I was at a fast food restaurant the other night and happened to be near a table with a group of adults and teenagers. I’m pretty sure they were with a church group of some sort. One of the adults, a man, was speaking with a teenage girl. They were discussing election. The girl was having a hard time with the subject, especially the idea that God would elect some to go to heaven and elect others to go to hell. This is an idea/theory called double predestination. I overheard and eavesdropped upon the conversation. Quite frankly it was hard not to, as I was so close.
The man speaking with the girl obviously believed in double predestination. He stated that the Bible says it is true, therefore I believe it, no questions. The young girl shared that she didn’t understand. This was not a concern for the elder. His only concern was that the “Bible said so,” and that was that. He quoted Romans 9 about how God has mercy on those he wants and hardens those he wants to harden, (paraphrase of his words). I moved on afterwards, (afraid I would interject and act in an unJesus manner), but I had heard enough.
For all of you Presbyterians out there who read this blog, (or probably don’t, as my parents are Presbyterians), please hold off from writing to me and telling me about how true election is, how great Calvin was, or quoting me any manner of Scriptures supporting your beliefs. (Not that anyone has ever written me, but there’s always a first). My point in bringing up this experience is not to debate theology, but rather the manner in which we share it with others.
We must be careful in how we share theology with people who are younger, less mature, or inexperienced in their faith. To wave about the sword of theology like a butcher’s cleaver will more likely leave a bloody mess behind us. Instead we must exercise care, much like the surgeon with his scalpel, so as to bring about healing and growth. Be careful when you share theology with others. The goal is instruction, growth, and learning, not confusion, pain, and anger. A young or uneducated believer, (or nonbeliever for that matter), is likely to need careful instruction, not the brandishing of the whip that says, “Thus saith the Lord.” If we are not careful, we may alienate, anger, and push away earnest seekers of the truth.
Secondly, please, if you have any sense, use caution with the phrase, “The Bible says so.” I know it’s true. I know it’s inerrant. I know it’s authoritative. But more often than not the phrase, “The Bible says so,” is used with pride and authority, rather than humility and compassion. If you are a shepherd of the people of God, use your common sense. Make your goal to serve and teach, rather than beat others into submission with your enormous brain. There may be a time and place for such authority and boldness. Perhaps in debates with men who would destroy the faith. Perhaps with those who are attacking your beliefs. But I don’t believe boldness, pride, and authority are the best means of persuading one within your charge, especially a young believer with honest questions. If we are not careful, we are going to alienate those around us with our pride.
In addition, I think we should be okay with those around us having questions and needing to figure things out. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with struggling through a difficult question about God, faith, sovereignty, election, etc. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t understand.” Give folks the freedom to work things out and HELP them in their journey. Don’t whip them in the direction you believe is correct. A person who has had the freedom to search and think on their own will be more likely to cling to the truth than a slave who has been beaten into submission. Let people ask, think, seek. Be a shepherd to them to help them find their way. Don’t be a slave master of theology.
Finally, let’s be honest. Romans 9-11 is one of the most difficult, debated, and confusing passages in the entire Bible. Most of us don’t have a big D for Doctorate in front of our degree. (Even if you do, you probably disagree with others with Doctorates anyways). I’m not saying the passage can’t be studied and understood, but study of the passage involves time, effort, research, and understanding of the context and language of the passage as well as the book. The same could be said for other passages or doctrines of the faith. This being the case, (whatever your take on the issue), please for all that is sensible and not stupid, don’t throw around some quote from Romans 9 or 10, (or anywhere else), out of thin air as if your audience is immediately going to understand what you are speaking about and know the context of the passage you are speaking from. It’s irresponsible and inconsiderate of your audience. Again, if you’re speaking with someone who you know is versed in Biblical theology, feel free. I’m thinking in terms of how we speak and interact with those who are less studied and less mature than ourselves. Think again of the analogy of the butcher’s cleaver. Don’t go waving your theological cleaver through the air. You may end up injuring a helpless sheep.
(I’m proud of that last analogy by the way). Peace out
Feelings not based in truth and morality are worthless...except about cheese
What is wrong with feelings? God gave us the ability to feel and love and they are a beautiful part of our lives. What do you mean by all this Travis...you big jerk?!
Let me explain. The key is not feelings, but feelings based on truth.
