From time to time I am going to take a moment to write about the major influences on my life: authors, preachers, music, movies, and the like. I will put these posts up in a thoroughly biased manner because each post will strictly be my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but hopefully, each post will shed some light on why I think the way I think. And, maybe, you'll come to appreciate them too.
I'll get straight to the point: I like breakfast. I like it a lot. There is very little about the Most Important Meal of the Day that I dislike. In fact, I think it is so important, that if it were at all possible, I would eat breakfast all day, every day.
Think about it: at what other meal can you combine sweet and savory, dessert and entree, all in one course, wash it down with coffee, and call it 'normal'? The typical breakfast menu involves meat, eggs, various confectionery delights, fruit, breads - a veritable cornucopia of cholesterol and sodium/sugar laden dishes simply waiting to be obliterated.
My favorite breakfast order? The skillet. Why? Take everything I just said, throw it all on one plate together, top it with some hot sauce and go to town! With a cinnamon roll on the side, of course.
This is also why I like diners - which is a separate post all on its own. Diners serve breakfast all day, which makes them the place to go when you're me. Doesn't matter what time it is: If I find myself at a diner, breakfast is getting ordered.
Bon appetit!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Parenting and Roller Coasters
I am pretty sure that Christen wrote about this at some point, but I will reiterate it here: Parenting is a series of ups and downs. Sometimes it feels like the downs are outweighing the ups, especially with a 3-year-old in the house. I feel like there's been a 3-year-old for 3 years, which is impossible since I only have two children. Nonetheless, it's been amazing to see the major swings that take place over weeks, days, and sometimes hours and minutes.
Just like a roller coaster, so goes parenting. The slow incline that is pregnancy gives way to the rush of speed that is giving birth and the subsequent season of infancy (when you never really sleep, not really), and then you get to the rest of the ride. The twists. The jolts. The dips. The round-abouts. The spirals, both up and down.
Since Christen's passing, it has felt a bit like I'm building a whole new ride to get on. I thought parenting in general was challenging. Single parenting? Wow. So, as I'm designing this thing, here are some of the peaks and valleys I can see being built in to it (based off of actual events over the past 10 days):
Peaks:
- Audrey doing the dishes without being asked
- Hudson taking being a gentleman seriously
- Made up songs/singing along to music in the car
- Playing, playing, playing
- Not needing to watch TV
- Impromptu cuddle time
- Being required to refer to them as Captain America and Princess Audrey (she likes her name)
Valleys:
- Oh! the whining
- Crying over not getting to hear a song, making the wrong snack, selecting the wrong movie, calling someone by the wrong name (see final point of Peaks)
- Hudson forgetting that he's a gentleman
- Audrey taking advantage of being a 'lady'
In this time of building and restructuring, I'm reminded of Christen's mission statement as a mother. She stood for the following:
I will provide love, discipline, counsel, and education so that my children will be trained up in the way of the Lord. I will exemplify a God-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated life so that they would make choices based on their relationship with the Lord.
I've adopted that as my mission statement as a father (she always took the best wording!). It's on that foundation, the grounding of the glory of God and the revelation of His Word that I, by His grace, will build this new ride.
Just like a roller coaster, so goes parenting. The slow incline that is pregnancy gives way to the rush of speed that is giving birth and the subsequent season of infancy (when you never really sleep, not really), and then you get to the rest of the ride. The twists. The jolts. The dips. The round-abouts. The spirals, both up and down.
Since Christen's passing, it has felt a bit like I'm building a whole new ride to get on. I thought parenting in general was challenging. Single parenting? Wow. So, as I'm designing this thing, here are some of the peaks and valleys I can see being built in to it (based off of actual events over the past 10 days):
Peaks:
- Audrey doing the dishes without being asked
- Hudson taking being a gentleman seriously
- Made up songs/singing along to music in the car
- Playing, playing, playing
- Not needing to watch TV
- Impromptu cuddle time
- Being required to refer to them as Captain America and Princess Audrey (she likes her name)
Valleys:
- Oh! the whining
- Crying over not getting to hear a song, making the wrong snack, selecting the wrong movie, calling someone by the wrong name (see final point of Peaks)
- Hudson forgetting that he's a gentleman
- Audrey taking advantage of being a 'lady'
In this time of building and restructuring, I'm reminded of Christen's mission statement as a mother. She stood for the following:
I will provide love, discipline, counsel, and education so that my children will be trained up in the way of the Lord. I will exemplify a God-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated life so that they would make choices based on their relationship with the Lord.
I've adopted that as my mission statement as a father (she always took the best wording!). It's on that foundation, the grounding of the glory of God and the revelation of His Word that I, by His grace, will build this new ride.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
How to Study the Bible: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
Last week, we learned how the Bible came together. This week, we're going to dig in to the question of the Bible's reliability. Is the Bible, as we know it, a historically accurate and reliable document?
The argument here is whether or not the actual words contained in the Bibles we have are 1) what the original authors wrote and 2) were written in an accurate way so as to transmit the historical truths they claim to tell. Basically, is the Bible true or a simple mythology?
