The Turn of the Tide?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

The above poll put out on July 9th, 2009 shows that the American people now trust the Republicans more than the Democrats on eight out of ten key voting issues. Along with this the poll also indicates the Republicans are gaining ground on the areas known to be Democratic strong points, namely health care and education. How is this a turning of the tide? Let us look back one year ago. During the heat of the presidential elections the same poll released by Rasmussen showed the Democrats leading in nine out of ten key electoral areas. In just 12 short months the left in this country has managed to lose trust on seven, SEVEN key electoral issues with the American people and according to Rasmussen the outlook for healthcare and education isn’t looking so hot either.

Rasmussen is reporting a whopping 14 point decrease in the publics trust for the Democrats on health care!! That’s right. In May the Democrats led the Republicans on the issue of healthcare by eighteen points. They now have a meager 4 point lead. On the issue of education the Dems held a 15 point lead in May over the GOP. That lead has since dwindled to 3 points.

What does all this mean? Is there a turning of the tide in American politics? I am not entirely sure. What I do know is this: trust is earned. The Dems asked the American people to vote for “Change they could believe in.” I would give you a little piece of advice from the movie Braveheart, Mr. President. “Men don’t follow titles. They follow courage.” No one will care in six months that you were the first black president (even though you are only half black) and no one will remember your “Hope” stickers in half that time. No one will care about your campaign rhetoric, your trips to 5 Guys or your grand speeches from the White House lawn. As unemployment reaches 10% and your approval rating is slipping people will be looking your way to make good on the promises you made to them on the campaign trail. Now as someone who knew your were lying through your teeth the entire time I am not disappointed in the least. On the contrary, you have met every expectation and prediction with stunning accuracy. Rise in unemployment? Check. Stagnant housing market? Check. Degrading stock markets? Check.

If you want anyone to remember anything at about you other than the fact that you put this economy in the worst shape it has been in since Carter, I’d suggest you stop being such an idealist and start living in the real world. Because I’ve got to tell you how we say it in the South, “Things a’int lookin’ up for ya there bud!”

Is theology relevant?

Lately I have embarked on an independent study of the procession of the Holy Spirit for an independent study course at Wesley Biblical. In reading and preparing for it I have had to ask myself the question of relevance. Does a discussion on the procession of the Holy Spirit have any meaning or bearing on modern Christian practice?

Honestly, I believe it does. Let me give a little history for those who may not be acquainted with some particulars. When the Symbol of Faith was ecumenically confirmed in 325 at Nicaea the phrase regarding the Holy Spirit simply read, after stating belief in the Son, “And in the Holy Spirit.” In 381 at the Council of Constantinople the Symbol was changed (ecumenically of course) to include “the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets” when speaking of the Holy Spirit. Sometime in the later sixth century the Latin speaking churches began to speak of the Spirit’s procession “from the Father and the Son…” when reciting the Creed. This was largely due to the battle against Arianism in Spain. It eventually led to the great Schism between the East and West.

Some have argued this point as being moot. Is it even relevant for us to discuss a doctrinal difference? I believe it is very important. The Creeds are not merely agreed upon statements of doctrinal faith. They are statements which attempt to distill the fundamental truths of reality as they are revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is who he said he was, then the Creeds are absolutely vital to understanding his person and work. The Symbol is not a mere invention of men but is the work of saints who were attempting to give expression of what they perceived to be the most basic truths regarding faith and practice. Their statements are wholly biblical in nature. Many have argued to exclude the creeds from faith as they are not “divinely inspired” and therefore of some lesser importance than the Scriptures. The problem with this, of course, is that the Creeds are wholly based on Biblical authority. Their expression is the expression of the Biblical and apostolic witness.

