Maturity and the Christian Faith

This week I turn thirty and I thought it would be fun to look at the changes in my own belief system and the influences that have brought about such significant changes. I hope this can be educational to show that one's belief system should not grow stagnant and remain the same throughout a person's life, but that as a person matures so should their faith.

I was raised in a Christian home with a fundamentalist bent. I was taught to read the bible, to love Jesus, to pray, and to go to church every Sunday. I was taught that I was a sinner who needed forgiveness and that without Jesus I could not be saved. I went to a conservative church growing up that taught us to "witness" to people (a term that means proselytizing, or gaining converts). I was taught to feel guilty about my sins and to always ask Jesus for forgiveness when I sinned.

My first major crisis of faith came when I was a senior in high school. I was raised in a religious bubble where I just assumed that what I was taught was right and was never exposed to anything beyond my Christianity. Imagine my surprise when searching the internet one day I came across a website that "proved" the bible wrong. I felt like the earth was crumbling around me and I didn't know what to believe; my faith had never been challenged before. My bible teacher in high school (I went to a conservative Christian high school) introduced me to Josh McDowell, thus beginning a major shift in my belief system where I fell in love with Christian apologetics (defending one's faith) and desired to become something of a theologian.

During this period in my life, while in my early 20s, I was an outspoken fundamentalist college student, defending such doctrines as the trinity, the inerrancy of the bible, and the salvation only of Protestant Christians. When someone supported a belief I felt was unbiblical, I jumped on them with such an attack that I'd make Pat Robertson proud. I was outspoken against gay marriage, against abortion, and against any religion that was not remotely close to looking like orthodox Christianity. Then would come the most significant moment in my life.

In 2009 I became a hospice chaplain and would meet my mentor Dr. Lynn Euzenas. Both have had the biggest impact in my life. Ministering directly with the sick and dying has made me change my priorities in life. For the first time in my life I was in a position where my heart would be impacted even more so than my head. As I have worked with those who are sick and dying I have realized that many of the arguments for particular doctrines do not matter because what is important to God is not right teaching but right love. I Corinthians 13 teaches that love is the most important attribute of a Christian, and I finally understood what that meant. What is right doctrine without love of one's fellow human being? What kind of Christian are we if we would rather criticize a gay man for his orientation than love him for being a child of God? This is what I learned from my mentor and this is what I have learned from my ministry with those who are in the greatest need of love, those who are sick and hurting and fearful.

I no longer find it necessary to focus on sin, mine or another's. I still believe in the trinity but don't feel that God needs much defending. I think he's got a thick skin and can handle things himself. I no longer believe in the inerrancy of the bible because, frankly, it talks about the sun rotating around the earth which is scientifically incorrect. I no longer believe homosexuality is a sin and instead feel it important to show my love to my gay brothers and sisters in Christ because they are as much children of God as I am. I still believe abortion is wrong, but I will love those who have had and who have performed abortions as much as I love anyone else, because that is what Jesus says is right.

What I hope we can learn from this is that by sticking with a particular belief for the sake of being right we end up wrong in the end. By holding to a belief for one's entire life a person is so arrogant as to believe that he cannot possibly be wrong. We cannot grow stagnant in our beliefs but must constantly monitor for outmoded beliefs that especially hold us back from loving anyone. Our guideline for tossing out a doctrine should be this question: "is this doctrine preventing me from showing love to my fellow human being." If it is the case that a doctrine is causing love to be held back, we must toss it out and forget it, because it is not what Jesus would want us to believe. Let us therefore be mature believers and love one another as Jesus has loved us.

Blessings,

-Brandon

P.S. Don't forget to stop by amazon.com and purchase my book What Did Jesus Do for your kindle. It is still free for the next four days.

Jesus and the Non-Christian with Great Faith

There is a famous story which illustrates perfectly the inclusiveness with which Jesus showed to humankind while he was here; it can be found in Matthew 8:5-13 and reads thus:

⁵ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

⁷ Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

⁸ The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. ¹¹ I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. ¹² But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

¹³ Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

First off, a Centurion was a leader in the Roman military who oversaw 100 men. The Centurion was of Roman, and not Jewish heritage and would have practiced Mithraism as a religion. Mithra was a Roman god who was worshipped by the Roman military and would thus have been worshipped by this Centurion. This man with greater faith than Jesus had seen in all of Israel was therefore a pagan and did not even worship the one true God. Yet Jesus declared that his faith was greater than he had seen in all of Israel.