The stance that opponents to the validity of the Bible take is one of questioning how the text was recorded over time. Many would hold that the accounts of the life of Jesus were not written down prior to the second century, well over 100 years after He had lived. They go on to claim that, in accordance with the oral tradition of the time, the accounts of Jesus grew in mythology over that time span and were eventually written down in such a way as to make Jesus more a legend than an actual historical figure. Think Babe Ruth and the famed 'called shot'. Did it happen? Or was that just a tall tale weaved in the media?
In order to counter their arguments, we must take a look at how historical documents are proved and accepted as accurate in general and then apply the same tests to the New Testament (I focus on the New Testament because, just like last week, the Old Testament is generally left alone in these debates. However, the same process could easily be applied to the Old Testament, and I am sure it would check out.). Based on everything I have read on this topic, there are three tests to guide us in our understanding of the validity, reliability, and historicity of the Bible: the bibliographic test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
Bibliographic Test
As defined by Josh McDowell, this test "is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?"
For those who don't know this, we do not have in existence today an original copy (called an autograph) of any book or letter included in the New Testament. Therefore, we have to know that what was copied down was done so faithfully and within an acceptable period of time to be considered reliable.
To do this, let's do a comparison between the New Testament and a few other documents. These other documents are plainly accepted as accurate and acceptable historical documents, worthy to be taught in high schools and colleges alike as true to what the original author wrote and intended. We will consider when the original is said to have been written, when the first copy we now have in possession was written, how many such MSS exist today, and what level of accuracy the copies share (these statistics are pulled from several sources, listed at the end of this post).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of MSS Accuracy
Homer ca. 900 BC ca. 400 BC ~500 years 643 95%
Caesar ca. 50-58 BC ca. AD 900 ~950 years 10 Too few MSS
Tacitus ca. AD 100 ca. AD 1100 ~1,000 years 20 Too few MSS
Plato ca. 427-347 BC ca. AD 900 ~1,200+ years 7 Too few MSS
Aristotle ca. 384-322 BC ca. AD 1100 ~1,400 years 5 Too few MSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament ca. AD 60-90 ca. AD 130 ~100 years 20,000+ 99.5%
What this means is that, based on the number of copies we have of the pieces of the New Testament, the time between when it was first written and from when we have a copy, and the accuracy of the copies to each other, we can certainly say that the text we have is the text that was originally written (and for those disconcerted with the 99.5% accuracy, the discrepancies are over grammar, spellings, style, and/or accidental omissions/duplicates - nothing in question has any weight to bear on doctrine or teaching).
Internal Evidence Test
The bibliographic test tells us that the text we have today is faithful to what was originally written. We must now turn to the words themselves and test whether or not those words are credible. This is the internal test.
There are several considerations to make when testing the internal credibility of a document. At the outset, it must be understood that a document is 'innocent until proven guilty' - in other words, a document claiming to present facts must be assumed to do exactly that unless it blatantly records falsehoods or is inconsistent in its own claims. In this, we have seen over and over again how archaeology and historical criticism support what was written in the New Testament.
Next, we must look at who wrote the New Testament. The authors consistently claim to either be direct eyewitnesses or to have recorded what an eyewitness has testified to be true. This is seen in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, and John 19:35. Therefore, the people who wrote the books and letters in the New Testament were not simply recording hearsay; they were recording the facts as they, or someone close the them, saw them.
Still, it would only be fair to allow for criticism from contemporaries. After all, if one eyewitness reports one account and another reports something to the contrary, we are faced with a he-said-she-said scenario, and the truth becomes very difficult to prove. The fact is that there were people alive who also witnessed the events of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and some of those people were not sympathetic to the apostles' cause - they were, in fact, opposed to it. Thus, if what was being written and propagated was in any way inaccurate, those opposed could simply have risen up and written a refutation to the apostles' claims. The apostles even opened themselves to this kind of criticism, as seen in Acts 2:22 and Acts 26: 24-48. None such came.
Last, the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels indicates a God-ordained consistency simply unparalleled in any other major religious text. Without going into all the details, there were literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, including those found in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matthew 1:18-23), Micah 5:2 (cf. Luke 2:1-7), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:13-15), Malachi 3:1 (cf. Luke 2:25-27), Psalm 22:16 and 22:18 (cf. Luke 23:33 and John 19:23-24, respectively), and Isaiah 53:10-12 (cf. Acts 2:25-32).
External Evidence Test
Again, Josh McDowell defines this test by stating that "[the] issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves."
Within the Christian world, Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, friend of the Apostle John, as preserved by Eusebius) and Iranaeus (Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John) together testify to the authorship of the Gospels. They state that John wrote his gospel, as did Matthew, and that Mark wrote his based off of the testimony of Peter and Luke his based off of the teachings of Paul (and other eyewitnesses - cp. Luke 1:1-3).
Outside of the Christian world, we have already mentioned how archaeology and historical criticism have verified the facts of the Bible as they are laid out. People, places, leaders, and events, as they are described in the New Testament, have been verified over time by the historical record and the physical evidence (as it is uncovered).
Further, ancient, secular historians wrote of Jesus and verified not only His life but also some of His deeds. Here are a few quotes (pulled straight out of the Mark Driscoll resource listed below):
Flavius Josephus, from Jewish Antiquities:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
Pliny the Younger, from The Letters of Pliny the Younger (this one addressed to the emperor Trajan):
They (Christians) also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god...
