March 31 2012

Loving the Love of God

 

I was recently asked how it is possible to love a perfect God.

I am slightly confused by this question, as I don’t see why it would be difficult to love God because of his perfection, as if it would be easier to love him if he had some flaws.

I was happy to think about the topic though, because loving God is the heartbeat of Christianity.

Despite what you may have heard, “Love your neighbour” is not the greatest commandment that Jesus taught. When asked what is the first and greatest commandment, “loving others” was mentioned as the second most important one, flowing out of the first, which is… “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

Loving God with absolutely everything we have is the most important thing we must do. The heart of sin is our lack of love for God. So, how are you going in that area? Do you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind? Do you even love him with your little toe?

Well, to be frank, I don’t love God very well. I often love my self and my desires and happiness and comfort a lot more than I love God. I definitely don’t love him with ALL my heart and soul and mind. But I expect, you don’t either… and I expect even Mother Teresa didn’t either. The only human being to ever love God wholly and perfectly is Jesus, and because he was the 2nd member of the Trinity incarnate in human flesh, his love was also wrapped up in his intimate knowledge and experience of the love of God shared between the members of the Trinity, so did he have a bit of an advantage?… I reckon so.

Fortunately, the joy of Christianity, is that we have the possibility of joining in on that love as well. We don’t become another member of the Trinity, but we do engage with a fellowship with God that is real and intimate and personal, where the 3rd member of the Trinity, God’s Holy Spirit can reside in us and we can experience the love of God poured out lavishly on us and experience it flowing through us to others.

Although I fail every day in loving God in the way that he deserves and to the degree that he has designed me to love, I do not have to face God’s anger or just condemnation for my lovelessness. God’s forgiveness is an expression of his love as well. But his forgiveness is not cheap. Jesus came, not just to embody God’s love and model love for God, he also came primarily on a rescue mission. He came to pay for our lovelessness – to be punished for our sin.

Why did he go to the cross? He died as the greatest expression of God’s love to a world that doesn’t love him back. He died for me, before I was born, even though he knew I would fail at loving him. He paid the penalty I deserve and 18 years ago I acknowledged that truth and put my life into God’s hands, trusting that Jesus’ death was for me.

This is what it means for me to love God. It’s actually primarily about me experiencing the love of God and letting that flow out of me back to God and to my neighbour. This changes everything – your entire life. That why Cat & I used this awesome verse from 1 John as the central focus of our wedding: “This is love – not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:10-11)

So now, thanks to what Jesus did 2,000 years ago, and because of what God led me to do 18 years ago, I know God’s love. The more I have experienced and learnt of God over the last 18 years has grown me to love God deeper and deeper, like a good marriage, where at the start the love is all froth and bubbles but after many years it matures and grows deep.

I look forward to loving God more and more as the years pass as well. I want to give him more of my heart and soul and mind, as I experience more and more of his love over the years.

O, if you don’t have any clue what that experience of God’s love looks like or feels like or how it can be real to you as it is real to me, I am praying for you that same prayer that Paul the apostle prayed for the Ephesians: “I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all of God’s people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:17-19)

Truly as the psalmist writes in Psalm 63:3, “Your love is better than life.”

So I love the love of God. My love of God is like the love that someone has for air after they almost drowned. I gasp it in. It is my life. My salvation.

Although, God’s command to love him and our lack of love may hang over you like a gavel from a judge ready to pronounce your guilt, once Christ has freed you from that guilt and you have experienced the love and friendship of God and God comes to reside in you by his Spirit, then love of God ceases to be a demand or a command – it becomes like breathing.

 

I still suck at loving God. I still have a deep selfishness and lack of love for others. But I am better than I was. God’s love has transformed me and given me new appetites and new joys. I am most alive when I am not hoarding God’s love for myself where it stagnates like a swamp, but when I let it flow through me, back to God and to others like a stream of living water that brings life and love wherever it goes.

Why do many Christians not show the love of God to others? I think primarily because they do not enjoy it themselves.

The love of God is something you can’t keep locked down or bottled up. It’s like a Pandoras Box – open it and you can’t contain it.

I think many Christians are only “Christian” by label and have actually never experienced the love and forgiveness of God themselves (in which case, they would not actually be Christians at all). It is possible to simply mentally tick the box that you believe all that Christian stuff, but you have never actually embraced or encountered or experienced or engaged with it personally. You believe in a God of love, but you do not KNOW the God of love and consequently, how on earth can you SHOW the love of God. If that’s you, I want you to know that Christianity is about a relationship with God, not just a label or a box to tick. There is so much more for you.

There are others though, like me, who have truly experienced the love of God, and yet struggle with letting it flow through us to others (or even back to God). With us, the problem isn’t that there’s no living water flowing in. The problem is with the plumbing. The pipes of our soul are broken or clogged and the water won’t flow through.

The reason for this is because Jesus doesn’t save perfect people. He saves dodgy, broken people. People who haven’t got it all together. People who don’t know how to receive or give love with all of their heart and soul and mind. People who need to be repaired and put right. People like you and me.

Jesus saves people as they are – with all their loveless baggage, and then begins the reconstruction process. It’s a lifelong process that the Bible calls “sanctification”.

But if you know of a Christian who isn’t loving you are right to expect more of them. Be gracious as Jesus is gracious with them, but also know that Jesus want to take them on to being more and more loving.

Ask them what they think about God’s love for them, and if you see their eyes light up and them talk with real and deep knowledge, then you should also see that love spilling over to other people.

If they don’t know of the love of God, then point them to Jesus. Jesus is not just a historical person you read about in an old dusty book. He is alive and able to engage and encounter people. He lived a life of love and died a death of love and opened a way of love for all those who would put the trust in him.

I have been living with his love for the last 18 years and  I look forward to walking with him for the rest of my life.

 

 

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.‘

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 8:28-39

(6520)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Relationships, Spirituality, Theology | LEAVE A COMMENT
November 18 2011

Corn is the magic vegetable.

I love corn.

You can have corn for every single meal.

You can have cornflakes for breakfast, or if you want a hot brekkie, you can have corn fritters.

For lunch you can have cold corn in a salad, corn cakes (like rice cakes) or some warm corn bread.

For dinner, the options are endless, with cream of corn soup, cornflake encrusted chicken, frozen corn chucked into your pasta sauce, or just good ol’ corn on the cob.