The first thing I want you to notice about this passage is that Jesus, knowing everything I have just stated, did not even hesitate to start heading to the Centurion's house the moment he was asked for help. Jesus did not begin to question the man about his faith, he did not ask the man for reasons why he should help him. Jesus, with no questions asked immediately began walking toward the Centurion's house because Jesus saw a need, felt compassion, and wanted to help.

Secondly, the man did not worship Jesus or become one of his disciples. He simply knew what he had heard about Jesus and went to him like anyone who was about to lose a loved one would have. His intent was not to convert to another religion or drop everything and follow Jesus. We read elsewhere that the man went back home and we presume that he went back to his normal life. And yet Jesus called his faith "great."

My reason for going through this is that Jesus did not hold back his blessing due to the Centurion's religious background or what he did for a living. What mattered to Jesus was that this man was hurting and he needed help. So Jesus felt compassion. Jesus allowed his blessing to rest on this man despite what he already believed.

Secondly, Jesus called this man, who wasn't even a part of Jesus' own faith tradition, a man of great faith. It did not matter to Jesus what god this man worshiped, or even that this man chose not to follow him after the healing; he still found it prudent to call this man's faith "great."

So what makes us as Christians so exclusive in the way we act. Why when people need help is our first question often "do you love Jesus?" It does not make much sense to me that when Jesus was so inclusive in his message, that we have become so exclusive in our message. A person can only have incredible faith if they are a Christian, according to us. And yet this man was neither a Christian nor a Jew and Jesus was able to call his faith "great."

Today we exclude people even when they are Christians. If someone is a Christ-follower but gay they are allowed no part in our services. If they come from the wrong denomination we deny them entrance into our church. And yet Jesus was able to call this strict pagan man a man of great faith.

Henry Brinton wrote a beautiful article about the welcoming table of Jesus. In it he discusses how Jesus' meal table is so large that there is always a spot open for those who wish to join. He also mentions how we have tended to shrink that table over time. I think it is time we as Christians once again work to enlarge our table to allow for a much more inclusive Church.

There are people in our community hurting and needing help, love, and compassion. When they seek these things from the Church they are often met with condemnation for one reason or another. We tend not to look past their tattoos or drug habits, their homosexuality or their foul language, their crazy hair or strange outfits. Instead we see what we disagree with and treat them with disdain. Instead, let's be more like Jesus by seeing what we have in common with them: our humanity. When we view people as human, it becomes easier to look past those things we disagree with and include them in our houses of worship. Let's show more love and compassion to all people we encounter today!

Please take the time to stop by amazon.com and purchase a copy of What Did Jesus Do for your Kindle today.

Blessings,

-Brandon

Does Paul Condemn Homosexuality?

In celebration of my soon to be released book, What Did Jesus Do, I am posting a portion from chapter three, discussing how Christian leaders have mis-represented the Bible at times, interpreting it in ways it was not intended. In this section I discuss how Romans 1 is so often used to condemn homosexual behavior, when that is not the purpose of the passage at all. Here I go in-depth explaining what Paul's purpose is and how we can better interpret the Bible today. Enjoy!

One of the most commonly twisted passages in Scripture today comes from Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This passage is often quoted in order to bring judgment and condemnation on homosexuals for their behavior which, in turn, makes them feel alienated from the Church. When Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality, and are asked, “where is homosexuality prohibited in the bible?” they invariably point to these verses as the authority that once and for all condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will not deny that this passage is describing same sex behavior. There is no doubt that this passage says women and men traded natural relations with the opposing sex for unnatural relations with the same sex. What is important is to take this passage in its context. Within the book of Romans, Paul is engaged in an argument in which he is describing God’s saving activity in which He brings humankind back into a right relationship with himself. He is laying out a logical argument in which he is showing why the saving act of Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for us to be brought back into the intended relationship with God. Paul is arguing in Romans 1-7 that the reason we need Jesus to be brought back into right relationship with God is because all of humankind has lost this right relationship by entering into sin. This passage is understood better when we go back earlier in the first chapter of Romans. The crux of Paul’s argument comes in vv 17-18 where Paul begins, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith,’” and then goes on to say, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” Beginning verse 18 with “for” Paul is using verse 18 to support verse 17 (Moo, 1996, 99). The righteousness of God is God’s saving activity to bring all of humankind back into a right relationship with him.32 This saving activity, as it is revealed later in Romans, was Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection (Romans 3:22, 24, 26; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11, 34, 39; 10:9). If verse 18 is supporting verse 17, then what this passage is saying is that God’s righteousness was revealed in Jesus because of the wickedness of men and women which revealed God’s wrath. Because of God’s wrath being revealed in the wickedness of humankind, God’s righteousness was revealed through Jesus’ death and resurrection. In other words, because of the wickedness of humankind, God’s wrath filled the earth. In order to end His wrath, it was necessary to send Jesus to die on the cross and rise from the dead in order to bring humankind back into right relationship with God.