These as well as many other Jewish and Roman historians document and give credence to the truths as presented by the authors of the New Testament.
Here's the big idea:
The Bible we have, and specifically the New Testament, is a historically valid and reliable document, and the text therein constitutes a true testimony to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the New Testament; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
Medium read: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Dan Story, Defending Your Faith
Next week: Why Study the Bible?
Last week, we learned how the Bible came together. This week, we're going to dig in to the question of the Bible's reliability. Is the Bible, as we know it, a historically accurate and reliable document?
The argument here is whether or not the actual words contained in the Bibles we have are 1) what the original authors wrote and 2) were written in an accurate way so as to transmit the historical truths they claim to tell. Basically, is the Bible true or a simple mythology?
The stance that opponents to the validity of the Bible take is one of questioning how the text was recorded over time. Many would hold that the accounts of the life of Jesus were not written down prior to the second century, well over 100 years after He had lived. They go on to claim that, in accordance with the oral tradition of the time, the accounts of Jesus grew in mythology over that time span and were eventually written down in such a way as to make Jesus more a legend than an actual historical figure. Think Babe Ruth and the famed 'called shot'. Did it happen? Or was that just a tall tale weaved in the media?
In order to counter their arguments, we must take a look at how historical documents are proved and accepted as accurate in general and then apply the same tests to the New Testament (I focus on the New Testament because, just like last week, the Old Testament is generally left alone in these debates. However, the same process could easily be applied to the Old Testament, and I am sure it would check out.). Based on everything I have read on this topic, there are three tests to guide us in our understanding of the validity, reliability, and historicity of the Bible: the bibliographic test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
Bibliographic Test
As defined by Josh McDowell, this test "is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?"
For those who don't know this, we do not have in existence today an original copy (called an autograph) of any book or letter included in the New Testament. Therefore, we have to know that what was copied down was done so faithfully and within an acceptable period of time to be considered reliable.
To do this, let's do a comparison between the New Testament and a few other documents. These other documents are plainly accepted as accurate and acceptable historical documents, worthy to be taught in high schools and colleges alike as true to what the original author wrote and intended. We will consider when the original is said to have been written, when the first copy we now have in possession was written, how many such MSS exist today, and what level of accuracy the copies share (these statistics are pulled from several sources, listed at the end of this post).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of MSS Accuracy
Homer ca. 900 BC ca. 400 BC ~500 years 643 95%
Caesar ca. 50-58 BC ca. AD 900 ~950 years 10 Too few MSS
Tacitus ca. AD 100 ca. AD 1100 ~1,000 years 20 Too few MSS
Plato ca. 427-347 BC ca. AD 900 ~1,200+ years 7 Too few MSS
Aristotle ca. 384-322 BC ca. AD 1100 ~1,400 years 5 Too few MSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament ca. AD 60-90 ca. AD 130 ~100 years 20,000+ 99.5%
What this means is that, based on the number of copies we have of the pieces of the New Testament, the time between when it was first written and from when we have a copy, and the accuracy of the copies to each other, we can certainly say that the text we have is the text that was originally written (and for those disconcerted with the 99.5% accuracy, the discrepancies are over grammar, spellings, style, and/or accidental omissions/duplicates - nothing in question has any weight to bear on doctrine or teaching).
Internal Evidence Test
The bibliographic test tells us that the text we have today is faithful to what was originally written. We must now turn to the words themselves and test whether or not those words are credible. This is the internal test.
There are several considerations to make when testing the internal credibility of a document. At the outset, it must be understood that a document is 'innocent until proven guilty' - in other words, a document claiming to present facts must be assumed to do exactly that unless it blatantly records falsehoods or is inconsistent in its own claims. In this, we have seen over and over again how archaeology and historical criticism support what was written in the New Testament.
Next, we must look at who wrote the New Testament. The authors consistently claim to either be direct eyewitnesses or to have recorded what an eyewitness has testified to be true. This is seen in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, and John 19:35. Therefore, the people who wrote the books and letters in the New Testament were not simply recording hearsay; they were recording the facts as they, or someone close the them, saw them.
Still, it would only be fair to allow for criticism from contemporaries. After all, if one eyewitness reports one account and another reports something to the contrary, we are faced with a he-said-she-said scenario, and the truth becomes very difficult to prove. The fact is that there were people alive who also witnessed the events of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and some of those people were not sympathetic to the apostles' cause - they were, in fact, opposed to it. Thus, if what was being written and propagated was in any way inaccurate, those opposed could simply have risen up and written a refutation to the apostles' claims. The apostles even opened themselves to this kind of criticism, as seen in Acts 2:22 and Acts 26: 24-48. None such came.
Last, the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels indicates a God-ordained consistency simply unparalleled in any other major religious text. Without going into all the details, there were literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, including those found in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matthew 1:18-23), Micah 5:2 (cf. Luke 2:1-7), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:13-15), Malachi 3:1 (cf. Luke 2:25-27), Psalm 22:16 and 22:18 (cf. Luke 23:33 and John 19:23-24, respectively), and Isaiah 53:10-12 (cf. Acts 2:25-32).
External Evidence Test
Again, Josh McDowell defines this test by stating that "[the] issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves."