And then after dinner, you can enjoy corn chips with salsa, candied corn or some delicious popcorn.

Corn can be dried, steamed, baked, roasted, barbecued, boiled, pureed, ground, sweetened, popped or flattened. It can be added to anything, savoury or sweet and it can be eaten in any way, hot or cold.

I love corn.

I love to put a corn holder in each end of a freshly steamed cob and bite into its juicy sweet flesh enjoying every last kernel, maybe with a small blob of butter melting into it.

It’s the only vegetable I can think of that you can hold like that. It gives you the same satisfaction you get from chomping into a chicken leg or some barbecued ribs.

It may even save the world with the ability to use the ethanol they can get from it as an alternative to fossil fuel. On  the Fuel Corn website they describe it as “Nature’s Pure, Perfect Fuel”. This is the wrap they give corn…

Corn may be nature’s only perfect fuel.  It produces oxygen as it grows and needs no special processing or pelletizing before use.  It is nature’s perfect pellet fuel.   A near pure food and pure fuel, corn burns virtually smoke free, odor free, ash free, and pollutant free.  It produces no dangerous creosote in your vent pipes, no waste product, and it requires no chimney.

Burn corn and you emit no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than if it were left in the field to decay or fed to animals.  Using a corn stove or furnace will produce the very same three things that you produce every day as you breathe out: carbon dioxide, moisture, and HEAT!  (Lots of heat in this case!)  If everyone would burn corn rather than wood, the blue-gray haze of wood smoke over our neighborhoods every winter morning would be gone! I have heard that the best pellet stove sytems are built specifically to reduce their emissions, if you have the dollars to spend on a green version of wood burning, please do! Other great advantages of corn are that it is inexpensive and plentiful.

and so it goes on.

Anyway, that’s my quick blog on how I love corn.

If you would like to learn more about corn (as I’m sure you do!), go to the Wikipedea article and you will only be more convinced that corn is the magic vegetable.

Or if you want recipes on corn, here is a website of 87 of the best corn recipes.

Or if you want to find out about how they put corn in everything from toothpaste to crayons, click here to go to the official corn website.

I love corn.

(3390)

Share Button
Category: Food, Funny, Life, Magic | LEAVE A COMMENT
October 27 2011

Is Resisting Arrest Non-Violent?

I just wanted to write a short blog about a question I have been thinking about since reading and watching the unfolding of the “Occupy Melbourne” protests. The question is about whether a peaceful protest should engage in resisting arrest. I am very aware that this question is not the most important one to be asking. There are many blogs addressing the issues of the greed and corruption of corporations and their relationship with the government. There is disgust at the excessive use of force that some of the Victorian police used to remove the protestors from the City Square. I saw one YouTube video where a police officer reached across a crowd to punch a guy in the face! That sort of action is inexcusable and the recent call for the Ombudsman to investigate claims of police brutality seems justifiable. Having said that, I want to comment on an area of hypocrisy that I feel was present among a portion of the protestors and reflects a common misconception that I think is relevant.

If you watch the YouTube video above, you will see that one of the defining qualities of the “Occupy Melbourne” protests was that they were meant to be “peaceful”. Giving it this label, not only protects the protest from descending into a violent riot, but it also gives the protest an air of virtue and nobility. A “peaceful” protest? Who could argue with that? All they are doing is standing there and expressing their opinion. Why should anyone have a problem with that? In fact, anyone who would try to physically and forcibly remove them from their chosen place of protest is clearly just part of the violent, evil system of power that they are protesting against!

Well, I think that’s hypocrisy. I think protests are an important and indispensable part of a healthy democracy, but I also think that if you are going to break the law when you protest then you have to be willing to take the consequences. There may be many occasions when breaking the law is an important and moral thing to do, and evil laws should be disobeyed and protested against. I think of the brave Rosa Parks who, in 1955, disobeyed the law that stated that a black person had to give up their seat to a white person on buses in Alabama, USA. This act of civil disobedience was the spark that ignited the civil rights movement and led to the rise of one of the greatest advocates of non-violent protest, Martin Luther King Jr.

On the website for the “Occupy Wall Street” protests (which the “Occupy Melbourne” protest is inspired by), there is a wonderful comment on their forum. One person writes that in order for the numbers of protestors to actually demonstrate power there is a need to agree on certain “organisational goals” which everyone should agree upon. This is what they wrote as their fourth goal:

4) Always remain non-violent and non-threatening – continue to apply the non-violent rules of engagement of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Do not threaten law enforcement officials; do not even look at them menacingly. Do not taunt law enforcement officials. Engage them in dialog but do not get defensive or angry. Do not resist arrest. If police attack a member of the group, render aid to the member but do not attack the police in retaliation.

 

I believe the decision to protest non-violently requires you to also accept that your actions, if illegal, may result in you being requested to stop doing those actions – whether it be blocking something, staying in one place too long, making too much noise, or simply walking in solidarity with the oppressed. When requested to stop, you have to make the decision – will I obey or not? If you believe the moral thing for you to do is disobey, then you must accept that you will most likely be arrested for disobeying the civil authorities. If then, you do not accept that you will be arrested and you physically resist the consequences of your civil disobedience with more illegal activity (by “resisting arrest” which is illegal), it is then that you can no longer call yourself “non-violent”.

 

 

Physically resisting someone who legally is allowed to try to prevent you from doing something illegal, is a violent act. It is a form of passive aggression. Now, I guess some would argue that they were protesting the police’s right to enforce the law, and that may be a valid argument, but I don’t see how that secondary protest can be peaceful. If you hold the view that “people who act illegally should not be arrested if the cause is just” then I don’t see how you can engage in civil disobedience that is non-violent. In the end, you will always come up against the police whose job it is to defend and enforce the law. It is even more amazing then, when there is an outcry against the police who used excessive force and the call for the Ombudsman to see if the police acted illegally. What hypocrisy! If you are going to argue that the police must enforce the law in a way that is legal, then you have to also agree that the protestors must protest in a way that is legal. Now, I don’t in any way want to tarnish groups with one big brush. There were many protestors who left the occupation of the City Square at the time requested and there were those who refused and were removed or arrested without violent resistance. These protestors I believe are to be commended as consistent and deserve to hold the title “peaceful protestor”.