We return to our query of the relevance of theology. Is it important for pastors to be able to think theologically? Does the discussion of theological matters have bearing on the Christian Church of today? It does. Virtually all statements we make regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ have been explored theologically. Do we pray to Jesus for salvation? If so, we do it with a theological framework. Do we praise God for his good works? If we do, we do so with a theological framework. What that framework is and whether it is biblical or not is the topic of another discussion. The point here is that theological thinking is ever prevalent in the Christian faith. One cannot escape from it, no matter how hard you try. If this is the case, then theological thinking and discussion is profoundly relevant; a fact that we, as ministers of the Cross, should never take lightly.

The Joy of Completion

Just wanted to make a quick update here.

I have completed the final portions of all my work for my Techniques of Research class. This included completing:

A critical book review of "The Openness of God" by Clark Pinnock and others.
A theological issues paper regarding the frequency of the administration of Holy Communion.
A final exam
A draft copy of my thesis proposal on the Reverend John Wesley's Relational Doctrine of Grace as influenced by his doctrine of the Fatherhood of God

I am elated that I have finished. I am anxiously anticipating the time when I am back in seminary and in the classroom with some of the sharpest minds and holiest hearts I have ever encountered. God has blessed our family tremendously this year. There have, of course, been struggles because our world is fallen, broken, depraved and sinful. Over all this, however, we know God is with us. He is good, He is holy. He desires nothing but the best for us, His children. All praise and glory and honor be to Him who keeps and preserves us by His grace through faith and enables us to fight the good fight and run the race with excellence.

Self-Giving and the Nature of Sacrifice - part 2

"Next time, we will look at the Biblical model for sacrifice, what it demands of those of us who are called Christians, and how and why we should be striving for it on a day to day basis in our own daily lives."

I made this comment at the end of my last full length post with the intent of writing the remainder of my thoughts the following day. As we can all attest life (with it's varied nuances and colorful mishappenings) rarely allows one the opportunity to do all one would in a given time frame. Regardless, I would like to pick up this discussion once again so I can finish my thoughts on this important issue.

What is the Biblical model of sacrifice we should follow? Does the Bible commend us to give of ourselves in loving sacrifice for others? We can emphatically say, "It does!" The how can be as varied as our examples in our last post on this subject. I would turn now to the "why" of the matter. Why should we? The typical "Sunday School" answer of "the Bible tells us to" will not suffice, I think, for modern readers and Church goers. They need something more. What they need, to answer the why of self-giving and sacrifice, is an image of the sacrificial God of the Christian Church. God gives nothing less than himself in Creation, Incarnation and Pentecost. God breathed his Spirit into the man he had formed and man became a living soul. He gives. The Son of God became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. He gives. The disciples praying in the Upper Room were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He gives.

We understand giving, whether charitable or otherwise, as something all Christians should be involved in. But what about sacrifice? Does the Bible really commend us to this? We look, again, at the sacrifice of God in Christ. He offered himself up and became sin for us. He is the subject and object of sacrifice. He is both High Priest and Offering for us. In no other person has sacrifice been so embodied. He gives and at the same time becomes sacrifice.

What does this mean for us? It means that if we are to be called Christians, if we are to follow in the footsteps of Christ, we must offer ourselves up as "living sacrifices" (Rom 12:1) for the world. I am a firm believer that God does not call us to sacrifice for our own benefit, but rather requires sacrifice of us so that we might reach the world with the message of Christ. No where in Christian history have people sacrificed, truly sacrificed, for themselves. It is always in the hope and expectation that through our obedience and self-giving God will reach others. We ought to desire, to pray that God will show us areas of our lives where we can make sacrifices (however big or small they may be) and make them expecting him to do a great work through us. Only then will we understand the desire God has for each of our lives.

Salvation and the Human Person

"The eternal survival of the person as a unique, unrepeatable and free 'hypostasis,' as loving and being loved, constitutes the quintessence of salvation, the bringing of the Gospel to man. In the language of the Fathers this is called 'divinization' (theosis), which means participation not in the nature or substance of God, but in his personal existence." -John D. Zizioulas

Self-Giving and the Nature of Sacrifice - part 1

It is common in the Wesleyan tradition to talk about "self-giving." Most often times (in my experience) I hear sermons about it in regards to Tithing. While that may be relevant at the time I think we would be remiss if we didn't think a little more deeply about what it means to live a sacrificial type of life. Let us begin with the Eucharist.