Within the Christian world, Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, friend of the Apostle John, as preserved by Eusebius) and Iranaeus (Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John) together testify to the authorship of the Gospels. They state that John wrote his gospel, as did Matthew, and that Mark wrote his based off of the testimony of Peter and Luke his based off of the teachings of Paul (and other eyewitnesses - cp. Luke 1:1-3).
Outside of the Christian world, we have already mentioned how archaeology and historical criticism have verified the facts of the Bible as they are laid out. People, places, leaders, and events, as they are described in the New Testament, have been verified over time by the historical record and the physical evidence (as it is uncovered).
Further, ancient, secular historians wrote of Jesus and verified not only His life but also some of His deeds. Here are a few quotes (pulled straight out of the Mark Driscoll resource listed below):
Flavius Josephus, from Jewish Antiquities:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
Pliny the Younger, from The Letters of Pliny the Younger (this one addressed to the emperor Trajan):
They (Christians) also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god...
These as well as many other Jewish and Roman historians document and give credence to the truths as presented by the authors of the New Testament.
Here's the big idea:
The Bible we have, and specifically the New Testament, is a historically valid and reliable document, and the text therein constitutes a true testimony to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the New Testament; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
Medium read: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Dan Story, Defending Your Faith
Next week: Why Study the Bible?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
How to Study the Bible: What is the Bible?
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
This is Real
"This is real. This is happening. This is my life."
I spoke those words aloud to myself Saturday night as I was preparing to go to bed. The kids were with Grandpa and Grandma for the weekend, and I was in my bedroom fixing the sheets. All of a sudden, I was hit with a sensation that I have never felt before.
It was as though I was looking through someone else's eyes. I was looking into the life of some man going about his nightly routine. I had a flash of his mind and of all the things he had been thinking over the last week. It was all very ordinary stuff - going to work, taking care of his kids, cleaning the house, cooking dinner. There was really nothing exceptional about any of it. The whole scene was very strange, and it seemed like something was hanging in the air. There was a weight upon this man, only he didn't feel it. At least, he didn't seem to. He was just going about his routine. The man paused at this point and looked around. Familiarity crept in as I felt the quilted bedspread in need of a wash, the soft linen of the sheets, the floorboard that creaks right next to the dresser. It was then I realized I was in my own home, in my own bedroom, looking through my own eyes.
For that moment, I could not make sense of reality. I had seen through this man's eyes, and though he was me, I had no concept of what he was doing or why. Surely this was not how I lived, I thought. Do I really make up a bed only to sleep on one side of it? How long have I been going through these motions? Is this my life? It doesn't seem like it...
And then, more disturbing than these thoughts came the reality that, in fact yes, this is all real. I struggled to shake my doubts. Aloud, I said those words to myself.
"This is real. This is happening. This is my life."
At that point, I thought I would feel sad. Or angry. Perhaps frustrated. Even lonely. I felt none of these things. I felt like a chalkboard freshly erased, the remnant of what was written there still faintly visible, the dust not taken away but merely pushed around the slate, a cloudy image of something that once was clear.
I am coming to the understanding that it is easy to lose oneself in two extremes: routine and dreams. The former gives structure and makes sure things get done, but it lacks passion and zeal and an awareness of other happenings outside of the norm. Dreams certainly don't lack for passion or vision or excitement, but they deny that which is necessary to accomplish right now, and they ignore what is happening in the present. Combined, they miss reality, where one misses due to fixtures and the other due to fantasy.
I live in these two extremes. I require routine because there is so much to be done. Even with the help I receive, there is simply so much that demands my attention and energy and focus. I dream because dreaming lets me believe for the future, to hope in what is coming next. By themselves and in right balance, these two extremes are lovely dance partners. But without the music of reality playing them along the floor, they're just two lunatics locked in a deluded embrace.
Here is my reality: My name is Joe Ringle. I am 29 years old. I have two children, Audrey and Hudson. My wife, Christen, passed away 4 months ago. Life is difficult for us right now. But we serve a God whose goodness knows no end. He has rescued my family from certain, eternal death and given us, through Jesus, true and lasting life with Him, even if it isn't with each other here and now.
I will live in light of grace and not fetter myself to foolish delusions or denials of the truth.
I spoke those words aloud to myself Saturday night as I was preparing to go to bed. The kids were with Grandpa and Grandma for the weekend, and I was in my bedroom fixing the sheets. All of a sudden, I was hit with a sensation that I have never felt before.
It was as though I was looking through someone else's eyes. I was looking into the life of some man going about his nightly routine. I had a flash of his mind and of all the things he had been thinking over the last week. It was all very ordinary stuff - going to work, taking care of his kids, cleaning the house, cooking dinner. There was really nothing exceptional about any of it. The whole scene was very strange, and it seemed like something was hanging in the air. There was a weight upon this man, only he didn't feel it. At least, he didn't seem to. He was just going about his routine. The man paused at this point and looked around. Familiarity crept in as I felt the quilted bedspread in need of a wash, the soft linen of the sheets, the floorboard that creaks right next to the dresser. It was then I realized I was in my own home, in my own bedroom, looking through my own eyes.
For that moment, I could not make sense of reality. I had seen through this man's eyes, and though he was me, I had no concept of what he was doing or why. Surely this was not how I lived, I thought. Do I really make up a bed only to sleep on one side of it? How long have I been going through these motions? Is this my life? It doesn't seem like it...
