Tuesday, January 20, 2015
If you live in or around the theological community that is Evangelical Christianity, you know what I mean when I write of a "Proverbs 31 Woman".
This pithy slogan is based on the idealized woman of the Old Testament book of Proverbs chapter 31 verses 10-31.
This is not just any woman. She is a "wife of noble character" (10), a blessing to her husband (11-12), a caretaker for her family (15, 27), a helper of the poor (20), a hard worker (17), and so on for miles.
Many a Christian sister has been encouraged to imitate the Proverbs 31 woman. And more than one book, Bible study, and sermon has been published on the subject.
And you know what? That's not a bad thing.
As long as it is understood that the book of Proverbs gives us idealizations and general principles of what could be, rather than hard and fast rules of what will or must be, I see no problem with looking at Proverbs 31 as an example for Christians wives and mothers.
However, there is one problem.
Not all Christian women are wives and mothers.
Either by their own choice or otherwise, there are plenty of unmarried, childless women who, through the selective preaching and teaching in some Christian quarters, get the impression that being a mature woman and a good Christian is synonymous with having a family.
While we hear less of crude statements like "a woman's place is in the home", whenever Christian women are exhorted in the church it seems to be in the context of having a husband or children.
This can lead to unmarried Christian women feeling like they are not full participants in their own faith and faith community.
Often they are pestered with questions that assume they want to get married or should get married, or else there must be something wrong with them.
This is harmful, theologically and personally, and needs to stop.
But what can be done about it?
I propose that our talk of the Proverbs 31 woman needs to be tempered with that of the woman of 1 Corinthians 7:34:
"...An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit..."
This simple little statement packs a gigantic punch.
Paul is defining the nature of what it means to exercise single womanhood in Christ: to be utterly devoted to God with all one's being.
Not a freak who needs to hurry up and get married. Not a half-way Christian. Not a rebel against God's created order.
A woman whose heart is completely sold out to God, undivided. If you are in that place, don't feel the need to change. Embrace your current vocation and throw yourself into the love of the Lord.
What greater honor could be bestowed on any woman?
What greater honor could be bestowed on any Christian?
Monday, November 3, 2014
Tomorrow folks around the country will head to the polls to vote for their favorite candidate or ideal.
This post is about why most of us are better off staying home.
The Impact of Your Individual Vote is Minimal.
One of the many problems with the “get out the vote” fever pitch is that, if realized, it actually minimizes the overall impact of state and local elections.
This is because the more people clamoring to make their voices heard, the less it matters what any one person is saying.
To illustrate, imagine you’re on a committee of ten people, yourself included.
In voting on any particular bill, you control 10% of the total vote.
What if you add ten more people to the committee?
Now you control 5% of the vote.
Add ten more. 3.3%. Ten more. 2.5%. And on it goes.
When elections are decided by a popular vote, your vote matters less if more people are voting.
Furthermore, Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter (both economists) in their study “The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote” found 7 out of the 40,000 congressional races they studied going back to 1898 were decided by a single vote.
Another study published by Columbia University, “What is the Probability Your Vote Will Make a difference“, calculated the odds of your vote deciding a presidential election at 1 in 60 million.
Finally, because of the Electoral College system, the impact of your vote in determining the final outcome of an election depends heavily on the amount of electoral votes your state controls and the overall reddishness or blueness of your state.
For example, my home state of Illinois hasn't gone red since Reagan was elected and
Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter.
Unless you live in a “swing state”, whether you stay home on Election Day or not doesn't make too much of a difference.
Politicians Have Their Best Interests at Heart, Not Yours
Time and time again, frustrated voters discover “their” candidate wasn't as nearly concerned about their priorities as appearances would have them believe.
When Roe V. Wade was passed in 1973, formerly “pro-life” politicians Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton all experienced sudden “changes of heart”.
While correlation doesn't equal causation, the timing of their announcements, following the landmark Supreme Court decision in favor of women's privacy and right to an abortion, was quite curious.
Another example of similarly curious “evolutions” on political issues is Democratic Party’s position on gay rights.
Those folks who either supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act or publicly endorsed the view that marriage is a heterosexual union and then changed their minds are almost too numerous to name, but include President Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Kay Hagan, Claire McCaskill, Mark Warner, Mark Begich, Jon Tester, and many others.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Marco Rubio, once a conservative darling and favored as the republican nominee for the 2016 election by conservative pundits and polls, has been deserted by his one time fans on the far-right and in the “Tea Party” for his support for comprehensive immigration reform (which he first opposed).
Examples of politicians flip-flopping could fill a volume.
At the end of the day, Washington is concerned about Washington. Politicians are concerned about politicians.
Rather than going back to the same greedy slot machine, hoping that *this* time things will go our way, why not bypass the thing altogether?
As the old adage goes, fool me once…
Voting for Your Cause Does Little for it
Remarking on voting against slavery, Henry David Thoreau said this:
There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote.
Thoreau, writing a little more than a decade before the start of the Civil War and sixteen years before the passage of the 13th amendment, was spot on.
The United States voted to abolish to slavery as a direct result of hundreds of thousands of dead citizens in a bloody civil war.
