Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Hey all...
I recently got into a battle of words with an atheist friend of mine who wanted to compare the "foolishness" of my having faith and the "intelligence" of his unbelief. It didn't take long before he simply gave up and retreated to name calling, and playing the wounded "victim" of religious intolerance. Sadly, it illustrated to me the great double-standard that believers are faced with nearly every day: When we share the faith and philosophies by which we live, it is called "shoving religion down people's throats"; when the world expresses their beliefs and standards, and causes everyone to be exposed to them (regardless of whether they share them or not), it is considered perfectly acceptable. To cry foul is to be labeled intolerant, closed-minded, or bigoted. But did you ever wonder why that's so? It's simple. While the Christian has the hope of one day seeing his or her faith proven, the unbeliever has no such hope. The Christian waits for the authority of God Himself to validate their faith, while the unbeliever must settle for the consensus of the crowd to validate his.
The truth is that I would never attempt to "shove my beliefs down someone's throat" in the form of trying to prove God's existence to someone who does not believe, for it is faith that is the "evidence of things not seen". What I can say is this: "I do not have to demonstrate that God's existence is provable, only that it is reasonable". Even the atheist Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Yet it is the atheist who is making the absurd and absolute claim that "of course" there is no God, when in fact there is absolutely no evidence to support such an obdurate assertion. It is, paradoxically, a greater act of faith to reject the notion of God than it is to accept it. Of course, Christianity is about far more that simply believing IN God; it is about believing God, and responding to His call, commands, and directives within the context of a personal relationship with Him. That is something that Christians acknowledge cannot be proven, for if it could, it would render faith meaningless. But it is faith that is the first essential ingredient. Whether it is the faith that causes us to say "There must be something greater than myself", or the egomaniacal faith that says "There could be nothing greater than man", both begin by supposing something to be true that cannot be proven. To be sure, the atheist demonstrates much faith (even more than one who is simply a deist) in his or her ability to ignore the evidence of such a great Creator; the problem is that it is not simply faith God seeks to develop - it is the type of faith that causes us to abandon our agendas and approaches to life, and to surrender our will to His. This is not simply a faith of believing something to be true; it is the faith that testifies to that belief by our actions.
The truth is that we all (as the great prophet Tom Petty once said), "take it on faith". George Bernard Shaw is "celebrated" by the world as a free thinker and liberal philosopher. But in his last writings we read, "The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which should have established the millennium, led, instead, directly to the suicide of Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith."
We all long to have our deepest foundational beliefs proven true. The Christian looks to Heaven, or to the return of Christ, as not simply the day when we are free from the bondages of sin and temptation, of loss and suffering, but also as the day when we will be able to say "I told you so!". But the reality is that I do not believe there will be much cause for doing so. For at that point, it is too late for the unbeliever, and I doubt that the genuine Christian would find much joy in gloating over their enemies being proven wrong, when such knowledge will also bring their condemnation. Ironically, it is the unbeliever who would most like to speak those words, for they would validate not a God outside of or over them, but their own "wisdom".
The next time you get into a discussion with an atheist about the existence of God, shake things up a bit and commend them on their faith. I'm not sure my faith in Christ would be as strong as theirs seems were I to have so little evidence to base it on. But also remind them that if they're right, they'll never be able to say "I told you so". I guess old Tom was right when he sang "You take it on faith, you take it to the heart, the waiting is the hardest part".
Dave
I recently got into a battle of words with an atheist friend of mine who wanted to compare the "foolishness" of my having faith and the "intelligence" of his unbelief. It didn't take long before he simply gave up and retreated to name calling, and playing the wounded "victim" of religious intolerance. Sadly, it illustrated to me the great double-standard that believers are faced with nearly every day: When we share the faith and philosophies by which we live, it is called "shoving religion down people's throats"; when the world expresses their beliefs and standards, and causes everyone to be exposed to them (regardless of whether they share them or not), it is considered perfectly acceptable. To cry foul is to be labeled intolerant, closed-minded, or bigoted. But did you ever wonder why that's so? It's simple. While the Christian has the hope of one day seeing his or her faith proven, the unbeliever has no such hope. The Christian waits for the authority of God Himself to validate their faith, while the unbeliever must settle for the consensus of the crowd to validate his.
The truth is that I would never attempt to "shove my beliefs down someone's throat" in the form of trying to prove God's existence to someone who does not believe, for it is faith that is the "evidence of things not seen". What I can say is this: "I do not have to demonstrate that God's existence is provable, only that it is reasonable". Even the atheist Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Yet it is the atheist who is making the absurd and absolute claim that "of course" there is no God, when in fact there is absolutely no evidence to support such an obdurate assertion. It is, paradoxically, a greater act of faith to reject the notion of God than it is to accept it. Of course, Christianity is about far more that simply believing IN God; it is about believing God, and responding to His call, commands, and directives within the context of a personal relationship with Him. That is something that Christians acknowledge cannot be proven, for if it could, it would render faith meaningless. But it is faith that is the first essential ingredient. Whether it is the faith that causes us to say "There must be something greater than myself", or the egomaniacal faith that says "There could be nothing greater than man", both begin by supposing something to be true that cannot be proven. To be sure, the atheist demonstrates much faith (even more than one who is simply a deist) in his or her ability to ignore the evidence of such a great Creator; the problem is that it is not simply faith God seeks to develop - it is the type of faith that causes us to abandon our agendas and approaches to life, and to surrender our will to His. This is not simply a faith of believing something to be true; it is the faith that testifies to that belief by our actions.