I keep thinking about Jesus and his form of peaceful protest. He disobeyed the expectations and false teaching of the religious rulers of his day and spoke out against them as he preached the gospel and pointed people to himself as the source of life and salvation. This got him arrested and on the night of his arrest he is ambushed by a group of thugs carrying swords and clubs.

Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.” Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. (Luke 22:52-54)

Peter, a close disciple of Jesus, responded with aggressive resistance when Jesus was arrested. He used his sword to defend himself and protect Jesus, but he was met with Jesus’ firm rebuke, “Put your sword back in its place. For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Later, Peter reflected on Jesus’ arrest and wrote these words in his first epistle,

It is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:19-23)

Jesus and the first Christians were powerful advocates for non-violent protest. In Acts, we see many acts of civil disobedience. Check out Acts 5:40-42 for example:

They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

 


It is right to protest against something wrong. It is right to disobey a morally wrong law. I would even say that it is right at times to disobey a law that is not morally wrong (like a request to stop protesting) if it is in solidarity to a cause that stands against something that is morally wrong (I hope that made sense!). But in that last case, I think that you have to wear the consequences. To be willing to be fined or go to jail over an issue is a powerful message. I think of the men who were drafted during the Vietnam War and took a stand as a “conscientious objector”, refusing to be involved in a war they believed was wrong. Many went to jail rather than go to war. I think those men had great courage and honour and deserve to hold the title of “peaceful protestor”.

I’ll finish with advise: you can do what evert you want, but be ready to meet the effects and meet lawyers in Albany NY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4531)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Society | 3 Comments on Is Resisting Arrest Non-Violent?
October 13 2011

How God proves his existence

20111013-193538.jpg

The call to prove God’s existence is a common challenge put to Christians. And fair enough. If you told me there was a world-wide flood going to wipe me away and my only hope for survival was to leave everything I knew and get into this giant boat sitting in the middle of a field, I would probably ask for some proof that you were right, and not just crazy. Especially, if I couldn’t see any growing storm clouds or at least, if I had never experienced a flood. The request for proof is understandable. However, at times, it is still foolish. There may be a flood coming and the fact that you can’t see the clouds and you lack experience of floods, doesn’t change reality. You just may be blind, or inexperienced.

So the question remains. If requiring proof of God’s existence is understandable, then how does God meet that basic need?

IS PROOF RELEVANT?

Some Christians make the point that you can’t really prove anything and so the expectation of proof is unrealistic. If you required scientific 100% proof for every decision, you wouldn’t do anything. You wouldn’t sit on a chair because you couldn’t prove it won’t break, you wouldn’t eat food because you couldn’t prove it wasn’t laced with poisonous iocane powder, etc. Basically, day to day, we live by faith. But it’s not blind uninformed faith. It’s faith in our experience and faith in what people tell us and faith in our understanding of the world. We make decisions based on what we are convinced of. And so, for all intents and purposes, that is what most people mean when they say they want “proof” of God.

20111012-183652.jpg

There are some hard-core atheists that expect that Christians should provide scientific proof of God’s existence and acknowledge that even if all the weight of the evidence pointed towards God’s existence, they would still reject the idea of a God, simply because if there is any other possible explanation then that is preferable (I have heard Peter Singer express this view). This sort of blind commitment to atheism is to me a complete rejection of logic, science and common sense and in the end, a lot more “religious” than the most committed fundamentalist there is.

So should we throw out the word “proof” altogether? Well, I don’t think so. It’s such a part of our cultural language. If you want to return clothes you have to provide “proof of purchase”. If you want to buy alcohol you have to show “proof of age”. If you want to get a passport you need “proof of ID”. If you go to court you are innocent until “proven” guilty. Maybe we just have to think about the way we define “proof” and see if we can apply that to the existence of God.

PROOF #1 – JESUS’ RESURRECTION

I started thinking about writing this blog after I remembered how the bible uses the term “proof”. In Acts 1:3 it says, “After his suffering, [Jesus] showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” and then in Acts 17:31 “For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

Both of these passages refer to the resurrection of Jesus as the clearest and most convincing proof of God. The resurrection vindicates all that Jesus taught about himself and about God and is the best evidence for the reality of God and the truth of the gospel. Many philosophers and theologians, both secular and Christian, have realized that the historical truth of the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity. If it didn’t happen, then Christianity completely falls apart, but the fact that it did happen proves Christianity is true.

Now this is clearly not the sort of proof that a scientist would consider valid. It is not reproducible and therefore can not be tested. It happened once, but if it truly did happen then once is enough. The resurrection is such an unbelievable event that Jesus knew that his disciples needed proof of its reality. He showed himself to them and allowed them to physically touch him and see him interact with physical things (like eating fish) to prove that he was physically and tangibly alive. This was proof to them and the message that Jesus was alive was the driving force behind the explosion of Christianity in the first century. All of the eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus went to their graves (mostly through murder and execution) professing that the resurrection was a true event.

This event happened. The proof that it happened was shown to the disciples by Jesus himself. They in turn wrote down their eyewitness account for us to read and be convinced by. Now this may not sound like a convincing proof to you but it’s like the question, “Can a man walk on the moon?”

20111013-135037.jpg
Think about that question. How would you answer it? Most likely you would say “yes”. But if someone asked you to prove it you would point to the fact that man has indeed walked on the moon. Six times in fact. The first time was in 1969 and the last time was in 1972. That’s the proof. It’s happened. The answer to “can man walk on the moon?” is yes.
But why do you believe that it happened? For many (including myself) all six moon landings happened before I was born, and even if they happened when I was born, I didn’t experience it myself. The idea that man could walk on the moon is absolutely crazy and unbelievable, and yet most of us (other than the rare conspiracy theorist) believe that it 100% happened purely on the basis of the reliability on the account. We read the eyewitness accounts of the astronauts, we see the photos, we watch the video, we listen to the famous words, “that’s one small step for man…” and we are convinced. No matter how unbelievable it may seem, we can confidently say that man can walk on the moon and it has been proven.