And then, more disturbing than these thoughts came the reality that, in fact yes, this is all real. I struggled to shake my doubts. Aloud, I said those words to myself.
"This is real. This is happening. This is my life."
At that point, I thought I would feel sad. Or angry. Perhaps frustrated. Even lonely. I felt none of these things. I felt like a chalkboard freshly erased, the remnant of what was written there still faintly visible, the dust not taken away but merely pushed around the slate, a cloudy image of something that once was clear.
I am coming to the understanding that it is easy to lose oneself in two extremes: routine and dreams. The former gives structure and makes sure things get done, but it lacks passion and zeal and an awareness of other happenings outside of the norm. Dreams certainly don't lack for passion or vision or excitement, but they deny that which is necessary to accomplish right now, and they ignore what is happening in the present. Combined, they miss reality, where one misses due to fixtures and the other due to fantasy.
I live in these two extremes. I require routine because there is so much to be done. Even with the help I receive, there is simply so much that demands my attention and energy and focus. I dream because dreaming lets me believe for the future, to hope in what is coming next. By themselves and in right balance, these two extremes are lovely dance partners. But without the music of reality playing them along the floor, they're just two lunatics locked in a deluded embrace.
Here is my reality: My name is Joe Ringle. I am 29 years old. I have two children, Audrey and Hudson. My wife, Christen, passed away 4 months ago. Life is difficult for us right now. But we serve a God whose goodness knows no end. He has rescued my family from certain, eternal death and given us, through Jesus, true and lasting life with Him, even if it isn't with each other here and now.
I will live in light of grace and not fetter myself to foolish delusions or denials of the truth.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
A Beautiful Inconvenience
There are two lies that have been popularized in our culture regarding marriage. The first is that marriage is simply about how two people feel about each other. They're 'in love', so they get married - of course! Just like all the fairy tales, the princess stories, the hero saving the damsel, the Richard Gere getting the Julia Roberts, the 'you had me at hello'. Love is something you fall into, and marriage is where you land.
The second is that there's always an out - just get divorced.
A quick note on the above point: There is acceptable, biblical precedent for divorce and remarriage. I am not condemning all divorce as ungodly. However, 'I just don't love him/her anymore' isn't one of the precedents. Which brings me to why I'm writing this at all.
Here's a truth that needs to be accepted in order to begin to overcome the two lies mentioned above:
Marriage is inconvenient.
Okay, I actually heard your sharp intake of breath just now. Calm down, and I'll explain. Think about it for a moment - you're a sinner and so is your spouse (or soon-to-be spouse). Unlike in math, two negatives in this case don't make a positive. In fact, each partner's sin is going to be thrown into sharp relief when exposed by the other. Nothing reveals our innate selfishness more than getting married - until you have children (which is a completely separate post). Prior to marriage, you were concerned with you, ultimately. With a spouse you are concerned with 'we'. Consequently, you must give things up daily for the sake of the other. Hot water in the shower, time in the bathroom, sheets on the bed, space on the couch, your preferences, your pride. And that's hard and difficult and uncomfortable and frustrating. Why can't you just 'win'? Here's the honest truth: marriage doesn't 'fix' anything - it unhinges everything, puts the pieces on the floor like so much IKEA ware, and asks you and your spouse to put it all back together again.
And it is a uniquely beautiful expression of God's grace.
This post was sparked by a video I saw via Desiring God, found here. It tells the story of a woman who, in spite of her husband's disability, has chosen to marry him and live a life of love and inconvenience. It is a remarkable story, and it is the kind of story we should use to inform our daughters and sons rather than what we see in culture.
This will not be easy for me to say, but I'm freewriting at this point, and so I hope you will bear with the rawness of it.
Christen dealt with me graciously for 6 1/2 years. I freely confess that I'm not the easiest person to live with. I read Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages, and I had 2 primary languages and a third just behind them. In other words, I'm high maintenance. I'm needy. All the time. And Christen had me figured out. I've never felt more trusted, respected, and loved than when I was with her. Even when she started getting sick, she would say how sorry she was that she couldn't take care of me the way she wanted to. And I thought, 'No, it's my turn now.'
We only really had two days to process what was happening from the MRI to the biopsy. For the sake of being able to make sound decisions in the midst of varied advice from friends, family, and doctors, we focused on taking each step one at a time. Therefore, we weren't thinking too far beyond just what was next. Still, we did talk. She was scared but determined. We talked about the reality that when the doctors said 'aggressive treatment', they meant chemotherapy. Intense chemotherapy. That meant her whimsical, ever-changing hair was going to fall out. And she said, 'No wigs.' She said she'd be bald and strong and creative with scarves (as ever). We discussed that her going through this would stand as a testimony to the sustaining power of God.
In this moment, as we were facing the potential of a brutal battle with a particularly vicious form of brain cancer, I learned the most valuable and important lesson I'll ever learn about marriage:
Christen was never more beautiful than when she was lying in her hospital bed, unshowered, gown on, electrodes glued to her head, unreservedly and unashamedly declaring the glory and grace of God in our lives.
Yes, marriage is an inconvenience, but oh! how beautiful an inconvenience it is.
The second is that there's always an out - just get divorced.