The truth is that we all (as the great prophet Tom Petty once said), "take it on faith". George Bernard Shaw is "celebrated" by the world as a free thinker and liberal philosopher. But in his last writings we read, "The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which should have established the millennium, led, instead, directly to the suicide of Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith."
We all long to have our deepest foundational beliefs proven true. The Christian looks to Heaven, or to the return of Christ, as not simply the day when we are free from the bondages of sin and temptation, of loss and suffering, but also as the day when we will be able to say "I told you so!". But the reality is that I do not believe there will be much cause for doing so. For at that point, it is too late for the unbeliever, and I doubt that the genuine Christian would find much joy in gloating over their enemies being proven wrong, when such knowledge will also bring their condemnation. Ironically, it is the unbeliever who would most like to speak those words, for they would validate not a God outside of or over them, but their own "wisdom".
The next time you get into a discussion with an atheist about the existence of God, shake things up a bit and commend them on their faith. I'm not sure my faith in Christ would be as strong as theirs seems were I to have so little evidence to base it on. But also remind them that if they're right, they'll never be able to say "I told you so". I guess old Tom was right when he sang "You take it on faith, you take it to the heart, the waiting is the hardest part".
Dave
Friday, October 2, 2009
I have a saying I use that goes "Agnostics are people that live like there's no God. Atheists are people who are mad at Him."
Anger at God is a method by which we attempt to manipulate our destiny. Shout loudly that there's no God, and maybe He'll reveal Himself to us. Shake our fist at God and call Him pitiless, and maybe He'll show mercy. Run away from God, and maybe He'll chase after me. The problem is that such an approach pretty much guarantees that we'll only further distance ourselves from Him. Why? Because God doesn't reward those who attempt to manipulate Him, but "rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
How often have we praised God when things are good, but hidden ourselves from Him when He's allowed trouble? Maybe we still go to church (even that's not always the case for many), but we use the difficult valley we're going through to justify our avoiding giving, serving, or worshipping like we would in times of blessing. At such moments what we're saying to God is "Bless me, and I'll be the person you want me to be; allow stuff like this, and I won't". But then... who's God in that relationship? God ceases to be God, and becomes one who is still greater than you in power, but not in position; one who can give us what we want (or choose not to), but not the One who is worthy of worship, obedience, and service "in any and every situation" (Phil. 4:12).
After losing four daughters in a terrible accident, Horatio Spaffard wrote these words: "When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll; whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul." While in our generation we rail against God if he allows a traffic jam when we're in a hurry.
If ever a culture could be labeled arrogant, immature, spoiled, and "entitled" -- it's ours. Anthony Robinson wrote "We have, it seems, grown fluent in the language of blame, complaint and grievance, while having lost our linguistic capacity when it comes to words such as, 'Please,' 'Thank you,' and 'I'm sorry'... In the end, it's the entitled who, however rich, are truly poor. Instead of knowing life as a gift, life turns into something that's taken for granted -- or worse, begrudged." How true. We simply expect good things as a matter of birthright, and when they seem scarce, we determine that we are then allowed to "punish" God, in whatever manner we beelieve will either convince Him to again dispense the blessings, or will sufficiently communicate our displeaure with His actions.
The problem of course is that in such an atmosphere, there is no room for humility. No place for nobility, valor, or self-control. There are times when God can shape up through His Word alone, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, or even through the hard lessons of others. But there are also times He cannot. When we get to the place where we oversee the molding process, and what circumstances are "allowable", we have taken God off the throne of our lives.
Chew thouroughly before swallowing...
Dave
Anger at God is a method by which we attempt to manipulate our destiny. Shout loudly that there's no God, and maybe He'll reveal Himself to us. Shake our fist at God and call Him pitiless, and maybe He'll show mercy. Run away from God, and maybe He'll chase after me. The problem is that such an approach pretty much guarantees that we'll only further distance ourselves from Him. Why? Because God doesn't reward those who attempt to manipulate Him, but "rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
How often have we praised God when things are good, but hidden ourselves from Him when He's allowed trouble? Maybe we still go to church (even that's not always the case for many), but we use the difficult valley we're going through to justify our avoiding giving, serving, or worshipping like we would in times of blessing. At such moments what we're saying to God is "Bless me, and I'll be the person you want me to be; allow stuff like this, and I won't". But then... who's God in that relationship? God ceases to be God, and becomes one who is still greater than you in power, but not in position; one who can give us what we want (or choose not to), but not the One who is worthy of worship, obedience, and service "in any and every situation" (Phil. 4:12).