I hope you can see where I’m going with this example. I think in the same way that we can say man has walked on the moon, we can say that Jesus rose from the dead and therefore his teaching and message about the reality of God and everything else are reliable. We believe that Jesus’ resurrection has been proved by his appearances and interactions with his disciples who then went on to proclaim and record their eyewitness account of that fact. Their account is still available to us in the gospels and in the book of Acts, and it is just as reliable today as it was when they wrote it. Now some may try to argue against the reliability of the gospel accounts, but I recommend you research the topic yourself to see that they weight of evidence greatly points to their reliability (check out “The Christ Files” if you’re interested). Either way, the issue then becomes “are the accounts of the proof of the resurrection reliable”, not “is there any proof of the resurrection”. The proof is there. Like the moon landings, the resurrection happened. You can either disbelieve the accounts or you can accept them for what they are – reliable records of historical events.

Now, although the resurrection is the primary proof of God that there is, there are also two more proofs which we can personally experience that do not rely on a historical record.

PROOF #2 – EXPERIENCING GOD

The first is the experience of the Christian themselves. Now I admit that this proof is not convincing for those who aren’t Christians who are looking for proof of God before they choose Christ or not, but that doesn’t make it any less of a proof. It simply means that it’s a proof for an audience of one, which incidentally, the person asking for proof is an audience of one and often they aren’t asking that you prove God’s existence on a global universal scale. They’re just asking you to prove it to them, and so the subjective, outwardly untestable, personally experienced proof is just as satisfactory.

20111013-175127.jpg

It’s like the old saying, “the proof is in the pudding”. This is actually a misquote. The original full saying is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. This makes more sense. It’s saying the reality of the pudding – it’s temperature, taste, whether it’s laced with iocane powder, etc – can only be proven when it is eaten. You could put it through the lab and test it with every scientific instrument, but the best proof of the pudding is in the eating.

This is true for God as well. I can’t speak of other Christians experience, but my experience of God is so real and tangible that it is the greatest reason why I don’t doubt the existence of God. I see and sense God’s daily interaction with me, I experience his guidance, his comfort, his joy and his strength. I notice his leadings as he directs me in life and I know through and through when I am stubbornly working against his Spirit. God’s presence is so real to me, and has been from the very day I gave my life to following and trusting Jesus, I can not deny the reality of my experience. It can be a very hard experience to explain or describe to those who do not have a relationship with Jesus, but those who have responded to the gospel often know exactly what I mean with no need for explanation.

It’s very much like trying to explain colour to a blind person. There is no language that can communicate it and there are no proofs that can convince the blind person that colour exists (other than the proof of a reliable account as mentioned earlier). You can’t prove colour to the blind, but if a blind person receives the gift of sight and looks around then you won’t need to prove colour. Colour will prove itself to the individual.

Is the proof that this person experiences any less valid simply because it can not be tested by blind people? Of course not! In some ways, my experience of God is like that. I wish my non-Christian friends and family members could experience God in the way I do. If they did, it would make believing in God’s existence a given rather than a possible option, and all arguments about which position is more logical completely null and void. As the great evangelist Billy Graham said, “I can tell you that God is alive because I talked to him this morning”.

A clear place where the Bible uses this sort of argument is in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6, where Paul says,
“If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

20111013-184322.jpg

The terrifying reality if you do not see or experience any “proof” of God, is that you may be blind and perishing in your blindness, and it will take God to shine his light in your heart, remove the “veil” that blinds you and give you “the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” If you realize that you are in this position and you are seeking God, but you just can’t see him, then I encourage you to ask him to remove your blindness, like blind Bartemaeus in Mark 10:46-52, call out to Jesus and say, “Rabbi, I want to see.” Maybe Jesus will be merciful and reveal himself to you, giving you every bit of proof that you need.

Now, I realize a problem here. If you don’t see proof that God exists, then how can you call on God to take away your blindness. It seems a convenient argument that anyone could use. Someone could say, “Oh, you would believe in the Mighty Chicken God if you weren’t blind to his glory. Pray and ask the Chicken God to reveal himself.” Now, I’m not going to pray to a giant invisible chicken just on the possibility that he exists and the fear that I might be missing out on something if I don’t pray to him, so I don’t expect anyone else to pray to Jesus if they’re in the same position.

My encouragement is not to the person who can’t see anything, but to the one that God is already working with. God begins to remove the veil and open our eyes, and we start to see things of God and if you are in that position then I encourage you to work with God, rather than against him. Hebrews 3:7 (quoting Psalm 95) says that the Spirit of God is calling to people saying, “If today you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts”. If you hear him, then respond. If you do, you will experience the proof of God that only those who know Jesus can experience. Like the kid covered in chocolate pudding, you will be able to know for yourself the words of Psalm 34:8,
“Taste and see that the Lord is good!”

But what if you don’t hear his voice? What if you can’t see the glory of God in the face of Christ? Is there no experiential “proof” for this person? Will God’s existence ever be proved to them?

Well, the reality is, not in this lifetime.

PROOF #3 – DEATH

Scientist are often looking for experiments that are reproducible in order to prove something. Well, when it comes to God, there is one experiment like that. It’s called death. Every person who has died has without fail, come face to face with God, proving in the most real way possible that he exists. It is an experiment that is reproducible and it will work every time. If you want me to prove that God exists, then all I have to do is say, “Sure, no problem. Just die.” You may not be very obliging, but that matters very little seeing as you’re mortal and will one day partake in the experiment whether you like it or not. As Paul writes in Romans 14:10-12,
“We will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: `As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’ So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
and in Hebrews 9:27 it says,
“Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

20111013-194357.jpg

Everyone will stand before God, either as his friend or his enemy. Either forgiven or still under judgement. Everyone will see and know that God is real. The proof will be in the pudding for everyone. Of course, like my last point, this “proof” has a problem as well. The problem isn’t that some can experience it and others can’t – everyone will experience this one – the problem is obviously that on this side of death, we can’t access the results of the experiment. What we really need is someone to have died (really died, rather than just had a near-death experience) and then come back to life so that they can set the record straight about life and God and everything else. Of course, they would have to show us convincing proofs that they had actually risen from the dead, and then we would have to have some reliable record of what this person said so that all people for all time could know the proof that God exists as well…

Gee, that would be sweet…

CONCLUSION

In the end, this blog is not written to non-Christians who are looking for proof of God. It is written to Christians, who have for the most part, gotten into the habit of avoided using the word “proof” when it comes to God. Or, on the other hand, Christians focus on all the evidence in nature and science to show proofs of God. As much as I think that all those are wonderful evidences for God, I don’t think they are good enough. They are not proof.