What is important is that in verse 18 we read, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (emphasis added). Paul is not singling anyone out in the list of sinful behavior that follows. Paul is trying to point to the underlying sin in all humankind that makes God’s saving act in Jesus necessary. We read in Moo’s commentary that “Verse 18...begins with a universal indictment: all people stand condemned under the wrath of God” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is going to argue for universal condemnation as the state of humankind prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans is a letter directed mainly to the Jewish Christians in the Roman church, and one of the issues Paul is addressing is the feeling of superiority the Jewish Christians had over the Gentile Christians.33 Essentially, Paul is laying out an argument that will put the Jewish Christians on an equal plane with the Gentiles. The way Paul does this is by setting up a case against the Gentiles in chapter one, placing the Jews in a superior, yet vulnerable, position, and then pulling their superiority out from under them. Paul, then, begins his argument at the end of chapter one, which serves to condemn the Gentiles. Moo supports this with two points: 1. “the passage is reminiscent of Jewish apologetic arguments in which Gentile idolatry was derided and the moral sins of the Gentile world were traced to that idolatry,” and 2. “the knowledge of God rejected by those depicted in 1:18-32 comes solely through ‘natural revelation’” whereas the Jews were “responsible for the special revelation they have been given in the law” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is trying to bait the Jewish Christians in Rome to feel condemning of the Gentiles for their “sinful” behavior because he is trying to prove a point. The point comes with a twist in Romans 2:1 where Paul says, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things” (emphasis mine). The situation Paul is describing in chapters one and two is the situation as it would look before the saving act of Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is trying to tell the church in Rome that all are condemned without Jesus regardless of what their behavior is. We are all on an equal footing without Jesus, and we are therefore all on an equal footing with Jesus. So what we have in Romans 1-2 is a depiction of the sinful state of humanity as a whole (the Gentile and the Jew) which, therefore, needs the saving grace of God through the act of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We are smart to remember that Paul goes on to say in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). Paul was not singling out any sin in Romans as wrong, or as being worse than any other. In fact what he was doing was placing all sins on an equal plane. He was simply describing the state of fallen human kind. Therefore it manipulates Scripture to point to Romans 1 as a prohibition of homosexuality and, therefore, a justification of excluding them from worship in our churches. We might as well exclude everyone from worship in our churches since all have sinned.

It is really interesting that the passage many Church leaders point to as a judgment against homosexuality is a passage which, in its context, condemns those who judge sinful behavior. This passage says there is no difference between sinners. Moo discusses the fact that homosexuality being singled out in Romans 1 has to do with the fact that this is not something Jews would have participated in because of how ingrained it was in their culture that homosexual behavior was impure and sinful. Yet Paul says that the Jews, in their own sinfulness, have done the same things (Romans 2:1; Moo, 1996, 113-117). What this passage in Romans does, more than anything, is condemn us today for doing the same thing the Jews were doing in the church in Rome, considering ourselves superior because we have the law on our side, when in fact the sins we have committed have made us just as guilty.

Again, the point of Paul's letters is not to condemn people, but to show people how truly loving, and merciful, and compassionate God is. Let us begin showing this side of God to people.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Easter and the Crucifixion of Jesus

With Easter coming up on Sunday I've been thinking a lot about Jesus' death and what he died for. I think it is often helpful in my spiritual walk at times to try and reframe some of my beliefs, not necessarily to overrule them, but to help me think of new ways a particular doctrine might be relevant.

Jesus' death is often associated with salvation for wrongs done. The question arises "why did Jesus die on the cross," and the answers come pouring in: "he took on himself the sins of the world," "he received the punishment that was due us," "he paid the debt we owed." And so it goes that the most often given answer for the reason of Jesus' death was to somehow atone for wrongs done.

