Who Should Be There?

Just as background for this post, I'll mention that for some reason, I'm sometimes accused of believing that anything goes. I'm accused of believing that it's wrong to tell someone that something they're doing is wrong. Think about that for a moment. It's self defeating. If anything goes, then anything goes, including telling someone that something is wrong.

To be clear, I do not believe that anything goes. I believe that excessive and harsh condemnation is wrong. I believe that "excessive and harsh condemnation" describes what I see a lot of Christians doing. But that doesn't mean that I believe that it's wrong to help someone identify and overcome sin.

I believe that God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:17). When we are excessively and harshly condemning the world, we are not following Christ.

Having provided that background... Recently, I was having a conversation with someone about what I believe and why some of my beliefs have changed. During this conversation, the person said something like this: "You just want everyone to be okay."

I wasn't sure how to respond. My initial thought was to try (again) to explain that I don't believe that "anything goes." But then I thought about it and realized that it's a true statement. Yeah. I do. I just want everyone to be okay. I want everyone to be saved. I do. In fact, I want that badly. And the more I think about it, the more I can't understand why someone doesn't. Why would you want someone not to be okay? Why would you want someone not to be saved?

Who should be in heaven?

Who do you want to be there?

Is there anyone that you hope doesn't make it to heaven?

I want everyone to be there.

For God so loved the world.

There. I said it. That's what I want. I hope everyone is in heaven. Furthermore, I can't imagine why someone thinks that's wrong. I can't understand why someone thinks that's a negative thing for me to believe. I don't understand why someone wants someone to be in hell, especially if they believe that hell is eternal conscious torment. I don't understand that level of contempt for another human being.

In fact, God wants everyone to be saved. God wants everyone to be in heaven. Every. One. Of. Us. And He wants that much more than I want it and He's paid a much bigger price for it than I ever could.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

And when I consider the context of 1 John, that makes me want this even more. 1 John 2:1 says that John is writing those things "that you may not sin". And verse 3 says that we know that we know Him if we keep His commandments. That's precisely what I want. I want everyone to know Him. I want everyone to know that they know Him. I want everyone to "not sin" because sin leads to destruction. I want everyone there because I want everyone to do what is good.

1 Tim. 2:3-4 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 

In fact, Paul says that God wants exactly this, too. God wants all to be saved. God wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth. God wants everyone there. All. People. Me. You. My enemies. Your enemies. God wants us all there with Him.

2 Pet. 3:9  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Peter says the same thing. Peter's statement is in a context of judgment that is coming. The ungodly will be judged. And Peter says that there is coming a new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells. And not only are we waiting for it, we're eagerly anticipating it. Hoping for it to come speedily. Though the language there doesn't necessarily imply this, it makes me think of our actions having influence over this coming. It makes me think that we can, by bringing light and hope to others, hasten the coming of the new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that everyone will be there. I don't know who will and who won't, and frankly, neither do you. Also, if the new heaven and new earth is the dwelling place of righteousness, then it follows that sin won't be there. So, the people who are there are the people in whom God has completed His redemptive work, freeing them from sin. So, I'm not saying that everyone will be there and I'm not saying that those who are not redeemed can be or will even want to be there. I'm saying that yes, I want everyone to be there. I want everyone to be okay and God wants that, too.

Who should be there? Everyone.  God wants everyone to turn to Him and turn away from sin. That's what I want, too. I want everyone to be made more like Him.

This Year In Books

Like last year, I wanted to evaluate what I've read through the course of the year. I intended to do a review of all the books I read, but I just didn't get that done for a variety of reasons. Anyway, here are the books that I read this year.