A quick note on the above point: There is acceptable, biblical precedent for divorce and remarriage. I am not condemning all divorce as ungodly. However, 'I just don't love him/her anymore' isn't one of the precedents. Which brings me to why I'm writing this at all.
Here's a truth that needs to be accepted in order to begin to overcome the two lies mentioned above:
Marriage is inconvenient.
Okay, I actually heard your sharp intake of breath just now. Calm down, and I'll explain. Think about it for a moment - you're a sinner and so is your spouse (or soon-to-be spouse). Unlike in math, two negatives in this case don't make a positive. In fact, each partner's sin is going to be thrown into sharp relief when exposed by the other. Nothing reveals our innate selfishness more than getting married - until you have children (which is a completely separate post). Prior to marriage, you were concerned with you, ultimately. With a spouse you are concerned with 'we'. Consequently, you must give things up daily for the sake of the other. Hot water in the shower, time in the bathroom, sheets on the bed, space on the couch, your preferences, your pride. And that's hard and difficult and uncomfortable and frustrating. Why can't you just 'win'? Here's the honest truth: marriage doesn't 'fix' anything - it unhinges everything, puts the pieces on the floor like so much IKEA ware, and asks you and your spouse to put it all back together again.
And it is a uniquely beautiful expression of God's grace.
This post was sparked by a video I saw via Desiring God, found here. It tells the story of a woman who, in spite of her husband's disability, has chosen to marry him and live a life of love and inconvenience. It is a remarkable story, and it is the kind of story we should use to inform our daughters and sons rather than what we see in culture.
This will not be easy for me to say, but I'm freewriting at this point, and so I hope you will bear with the rawness of it.
Christen dealt with me graciously for 6 1/2 years. I freely confess that I'm not the easiest person to live with. I read Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages, and I had 2 primary languages and a third just behind them. In other words, I'm high maintenance. I'm needy. All the time. And Christen had me figured out. I've never felt more trusted, respected, and loved than when I was with her. Even when she started getting sick, she would say how sorry she was that she couldn't take care of me the way she wanted to. And I thought, 'No, it's my turn now.'
We only really had two days to process what was happening from the MRI to the biopsy. For the sake of being able to make sound decisions in the midst of varied advice from friends, family, and doctors, we focused on taking each step one at a time. Therefore, we weren't thinking too far beyond just what was next. Still, we did talk. She was scared but determined. We talked about the reality that when the doctors said 'aggressive treatment', they meant chemotherapy. Intense chemotherapy. That meant her whimsical, ever-changing hair was going to fall out. And she said, 'No wigs.' She said she'd be bald and strong and creative with scarves (as ever). We discussed that her going through this would stand as a testimony to the sustaining power of God.
In this moment, as we were facing the potential of a brutal battle with a particularly vicious form of brain cancer, I learned the most valuable and important lesson I'll ever learn about marriage:
Christen was never more beautiful than when she was lying in her hospital bed, unshowered, gown on, electrodes glued to her head, unreservedly and unashamedly declaring the glory and grace of God in our lives.
Yes, marriage is an inconvenience, but oh! how beautiful an inconvenience it is.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Redeem Your Commute
Be honest, how many of us struggle to get all the reading, praying, worshiping, studying, and sermon-listening done in a day that we would ideally like to get done? I, for one, feel as though I could spend all day reading and still have so far to go. I have given the following advice to a few people in the last couple of months, and so I thought I'd share it here for the at-large population.
Many of us have some level of commute to work built into our daily routine. For those living in Chicago, or any metropolitan area, this could include going from the suburbs into the city or vise versa. It could mean that you're taking the bus/train. For those from my hometown, it could mean making a 45-mile drive to wherever. For me, it means driving to the train, then taking the train downtown, then sometimes walking from a stop to my actual place of work (depending on what line I ride in on). All in all, it's an hour one-way for me. That's two hours every day. Perhaps you can relate. Perhaps you can also relate to thinking, 'What should I be doing with this time?'
My advice? Redeem your commute.
Let's face it, even taking the train downtown, which is lovely in many ways, loses its luster after a time. I'm not in it for the scenery or the experience; it's a means to an end. And since it is routine, it is easy to fall into, well, a routine. Out the door; get in car; drive to park near train; walk to train; board train; get off train; walk to work; punch in; pour coffee; start day. It's easy to get into the habit of listening to music or, worse, talk radio, checking Facebook, reading the paper, texting friends, playing games, and the like.
Allow me to flip your commute on its head. These minutes and hours are ideal for all kinds of activities that will build you up rather than drain you out. Namely, you can read. With the advent of the Kindle and other such e-readers, you can literally take your library with you in a nice, neat package. You can be reading theological classics on the way to work rather than the Wall Street Journal. If you're like me, you prefer actual, tangible books for the purposes of taking notes. By all means, take them and read them. I joke that I travel with a small library wherever I go. Or, read the Bible if you don't have a regular, pre-commute, morning devotional time.
If reading on a train makes you motion-sick, load up your mp3 player with sermons from your pastor and some of the great preachers of today. Supplement what your pastor preached on Sunday with what other preachers have said about the same passage of Scripture. Get audio books and let someone read a classic to you. Or, listen to the Bible. There are so many quality audio versions of the Bible, some of them free, that you can absorb the Word without actually picking up a copy of it.