In my life there are only three major proofs of God: The resurrection of Jesus, my own taste of God’s goodness and the experience of meeting your Maker when you die. One is in the past, one is in the present and the last one is in the future.

I hope you see and experience the first two, before you experience the third.

(2639)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Spirituality, Theology | 16 Comments on How God proves his existence
October 9 2011

iWaste – a reflection on Steve Jobs

20111008-232435.jpg

Today I saw on the front page of the Saturday Age, an reference to the Insight article on the life and death of Apple genius, Steve Jobs. It caught my eye because of the heading, “The Man Who Changed Mankind”. Now, to be sure, his creations have changed many ways that many people communicate in the West and across the globe. I own an iPhone, I am writing this blog on my iPad and earlier today I was looking at buying an iMac. Steve Jobs has definitely impacted my life.
But “changed mankind?” I know it’s just sensationalist journalism, but I think it does reflect how impressed the world was with Steve Jobs.

Steve had everything the world values: Friends, family, money, power, creativity, intelligence, perseverance, moral values, respect and a legacy that effected the world. He was truly “successful” in every way that the world defines that word.

20111009-004938.jpg
And yet with all his success he still had no power over when his time was up. He had everything that people are working so hard to achieve, and yet, in the end, he still died and all his success is snuffed out like a candle. Like every other person who has died before him, he died and met his Maker – a Maker that he didn’t believe in and a Maker that was in no way prepared to meet.

Jesus famously said, “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36). Sadly, Steve Jobs is a perfect example of that man. All of his wealth and success and global impact meant absolutely nothing when he stood before God to be judged. God was not impressed with all of the gadgets Steve has helped to create. He was not won over by Steve’s cleverness or intelligence or even whatever level of moral character he had. In the end, Steve stood before God simply as a human being with nothing in his hands other than all of his debt to God. Steve was judged by God not based on human materialistic standard, but on his holy standards based on how he lived up to the ultimate purpose and duty of a creature who is made in the image of God: Whether he loved God with all his mind and soul and strength, and whether he loved his neighbour as he loved himself.

Not just because he didn’t believe in Jesus and denied God’s existence, but like all of us, Steve’s life fell very short from God’s standard and he would have no excuse before a God who sees all and knows all.

Now in this way, Steve is just like all of us. As Paul writes in Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The saddest thing is that Steve stood before God with no way of turning aside God’s judgement. He had no way of appealing. No argument for mercy. No hope for salvation. He did not know nor respond to the amazing and unique provision that God has provided for humans who find themselves facing death and judgement.

God came to earth 2,000 years ago in the man Jesus to specifically deal with this great problem that we all face. He lived the perfect life that we all should live and then he died a unique death. It was unique because in his death he didn’t face any judgement for his own sin (seeing as he didn’t have any sin to be judged). Instead he bore in his death the great judgement that is reserved for us. He took all our punishment and guilt and sinfulness and died so that those that put their trust in him would be able to stand before God with no judgement left. For those who turn to Jesus and trust in him, all of the judgement of God has been exhausted. This is the one and only hope that any human has to be able to meet their Maker and be welcomed into his kingdom. It truly is amazing that God would go to such lengths to make it possible for us to enjoy something that we don’t deserve, but that is what he has done and Jesus is the one and only way to receive it.

Sadly, unless Steve Jobs experienced some form of last minute conversion that no one knows about, I don’t think he went to meet God with any such hope.

All of his efforts in life were in vain. Like the book of Ecclesiastes so repeatedly says, all of his success was meaningless, like a vapour or wisp of smoke that comes and then disappears from vaporizers at https://www.grasscity.com/vaporizers/. No matter how impressive he may have seemed by our petty standard, ultimately his life was wasted.

The bible has lots to say about making sure we don’t waste our lives in the same way and I hope that we all heed God’s warning. I will leave you with these powerful and harrowing words from a story Jesus told in Luke 12:16-21…

Jesus told them this parable:
The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, `What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ Then he said, `This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ‘
But God said to him, `You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.

(This blog is dedicated to my friend and brother in Christ, Ben Mason, who died recently. He did not share the global success that Steve Jobs experienced. He was not wealthy or famous and no one other than a group of people even knew he existed. His life has come and gone and the world will not remember him. But he was a man that knew and trusted in Jesus, and because of that it makes all the difference. Because he was a Christian he stood before God as a man forgiven and innocent. Because he was a Christian all of heaven welcomed him and he could enjoy life with God forever. He was a man who had not gained the whole world, but in gaining Jesus, he saved his soul rather than lost it.)

20111009-004352.jpg
Ben, we will remember you and we look forward to catching up with you later.

(1698)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Spirituality, Theology | 1 Comment on iWaste – a reflection on Steve Jobs
September 16 2011

I WANT TO BLOG – A Poem


I WANT TO BLOG

a poem by Simon Camilleri
16/09/11

I want to blog.
My mind is clogged
With thoughts and essays pending.
An epic thesis.
Creative pieces.
The list is never ending.

I want to blog.
My brain’s a fog.
I hope one day I’ll find
Sufficient time
To post online
The library in my mind.

(1985)

Share Button
Category: Funny, Life, Poetry | LEAVE A COMMENT
September 1 2011

Meeting Piper & Meeting God

20110901-110746.jpg

As I write this I am in the car on the way back to Melbourne from the Oxygen Conference in Sydney. It was a wonderful time away with a couple of old mates of mine and I have been greatly challenged about living for God, growing in true joy and seeing that all of God’s plans for the Universe are for his glory. These are weighty and challenging issues that raise a lot of questions (I can write a blog on these if you like) but what I wanted to share is what my motivation for coming to the conference was actually about and how that made me reflect on why I originally became a Christian.

Although God used my time up in Sydney to achieve a great many things, the simple reason I wanted to come up was because of the fact that one of the two guest speakers was Pastor John Piper. It’s not a very noble reason and is smells of a bit of celebrity worship, but I have been blessed and challenged by Pipers teaching for many years and the prospect of seeing him in the flesh and meeting him face to face was very appealing.

In the end, when I did finally get to see him and meet him and thank him for the impact of his ministry in my life, I realized that although his preaching is bold and impressive, he is just a guy like me, frail and flawed and seeking to love and know Christ more and more.