What one feels must be filtered through a moral sieve, (think noodles and water). to determine whether such feelings are good or bad/evil. For example, a child molester may have certain feelings, but that doesn't make those feelings okay or permissible. A homosexual may say, "I love my partner and I want to marry him/her" but the feeling itself doesn't make the following action okay. I may feel like blowing my top and screaming at my wife and children after a long day at work, but my feeling itself is not the indicator of what is right behavior. Feelings don't make our actions permissible.
Now some feelings are just preferences, like "I like cheese," or "I enjoy watching football." I suppose the logical question is how do you determine what feelings are preferences and which ones are issues of morality. I'm sure that is a question worth a lot of thought and a longer blog, but for now let's say that we should judge our feelings against the moral law of God. If there is no word of God on the subject, (i.e. whether or not to eat cheese or like football, then do as you please). However, there are some matters which God HAS spoken, so we must pay close attention and filter our feelings through the instruction of God, i.e. the Bible.
One may argue against THE moral standard being the Word of God. Fine then, what is the standard? The majority view of people in a certain area? If that is the case then the Nazis who killed millions of Jews, Poles, gypsies, etc, were not bad people because the majority of Germans at that time thought genecide was a good idea.
Others may argue that there is no moral law or standard with which we are to judge ourselves and our actions. Under that reasoning, right or wrong is up to the determination of each individual and it will be whatever they determine right or wrong to be. Right or wrong becomes relative.
There must be an external standard outside of ourselves that determines truth. That standard, whether we like it or not, is the Word of God. Our feelings themselves do not determine what is acceptable behavior. God does. Judge not your actions and plans by what you feel, rather by the wisdom of the Almighty.
Peace out.
Words, Words, Words
In a scene in Hamlet, (Bill Shakespeare), one of the characters asks Hamlet what he is reading. Hamlet replies, quite humorously, "Words, words, words." Now I'm not a Shakespeare scholar and I don't know the deep significance of the scene. That's not the point. However, Hamlet's funny response is a means for me to segue, (segway), into today's blog about Words, words, and words.
It is easy to say things like, "I'm all about Jesus," "I love Jesus," "I'm devoted to Christ," or "I believe in Jesus." But the importance of words and meanings becomes very important here. What do we/they mean by the word "Jesus"? Do we mean a nice guy, a spiritual man, a lover of the poor, a socialist, a revolutionary, or a forgiver of sins to all mankind, regardless of repentance and faith? To many, when they say "Jesus" they are thinking of one of the men I just mentioned. To far fewer does "Jesus" imply the savior of those who trust him, the savior from sins, the savior by faith alone.
We must be careful about our words and be clear about our meaning. Because many will argue that Jesus Christ was a great man, a friend to others, and an example to follow. But far fewer will submit that he is the Son of God, God incarnate, and the Savior of sinners by faith.
Words, words, words are important. Be careful when you use words of what you mean and be careful when you hear words that you understand what others mean.
It is easy to say things like, "I'm all about Jesus," "I love Jesus," "I'm devoted to Christ," or "I believe in Jesus." But the importance of words and meanings becomes very important here. What do we/they mean by the word "Jesus"? Do we mean a nice guy, a spiritual man, a lover of the poor, a socialist, a revolutionary, or a forgiver of sins to all mankind, regardless of repentance and faith? To many, when they say "Jesus" they are thinking of one of the men I just mentioned. To far fewer does "Jesus" imply the savior of those who trust him, the savior from sins, the savior by faith alone.
We must be careful about our words and be clear about our meaning. Because many will argue that Jesus Christ was a great man, a friend to others, and an example to follow. But far fewer will submit that he is the Son of God, God incarnate, and the Savior of sinners by faith.
Words, words, words are important. Be careful when you use words of what you mean and be careful when you hear words that you understand what others mean.
A ramble about Worship
Worship is a big deal for folks. I suppose it is a big deal for everybody. I suppose we could get into a lengthy chat about how “we all worship something” and how we need to avoid idolatry, but that’s not what I want to talk about. And since this is my blog, I’ll blog about what I want to. So there.
Seriously though, we all know the topic of worship is a sensitive issue. Some folks will almost shoot one another over what is the best way for a worship service to be done in a church setting. The two main groups are formal, conservative worship and contemporary worship. By conservative, I don’t mean in any sort of value sense, just more guarded, liturgical, typically focused on hymns, choirs, or creeds. And by contemporary, I mean any worship service that uses guitars, sound speakers, drums, and other instruments. Such contemporary services sometimes include colored lights and even smoke to further enhance the service. Now I have attended some churches that attempt to blend the two, but for the moment I just want to focus on the two extremes.