Now, if you read my last blog, you know that I had a way of reframing sin as a person's hurts rather than bad behavior. This view causes us to feel empathy toward "sinners" rather than condemnation. What if we used this reframing as a way of looking at Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus did not die to atone for sins but to bear our pains and our burdens. Jesus wasn't receiving punishment, but was taking upon himself the hurts of humankind.

We read in Isaiah 53:4 that the Messiah would "[take] up our pain and [bare] our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted." This prophetic passage even addresses that we will miss part of the point of the death of Jesus. Now, I do not deny that Jesus' death was in part done to atone for our sins. I am simply looking at an additional way his death can be viewed.

This view makes God the Father less of a cruel God who would make his son take on the punishment of the world, and more of a compassionate God that would allow his son to bear our pain and our suffering; maybe because he knows Jesus can take it.

Each one of us has a burden to bare that brings us pain. Sometimes this results in addiction, sometimes behavioral problems, and sometimes mental problems. I want all of you to know that you are good just the way you are and that God has felt our pain by suffering on the cross. By his resurrection, he showed that with him we can overcome the burdens we bare. Unlike the message we so often receive from the Christian Church, Jesus is full of love and compassion and cares about each one of us with no amount of judgment or criticism.
Blessings and happy Easter,
-Brandon

Sin: It's Not What You Think It Is

During much of this past week I've been thinking a lot about the concept of sin. I understand that sin is a concept that is clearly addressed in the Bible, but I am wondering how much that concept has been misinterpreted and misused over the past two thousand years. Traditionally the term sin has denoted wrongs committed and has been used for the purpose of condemnation and has caused the alienation of many people because of the so-called sins they have committed. So how can we look at sin differently that might help clear things up and portray scripture in a more accurate light?

Last week I discussed sin as being a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. What if we look at sin this week as a hurt or a pain that one experiences? One of the definitions for the Greek word typically translated as sin is "to miss the mark," or "to be without a share in." These are both things that cause a great deal of distress and pain in the person who misses the mark and is without a share in. So it is reasonable that "sin" refers to a hurt of some kind which may result in bad behavior.

I think this is a better definition because it doesn't allow for the exclusion of someone because of a sin, but instead welcomes greater love and compassion toward sinners. Defined the traditional way, sin tends to bring about criticism by people for the way a sinner might live his or her life. If you are gay you are seen as a sinner by many in the church who will then shun you. If you have had an abortion, you will be excluded from certain church groups. The pastor gets up to the pulpit on Sundays and preaches against sin, bringing about a feeling of condemnation in those who are in the pews.

Defined in this new way, sin breeds a sense of empathy from those who sense the pain of the "sinner". Instead of creating an atmosphere of exclusion, sin now brings people together because people want to help those who are in pain. When we view sin not as a wrong committed but a pain felt, it lends itself to a more loving church body that wants to bring in sinners instead of keeping them away.

This interpretation also changes how we interpret the saving act of Jesus's crucifixion. Instead of Jesus being punished for our sins, an interpretation which breeds more guilt in me than relief, Jesus bears our burdens and our pain, making what we bear a little less burdensome. This accords with the words of Scripture where Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden light, easing our burdens. It also is in tune with Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic passage about the Messiah, which reads, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.". Not only does this prophetic passage interpret sin in the new way we have interpreted it here, but it also predicts that we would interpret sin in the traditional way in which we have by calling the crucifixion a punishment from God for our sins. It seems to me this newer way of interpreting sin is more biblical than the traditional way.

But what about those passages in the Bible where Jesus and John the Baptist are telling people to repent and turn away from their sin? Here is how that comes to be translated. The term "repent" means to turn away from one thing and towards another. What these men are saying is that I can turn away from my pain and face Jesus where I will receive comfort. When repentance is called upon by us, it is repentance from our hurts toward a man of compassion, Jesus Christ, from whom we can be healed and comforted from all of the pain that we experience in this life. Won't you repent with me and turn away from what is causing you pain, to receiving the ultimate healing from Jesus?
Blessings,
-Brandon