After the conference was over, I was chatting with a friend over lunch and they asked me about why I became a Christian. It struck me that my reason for coming to Christ was pretty much the same reason why I came to the conference – put simply, it was an opportunity to meet someone.

All my life I had learnt about God. God was big and impressive and full of love. God was part of my thinking about the world and to be honest, I have never ever thought of the possibility that God might not exist. His existence to me was a given.

Now this may grieve those that believe that think that people should contemplate and conclude that God does not exist, but I see no problem with the fact that I had come to the conclusion that God exists simply because I was told as much. I know lots of problems can arise when you just blindly believe what you’ve been told as a child, but the reason why I don’t have a problem in this case is because I have come to discover that God’s existence is actually true and can be known and experienced. It’s like how parents tell children not to touch the flame otherwise they will be burnt. If they believe them without experiencing the truth of a burnt hand, it doesn’t make the fire any less hot.

For the first 16 years of my life I believed in God in the same way I believed in John Piper. I had no reason to doubt God’s existence and I had no reason to doubt Piper’s existence. I enjoyed what God had given me (life, the world, family, health etc.) and I enjoyed what Piper had given me (sermons, a clear theology of marriage, a passionate southern accent etc.). I admired and enjoyed both God and John Piper, but there was always a distance.

With Piper it was the fact that he was in America and although I wanted to travel to the States again, there was no expectation that I would ever meet him in person.

With God it was the fact that he was in heaven (not in any way comparing heaven to America!). God was far away and although I possibly hoped to go to heaven when I died, even then I guess I didn’t expect that I would be able to meet him in person. God was big and wonderful and good and loving, but he was distant and removed from my real life, day to day experience.

It wasn’t until I met some Christians when I was 16, that I came to discover the good news of Christianity. They shared with me, through their explanation of the gospel and through the way they lived and described their experience of God, that the whole point of Jesus’ coming and dying on the cross was to make it possible for me to have a real, living and personal relationship with God!

God who I had loved and admired from afar was now within reach. The distance was being covered and I could meet him in a way that was as real as face to face!

When I came to see this it blew me away! The moment I heard that Piper was coming to Australia was similar. Why did I go to the conference? Why did I decide to follow Jesus? The real question is, why not??

Like my motivation to go to the conference, maybe my reason for becoming a Christian was a bit of celebrity worship. Maybe it wasn’t very noble, but like after I had met Piper, once I met God, a lot changed. After meeting him, Piper for me was a bit less God-like, a bit more human. But after meeting God, he only grew in my opinion of him.

If you have never met God, if you have only heard about God and your relationship with him is distant and impersonal, my hope for you is that you will experience the same thing I have.
I hope that you come to Christ. He is the only one who has and can make it possible for you to know God in a way that is real and personal. That’s my experience. I believe the Christian good news is that it can be yours as well.

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” – 1 Peter 3:18

(2249)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Relationships, Theology | 1 Comment on Meeting Piper & Meeting God
August 31 2011

3 Options for the Origin of the Universe

20110831-081914.jpg

When you see a photo like this, with a car stuck in a tree, you ask the obvious question, “How the hell did that get there?” It demands some form of an explanation. I think the universe is like that.
The very fact that we and everything else is here rather than not, demands some form of explanation. I’m not talking purpose (although that may be related). I’m talking origins. When you look at the world, when you stare up at the stars, when you look at your own hand, you can not ignore the obvious question, “How the hell did all this get here?”

Now I am absolutely no expert in science or quantum mechanics, but it seems to me that there can only really be three options for the origins of the universe. Each option is in it’s own way whacky and unbelievable. Each one involves an idea that is bigger and weirder than anything we can see or experience or test scientifically, but all scientists still fall into one of three camps in how the explain the ultimate question of origins.

These are the 3 options:

Option 1. Magic Gun Theory – The material reality had a beginning that was from nothing and caused by nothing.
Option 2. String Theory – The material reality is eternal and had no beginning.
Option 3. Creator Theory – The material reality had a beginning that was caused by an eternal, non-material reality (God).

Now, I’ll explain what I mean by these three option in a moment, but as I see it, every theory imaginable must fall into one of these three. Consequently, every person must chose to side with one of these three options if they are to answer the “How did it get here?” question. You could, of course, go with Option 4. which is “I have no idea” (this by the way is my answer to the car in the tree) but if it really is the case that there are only 3 mutually exclusive options for the origin of the universe, then you still would have to conclude that one of these three options must be the answer, even if you feel there is no definitive way of discovering which one is true.

The terrifying thing about the idea that we can never know the answer is that the implications that stem from each option are vastly different. If there is a non-material (or spiritual) reality and if that is in the form of a personal deity then a mountain of questions arise and the relevance of theology and philosophy about the nature of God and spiritual reality becomes incredibly important. If on the other hand, there is no spiritual reality and that the material reality is all the is, then that has great implications for the irrelevance for all religion and raises many questions about the origins of morality and the claims of those who have experience of the spiritual. This is of course only skimming the surface of the implications that arise on both sides, but hopefully the point is clear that trying to work out which of the three options is true is a vitally important and practically relevant pursuit.

Let me now try to simply describe each of the three options:

20110903-092449.jpg

Option 1. Magic Gun Theory

This is the theory that claims that the material reality (including all matter and energy that exists) came into existence as some point in history, exploding on to the scene with the Big Bang. This is supported by what we observe about the universe – that it is expanding – giving the impression that it had an origin at some point. The reason why I call this the “Magic Gun Theory” is because it states that this event somehow created matter and energy out of nothing and nothing at all (non-material or otherwise) caused the bang to happen in the first place. It all just magically happened and appeared for no reason. This theory seems like an easy way of combining what we observe about the universe with an atheistic view of the world. The problem with this view is that it is completely unscientific. No modern scientist would claim that matter and energy can all of a sudden just appear from absolutely nothing, with nothing causing that to happen. It is simply a theory that defies all we know about science, for the sake of marrying evidence (that there seems to be a beginning) with prejudice (that they want to believe in nothing spiritual).

20110903-093107.jpg

Option 2. String Theory

The material reality is eternal and had no beginning.

20110903-093352.jpg

Option 3. Creator Theory – The material reality had a beginning that was caused by an eternal, non-material reality (God).