After losing four daughters in a terrible accident, Horatio Spaffard wrote these words: "When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll; whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul." While in our generation we rail against God if he allows a traffic jam when we're in a hurry.
If ever a culture could be labeled arrogant, immature, spoiled, and "entitled" -- it's ours. Anthony Robinson wrote "We have, it seems, grown fluent in the language of blame, complaint and grievance, while having lost our linguistic capacity when it comes to words such as, 'Please,' 'Thank you,' and 'I'm sorry'... In the end, it's the entitled who, however rich, are truly poor. Instead of knowing life as a gift, life turns into something that's taken for granted -- or worse, begrudged." How true. We simply expect good things as a matter of birthright, and when they seem scarce, we determine that we are then allowed to "punish" God, in whatever manner we beelieve will either convince Him to again dispense the blessings, or will sufficiently communicate our displeaure with His actions.
The problem of course is that in such an atmosphere, there is no room for humility. No place for nobility, valor, or self-control. There are times when God can shape up through His Word alone, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, or even through the hard lessons of others. But there are also times He cannot. When we get to the place where we oversee the molding process, and what circumstances are "allowable", we have taken God off the throne of our lives.
Chew thouroughly before swallowing...
Dave
Friday, September 4, 2009
I have found that we charismatics have a strange and peculiar cycle we engage in. We say things like “God told me to do this”, or “God’s o.k. with this”, engage in the action, discover it wasn’t God’s will, suffer for it, yet have no doubt the next time we feel “led” to say “This time it really IS God speaking!”, How do I know this? Because frequently, someone who told me that God told them to do such and such, or that they “had a peace about it”, will later approach me and admit they were incorrect. It wasn’t God; they had simply dressed up their own desires in “God clothes”, which obviously will never produce the same results.
Two big problems here: First, you said “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord had not saithed! At the very least you declared (either verbally or by your actions) that God was “cool” with something He certainly wasn’t! Second, you called either the devil or yourself God, because those are the only other options for the source of the deception.
Not every conversation you have with your conscience is a conversation with God. Your conscience may be a gift from God, but like every other gift, it can be contaminated. God’s word to the people of Israel in Haggai 2 dealt with that very thing – when the pure touches the impure, it doesn’t purify it, but the impure sure can contaminate the pure! If I cheated on my wife, that mistress wouldn’t become pure because she was having an affair with a pastor! Or if I started doing cocaine, the dealer wouldn’t become a saint because I was. Jesus taught Peter that he needed to let Him wash his feet. Why? Because (as Jesus said) “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet”. It is your feet that touch the earth, and Jesus was telling us that as we walk through the contamination of this world, its residue will cling to us, and we need Him to continually cleanse us of that.
The next time you’re tempted to say “The Lord told me”, check to see how clear the channel is between you and Him. Is there any “dirt” that’s contaminating, or blocking off the pipeline? Pride, selfishness, and lust can all seem so right when that channel isn’t flowing as it should. Ask Christians who have thrown away marriages for “forbidden fruit”; pastors who have lost ministries for a moment or season pf pleasure... They will almost universally tell you that at the moment of their failure, what they were doing seemed to make perfect sense. “How could I be so stupid” is the general response after they “have come to their senses” (Luke 15:17).
My rule of thumb is that when “God” tells me to do something I already want to do, I take greater care in confirming it really is His voice speaking. It’s better to “consider the cost”, than to pay the price.
Maranatha!
Dave
Two big problems here: First, you said “Thus saith the Lord” when the Lord had not saithed! At the very least you declared (either verbally or by your actions) that God was “cool” with something He certainly wasn’t! Second, you called either the devil or yourself God, because those are the only other options for the source of the deception.
Not every conversation you have with your conscience is a conversation with God. Your conscience may be a gift from God, but like every other gift, it can be contaminated. God’s word to the people of Israel in Haggai 2 dealt with that very thing – when the pure touches the impure, it doesn’t purify it, but the impure sure can contaminate the pure! If I cheated on my wife, that mistress wouldn’t become pure because she was having an affair with a pastor! Or if I started doing cocaine, the dealer wouldn’t become a saint because I was. Jesus taught Peter that he needed to let Him wash his feet. Why? Because (as Jesus said) “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet”. It is your feet that touch the earth, and Jesus was telling us that as we walk through the contamination of this world, its residue will cling to us, and we need Him to continually cleanse us of that.
The next time you’re tempted to say “The Lord told me”, check to see how clear the channel is between you and Him. Is there any “dirt” that’s contaminating, or blocking off the pipeline? Pride, selfishness, and lust can all seem so right when that channel isn’t flowing as it should. Ask Christians who have thrown away marriages for “forbidden fruit”; pastors who have lost ministries for a moment or season pf pleasure... They will almost universally tell you that at the moment of their failure, what they were doing seemed to make perfect sense. “How could I be so stupid” is the general response after they “have come to their senses” (Luke 15:17).
My rule of thumb is that when “God” tells me to do something I already want to do, I take greater care in confirming it really is His voice speaking. It’s better to “consider the cost”, than to pay the price.
Maranatha!
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