Communion. The Lord's Supper. The Holy Table. It is the sacrament of bread and wine. All too often this precious time in the life of the Church is relegated to "special events" i.e., Easter, Lent or possibly Pentecost. In some church traditions, like the Lutheran and Greek Orthodox, the sacrament is the central part of the worship services. It is in the One Meal that the Christian Church fully identifies itself with the sacrifice of Christ. It is in the sharing and partaking of that one holy food that we join together spiritually and physically and allow ourselves to share in the sufferings of Christ. What we are saying, essentially, is that we as Christians want to give ourselves for others in much the same way Christ gave himself for the Church. Now we are not saying that everyone who eats and drinks will have to be crucified but there should be some measure of self-giving and sacrifice in the life of a true follower of Christ. 

What that sacrifice may entail or how we will be asked to do it will vary depending on the individuals relationship with Christ, their spiritual depth and maturation, their circumstances and their surroundings/environment. For some, like the Christian Church in communist China, the mere act of becoming a follower of Christ entails a sacrifice of some kind. For us here in the quiet comforts of America Christianity has become less of a religion and more of a talking point for conservative and liberal media alike. That particular topic, the difference between Christianity in the Americas and other nations, is a topic for another time. What we want to emphasize here is that there is no normative level of sacrificial involvement when it comes to the Body of Christ. We are called to serve, give ourselves and sacrifice. What that may entail for each one of us is the decision of the Triune God.

What we can say is this: the normative Christian experience should be a sacrifice of our own sinful and selfish desires in order to grow in grace. We ought to be willing, when (not if) God calls us to retreat and repent from our sinful ways, to lay ourselves on the altar and give up whatever the Spirit lays his finger upon. While the personal, financial and physical sacrifice for Christians is subjective (that is based on their personal experience) the call to sacrifice ones own desire to please oneself is objective (that is based on the Word of God as its final authority). 

Paul tells us in Romans 12:1 to give ourselves as "living sacrifices." We are to be "holy and blameless" sacrifices ready to serve and please God with our lives. This cannot happen if we think the call to sacrifice is only subjective. We must, on the other hand, refrain from making all sacrifice (including financial, physical, etc.) on the part of the believer objective. This leads to Fundamentalism. The opposite of this approach (grounding ALL sacrifice in the subjective experience of the individual) leads to Liberalism. Let me expound upon this distinction with an illustration:

Tommy and Billy are both 18 years old, they are Christians, and they both attend Churches where the Word of God is preached truthfully and expounded upon in the Spirit. Both are fully committed to Christ in their daily lives and are active in their respective Churches. Tommy lives in suburban Atlanta, while Billy resides in communist Cuba. One day Tommy is presented with the opportunity to do drugs from a close friend of his. Tommy refuses, knowing it would be displeasing to God, and as a result loses the friendship. This is a sacrificial act on Tommy's part. He knows (in some sense) what the consequences for his actions, whatever he may choose, will be. On the same day Billy, who lives in Cuba, has the chance to save himself from physical abuse if he will denounce his faith in Christ. Billy refuses and as a result is badly beaten. Both of these actions are sacrificial. The severity of consequences does not detract from the reality that both of the boys are faced with an opportunity to either stand up for their faith or compromise. In each case choosing Christ will inevitably cost the boys something. In this sense the sacrifice is subjective. 

On the other hand, let us assume that the boys meet one day during a missions trip. They begin to talk about their faith in Christ, what it means for them, and then they start discussing the individual sacrifices each one of them has had to make. It would be wrong of Billy to discount or discredit Tommy's sacrifice because it did not look like his own. That is Fundamentalism - stating that unless your experiences are exactly the same (or relatively similar) as mine, then they must not be genuine. It would likewise be wrong of Tommy to tell Billy that he really didn't have to give up his sinful ways because each individuals experience of spiritual sacrifice (the sacrifice of the sinful self) is their own and cannot and should not be applied universally to all Christians. That is Liberalism. Hopefully you can see the distinctions.