Now in the end, although this theory seems quite ridiculous, I guess I have to admit that each theory has it’s element of wackiness. In this case, you either believe in a magic universe that can defy scientific logic or you believe in a magic deity that defies scientific logic. I personally think that

The Origin and Fate of the Universe – Steven Hawkins

According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: “Why is the universe the way we see it?” The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here!

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.

One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

(2626)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Science, Spirituality, Theology, Uncategorized | 6 Comments on 3 Options for the Origin of the Universe
April 22 2010

Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (part 3)

Read: Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (part 1)

or Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (part 2)

Now I’m going to cut to the chase with this one, so that I don’t get distracted from my primary question:

“What’s the point of evangelism if God is totally sovereign over who is saved?”

Well, firstly, we can rule out a few things.

The point of evangelism is NOT to change the destiny of someone who otherwise would go to hell.
That destiny has been chosen or “predestined” by God before that person had even come into existence.
It is true that until they respond to the gospel, then from our earthly perspective, that does not know the mind of God, their eternal destination is also unknown and the only thing we do know is that we all deserve to go to hell, so it is right to tell people that they are going to hell, even if they are destined to be saved. In fact, the reason why we tell them about hell is because we hope that they will be saved.

So should you tell people they are going to hell, if indeed they may be going to heaven (by God’s grace and sovereign choice)? Well, maybe you should answer people in the way that I did when a workmate asked me straight out, “So do you think I am going to hell?” I simply replied, “Well, why wouldn’t you?”

Secondly, the point of evangelism is not to change people’s hearts so that they respond to the gospel. This is definitely our hope and we trust that God uses our words to bring about that change, but it is God that makes the change happen. As Paul writes, “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.” (1 Corinthians 3:5-7) The hope of evangelism is that people will respond to the gospel, but it is God’s Spirit, not the evangelism, that does this. Consequently, evangelism is not about changing people, but it is, by God’s design, integrated in their change.

I believe in God’s sovereignty, in the necessity of God’s Spirit to bring people alive in order to respond to the gospel and the unchangeable choice of God that knows and ordains who will be saved before the whole story begins. I believe all these tough, Biblical, Calvinistic ideas, and still I believe in evangelism.

In a nutshell here is what I think the point of evangelism is all about…

I believe the purpose of evangelism is to give God the opportunity that he loves to use to save people.

The gospel – the good news about what Jesus has done in his death and resurrection – is described as the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). Jesus’ atoning death and victorious resurrection is the only basis by which sinners can hope to have their sins forgiven and their spiritual death paid for. What Jesus has done is indeed good news and it is the only power for salvation that there is. God uses no other means to save people from hell, for there is no other grounds for forgiveness apart from Jesus’ death. God is holy and just and so your sins will be punished and condemned… either in you by spending eternity in hell, or in Christ through his perfect sacrificial death.

This is the gospel and this is what God uses to save people. But how does God love to use the gospel in saving people? He could do it in any way, but for his glory and our joy, he has ordained that this gospel is to be spoken. The speaking of the gospel is the primary way that God loves to use the gospel to save.

Get this clear. It is not the speaking of the gospel that saves, it is God that saves, through the gospel. The speaking is just the tool that God loves to use to do this.

Think about when God created the universe. In Genesis 1 it gives us a beautiful picture of this event. God had infinite creative power at his fingertips and yet, he still delighted in using spoken words as the vehicle for his creative power to be exercised. God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light. God did not need to speak, and I believe the gospel does not need to be spoken for God to use it to save people, but God LOVES to use spoken words as the vehicle for his power to go out.

So what then is the point of evangelism?

As I said before, it is to give God the opportunity that he loves to use to save people.

God can and will save whoever he wishes to save, but he loves to do it through the gospel being spoken. Therefore, when we speak the gospel, we give God the opportunity to do something that he loves to do. It does not force him to do it. It does not persuade him to do it. It merely gives him the opportunity to do it, if he so wishes to in that circumstance.

Now does this mean that if we do not speak, we are limiting God’s opportunities?

My answer is… yes.

If we do not speak, then clearly God can not use our speaking as a vehicle for his powerful gospel changing people. He may chose to use someone else’s speaking, or in his wonderful, ironic sense of humour, he may even use our lack of speaking for some purpose towards our friend’s conversion. Our silence does not rob God of the opportunity to save the person that he has elected to save, but it is clear that we only give God the opportunity to use our speaking, if we actually speak!

So, to use the planting analogy as the Bible often does, God loves to create plants through the process of seeds being planted and them being watered. If God does not turn the cold stone heart of the person into moist fresh soil, then no matter of planting or watering will do any good. God makes things grow. And it is also true that God can make things grow without us planting a seed with our own hands. He can get seeds to wherever he wants in whatever way he wants, but God loves the process of a sower going out and sowing seed. This is his favourite way and so the sower should go out and sow as much seed as possible! He will throw much of the seed on rocky soil that won’t respond, but God willing, he will throw some seed on to good soil where the seed will take root and grow and bear fruit. God wants the sower to be a part of this process for his glory and the sower’s good. The sower must never think that his sowing holds any power in itself, and he must never try to shape the seed so that it better fits the soil that he has in front of him. He must simply faithfully and joyfully sow as much seed as he can and trust that God is able to make plants grow.

I find this picture of evangelism incredibly liberating!

There is no guilt involved, no pressure and no pride.

There is only joy!

Joy in being used by God. Joy in seeing God work. And joy in joining God in his joy – namely, using the weak and awkward speaking of his children to spread the gospel and through it, reconcile people to himself.

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.‘ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.‘

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” – 1 Cornithians 1:17-2:5

For me, understanding Calvinism and what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty and election, doesn’t make me think that evangelism is pointless. It make me think that evangelism is joyous.

And this is one of the main reasons why people don’t share their faith – a lack of joy.

I don’t mean a lack of emotionally pumped up enthusiasm. I mean a deep, abiding, awe-inspiring, heart-expanding, rock solid joy in the wonder of God, the graciousness of Jesus and the power of the gospel.

If God wasn’t as great and powerful and sovereign as the Bible and Calvinism teaches, and if the gospel wasn’t as true and life-changing as I have experienced, then I would have no joy. I would not want to share the message about a weak God and I would be burdened and frozen by the impossible task of trying to persuade people to respond to the gospel. I would as many do, fall into the trap of beating myself up for not evangelizing enough and live in fear that the eternal damnation or salvation of my beloved friends and family was up to me and my abilities to share the gospel persuasively.