Or, load up on worship music and sing to the Lord on the way to work. This works best with those who drive to work, but if you're bold feel free to do so on the train. This will also help you get a seat to yourself!
Take time to pray on your way in. Pray for wisdom, direction, grace for the day, opportunities to proclaim the gospel, chances to display the love of Christ, and/or boldness to pray for people who have needs as they express them, even if they aren't expecting it.
To make this more tangible, here is my general routine. I pray while I'm driving to the train. This gives me a good 10-15 minutes of time with just me and the Lord. I walk to the train, and then I put in my headphones to listen to some music (usually instrumental). Since it's pretty early in the morning, I'm usually able to grab a seat on the train. This enables me to more easily read due my incessant note-taking in my books. I get a solid 30 minutes of reading in while on the train. You'd be amazed at what a focused 30 minutes of reading can accomplish. I also get an hour for lunch at work. Sometimes I use this time to just relax, other times to eat with co-workers or meet with people from church, other times to catch up on social media chatter, other times to write a bit, still other times to read some more. Then there's the commute home, which is usually spent standing as the trains are too packed to try to sit. I generally use this time to listen to a sermon or some worship music (bobbing my head a little bit...). If I'm really into a book at the time, I'll hazard the standing-while-reading-with-pencil-in-hand posture, but these times are not common.
I am not here going to discuss the merits/demerits of 'closing myself off' to those on the train with me - meaning I'm not going to tackle the intentional vs relational evangelism debate. I am simply making the point that, for many of us, there are hours in the day available to redeem for the purposes of growing in our relationships with Christ. This can be done in many ways, but it requires an intentionality that is often absent when speaking of the dreaded 'commute'. Don't dread the commute - redeem it.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
"What if...?" is Dangerous
Before I write this post, I must say: No, I haven't forgotten about Theology Thursdays and the current series of How to Study the Bible. I have been studying and reading for that for the last couple of weeks in preparation of handling the topic well. In addition, I have had a great couple of weeks building relationships with people, which has meant extra time away from writing and researching. Consequently, I ask that you bear with me for another week as I prepare to launch into the series. Once it gets going, there'll be no stopping it! Please accept this simple post as a (hopefully) thought-provoking alternative for this week.
It has been on my mind of late that the idea of "What if...?" questions is a double-edged sword.
They are often seen as negatively dangerous, as when dwelling on the past one asks, "What if I had never made this or that decision?" That cannot go anywhere productive. The fact is we didn't make that decision that way, and so there's no telling how it would have turned out in reality. All we know for sure is that we did what we did and we can plainly see the consequences. This kind of "What if...?" leads us to miss the present in light of the past. We are so busy dealing with what we 'should have' done that we neglect dealing with what needs doing now. And this leads to additional poor decisions and regret, and the cycle continues. Too many people live in this for too many years.
But lately, I have been wondering about the positive danger in asking "What if...?". As in, "What if this didn't work this way but worked this way instead?" Or, "What if we believed this way instead of that way?" "What if this were possible?" These are dangerous questions as well, yet of an entirely different ilk.
These questions spark deeper thought, greater innovation, immense creativity, new solutions - in short, dreams. Dreams lie in the realm of "What if...?" In this way, we are able to see the present with an eye on the future. More accurately, we see that, in light of the present, there must be something more for the future, if only someone would dream big enough to get us there.
Are you that dreamer?
I want to be.
I had a conversation with someone tonight wherein we both came to the conclusion that we aren't now nor do we hope to ever settle so much that we stop dreaming.
I believe that this side of Heaven there should exist a holy discontent that brings forth new means and methods of communicating truths that are timeless. I desire for the Church to be an agent of cultural change, not merely an institution reacting to and opposing culture as it changes. I desire that wisdom would mean more to us than titles, that character would trump personality, that risk-taking would overshadow the status quo, that the gospel would shine brighter than the best lights and the highest lumens projectors.
I desire that every church would seek to leave a legacy in whatever area it resides. I hope for every congregation to be able to say 'yes' to the question, "If we packed up and left town tomorrow, would we be missed?" I yearn for the lifecycle of a church not to be contingent on the pastor but on the fire in the people.
I desire to see true revival in my city in my lifetime. I see churches impacting apartment buildings, streets, neighborhoods, wards, businesses, community centers, shelters, schools, crime, marriage, children, families, old, young, black, white, brown, man, woman. I see the gospel taking root in ways and through means that have been untapped due to fear of failure, fear of man, or just plain fear. I see that fear overcome by our great King and people stepping out with courage to face impossible things with an impossibly awesome God.
My vision. My hope. My dream. They really aren't mine at all. This is what the Lord desires for Chicago. He desires this for every city, suburb, and rural town in every state and every nation across the globe. "To the ends of the earth," was the commission from Jesus to His apostles prior to His ascension.
I dream of risky answers to future-focused "What if...?" questions. In the end, I would much rather attempt something and fail than risk nothing and succeed.
It has been on my mind of late that the idea of "What if...?" questions is a double-edged sword.