Sin is A Symptom, Not the Problem

In many, if not most Christian churches today we often hear messages condemning sin and asking us to make a change in our lives. These messages are often filled with guilt-laden comments, guilting us into making a change in our lives which, because of the way the change is brought about, does not last for long and we end up deeper into our "sin" than we ever were before. Why does this phenomenon take place? It is because in the Christian church we are addressing the wrong thing when we address sin. When a person goes into the doctor with a pain, the doctor can treat the pain or look for an underlying problem. People don't normally have pain without an underlying problem. If the doctor treats the pain, the thing causing the pain might get worse and the pain might therefore get worse. In order to fix the pain, the doctor must ignore the pain and fix the underlying problem. Every sin is a symptom of an underlying problem that is going untreated in the Church. What is the underlying problem? Emotional pain.
The only reason people get involved in sin; whether it be drinking in excess, cheating on their spouse, involvement in pornography, etc., is because they are trying to self medicate. If you ask an alcoholic about their childhood they will tell you that nothing they ever did was good enough for their father. If you ask a porn addict, they will tell you they never got enough attention. What is condemnation and a guilt trip going to do to those already feeling such pain? It is going to drive them deeper into their sin. Criticizing an alcoholic for their drinking is going to make them want to medicate even more by drinking even more. Instead what the sinner needs is an increase in love. Let's take a look at what Jesus did with sinners.
The best example in the bible of Jesus's response to sinners comes in Matthew 9:9-13 where Jesus is walking along and sees a tax collector named Matthew sitting at his tax booth. Tax collectors in Jesus's day were seen in the same way as gay couples are seen today by many in the Church. Jesus did not condemn Matthew for his tax collecting. Instead, Jesus invited Matthew to follow him and even ate at his house with other tax collectors. Instead of showing condemnation, Jesus showed care and compassion by loving and accepting the tax collectors; giving them what they likely had never experienced before. The religious leaders of Jesus's day, on the other hand, did what the Church tends to do with sinners today: it condemned the "sinners" and Jesus for eating with sinners. Then Jesus gave his famous line: " it is the sick who are in need of the physician, not the healthy."
Jesus knew that sinners enter into sin because of the pain they are feeling. He knew that it was ridicule that drove them deeper into their sin. He knew that the only cure for sin for them was for him to befriend them and love them. By accepting them for who they were, Jesus helped the men and women of his day to overcome sin. The next time you see someone sinning, don't criticize them for sinning; that will only drive them deeper into their sin. Instead, empathize with the pain they must be feeling for them to be driven to sin, and show them the love and acceptance of which they are in such desperate need. And hopefully the pastors of our churches will follow our lead and end the condemnation that so often comes from their pulpits.
Sincerely,
-Brandon

Would Jesus Be Welcome in the Church?

The title question of this post is based off of an interview with Rick Warren done recently in his News and Views Blog where the Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church and author of A Purpose Driven Life defends against attacks from those who are saying he has compromised his faith recently because of eating with a group of Muslims after Ramadan ended. The attacks claim that Rick Warren is sacrificing his Christian faith by eating with the Muslims which is a sign of collaborating with them to form a new church. Rick Warren simply calls it "being a good neighbor." He goes on to question whether Jesus would even be allowed in some of these churches which protest so strongly against actions that even Jesus himself might be caught doing. So the questions arises: "would Jesus be welcome in the Church today?"

If a Christian today who is seen eating with Muslims is said to be compromising his faith, then it certainly seems like Jesus would be considered by those same believers also to be compromising his faith when he eats with tax collectors and prostitutes. If association with a particular group that one considers to be antithetical to Christianity makes one less of a Christian, than certainly Jesus fits that bill.

We can look even further and see how the behavior of Christians that go to bars is viewed. My Senior Pastor's son was killed three and a half years ago outside of a local bar. Many people were stunned by the brutality and raged against this heinous crime. Unfortunately some could not get passed the fact that a pastor's son was at a bar. The issue of the evil of the attack didn't even come to bare in this situation for those who questioned the integrity of this "supposed Christian." But wouldn't Jesus go to the bar today? He sat and visited with people that were seen as the vilest scum of the earth, like the Samaritan woman, or the Gerasene demoniac who could only find solace among the tombstones. Why not say that Jesus would also visit bars and prisons on a regular basis. I can imagine Jesus going down to skid row and death row. I can see him hanging out with the crips and the bloods. These are today's versions of the people we see Jesus hanging out with in the Bible. And yet if any of us were found with these types of people, we would immediately be seen as backsliders and expelled from the church.