1. A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans. This is a must read. Read my review.
2. In His Steps by Charles Sheldon. Another must read. I also reviewed this one.
3. Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright. MUST READ. Go get it now. I started it in 2012, but finished it in 2013. It is simply an amazing book. NT Wright stated several things that I have believed for quite some time and just didn't have the words for. He put what I had already been thinking for quite some time to words, and he did it with a scholarly background that I simply cannot ever attain. This is one of the best theology books ever. This prompted me to read a few more NT Wright books and I will read more as he writes them. He is simply a great author.
4. Simply Christian by NT Wright. Great book.
5. Simply Jesus by NT Wright. Ditto.
6. How God Became King by NT Wright. If you forget that Jesus was a Jew and came to Jews and lived among Jews and lived in Jewish culture, you'll miss the story the gospel authors were trying to tell. We talk an awful lot (rightly so) about the birth and the crucifixion and resurrection. But this book examines what happened in between the birth and death.
7. The Shack by William Paul Young. I have overlooked this book for so many years because I simply didn't want to hear about the God who loves everyone. This book is about the God who loves everyone. Mark Driscoll and other Calvinists and fundamentalists would discourage you from reading this book. Don't listen to that advice. Read this book. It's beautiful.
8. Healthy Intelligent Training: The Proven Principles of Arthur Lydiard - Keith Livingstone. I was working my way through a Lydiard cycle. I didn't make it through because I injured my calf, but a buddy of mine did and had a breakthrough. I had to give it another read to be sure I understood what he was saying. It turns out that I can teach this stuff better than I can execute it. (That sounds so familiar. I'm a much better at teaching most everything, including the Bible, than I am at actually practicing it.)
9. Daniels Running Formula by Jack Daniels. I am experimenting with his marathon training principles on my own body. His 5k training principles did wonders for me, so I'm trying his approach to the marathon. So far, my body hasn't been able to do what he asks me to do.
10. The "Gender-Inclusive" Movement among Churches of Christ by Kyle Pope. I really hoped this book would offer something besides the same tired old proof texts and same tired old explanations for the passages that show women in leadership roles. It did not. There is nothing to this book. If you've sat through a Bible class or a few sermons about women's roles in a church of Christ, you've heard everything this book has to offer. I really have nothing positive to say about this book. Not surprisingly, churches of Christ are doing everything right, according to Pope. Women can't preach or teach if even one man is present and women can't serve the Lord's Supper or lead a song, but women can talk and make a point in a Bible class and ask questions in a Bible class. Turns out that the church of Christ has been doing it right all along. Sigh.
11. The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight. This is a much better book on the subject of gender roles. McKnight starts by devoting nearly half the book to hermeneutics. Then he gets into a specific application of hermeneutics to gender roles. This is good stuff.
12. Conviction Versus Mercy by Gardner Hall. I had such high hopes for this book and it let me down. It is very well researched, well written, and well edited. But it has some big flaws. You can read my review of this book.
13. Muscle and a Shovel by Michael Shank. This book is the terrible awful. It's poorly edited and it has an arrogant tone and it would be better titled "Why the Church of Christ is Right and Everyone Else Is Going to Hell". It is full of straw men, grammatical errors, and outright false teaching. If the churches of Christ had a Watchtower Society, this would be their first book. It's a conservative church of Christ tract rack put to narrative. Read my review. 
14. Benefit of the Doubt by Greg Boyd. Brilliant. If you've ever struggled with the tension between faith and certainty, this book can be extremely helpful. Also, Boyd emphasizes the crucial difference between contract (how most Americans think) and covenant (how Bible authors talked). This is a very good read.
15. Love Wins by Rob Bell. Rob Bell has a way of saying just enough to make you ask a question or to make you think without saying enough to answer the question or think for you. God is love, and we need to be busy proclaiming that to the world.
16. The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman. This was an interesting read and an interesting approach to improving relationships. I found it a little difficult to execute, but definitely worth considering how you can learn your spouse's love language and speak it with them.

I didn't read as many books as last year, but still got through enough by my standards. I didn't read some on my planned to read list, but maybe I will in 2014. Also, I continued to read the bulletin of Eastside church of Christ in Athens, several articles from Pepper Road church of Christ in Athens, Rachel Held Evans' blog, Greg Boyd's blog, The American Jesus blog, and a few articles from Al Maxey. So, as you can see, I read a lot from folks I disagree with. I also followed the podcast of Eastside church of Christ in Colorado Springs, CO and read Patrick Mead's blog while it was available and I'm glad to see it back.

The Bible Says It; That Settles It

I sometimes hear "What I say doesn't matter; it's what the Bible says that matters." A close cousin to that is "I didn't say that; the Bible says that," or "I didn't say that; God did." And there are other ways of expressing this sentiment. "I don't interpret the Bible; I just read it." "You're not rejecting what I say; you're rejecting what God says." And so on.

Or one of my favorites... "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Or just "God said it. That settles it."

That's nice except when that doesn't settle it.

Sometimes the Bible says to do things that we don't do. At other times, we do things that the Bible doesn't say to do. Still at other times we do what the Bible says not to do.

So when someone says about his church, "We just do what the Bible says," what that may mean is that he believes that his church has figured out what the Bible really means and if you were humble, honest, and informed enough, you would agree with them.

The problem with claiming to do just what the Bible says, no more and no less, is that it's only a matter of time before you're forced into saying... "The Bible says... But that doesn't mean..."

Let me illustrate what I mean with some examples of things that the Bible says that directly contradict the beliefs and practices of the churches that I have been affiliated with for most of the past 20 years (the non-institutional churches of Christ). I don't think I'm pulling any tricks with these examples. They're not prophecies or figurative or obviously limited. These are passages where the context supports the obvious reading. They are texts that require substantial explanation to explain the difference between the obvious reading of the passage and what many Christians teach and practice.

1. The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in John 2:7-10. But that doesn't mean they drank wine at that wedding.