They are often seen as negatively dangerous, as when dwelling on the past one asks, "What if I had never made this or that decision?" That cannot go anywhere productive. The fact is we didn't make that decision that way, and so there's no telling how it would have turned out in reality. All we know for sure is that we did what we did and we can plainly see the consequences. This kind of "What if...?" leads us to miss the present in light of the past. We are so busy dealing with what we 'should have' done that we neglect dealing with what needs doing now. And this leads to additional poor decisions and regret, and the cycle continues. Too many people live in this for too many years.
But lately, I have been wondering about the positive danger in asking "What if...?". As in, "What if this didn't work this way but worked this way instead?" Or, "What if we believed this way instead of that way?" "What if this were possible?" These are dangerous questions as well, yet of an entirely different ilk.
These questions spark deeper thought, greater innovation, immense creativity, new solutions - in short, dreams. Dreams lie in the realm of "What if...?" In this way, we are able to see the present with an eye on the future. More accurately, we see that, in light of the present, there must be something more for the future, if only someone would dream big enough to get us there.
Are you that dreamer?
I want to be.
I had a conversation with someone tonight wherein we both came to the conclusion that we aren't now nor do we hope to ever settle so much that we stop dreaming.
I believe that this side of Heaven there should exist a holy discontent that brings forth new means and methods of communicating truths that are timeless. I desire for the Church to be an agent of cultural change, not merely an institution reacting to and opposing culture as it changes. I desire that wisdom would mean more to us than titles, that character would trump personality, that risk-taking would overshadow the status quo, that the gospel would shine brighter than the best lights and the highest lumens projectors.
I desire that every church would seek to leave a legacy in whatever area it resides. I hope for every congregation to be able to say 'yes' to the question, "If we packed up and left town tomorrow, would we be missed?" I yearn for the lifecycle of a church not to be contingent on the pastor but on the fire in the people.
I desire to see true revival in my city in my lifetime. I see churches impacting apartment buildings, streets, neighborhoods, wards, businesses, community centers, shelters, schools, crime, marriage, children, families, old, young, black, white, brown, man, woman. I see the gospel taking root in ways and through means that have been untapped due to fear of failure, fear of man, or just plain fear. I see that fear overcome by our great King and people stepping out with courage to face impossible things with an impossibly awesome God.
My vision. My hope. My dream. They really aren't mine at all. This is what the Lord desires for Chicago. He desires this for every city, suburb, and rural town in every state and every nation across the globe. "To the ends of the earth," was the commission from Jesus to His apostles prior to His ascension.
I dream of risky answers to future-focused "What if...?" questions. In the end, I would much rather attempt something and fail than risk nothing and succeed.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Mr. Gorbachev...
Last Thursday I had the opportunity to sit in on a town hall style meeting with former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev. Before I write anything, I am not here to make a political statement. I am not going to weigh in on perestroika or any such thing. The fact is, at a time when there were really only two world superpowers, he led one of them. He is now over 80, and I think there's plenty to learn from that wealth of experience.
Gorbachev is a shorter man that one would think. Perhaps this is due to age; perhaps he's simply shorter than average. He is a stocky man, and he carries himself with what would appear as a gruff, abrupt confidence. As he spoke, there was no doubt that he felt he was 'the man' - he exuded a confidence that bordered on flat-out arrogance. While we find this to be an unattractive trait in people, think of anyone who has hit the top of their respective game: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Nolan Ryan, Brett Favre. What do they have in common? Extreme confidence. While we can certainly debate the virtue of such a quality, we cannot deny that people like this often find their way to the top. Mr. Gorbachev is no different.
But the opportunity to hear him speak and to discuss what it was like when he led the USSR was too good to pass up. While it was a town hall meeting, he did not exactly answer the questions he was asked. Rather, he told stories which related to the question, and his stories illustrated his point. As he pointed out, he lived in a completely different context than we do now, so direct advice is not helpful. He preferred to tell stories and allow his stories to speak for him.
The two words I have used in describing Mr. Gorbachev are implacable and courageous. Implacable because he simply could not be moved off of his point, even when prodded to do so by the great journalist Jim Gray. Likewise, as he rose to power in the USSR, he was implacable in his belief that reform needed to take place. He was courageous because he essentially put his life on the line to put forward what he had committed himself to in reforming the political landscape of the USSR. He had to buck every entrenched belief among the 'old men' (as he called the established political elite) on his way to seeing his goals through.
Here's what I learned:
First, a leader must be fully committed to the vision he's been given. Once the vision has been established in his heart and mind, there must be an immovability to it. Perhaps some adaptation over time. Perhaps some improvements, refinements, tweaks, and adjustments, but rarely if ever a complete overhaul. To see anything through to completion requires a focused energy, and to see anything worthwhile to its conclusion requires even more. We would do well to learn this, to learn that being implacable on that which is most important to us is a necessary piece of who we are to become.
Second, a leader must be courageous. It is rare that any vision that is truly worthwhile is easily attained. There will be disappointments and failures and criticism along the path of any great idea. Therefore, the leader with the vision must be so committed to that vision that he takes the necessary steps to seeing that vision become a reality. This means facing down opposition, believing in something when it isn't popular, and working through the initial hiccups and failures to find success and achievement.
As a Christian, I would add that all of this - the vision and the courage and fortitude to see it out - all stem from God's grace at work in the life of the leader. The vision comes from God, the courage comes from the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and the fortitude comes from the example of Christ, who went to the cross on our behalf 'for the joy set before Him'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)