Now a disclaimer: I favor the rare blend of the two extremes, contemporary and classic/formal. If you were to put me in a worship service where the leaders played acoustic guitars, a bongo drum and sang classic hymns to contemporary music I would be as happy as a dog in a garbage can. Alas, such a combination is hard to find. However, I share this just to be open about my own preferences. The purpose of this blog is not to support one view over the other, but rather to point out a problem in our view of worship as Christians.
A lot of people don’t care for contemporary worship. The popular and oft repeated theme for that audience is, “if you are really focused on God, it won’t matter what the music or setting is like.” I’m sure you’ve all heard this refrain. Well I think that’s a load of bunk. Look, the fact of the matter is that people are different. Their backgrounds, heritage, culture, and preferences are different. To boil worship down into one flavor that everyone should be able to relate to is foolish and shortsighted at best and selfish and unloving at worst.
Some people grew up in more formal and classical church settings. Because of their history and family culture, they are going to prefer, (for the most part), the same kind of worship setting they grew up in. Some people didn’t grow up in church at all or they came from a more postmodern background. They may prefer a more contemporary worship setting. Each person is going to be familiar with and prefer a different worship style. If you were to put Bob, a formal worship fan, in a contemporary worship setting with loud noises, smoke, and flashing lights, he’s probably going to either a) have a seizure, or b) have a hard time focusing on the Lord. If you put Joe, a contemporary worship fan, in a Episcopal or Lutheran church service, he’s going to either a) fall asleep, or b) not connect with the rhythms and language of that particular service and will have a hard time connecting with the Lord. The point is that different people prefer and relate to different types of worship. Neither person is more or less spiritual than the other. They just connect and relate to the Lord better in different worship service styles.
I have no idea how Christians in China, Africa, or Brazil worship God, but I’m sure each group, (typically), worships the Lord in their own unique way. It seems very foolish to try and boil down the worship of the Lord into a single style and format. (By the way, the folks who typically try to make all worship services into a single format generally favor their style of worship). People are diverse as the colors of the rainbow. Why should worship services have to be black or white?
Look, I don’t like soy milk. I’m told it’s good for me, but I just don’t like it. My parents like and drink soy milk like it was…real milk. This doesn’t mean that they are any better or worse people that me. It’s just something they prefer. Some people really like liturgical worship services. They feel like they can really worship and connect with God in a quiet and formal setting. Some people like loud music and seven different instruments combined to make an awesome, (albeit loud), worship experience. No big deal. To each his own. What I want to warn against is the idea and philosophy, especially for pastors and leaders, is that “we’re going to do worship this way and if you can’t worship God in the style that we do it then you’re not spiritual.” That’s garbage. It’s also hurtful to your congregation and unloving.
A few years back my wife and I attended a church where they had just hired a new, younger pastor. The guy had a lot of energy and ideas on how to revive the church. One of the things he wanted to focus on was changing the worship service from a classic, choir focused, hymn singing, worship service into a contemporary service where a worship leader led the congregation in singing worship choruses. The intentions of the pastor were good I suppose. He wanted to be able to draw in a younger crowd of people who would connect to a more contemporary service. However, the problem was he was changing the worship service into something his congregation didn’t understand or connect with. The only thing they had ever known was hymns and the choir. Contemporary worship was totally alien to them. Unfortunately, the pastor’s philosophy was the same old idea of “you just need to worship God irregardless of the worship style.” As a result of this attitude, some of the pillars of the church, feeling neglected and unconsidered, left the church to find a home where they would be happy.
Worship styles are different and that’s okay. People are different and that’s okay. Yes, we all need to be willing to grow and adapt in our walk with the Lord. No one likes Mr. or Mrs. I Hate Change. However, pastors and leaders need to exercise care not to force people into a black or white choice or style. Recognize the differences in culture, preference, and heritage and be considerate of the differences in your congregation.
Seriously though, we all know the topic of worship is a sensitive issue. Some folks will almost shoot one another over what is the best way for a worship service to be done in a church setting. The two main groups are formal, conservative worship and contemporary worship. By conservative, I don’t mean in any sort of value sense, just more guarded, liturgical, typically focused on hymns, choirs, or creeds. And by contemporary, I mean any worship service that uses guitars, sound speakers, drums, and other instruments. Such contemporary services sometimes include colored lights and even smoke to further enhance the service. Now I have attended some churches that attempt to blend the two, but for the moment I just want to focus on the two extremes.