Now, I know some of the explanations for this. I've read them, studied them, and even taught them. They involve a detailed description of why "wine" means "grape juice" and explaining why the best "wine" really isn't wine at all. You have to dig up Old Testament passages, lean on some atonement theology, and know something about the meaning of Greek words and the fermentation process to even make a stab at explaining why this doesn't mean they drank wine as part of this celebration. My point isn't to argue whether or not drinking wine is right or wrong. My point is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't really work here for people who oppose drinking alcohol. The obvious reading of this story indicates that they drank alcoholic wine at that wedding with Jesus' approval. Any other reading requires quite a bit of explanation and even some extra-biblical sources. To prohibit alcohol, you have to say, "The Bible says that Jesus served wine at a wedding, but that doesn't mean that Jesus served wine at a wedding."

Hang in there with me. I can think of more than 30 more of these examples. I'll stop at five examples in this post. Again, I'm not arguing either way on any of these examples. I'm simply making the point that despite claims to the contrary, no one just "does and teaches what the Bible says." No one truly "speaks where the Bible speaks and remains silent where the Bible is silent." No one always and only follows "commands, examples, and necessary inferences" (CENI).

2. John 13:14 says "wash one another's feet." But that doesn't mean we should "wash one another's feet". In fact if you do wash one another's feet as part of a worship service, you've added to the commandments of God because there are only five acts of worship. If you teach others to wash feet, you're a false teacher.
3. 1 Timothy 2:8 says "men should pray with hands uplifted." But that doesn't mean to ever lift your hands when you pray. In fact, if you do lift your hands, you will likely be asked not to do that any more. So, in addition to not following this simple, clear encouragement to pray with uplifted hands, many forbid following this verse.
4. For the fourth example, I'd like to give an example of a prohibition that many ignore. The Bible says to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:20, 29). But that doesn't mean that medium rare steaks are prohibited or that I need to buy my meat from a Kosher butcher that ensures no strangulation. I know only a very few Christians who abstain from rare steaks for this reason. I don't know any who take any effort to ensure that their meat was slaughtered in a way that guarantees no strangulation.
5. The final example for this post... The Bible says as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup (1 Cor. 11:26). But that doesn't mean "as often as". It means "when you do this on Sunday each and every week," because any other day or frequency is sinful. Never mind that instruction was originally given during a Passover supper (THIS bread) or that instruction was probably originally given on a Thursday (definitely NOT a Sunday). I wrote another post in June and shared my thoughts on the only every Sunday requirement.

Again, my main point is this: "God says it; that settles it" is not a workable approach to scripture. It's actually rude and disrespectful to say that. It's understood in a Bible discussion that both parties want to understand God's will. But for one to outright say "I just believe what the Bible says" is a jab at the other person. It's a way of saying, "I have figured out God's will because it's clear and obvious and I'm unbiased and those who disagree are obtuse or dishonest or ignorant." It's an attempt to gain superiority over another person, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught His followers to do. Beware of entering into a Bible discussion with someone who repeatedly says things like, "My opinion doesn't matter and yours doesn't matter either. What the Bible says is the only thing that matters." The question generally isn't, "What does the Bible say?" The question under consideration generally is "What does the Bible mean and how does it apply to us?"

I don't know anyone who "just does what the Bible says." In fact, I don't know anyone who even "just does what the New Testament says." We all pick and choose. Hermeneutics is where the rubber meets the road in how we determine what to pick and choose and how what we pick and choose applies to us today. And I'm learning that hermeneutics is quite complex and ambiguous at times. Thanks to Doy Moyer, I've learned that CENI isn't a hermeneutic at all. We're not so much trying to find the commands, examples and necessary inferences. The CENI are given to us. We're really trying to figure out which of those are meant for us to follow and how do we apply them. Let's not say "we just do what the Bible says" because you don't and I don't. We all have our "but that doesn't mean" exclusions from the Bible. A better conversation to have, instead of whether we do what the Bible says or not, is why don't we do what the Bible says sometimes.

If the examples that I've shown above aren't enough to cause you to at least stop and consider that you and I don't "just do what the Bible says", stay tuned. I have several more examples. I want to share these examples because before we can have a meaningful discussion of hermeneutics, we have to remove the false moral high ground that pretends to do just what the Bible says.

You Can Have My Spot

In Romans 9:1 Paul says something that really catches my attention. See if it catches your attention, too.

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—

Why would Paul so strongly say that he isn't lying? This seems very close to Paul saying, "I swear by God (the Holy Spirit)."  Besides that, if he's inspired, why does he need to remind us that he's telling the truth? This verse has always intrigued me. 

In normal conversation when I hear something like "God knows I'm not lying," I immediately think that something unbelievable is coming soon. That's exactly what we have here. Paul is about to say something shocking. Notice Rom. 9:3.

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Wow! Did Paul just say that he wishes he could give up his own salvation for the sake of his Jewish friends? Paul in essence says, "I love these people so much that I wish I could go to hell for their sake." Let that sink in for a moment. Wow! What an outrageous claim! Indeed, he needed to precede that with "God knows I'm not lying".

If the essence of the gospel is "you can go to heaven," then Paul's willingness to give up heaven for someone else amounts to a rejection of the essence of the gospel for himself. Going to heaven isn't what it's all about.

