bible alone.

No one can escape the reality of influence, but we can have some say in what we are influenced by. We must learn how to critique ourselves. We must learn how to stand over ourselves so that we might be able to see past our own preconceived ideas. We must learn how to discern those things that dictate how we interpret so that we might be able to get rid of them. We need to get to a place where we are not controlled by our presuppositions. As long as you do not know those things that dictate your interpretation, you will be controlled by them.

The more we work at exposing our presuppositions, the more we can get rid of them. The more we get rid of them, the more we will be able to interpret the Bible without bias. The more we are able to interpret the Bible without bias, the more we are influenced by the Bible. You see, we do have some control over what we are influenced by. Those who refuse to embrace this Postmodern thought will never be able to read the Bible correctly. They will always ignorantly throw their preconceived ideas on the text.

What is it that controls your thinking? What shapes you? Is it secular culture? Is it a backwards Christian culture? Is it what you have been taught your whole life? Is it your experiences? Is it the Bible? Let me be ever so picky. Is it the Bible as seen and interpreted through your own unique grid? If so then your ideas are just as determinative than the Bible's. Are your ideas just as good as the Bibles? Or do your ideas need to be critiqued by the Bible's ideas?

"Well," you say, "I got my ideas from church."

"Well," I say back to you, "What makes you think that your church's ideas are just as good as the Bible's ideas?"

We need to get to a place where we say, "My ideas are good and valid because they have been formed by the Bible read in context."

The Bible read in context is the only firm foundation--the Bible loosed from the faulty foundations of secular and humanistic presuppositions.

My goal as a Christian leader is to have context driven interpretation be that which determines meaning. The one presupposition that ought to drive our interpretation is the one that says "context determines meaning." Embrace this presupposition. Let it guide you as you read the Bible. Let nothing stand in the way of it.

Seek to be rid of your presuppositions so that you might be controlled by better ones--ones that are not formed by a secular culture, but rather those that are formed by the word of God as read in context. Seek to be influenced by the Bible. Form biblical context-driven, presuppositions.

Two books have been incredibly influential for me on this issue 1. The Gagging of God; and 2. The Francis Shaeffer Trilogy. In the next few posts I will be discussing the danger of popular Christian cliches and how if used wrongly they can render a person incapable of being shaped solely by the Word of God.