Now a disclaimer: I favor the rare blend of the two extremes, contemporary and classic/formal. If you were to put me in a worship service where the leaders played acoustic guitars, a bongo drum and sang classic hymns to contemporary music I would be as happy as a dog in a garbage can. Alas, such a combination is hard to find. However, I share this just to be open about my own preferences. The purpose of this blog is not to support one view over the other, but rather to point out a problem in our view of worship as Christians.
A lot of people don’t care for contemporary worship. The popular and oft repeated theme for that audience is, “if you are really focused on God, it won’t matter what the music or setting is like.” I’m sure you’ve all heard this refrain. Well I think that’s a load of bunk. Look, the fact of the matter is that people are different. Their backgrounds, heritage, culture, and preferences are different. To boil worship down into one flavor that everyone should be able to relate to is foolish and shortsighted at best and selfish and unloving at worst.
Some people grew up in more formal and classical church settings. Because of their history and family culture, they are going to prefer, (for the most part), the same kind of worship setting they grew up in. Some people didn’t grow up in church at all or they came from a more postmodern background. They may prefer a more contemporary worship setting. Each person is going to be familiar with and prefer a different worship style. If you were to put Bob, a formal worship fan, in a contemporary worship setting with loud noises, smoke, and flashing lights, he’s probably going to either a) have a seizure, or b) have a hard time focusing on the Lord. If you put Joe, a contemporary worship fan, in a Episcopal or Lutheran church service, he’s going to either a) fall asleep, or b) not connect with the rhythms and language of that particular service and will have a hard time connecting with the Lord. The point is that different people prefer and relate to different types of worship. Neither person is more or less spiritual than the other. They just connect and relate to the Lord better in different worship service styles.
I have no idea how Christians in China, Africa, or Brazil worship God, but I’m sure each group, (typically), worships the Lord in their own unique way. It seems very foolish to try and boil down the worship of the Lord into a single style and format. (By the way, the folks who typically try to make all worship services into a single format generally favor their style of worship). People are diverse as the colors of the rainbow. Why should worship services have to be black or white?
Look, I don’t like soy milk. I’m told it’s good for me, but I just don’t like it. My parents like and drink soy milk like it was…real milk. This doesn’t mean that they are any better or worse people that me. It’s just something they prefer. Some people really like liturgical worship services. They feel like they can really worship and connect with God in a quiet and formal setting. Some people like loud music and seven different instruments combined to make an awesome, (albeit loud), worship experience. No big deal. To each his own. What I want to warn against is the idea and philosophy, especially for pastors and leaders, is that “we’re going to do worship this way and if you can’t worship God in the style that we do it then you’re not spiritual.” That’s garbage. It’s also hurtful to your congregation and unloving.
A few years back my wife and I attended a church where they had just hired a new, younger pastor. The guy had a lot of energy and ideas on how to revive the church. One of the things he wanted to focus on was changing the worship service from a classic, choir focused, hymn singing, worship service into a contemporary service where a worship leader led the congregation in singing worship choruses. The intentions of the pastor were good I suppose. He wanted to be able to draw in a younger crowd of people who would connect to a more contemporary service. However, the problem was he was changing the worship service into something his congregation didn’t understand or connect with. The only thing they had ever known was hymns and the choir. Contemporary worship was totally alien to them. Unfortunately, the pastor’s philosophy was the same old idea of “you just need to worship God irregardless of the worship style.” As a result of this attitude, some of the pillars of the church, feeling neglected and unconsidered, left the church to find a home where they would be happy.
Worship styles are different and that’s okay. People are different and that’s okay. Yes, we all need to be willing to grow and adapt in our walk with the Lord. No one likes Mr. or Mrs. I Hate Change. However, pastors and leaders need to exercise care not to force people into a black or white choice or style. Recognize the differences in culture, preference, and heritage and be considerate of the differences in your congregation.
Heroes...and not the TV show
Who are your heroes?When I was a kid, it was He-man. He was the Master of the Universe after all. (If you're over 40 or under 30, you won't remember He-man).
When I was a teenager, (yes, I was that pathetic), my heroes were Batman and Spiderman. I thought they were awesome.
As a Christian my heroes are William Wilberforce, the British politician who worked the whole of his professional life to end the practice of slavery in England. Another hero is Charles Spurgeon, a British pastor known as the "Prince of Preachers."