All Christians are called to sacrifice their sinful ways in order to live holy and blameless before God. This is a Scriptural command that can and should be universally applied to all persons who call themselves by the name of Christ. Each person is also called to a level of personal sacrifice that is unique and special (subjective) to their own individual experiences and spheres of influence. Let us not confuse the two. 

Next time, we will look at the Biblical model for sacrifice, what it demands of those of us who are called Christians, and how and why we should be striving for it on a day to day basis in our own daily lives.

A Thoughtful Response to Dr. Tiller's Death

If you have not yet heard or read the news this morning, an abortion doctor by the name of Dr. George Tiller was killed yesterday as he attended church services. Let me briefly run over the details of the story.

Dr. Tiller was a late term abortion doctor. He was assaulted twice, once in 1985 and again in 1993. His offices were bombed and he was shot in both arms. Sunday morning he was serving as an usher when someone shot him in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church.

Now let me be clear, I do pray and mourn this mans death. Dr. Tiller, who was 67 when he was killed, left behind a wife, 4 children and 10 grandchildren. Regardless of what we feel about his mans practices regarding human life, this is a tragedy. His families life will never be the same again.

I would be morally remiss, however, not to mention the fact that Dr. Tiller was one of only 3 (I believe) doctors who maintained a late term abortion clinic. This means that he performed them until the third trimester. I do disagree with his practices. I find them reprehensible. I am disgusted by them. I am equally disgusted, however, at the man who found within himself the audacity to assert lordship over another human persons life. 

The tragedy here, friends, is the fact that Dr. Tiller was attending church services on Pentecost Sunday when he was killed. The people of his Church could have been trying to influence him to change his practices. Perhaps Dr. Tiller felt some guilt and remorse over his practices and was attempting to make a change in his life. How tragic would it truly be if this were the case? Here was a man who, if given the time, could have effected real change within the pro-choice community if he were converted and shown the errors of his ways. Now we will never know. His fate is now sealed, whatever that may be. 

Tragically the pro-choice radicals in this country wasted no time in smearing and condemning the pro-life community. At The Daily Kos, mere hours after the announcement of this tragedy, had this to say:

"Today the rightwing domestic terrorists finally succeeded in assassinating Tiller."

-Dana Houle

Dr. Tiller was killed at 10 a.m. CST. This post at dailykos.com occured at 12:22 PST, mere hours after Dr. Tillers death. I think the tragedy here is how political rhetoric is covering the fact that this is a murder, plain and simple. This man's body wasn't even cold and the left is already ratcheting up their "anti-life" sentiments against us. 

Let's be clear: the pro life community regards all selfish disregard for human life wrong. We who are against abortion should be against this as well. I would submit to you, as a Christian, that if you are not saddened by the loss of this mans life and the family who is now without their husband, father and grand father, then you may need to re-evaluate your relationship with Christ. Remember it is God's will that none should perish but that all should come to everlasting life. Jesus Christ died for Dr. George Tiller and I do not and cannot believe His sacrifice was in vain. He wanted a personal relationship with Dr. Tiller. I know Christ is heartbroken because of this. 

Let us stand with this man's family, mourn with them, pray for them and stand up with one voice and let this country know that we are against all selfish and unnecessary loss and disregard for human life, no matter who or where it may occur. We might disagree with their practices and their views, but all human persons have the right to live their lives and it is not our place to determine whether they are worthy of life or death. 

Our thoughts, hearts and prayers go out to you, the family and friends of Dr. George Tiller. May the Lord bless you and keep you. May His face shine on you and be gracious to you. May the Lord look upon you with favor, and give you peace. Amen.