In believing in a Sovereign God, I am free to share the gospel wherever and whenever I like, without fear of my lack of ability or persuasiveness being the primary factor.

I am free to speak boldly and unashamedly, knowing that until God moves I should not expect anyone to respond favourably and at the same time knowing that by God’s predestined activity, anyone could respond at any time.

So I share the gospel with a duel expectation. I expect no one to respond and I expect God to change that fact.

I said in part 2 of this blog series that we often think of evangelism as “persuasion”, but the word evangelism comes from the greek word euangelizo, which means “to proclaim good news”. This is what evangelism is about – proclaiming the good news that God has entered humanity in Christ, that he lived a sinless life, that he died to take our place and bear the judgement that our sins deserved, that he rose again to bring new life and forgiveness to all those who put their trust in him and he is going to return to fully restore all of creation!

We proclaim this news because it is good!

May you know the joy that this good news brings and may you join in God’s joy in sharing it with the world.

p.s. I know this blog may have raised some valid questions for you like “Does this mean we should never try to be persuasive in our sharing of the gospel? And doesn’t Paul in Acts 18:4 and 2 Corinthians 5:11 clearly say that he works hard at trying to persuade people to convert and that he uses all possible means to save some (1 Corinthians 9:22)?”

Or you may have lots of questions about Calvinism and the concepts of predestination, the will of Mankind or the Sovereignty of God.

Please share your thoughts by writing me a comment!

I can’t answer everything, but I’ll enjoy looking for an answer and hopefully we both can grow in understanding.

(2057)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Spirituality, Theology | 2 Comments on Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (part 3)
April 21 2010

Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (part 2)

If you haven’t read Part One of this blog, click here and read it first.


Calvinism & Evangelism – Friend or foe? (continued)

I will now move on to address one of the big questions that Calvanist theology brings up for me and many others. The question is, “If God is sovereign over who is saved and has chosen the elect before time began, then what’s the point of evangelism?”

The problem begins, I think, with our concept of what evangelism is. If we think of evangelism as our attempt at convincing someone to convert or respond to Jesus, then when we learn that it is God alone who can do that and God alone who has chosen who he will do that to, then the basic motivation for our evangelism has been made redundant.

We think that evangelism is ultimately about persuasion.

Thinking of evangelism as persuasion also leads us to think that people will respond on the basis of how persuasive we are. If they’re persuaded by the claims and concepts of the gospel then they’re converted and so our goal is to try to be as persuasive as we possibly can.

But Calvinism teaches that people are spiritually dead and so are completely unable to respond, no matter how persuasive you are. This makes our persuasion/evangelism feel like a waste of breath.

Also, Calvinism teaches that God has already chosen who will respond, no matter how persuasive we are, and in the end God is really the one who persuades them by his Spirit. It’s kind of like thinking you wereplaying bingo and God tells you that he and he alone chooses which ball will come up and unless he choses the ball, no ball will move at all! It sort of takes the fun out of the game, don’t you think?

What’s the point? Does God’s Sovereign choice mean that if I don’t evangelize, God’s chosen few will eventually come to faith anyway? If there’s no cost in not evangelizing, then why bother? There’s definitely a cost in doing evangelism, so what’s the point of going through the awkwardness, fear rejection and persecution, if God will do what God wants to do whether I’m involved or not?

These are great questions, and I honestly don’t know all the answers. But I do know that both the command to evangelize and the doctrine of God’s Sovereign election are both in the Bible, side by side.  Any Christian who wants to take God’s Word seriously can not escape either of them.

The sad truth is that because of the difficulty we have in reconciling these two realities, Christians tend to emphasize one and neglect the other.

There are many Christians who find the idea of God choosing only some people to be saved makes God out to be cruel and fickle, and so they weaken God and say that he really wants to save everyone and hoping that everyone will respond to the gospel, but in the end he can’t force them and so he is at the mercy of the individual’s free choice about whether they should trust in or reject Jesus. Naturally, they can’t respond unless they hear the gospel and this is used as a motivation to evangelize. If you don’t evangelize then lots of people who would have responded to the gospel, won’t be able to. This view seems to say that the world’s real problem is not spiritual death and the judgement of God for sin, but ignorance, and so the guilt-inducing tactic is suggested that if only you evangelized a little bit more, or maybe a little bit more persuasively, then your neighbour or your father or your best friend would have been saved.

I have heard this motivation being pushed years ago by a preacher at the Hillsong Conference, with the little story of “A Letter from Hell”. If you’ve never heard it, you can check it out on YouTube here, although I warn you, I believe it to be emotionally manipulative and based on a false idea of a weak and uninvolved God.

The hard reality that the Bible teaches is that no one is in heaven or hell apart from the sovereign choice of God. He has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy (Romans 9:18) and although he has gone to amazing lengths to make it possible through Jesus’ death and resurrection for people to be forgiven and escape hell, he is ultimately the decider on who he will give that grace to.

We should not feel guilty that we could have saved someone from hell if we had just done more. That’s almost a salvation by works mentality where someone else is in the end saved (or not saved) by your work rather than Christ’s.

But although this is true, we should not let the pendulum swing in the opposite direction to far. Just because God is sovereign over the eternal destiny of every soul, does not mean that we are free from the command to evangelize. If our best friend dies an enemy to Jesus and ends up in hell, and we never shared the gospel with them, we should not feel guilty that we could have prevented their end, but we definitely should feel guilty that we disobeyed Christ’s command to tell people about him and we should feel guilty for our prioritizing of our comfort rather than Jesus’ honour. Like Peter warming himself by the fire (Mark 11:66-72) when we should speak up about Jesus and we don’t, we sin and dishonour Christ. When we speak up, we glorify God and lift up as worthy, beautiful and precious, the truth of the gospel. This is a Biblical motivation for evangelism.

So this tells us what attitude should be behind out evangelism, but it doesn’t help us see what the PURPOSE is for evangelism…

and so once again I will neglect to answer this central question and get to bed!

I think this is enough for you to chew on for the time being.

Sorry, if it’s frustrating, I just find I can write and write on this topic!

Anyway, again please leave comments and questions, and hopefully the next installment will be the final one! Only God knows!

Read Part 3. Click here!

(1765)

Share Button
Category: Christianity, Life, Spirituality, Theology | LEAVE A COMMENT