To say the 13th Amendment abolished slavery or did anything more than legally recognize what the people had already decided must be done and worked to strenuously accomplish is granting too much.
The same is true of all kinds of civil rights issues, Native American, black, female, disabled, homosexual, and more, not to mention other kids of important social changes reflected through legislation.
Voting for “change” either happens because change has already happened in the minds of the people or because no one really cares one way or another.
Either way, your vote says little.
Voting Feeds Government Corruption; It Doesn't Stop it
When you vote for this measure or that measure, you aren't seeing your vision realized, you are only putting lifeblood back into a broken system.
Any model of government can only exist as long as there is civic participation of whatever form the model requires.
And for democracy to work, people have to engage in the defining democratic practice: voting.
Without votes, a representative democracy like our country would be stall, which, contrary to what you might think, is a good thing.
The American government is inundated with wickedness, propelled by greed, founded on self-concern, stained with blood, and opposed to Christ.
When I choose to work directly through a system like that, I can only make the problem worse.
So what can you do instead?
1 Make a Long-Term investment in Your Home Church
The Kingdom of God is run out of local assemblies of believers who meet in various locations and under different circumstances all across the earth.
True change or reform that does not involve the people of God under the reign of God doing the work of God wherever they may find themselves put by God (to borrow Scot McKnight’s phrasing), will not last.
Get involved in your home church and make that involvement high on your list of priorities.
2 Stop for the One
Christian evangelist Heidi Baker who works with the poorest of the poor in Mozambique has a mantra she carries with her wherever she goes to speak about the wonders God is doing in the Africa continent: stop for the one.
This is being attentive to....
the lady on the sidewalk who you walk by every day going to work
the guy who brings you your coffee at your favorite café
the kid who you sit by at school
that person whom you've never come into contact with before,
...and who God is telling you to minister His love and grace to.
As we go “low and slow” with the hurting people around us who need our help, we will see positive, lasting change bit by little bit.
3 Get Involved in Local Non-Partisan change Efforts
For me, this takes the form of pro-life work.
Maybe you can volunteer time at a local homeless shelter, food bank, center for folks with HIV and AIDS, low cost medical clinic, etc.
Maybe you cannot volunteer time, but can give money on a regular basis or donate supplies/other non-monetary goods.
Whether you’re investing in organizations or activities that meet an immediate need or our seeking to eliminate the root cause of some social ill, you can be sure this is a way to help yourself and those around you without making things worse by necessity.
4 Support Non-Local efforts of the Same Kind
Finally, find a mission or an organization doing good work in another country and do the same thing.
Donate, volunteer, advocate—do something through direct action or investment.
I hope you will consider how civic participation through government hurts more than it helps and will consider one of these non-participant solutions going forward.
Leave questions, comments, and concerns in the comments section below!
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Whether it was a lack of Scriptural justification for a certain theology or that it was contradicted by an already established biblical principle, I knew I could no longer hold these beliefs in good conscience.
I want to share with you why.
Specifically, why I believe that I, as disciple of Christ, should remain neutral as to the governments of this world.
To understand why Christians should abstain from voting and other participatory functions of government (political office, war, lobbying, government reform, etc.), we first look at what the Bible says about the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is a real thing, not an abstract concept.
It has real workers (Matthew 9:35-38), real work (1 Cor. 4: 10; Romans 14:17), real laws (Matthew 7:21), real power (Matthew 4:23, Luke 10:9), and, of course, a real King, Jesus (John 18:36)
The Kingdom of God is also a spiritual kingdom, not of this world (John 18:36; Daniel 2:34, 44-45), nor seen with the naked eye (Luke 17:20-21), nor temporal in duration (2 Peter 1:10-11), unlike the kingdoms of this world.
The Kingdom of God is also synonymous with the Church. Scot McKnight writes this in his book “Kingdom Conspiracy":
It is reasonable to say that the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom – that they are the same even if they are not identical. They are the same in that it is the same people under the same King Jesus even if each term – kingdom, church – gives off slightly different suggestions
I think the biblical evidence will evince this point.
To summarize, we are part of a real Kingdom with real workers, works, laws, powers, and Kingship held by Jesus Christ, yet spiritual, not of this world, and eternal. Furthermore, if you are a member of the Church you are member of the Kingdom and vice versa.
Secondly, we need to look at what the Bible says about the rulers of the world and human governments.
Like divorce, which was allowed due to the hardness of man's heart, civil government was established out of a rejection of God and His rule, as it was God's intention and desire to be the direct King of His people (1 Samuel 8).
Consequently, the State has no inherent claim to power (Romans 13: 1-7; Isaiah 40:15-17).
Furthermore the Bible teaches that Satan is exercising a temporal, but actual rule on the earth. Consider the following passages:
Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. – John 12:30-33
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. Come now; let us leave. – John 14:28-31
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. – John 16:7-11
And, as Paul says, “as for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Eph. 2:1-2)
And “giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:12-14)
The definitive proof that Satan is the current master of the State, is his offering to Jesus all the kingdoms of the world while trying Jesus in the desert (Matthew 4:9).