In another place, Philippians 1:23-24, Paul says something similar. Rather than wishing himself accursed for someone else, Paul decides it's better to stay out of heaven a little longer to continue to serve people who are already believers. This context in Philippians 1 shows that it's good to desire heaven, to desire to be with God. Paul had a strong desire to be with the Lord. Heaven is good and important and something to desire. But getting to heaven was not Paul's top priority. His top priority was serving those around him.

He continues to expound on this idea in the next few verses, especially Phil. 2:5-8. In the same context of chapter 1 where he says "I'd rather stay and help you than to go be in heaven right now," Paul points us to Jesus's example of doing a very similar thing. Jesus was in heaven and He left that. Jesus left heaven at great risk. (If there were no risk, then the temptations are meaningless). He did not view heaven for Himself as top priority. No, His top priority was serving others.

And Paul says in very, very strong terms that we should think this way (Phil. 2:4). He basically says in Phil. 2:1-3 that if following Christ means anything, if love means anything, if God means anything to you, then put others above yourself. Putting others above yourself so you can get to heaven is one thing. It's paying a small price in the here and now for a huge payoff in the by and by. If getting a reward or avoiding punishment is our primary motive, then our primary motive is selfish. But to give up our spot in heaven for someone else? That's the depth of the service that God asks from us. Serve others because you genuinely want to serve them. Love others passionately even if that means complete self-sacrifice. That's the gospel call.

I admit. This is shocking to me. So often when we give and serve, it's for our own good in some way. Truly loving and serving takes our reward out of the picture and just loves and serves because loving and serving is good for others.

What happens after death is important. It's a beautiful promise that God has given us and it shows His love for us to give us such a promise. Part of faith is trusting God to make good on His promise. But when we make the gospel all about what happens after this life, we miss the point. By placing so much emphasis on getting ourselves to heaven, we change the focus of the message from others-oriented love to a self-serving something-for-nothing bargain contract. Reducing the message to "Jesus died so you don't have to go to hell; believe and be baptized so you can go to heaven" cheapens the gospel and it downgrades God. It turns the gospel into sin management to avoid punishment. It turns God into a petty tyrant who cannot forgive without legally extracting blood for every sin. This simplified message is unbiblical. The gospel message is a shining light that drives away darkness by enemy-loving others-oriented self-sacrificial love. It turns conventional wisdom upside down by teaching that it's better to give than to receive. It teaches of an almighty Creator who didn't use His power to force His will but rather demonstrated true power by radical self sacrifice and gave us a guarantee of the truth of this power by raising from the dead.

Peter Rollins tells about a friend of his who left the church. This friend told a parable upon his leaving the church. The exit parable goes like this (paraphrasing from memory).

I dreamed that I had died and was at the gates of heaven. I saw Saint Peter there and he said, "Hello and welcome in!" Just as I was about to step in, I noticed some of my friends there just outside. Some of them Buddhists. Some of them atheists. Some of them God knows what. And I said, "Peter, what about my friends?" Peter said, "Well, you know the rules." And just as I was about to step in, I remembered my reference point. Jesus. Jesus the friend of sinners. Jesus the friend of outsiders. Jesus who left heaven and became an outcast. And I said, "You know what, I'll just stay out here with my friends." Peter then looked at me with a huge smile and said, "At last! At last you understand! For God so loved the world that He forsook heaven!"

You see, following Jesus isn't just about getting myself to heaven. It's about driving darkness away and bringing heaven down to earth, like He did. I pray that I can be more about serving others for their good and not for my own good, more like Him.

Anchor Texts

Sometimes disagreements over Bible topics lead to one or both of the parties in the discussion questioning the other's commitment to Scripture. Unfortunately, I've been on both sides of this. Some think that if you reach a different conclusion on some topic, then you don't have a high regard for Scripture or you're dishonest or biased and that prevents you from seeing or accepting truth. I know some think this because I once thought this and I was taught this.

I must confess that I'm not always as committed to Scripture as I should be. I'm not always honest. And frankly, I read the Bible with bias. However, I also believe that describes everyone else that reads the Bible, too. I'm not saying that we should ignore blatant disregard, dishonesty or bias. But let's not be quick to throw out these types of accusations. People know these dangers and typically want to avoid them. Let's be optimistic about others' motives.

Bible discussions should be actual discussions of the text instead of accusations toward those who don't agree with us. We can't have loving discussions if we're going to turn the discussions into righteousness contests. If we're going to get into a righteousness contest, I probably lose. I know myself and my weakness and selfishness and darkness. I lose. And even if I happen to win the righteousness contest, I still feel like I lost for even being in a righteousness contest. It would be so much better if we discussed the text and the theological and doctrinal issues involved and seek to learn from one another instead of seeking to prove the wrongness and faithlessness of anyone who disagrees.