The moment a Christian becomes accepting of homosexuality and speaking up for gay rights, that person is immediately singled out in the church as a heretic and made to leave. Do Christians not see and understand that their behavior matches exactly the behavior for which Jesus so adamantly criticized the religious leaders of his day. Among those religious leaders Jesus was seen to be a drunkard, a reveler, a rioter, and someone who laughed too much. He was the life of the party. And he certainly would not have been welcomed in the Church today. He would have been viewed as a heretic and a backslider. This is certainly something to think about the next time we begin to criticize someone for their "anti-Christian behavior."
Blessings,
-Brandon

Anthony Weiner and Jesus: The Biblical Response

When big events occur in our time, I often wonder how Jesus would have responded. When I see church leaders on TV proclaiming the message to repent, I wonder what Jesus would say to them today. When athletes outspokenly thank God for their superstar performance, I wonder what Jesus might have to say to them. And when politicians are caught in a scandal and our leaders fall, I wonder if Jesus would be condemning of them or merciful.

Just about everyone in the United States is familiar with the scandal surrounding New York representative Anthony Weiner. Today he admitted having sent lewd photographs of himself to a young woman over twitter, one of many it turns out he has sent over the previous few years. In the weeks since the tweet was made (publicly instead of privately like he had intended) he lied to several media outlets, claiming his twitter account had been hacked and that he had not sent the tweet.

Jesus is God, a Core Doctrine: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

Last week I discussed 3 doctrines in the Church that I consider to be marginal issues. They are doctrines that regardless of where you stand on them, have no impact on your salvation. Again, I define marginal doctrines as those doctrines that you could disown without effecting your status as "saved." I could probably write a blog every day for the next year, and still not be done with marginal doctrines. Such doctrines as the virgin birth, proper age and execution for baptism, and whether Satan exists or not are all marginal doctrines that divide Christians because we take them to be necessary for our salvation. If we do not take them to be essential for our salvation, then our arguing is done in vain.

If you haven't guessed already, I define "core doctrines" as doctrines a Christian must believe in order to ensure their salvation. The first doctrine I would like to address as core is the doctrine of Jesus' divinity/humanity. I place divinity and humanity together as each attribute tends to be overemphasized in certain groups and it is forgotten that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. This doctrine is important and core for multiple reasons. The main issue is that, as Scripture points our throughout, it is important not to worship any false gods. Exodus 20:3 is clear that "you shall have no other gods before me." God wants us to worship him, and no idols that we make up and place as God. Therefore it is important to know who God is and who he consists of, in order to ensure that we are worshiping the one true God.

Therefore, if Jesus is divine, and therefore considered one with God, it is important that we address him as God, because if we do not, then we are not worshiping the one true God.

We have from Scripture numerous sections that refer to him as God. Most clearly he is referred to as God in John 1:1 which states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also in John 20:28, after Jesus revealed himself to doubting Thomas as the resurrected Lord, Thomas exclaims, "my Lord and my God" falling down to worship him. In every other Scripture passage where someone falls down worship someone that is not God, including the angels, that person is told to get up and not to worship them for they are not God. In this passage Jesus responds, "seeing you have believed. Blessed are they who having not seen, yet still believe." So it is clear from these passages that Jesus is God.

Jesus does many things that only God can do, including forgiving people of their sins, and knowing their thoughts. It is clear from Jesus' actions that he is God.

It is clear from much of the New Testament that we are to include Jesus as part of the Godhead. Therefore, if you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, you are not worshiping the one true God.

Now, I am not going to argue for the trinity in this post, but let me say that it is necessary for one to believe in the trinity in order to be following the proper God. The reason for this is that it is clear that God states he is one, and that there is only one god. Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "hear o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." Therefore, if we are to worship the proper God, he must include Jesus, and yet remain one.

So it does not matter what one thinks about end times, about what specific actions count as sins, or about the inerrancy of the Bible. In the long run, none of those beliefs matter. But one belief that does matter, is that Jesus is God and that God is One. Come back tomorrow as I continue my series on the Core Doctrines of the Church as we discuss the next core doctrine.

Is the Bible Inerrant: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

As controversial as the previous two marginal beliefs were, I think the doctrine I am going to discuss in this post will be the most controversial of all, and that is the doctrine of inerrancy. If there is one thing Christians fight over more than anything else, it is what the Bible says, and how authoritative the word of God is. One end of the spectrum says that the things in the Bible transcend all culture and all human values, and provides us with the ultimate truth. There is the other end of the spectrum which says the Bible is full of good stories that we can learn from, but ultimately is not a good source of objective truth. I do not fall on either end of the spectrum, and do not believe Christians should hold firmly to either side.