My closer to home "heroes" list includes men and women who have modeled a passion for the Word of God and whose lives have been marked with the grace of Jesus Christ. I won't say their names because it would only embarrass them. I hope and beseech the Lord that one day I can be a hero for my wife and daughters, a man who models the grace and truth of Jesus Christ.
Finally, I wanted to give notice to all of one of my modern day heroes, my dad, Mike Hendley. He's a great man and has been a great father. He's a man of incredible patience, wisdom, and maturity. I hope I can be one third of the man my father is. (I didn't want to say half because everyone says half). Today the old man is 60. Happy Birthday Pop.
OIA, Interpretation: Finding the Eternal Principle, and several plugs for Indiana Jones.
Have you ever read a story out of the Old Testament and wondered “How does this relate to me?” Does the context of the story, (sacrifices, camels, and people with beards), seem so disconnected from your world that you can’t see how it connects with you? What about passages in the New Testament that seem weird, like 1 Corinthians 8-10 that talks about food sacrificed to idols? Should you just skip those sections of the Bible altogether? I’ll admit that sometimes it is really hard to see through the contexts and settings of the passages and not get confused. I wanted to try to make a point here that will help you in your study of the Word.
*The ETERNAL PRINCIPLE, or “What is True All the Time, both Then and Now”), is what you are looking for in a passage.*
The ETERNAL PRINCIPLE from a passage, (all caps required), is the principle, lesson, or truth that is applicable both 2,000 years ago when the event happened and today as well. You have to ask yourself, “What is true all the time?” “What is something that was true back then when the story was written and still true today?” The answer is the ETERNAL PRINCIPLE that we can apply to our lives from our study of the Bible.
Let’s look at a passage in the Old Testament and try to find the eternal principle or principles that may be present. 1 Samuel 5:1-5 tells the story of how God Almighty and the god of the Philistines hung out one time. The Philistines had captured the ark of the covenant, (think Indiana Jones), and had placed the ark, (a symbol of the presence of the Lord), in their temple with their god, Dagon. They thought to show
the ark as a trophy of their conquests and a symbol of the superiority of their god above the God of Israel. Needless to say, God was not pleased. The next day the Philistines came in they found Dagon on the floor facing the ark. The day after that, the statue of Dagon had its face and hands broken off. The Philistines freaked out on a Biblical scale, (think Nazis in Indiana Jones).Now what does this have to do with our lives? We are not Philistines. We don’t live in tents. We don’t have the ark anymore, (the government has it in a secret vault somewhere; remember Indiana Jones). We also don’t have little god statues in our homes, (most of us anyways). We live in a different time period and culture. But what would be a true principle from this passage that was true not only then, but now? How about this:
1. God is the supreme God above all other gods.
2. God will not play second fiddle to any idol.
3. Don’t mess with God Almighty.
4. Even when things seem bad, (the ark was captured by a godless nation), God is still supreme.
These things are true both then and now. They are ETERNAL PRINCIPLES that were true for the Philistines and are true for us today.
Next time we’ll talk about the final step of OIA, which is Application. (Observation, Interpretation, Application). Peace out…and remember
Why is Bobby different? Observation part B
The last time in the blog I wrote about "Observation," the first step in studying a passage of Scripture. It's the stage where we answer the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How questions of a passage in the Bible. In the Observation stage we're not trying to find any spiritual principles or apply anything to our lives, we're just getting information.
Now the last part of Observation before we get any further is really important. It's called the "What's different?" stage. What we want to do is just observe, either mentally or on a piece of paper, what's different between the Biblical setting, (then), and your life, (now). You're asking yourself, "What's different between the story I'm reading and my life, time period, culture, etc?"
The reason we do this is because there are a lot of differences sometimes between the Biblical culture/setting and our lives. Sometimes people try to make applications or take lessons from stories where things are taken out of context and they get themselves in trouble. If we can recognize the differences in the stories we're reading it will help us see what part of the story is still relevant for our lives today.
For example. If we're reading out of Leviticus 4, we obviously recognize the differences of:
1. We're not Jewish
2. We're not sacrificing goats, bulls, lambs,
3. We're in a totally different time period culturally and contextually than the Biblical audience.
The list could go on, and it seems dumb or overly obvious to list what I did, but I promise that when we notice the differences, it will help us notice the "true all the time stuff" that I'll talk about later.
And Bobby is different because he doesn't like to wear pants in public. Weirdo.
The Crew