With that admonition in mind, I think I've stumbled upon a reason why people disagree that has little or nothing to do with one's honesty or commitment. Understanding this may lead to more thoughtful discussions, more seeking to understand, and less questioning of others' motives or faith. I think that the key is understanding the concept of what I'm calling "anchor texts". I've never heard or read this anywhere else, so take it for what it's worth. But I'd really like to try to I explain what I mean by "anchor texts".

Anyone who has studied the Bible seriously has noticed that there are some seeming contradictions. Some of these are trivial and easily resolved. However, other seeming contradictions are really difficult and diligent and honest study still leaves bona fide tension. Some Bible texts are not easily reconciled with other Bible texts. I don't know any Bible student who hasn't wrestled with Bible texts that are in tension.

One of the most classic examples of this type of tension is the tension between free will and predestination. Perhaps I shouldn't mention this one because it generates so much passion on both sides. But the passion and intensity in both directions of this tension set the stage for the character assassinations that so often happen, so maybe it is a good example to mention.

The most staunch 5 point hyper-Calvinist still has to deal with the fact that God changed His mind based on Moses' intercession in Exodus 32:14 (and several other instances of God changing His mind or course of action based on the actions of people). A Calvinist has to deal with the fact that the Bible presents people as having real choices, and the course of their lives and the lives of others and even God's actions are affected by those choices. On the other hand, the most convinced open-theist still has to deal with Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1-3 and the fact that Paul was a chosen vessel. There is tension between predestination and free-will. There are texts in the Bible that seem to support both ideas. Both sides of this have explanations for the texts that seem to support the opposing view. But each side anchors their belief on a set of texts and explains the passages that seem to support the other view in light of their "anchor texts".

That's not the only example. Consider women's roles (another one with quite a bit of passion on both sides). The most egalitarian or feminist among us still has to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:22, etc. The most complementarian or patriarchal still has to deal with Deborah, 1 Cor. 11:5, Romans 16:1,3,7, Galatians 3:28, etc. Again, both sides have explanations for the seemingly opposing texts, viewing their own "anchor texts" as more clear and therefore a guiding light for interpreting the other passages.

Consider the doctrine of hell and this one has tension in three vectors. Eternal conscious torment proponents still have to deal with the passages like 1 John 2:2 and Rom. 5:18 that speak of salvation for all men. They still have to deal with the fact that the Bible provides two options, life or death and that destruction doesn't mean "kept alive for ever and ever in order to suffer". The annihilationists still have to deal with Matt. 25:46 and Rev. 14:9-11. The universalists have to deal with Matt. 7:13-14. And they all have their explanations of the other texts.

There are many more of these types of subjects. There is tension between faith and works. There is tension between pacifism and justified violence. There is tension between eternal security and the possibility of losing salvation, etc. The Bible is a work that requires interpretation and living in tension. Because of this variety of Bible teaching, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it" just doesn't work. Interpreting the Bible is more than just getting your hermeneutics right. Exegeses are interrelated and application is cultural.

Something that complicates matters more is that most people have a theological and cultural framework and background that shapes how they read everything in the Bible. In other words, what someone chooses as an "anchor text" is very much influenced by his theological and cultural background, his faith tradition, his system of interpretation. These systems, in and of themselves, are not bad. In fact, they're helpful. Without them, we'd be forced to go back to basics every time we read the Bible. So, the result of a system is that almost every exegesis is influenced by the results of a number of other exegeses. To change one exegesis will likely have an effect on several others, and the relationships among them are not simple and changing one exegesis could threaten the whole system, and that's difficult, complex, and frankly very scary.

For example, a member of a church of Christ and a traditional Presbyterian have a completely different set of anchor texts because they have different systems. If one isn't familiar with the other's system, then an attempt to discuss a topic like infant baptism will be woefully unproductive. They're coming from completely different backgrounds and for a member of a church of Christ to change his exegesis of Acts 2:38 would have far reaching consequences on his system. Likewise, for the Presbyterian to change his exegesis of Eph. 1:4-5 would have many far reaching and complex implications to his system. If they're not familiar with one another's system or not willing to admit that they're using a system, then the discussion has the potential to end in attacks on one another's faith. Almost every exegesis depends on a large number of other exegeses. We must remember this in our discussions. These two don't disagree because one has faith and the other doesn't or one believes in inspiration and the other doesn't or because one is biased and the other isn't. They disagree because they have different systems of interpretation and therefore different anchor texts.

To be sure, I'm not saying that one theological system is as good as any other. I don't believe that at all. But I do believe a couple of things about these systems. First, I believe that if your system condemns all who don't accept your system, then your system is inherently not subject to correction and should be abandoned. This statement may not be immediately obvious, but think it through. Correcting a system means that it had a flaw. So, this brings a couple of options. One is that it is possible to have a flawed system and still not be condemned. That should beg the question of "Why is my flawed system acceptable to God, but others' flawed systems are not?" Another option is that the system itself must be abandoned because it is flawed, and you were condemned while you used that flawed system. Therefore, a system that condemns all who don't accept it cannot be subject to correction. Any system not subject to correction is dangerous.