Before I go any further let me clarify that much of the Bible should be taken as having actually happened. The historical account of Jesus Christ that we find in the Scriptures should be believed and not doubted in the slightest. Much of the events recounted in the Old Testament can be believed as completely true. And most of the precepts taught in Scripture are good rules to live by that ultimately bring us closer to God. But let me also be clear that we worship Jesus Christ, not the Bible. To adhere to the claim that the Bible is perfect in every respect and does not speak wrongly in any way, is to set the Bible up as an idol and sets your faith up for failure.

If your faith rests on the idea that the Bible contains no errors, the moment an error is shown to you, your faith will crumble. And it is not difficult to show errors in the Bible. For instance, Joshua 10:13 describes a moment in battle when the Israelites were defeating a community in the land of Canaan and Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still to allow for a longer day so that they could be victorious. In this passage we are told that the sun stood still, which would accord with a world that believed the sun rotated around the earth, but is not accurate scientifically. Therefore, this is an error in the Bible, showing that Scripture is not inerrant. I do not believe it would be fruitful to continue on with more examples here, so I will allow the Joshua example to suffice.

Lifting up the Bible as inerrant makes it an idol and creates a Church that practices what Karl Barth called "biblio-idolatry."



Biblio-idolatry is the practice of holding up everything in Scripture as good to do. But if we read Leviticus 20:13 as something good to do, we would be rounding up the gay community and putting them to death. I am sure no one would abide by such a barbarous rule today. Yet there are Christians who hold so strongly to particular interpretations of Scripture and uphold the Bible as a god, that you wonder if they have room for the love of Jesus in their lives.

This is another area where if we find ourselves in debate with another Christian about a particular text in the Bible, or even just debating about the inerrancy of Scripture, if there is no give from the other person, we should not feel the need to debate to the death. The Bible, we need to remember, was written 2000 years ago in a completely different culture by many different men and women, in multiple languages, and consists of 66 different books spanning several thousand pages; and our fallible and finite minds are not capable of interpreting the Bible perfectly, and we need to allow for error in our own interpretations.

I do stand by 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Many often turn to this passage as proof that Scripture is without error. First off, you should not use material from the very resource you are debating to prove that resource is without error. Secondly, this passage simply says the Bible is good for our edification in good works. It does not say that the Bible always gets things right. All of the commandments in the Bible are intended to bring us to two things: 1. love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and 2. to love our neighbor as ourself. To these two things do all the law and the prophets point. So let us love one another and get along in peace.
Blessings,
-Brandon

End Times, a Marginal Belief: A Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

Beginning our series on core vs. marginal beliefs, I have decided that I will start by discussing marginal beliefs and end the series by discussing core Christian beliefs. That was the easy part as I planned for this series. The difficult part was deciding what marginal beliefs to discuss. As I discuss the marginal beliefs, I want to pick out the ones that Christians today tend to fight most over. It would do no good to point out marginal beliefs that most Christians already agreed were marginal. What is important is that we establish what marginal beliefs we most argue over with the hope that, knowing they are not part of the core of what we believe, we will no longer view them as worth arguing over. One of the most divisive of all of these marginal doctrines centers around end times theology, or eschatology.

I have seen churches split over end times theology. I have seen members thrown out of churches because of their eschatology. I have seen Christians attack each other in the name of the end times. When the number two commandment in Scripture is to love your neighbor as yourself, defending end times theology to the death is wrong whether it is a core belief or not.

There are several different beliefs regarding the end times that have caused many splits and many different factions within Christianity. There are churches that devote every worship service to preaching the end times. But is end times theology all that important? Does it make a difference in the lives of Christians? Does our salvation depend on having a correct eschatology? The answer to the last question will determine whether eschatology is a core doctrine or a marginal one.

As I read Scripture, though it is important for us to know that Jesus will come again, it is not important for us to know when or how. Matthew 25:1-13 is a parable that many interpret as a parable about the return of Christ at the end of time. Verse 13 is especially insightful: it starts our by telling us to "be on the alert" for his return. So we are asked by him to acknowledge that he will come back and to be aware that it could be anytime. But the second part of the verse warns, "for you do not know the day nor the hour." This verse assumes that even we today do not know when his return will be, or even if we will still be here on this earth. Therefore, to conjecture about when Jesus' return will be is fruitless, and to argue over the details and fight with other Christians about it, is to miss the point of the end times: we do not and cannot know when it will be.