A second thing I believe about these systems is that one's system determines one's anchor texts. Shifting anchor texts will require modifying one's system or abandoning it in favor of another system. It requires a huge amount of humility and courage to subject one's system to the test of reason and Scripture. Modifying or abandoning one's system can be extremely painful. I know this first hand because I'm still hurting badly from changing my system.  But we must subject even our system to Scripture so that the system can be modified or even abandoned. The best way I can think of for this type of testing to happen is for loving community discussions of these things among people who don't threaten one another if these discussions reveal a need to modify or abandon a system. And if someone isn't willing to subject his own system to this type of examination and test, then he has no right to ask others to do so.

So, when someone disagrees with me, it has much more to do with a difference in anchor texts than it does with a difference in integrity. Disagreement does NOT mean that they don't value Scripture. It does not mean that they're dishonest. It just means that they have a different theological system and therefore a different set of anchor texts to explain Bible doctrines that are in tension.

Judge Not

This is the second, and very much delayed follow up post to an image I posted on my Facebook back in June. The image is below and I think it communicates beautiful truths in a clever and artful way. It is from Greg Boyd's ReKnew ministry. You can read the first follow up post at this link. You can read the Facebook discussion at this link.

ReKnew Poster

A statement on the photo that caused caused some controversy was this: "Don't judge." I'm a little surprised it was controversial among some Christians since it's a direct quote from Jesus. Jesus at least twice says "Do not judge" (Matt. 7:1; John 7:24). Sure, there is a context to each of those statements, but I believe that each of those contexts support the obvious meaning of "Don't judge". I believe that we can take that simple instruction from our Lord at face value. Don't judge.

Regarding those two passages, I talked in more detail about John 7:24 in a post titled "Principles and Rules". Basically, I believe that John 7:24 teaches us not to judge people, but to carefully discern scripture, not seeking to condemn people. I wrote a paragraph about Matt. 7:1 in the second of a two part discussion of the relative weight of sins. I believe that the message of Matt. 7:1-5 is that we should recognize our own sins as big deal sins so that we don't become hypocrites, getting our righteousness from picking at others' sins while ignoring our own.

Do not judge people is a theme repeated in the New Testament. Several verses teach this. (Rom. 2:1, Rom. 14:4; Jas. 4:11-12; Luke 6:37). There are several others, too. The New Testament says multiple times, "Do not judge." To my knowledge, it never says, "Judge your brother." I do readily admit that sometimes righteousness demands pointing out and standing against evil. However, condemning people is not our business.

When you think through this simple prohibition, "Don't judge", it makes sense. I can't judge my brother for two reasons. First, I cannot know his heart and circumstances. Second, I don't have the power to save or to destroy anyone. Thank God that He alone has that power! I know I would get it wrong because I sometimes do judge and I more than likely have gotten it wrong. Don't judge is a fairly simple and a very fruitful commandment.

One may ask, "Doesn't Matthew 7:5 say to remove the speck after removing your own log? So, if I'm not guilty I can and should judge my brother." That's a fair question, and I understand how someone could read this passage that way. (I once did.) However, in this passage, Jesus is NOT telling us to judge others as long as our sins aren't worse than theirs. Jesus is not saying, "Get rid of your big sins so you can judge others for their small sins." When I think my sins are not as bad as others' sins, I become guilty of pride, one of the most deadly sins. If we are to remove someone's speck, how do we go about doing it? Jesus gives us advice for this just a few verses later when He recites the Golden Rule. I'm afraid that rather than providing my brother with the love and support he needs to make correction, I've been too busy proving that he's wrong and that I'm right. Then, I've played the "concerned for your soul" trump card which raised the stakes and caused me to justify all kinds of foul behavior, including whispering, backbiting, gossip, slander, withholding affection, and public humiliation. And that brings me right back to Matt. 7:3, where the one picking at a speck has a log in his eye. I can't count how many times I've seen and participated in gossip and evil speaking, justified by the "I'm concerned for his soul" line. I've learned that whenever I hear "concerned for your soul," I should prepare to see someone engage in foul behavior with the full blessing of his/her conscience. Judging people will lead to acting very ugly without the least bit of guilt or remorse to restrain the ugly behavior. That's the warning in James 4:11-12.

In the past, I've said, "I'm not condemning anyone to hell. I'm not issuing statements about anyone's eternal destiny." Then, I've followed that statement with, "I'm concerned for your soul." This is doublespeak. How else can someone interpret "I'm concerned for your soul," other than, "I think you're going to hell"? 

One reasonable concern with obeying the instruction "Don't judge" is that it can be taken to an extreme of never saying that anything is wrong. To be sure, that simply isn't what I believe or teach and I don't believe it is a necessary outcome of avoiding judging. We must call evil by its name. In fact, in this post I have said that slander, gossip, judging people, etc. are wrong. Sin is always destructive and if ignored will lead to destruction. We don't do well to ignore sin. "Don't judge" is not the same thing as "Ignore sin." That is a false dichotomy. However, we have no business judging the hearts of other people and absolutely no business issuing statements about the eternal destiny of others. In this post, I have called judging wrong and evil, but I have avoided judging people who practice those things. I believe one can have a pure heart and a strong desire to do good and right and still judge others. God can use those people and even their judging for good in ways that I can't predict. I don't believe judging is right or good, but I don't condemn the people who practice it and defend the practice. I don't know their hearts (I assume that they are pure) and I have faith that God is merciful.

Many, maybe even most, sins stem from pride. Judging, saying "I'm right and you're wrong", saying "God approves of me but He doesn't approve of you," saying "you're going to hell if you don't stop disagreeing with me because I agree with God," all of those things feed pride in an ugly way. Judging is a way to lord over our fellow man. It is a way to exert power over someone. That exerting of power is exactly opposite to what the kingdom of God is about (Matt. 20:25-28). Judging, in the sense of claiming to know motives and condemning people, is taking on a role that God has exclusively reserved for Himself. Judging is a destructive manifestation of pride.

Another objection to "Don't judge" is to explain away this simple instruction by saying that the instruction only applies to hypocritical judging. True enough, hypocritical judging is condemned in the Bible, and is a particularly ugly form of judging. But there are other condemnations of judging that do not refer to hypocritical judging, specifically Rom. 14:4; James 2:12-13; James 4:11-12. Judging our brothers leads to all manner of evil things and we are warned repeatedly against judging in the New Testament. To ignore that warning will lead to division, slander, gossip, hurt and divided families, arrogance, withholding affection, dangerous doctrines of exclusion and ungodly restrictions, and all manner of other sins that I can't foresee. Judging either leads to pride or comes from pride, and pride leads to destruction. We don't have to wait until the judgment day to see this destruction. I see it all around me right now and I don't claim to know how that's all going to shake out on the judgment day. Behave and speak like you will be judged by a law of liberty. Judgment is without mercy to someone who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

To be fair, some people may attempt to abuse this instruction not to judge. Some may say “Don’t judge me” meaning “Leave me alone in my sin. I like it here.” If we love them, we will not ignore their sin. On the other side of this coin, consider that many who say "Don't judge me" may do so as a defense mechanism because those who have judged them have been ruthless and harsh and arrogant in their judgment. There is a way to encourage people to forsake their sin without judging them, and the Bible gives us instruction about that in passages like Matt. 7:12 and Gal. 6:1.  Also, I'm NOT saying, "Don't judge me." Someone's judgment of me doesn't really make much difference. It may hurt my feelings, but that isn't really important. My point isn't "Don't judge me". My point is "Don't judge". It's not good to judge. It inflates the pride of some and discourages others.

It's fairly easy to say to someone, "You're wrong. You're dishonest. You're in sin. If you decide you'd rather go to heaven than continue what you're doing or believing what you're believing, you're welcome to join us again." It's a lot harder to look a person in the eye, see and try to feel their pain, empathize, and without condemnation say, "I believe in you. I know you're struggling, and I love you. I'm here for you no matter what." I pray that I can become much better at believing in people and overcoming sin with them, more like Him.

Salvation Is Now

I posted the following image on my Facebook page a while back, and it has attracted some interest. I think this image communicates beautiful truths in a clever and artful way. It is from Greg Boyd's ReKnew ministry.

ReKnew Poster

When I posted this image, I really didn't expect it to offend anyone who is a Christian. Apparently there were two statements on this poster that were more controversial than I ever thought they would be. I'll deal with one in this post and the second one later. You can see the image on my Facebook page and read the discussion at this link.

The first statement that caused some controversy was this: "Salvation is about your now life, not your afterlife." I think some people concluded from that statement that I don't believe in an afterlife. I really hate that confusion arose because of that. Let me be as clear as I know how to be. I believe in eternal life for the saved. God will raise the bodies of believers and give us an immortal body that is not subject to sickness, decay, or death. I can't really think of any other points that are more clearly set forth in the Bible.

So, what is the meaning of "salvation is about your now life, not your afterlife"? I believe that the reward of salvation is a very misunderstood concept. Yes, eternal life is a reward, but in what sense is it a reward? We often think of a reward as some sort of pat on the back for doing a job well. Whether that "pat on the back" is a bonus for going above and beyond at work or giving a treat to my cat for fetching (yes, my cat does fetch), we often think of a reward as something someone gets for doing something good. That is certainly a correct sense in which to use the word, "reward". However, when we consider the reward that accompanies salvation, that sense of the word falls incredibly far short, maybe even to the point of being inaccurate. When we treat the reward as arbitrary, as separate from the good work, we misunderstand both the work and the reward.