Finally, Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36 are informative: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." If not even Jesus himself knows about the details of the end times, who are we to think we can? If only the Father knows, is it that pertinent for us to attempt to attain such high knowledge? Our eschatology, our knowledge of the end times do nothing for our salvation and say nothing about our position in the Church, within the body of Christ. The Bible is clear on this, end times theology is a marginal belief that should not be defended to our utmost. If there is any core doctrine in Christianity relating to the end times, it is that Jesus is going to return, and I question even if that is core. Whether we believe if Jesus will return or not does not effect our salvation according to Scripture.

So as we interact with other Christians, let us continue to engage each other with an attitude of love and compassion, and when we are debating about the end times, let us be willing, for our edification and theirs, to let go of arguing, knowing that this is a marginal belief.

The Bible and the Will of God: a Series on Christianity's Core Beliefs

From the beginning of Church history, all the way up until today, the most divisive issue for us Christians is doctrine. One person believes in infant baptism and another does not, so you fight. One person believes in having communion every week and another does not, so you fight. One person believes Jesus will return before Christians are taken up another does not, so you fight. I have been staying away from the Christian message boards because instead of being places of love and compassion, acting out Jesus' example, they are more like theological boxing rings where Christians try to knock the other person out with their best argument for their particular theology. But this is not how Jesus intended for Christians to treat each other. 1 Thessalonians 5:10-11 says "[Jesus] died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing." This is the purpose of the body of Christ, the Church, to build one another up in mutual encouragement, not to tear each other down for bad theology.

That does not mean that we are not to beware of false teachings, however. We are taught in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Bible is clear in many places that we are to beware of false teachings. Paul himself wrote many times to defend against false teachings that were being brought into the Church.

During Jesus' ministry, he warned against false teachings that came from the Pharisees called "the tradition of the elders." We find this in Mark 7 where Jesus and his disciples were eating. While they were eating, we are told that the Pharisees came up to Jesus and asked him why his disciples had not washed their hands properly before eating. This had nothing to do with germs, and everything to do with spiritual cleanliness. The Pharisees believed in the traditional teachings from older scribes who interpreted the Old Testament law in such a way that they believed it taught that one had to wash their hands a very specific way before they could eat. There were many such laws that came from the tradition of the elders, that the Pharisees believed in and was much of the reason they went around criticizing Jesus and his disciples, because they were not abiding by such traditional laws, which the Pharisees felt they needed to in order to maintain their Jewish identity against the foreign occupation of Rome.

In much the same way, Christians today hold on to interpretations that come from tradition of men rather than from the Bible, and argue for their beliefs in such a way that if you do not believe in them, you are not a good Christian. The problem is two-fold. First of all, it comes from a lack of distinction between core and marginal beliefs. Core beliefs are those beliefs that one truly must believe in order to consider oneself a part of that world view. For Christians, a core belief is a belief that is necessary for one to believe, in order for that person truly to be a Christian. Marginal beliefs are beliefs held by Christians that one can change, reformulate, or even drop, and still be considered a Christian. What often happens is that marginal beliefs are confused with core beliefs and people argue for these beliefs as if they are the most important belief one can hold. This often happens with end times beliefs. End times beliefs are really a marginal belief that many people count as a core, necessary belief, and they get enraged if you call yourself a Christian and do not believe the doctrine as they do. I will discuss this more later this week as we go through this series on core vs. marginal beliefs.

The second problem for Christians is there argumentative style. We are reminded in 1 Peter 3:15 "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." It seems like we all too often forget that "with gentleness and reverence" part.

As we argue for our beliefs, we need to match our tenacity with the kind of belief it is. The more core a belief, the more tenacious we can be in how we argue. If it is a marginal belief, give-in if it is obvious the other person is being stubborn. It is not worth the argument. If it is a core belief, you don't have to give-in, but remain loving, gentle, and reverent through the entire debate.

We are supposed to be Christian brothers and sisters in Christ, present for the mutual uplifting of one another. For the next three or four days I will discuss certain core beliefs that we should remain strong on, and certain marginal beliefs that we need to begin being less strong on. Remember as I go through these core and marginal beliefs that what is most important is that we follow the two greatest commandments taught to us by our Lord Jesus Christ: "to love the Lord God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourself." Never lose sight of the greatest commandments: the commandments to love.
Blessings,
-Brandon