If your brain works at all like mine, there is something very distasteful about being a Christian just for the sake of what you can get out of it. When you consider what being a Christian is about, serving others expecting nothing in return, it makes even less sense to be a Christian for the "reward". And being a Christian just to avoid the punishment of not being one, that even approaches utter nonsense to me. It's a complete contradiction. How can self-preservation be the main reason I follow a Man whose ultimate act was completely giving of Himself for the good of others? It's nonsense. Being a Christian is NOT about self-preservation.

So, in what sense, then, can we say (as the Bible says, yes even as Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, says) that there is a reward to following Jesus? The reward of Christianity is organically, intrinsically connected to the work. I'd like to use a couple of analogies to help make this point.

First, consider marriage, and marriage is a prominent analogy for God's relationship to His people in Scripture. The reward of marriage is intrinsic to the relationship. I do good for my wife, not so that she will say, "Well done," or so that she'll do something good for me, but because I genuinely want to do good for her. The reward is in the doing! The relationship itself is the reward. And I enjoy when she does good for me, not primarily for the good I get out of it, but because I know she wants to do good for me and it brings her joy to work with me in our marriage for the good of our family. If she stopped doing good for me (something I can't imagine, but let me set it forth as a possibility), then I would still want to do good for her and would still find that rewarding. My marriage is NOT about me, and neither is my relationship with God.

Another analogy is my running. At my level, what is the reward of racing? I once won a 5k race and got a big trophy. I'll keep that trophy as long as I live. But that trophy, while a reward, is not THE reward for running. That trophy is not why I trained and competed. My reward is intrinsic to the running itself and the accomplishments that come with the running. And, this analogy is also Biblical. In 1 Cor. 9:24-25, Paul compares the crown of winning a race to the imperishable crown of working for the sake of the gospel. Just as the physical, perishable crown isn't the only (or even the truest) reward for winning a race, the imperishable crown isn't the only reward for working for the gospel. This is made more emphatic by considering that 1 Cor. 9:24-25 is in an overall context of giving up of oneself for the sake of others. That is a lesson that the Corinthians desperately needed, and chapters 8-10 are all about giving up yourself and your rights for the good of others. The reward of giving up yourself is intrinsic to the giving up of yourself.

The reward of being a Christian is not a disembodied soul fleeing to heaven. The reward is not an arbitrary pat on the back unrelated to the work that was done. As we have seen, the reward is in the doing itself and it is far and above any direct or equivalent payment for doing the work. And yes, being a Christian is work. It's a relationship, and relationships require work. Anyone who thinks that you can be a Christian without working at it misunderstands the nature of relationships and the nature of following Jesus.

The eternal reward, then, will include serving God and serving others and reigning and doing so in a resurrected immortal body. I don't know exactly what that will look like, but I know it will be much better than I can imagine. And there will be work to do and it will be rewarding. To be sure, what happens in our afterlife is extremely important. My intention isn't to set that aside. The Bible has a lot to say about the afterlife. But my point is that the afterlife is not an arbitrary pat on the back for doing good in this life. The afterlife is intrinsically connected to the now life. Here are a few verses to chew on that show that salvation is indeed about our work in our "now life". A half dozen passages come to mind without much effort... Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 6:2; Eph. 2:10; Col. 3:8-15; Gal. 5:25; 1 Cor. 15:58; etc.

Having clarified what I mean by "Salvation is about your now life, not your after life", I think that most of the confusion came from a figure of speech. By saying, "not your afterlife", the poster used hyperbolic contrast to emphasize salvation in the now. This is actually a very common figure of speech and it occurs often in the Bible, most often in a "Not... But..." construct.

Notice a very similar figure of speech that Jesus used. In Matt. 10:34, He said, "I came not to send peace but a sword." Now, we know that Jesus is the Prince of peace (Is. 9:6) and that He came to bring peace (Luke 2:14). But in this context Jesus is emphasizing that there would be strife within families because some would believe and some would reject Him. This is to be expected and is not a sign of defeat and the disciples on this limited commission need not be discouraged by it. Jesus likens this strife to the sword. "Not peace but a sword". Jesus wasn't saying that peace was not part of His message. Indeed it is and is a very important part of it. Similarly, rephrasing the statement on the poster to parallel Jesus's words in Matt. 10:34 yields "not your after life, but your now life." It's a figure of speech, emphasizing the truth that salvation produces tangible and radical change in your life right now.

This type of figure of speech appears throughout the New Testament and throughout language in general. Paul, after saying that he had baptized some in Corinth says, "God did not send me to baptize but to preach." Clearly baptizing was part of what Paul was to do. Peter told Ananias and Sapphira, "You have not lied to men but to God." Well, actually, they had lied to both. Jesus said "Do not lay up treasures on earth but in heaven." He didn't mean that we can't have a savings account. I could go on and on, but you should see that this is a very common figure of speech with biblical precedent.

I wish that hadn't caused confusion, but I really thought that was obviously a figure of speech. I had no idea that someone would interpret that to mean that I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't even know of anyone claiming to be Christian who teaches that.