Some might say he was lying about his power, but if he wasn't lying when he said Jesus could change stones to bread or jump off the temple without injuring himself, why assume he was lying when he claimed to have the very power ascribed him in the gospels and elsewhere?
No, Satan was telling the truth, though, as always, with a bent toward deceit (for example, we know that ultimately all things are under God and His Jesus Christ; Eph 1:18-23) .
As John says, “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19)
Furthermore, Satan is described as the one who deceives the nations (Revelation 20:3, 8) and the kingdoms of this world are unqualifiedly juxtaposed with the Kingdom of God (Revelation 11:15).
As Greg Boyd writes:
This obviously doesn't mean that all leaders in earthly governments are under Satan's rule. Many leaders are God-loving people who are sincerely trying to serve their society and the world. But these passages suggest that the whole power-over system that constitutes human government is under Satan's oppressive influence. I see no way around this conclusion.
With this in mind, the very principle by which we must not be yoked together with unbelievers is the very principle which prevents us from colluding with worldly governments:
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God...” – 2 Cor 6:14-16.
Again, that the State is under the control of Satan, at the moment, precludes us from being participants thereof.
It would be akin to having dual citizenship in both North and South Korea: it's just not possible!
As James says, "you adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."(James 4:4)
Despite this, many Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons claim voting and civic participation is our Christian duty.
But what does the Bible say?
We are told to pay taxes. (Matthew 20:20-22; Romans 13:1-7)
We are told to pray for our government officials. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
We are told to be subject and obedient to government (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1) (only insofar as it the laws of man do not contradict God's laws, of course). (Acts 5:29)
However, there is no support for the idea that to be good citizens Christian must involve themselves in government, rather we are described as “foreigners here” on earth (Hebrews 11:13), who are said to be “not of the world” (John 17:14-19), having “citizenship in heaven” (Philippians 3:20).
There is so much more that could be said about this issue, but I want to draw the threads of this post:
1. We are subjects of a real Kingdom with a real King.
2. The kingdoms of this world are under the control of Satan and thus cannot merit our participation.
3. Never are we commanded to be participate in government, but are called foreigners here on earth and citizens of heaven. The idea that is is our Christian duty to do so is without merit.
What say you?
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
WARNING: if discussions about underwear make you
uncomfortable, STOP HERE!
I have long been opposed to pant sagging. Until a week ago.
I have a pair of pants I love. They're sort of like khakis, but they fit more like “skinny” pants and they ride relatively low.
And when said pants were combined with my much loved “I [Heart] Mexico” t-shirt, my black “Rico” briefs could be seen when I made certain body motions.
I was faced with a dilemma: I liked the shirt and I liked the pants, but neither could compensate for the longitudinal (a real word) deficiencies of the other.
While pondering my conundrum, I had an epiphany:
I'm a young black male, I can actually get away with showing a little bit of my ropa interior and I won't have to sacrifice either my chosen shirt or pants.
So I did, in fact, choose both and headed off to school. And I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel just the slightest bit liberated that day.
However, apart from personal satisfaction, was my fashion decision appropriate?
Some might cite the hygiene problems against me. In other words, I don't want to sit where you've sat if you sat there directly on your underwear.
Gross. Point taken.
However, this doesn't apply to me, because upon sitting, my pants assumed their proper function, carefully guarding my behind and calzones.
Another objection might focus on aesthetics or “I don't want to see your underwear!”
Again, point taken.
Then again, I may not want to see your particular shirt, headband, jacket, or hat but why should my optical preferences have veto power over what you wear?
Besides, this was not what I was doing:
It was much closer to this (but black on black), not even visible 100% of the time:
What about the “it sends the wrong message” objection.
This, I think, is dangerous territory.
As anyone who knows me knows (especially my sisters), I have plenty of opinions on how certain clothing choices can send certain messages, but I also understand it's not always clearly discernible where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is, especially when “lines” differ from person to person.
That's not to say there is no standard of modesty, rather when it comes to issues like seeing a couple inches of someone's unmentionables for a few brief (pardon the pun) moments, I'm inclined to put that in the “agree to disagree” style box.
In addition, some like to bring up the history of sagging pants, letting guys in prison know your, erm, “available”.
This doesn't bother me, however, because appropriation is a part of life and is a valuable for tool social and cultural advancement.
For example, some beloved Christian hymns were written to the tunes of bar songs and some pagan holidays were appropriated by Christians in order to make way for our own special days.
Sagging was once something, but now it's something different or, at least, something else entirely too.
Finally, one might ask why do it in the first place.
Well, initially, I did it for reasons of convenience and curiosity, which, upon further reflection, were pretty lame reasons, though there was another side to it.
When you see someone sagging their pants, you don't think wannabe preacher, four years doing competitive Bible memory, or, even, Christian at all.
But all of those things apply to me.
I enjoyed the prospect that just by letting a little underneath show, I might accomplish some small part in collapsing the stereotype of who sags and who doesn't.
Because even if you don't agree with sagging, you shouldn't form an opinion on someone based on how high or low they wear their pants.
So, will I sag again? Probably not (my mom was not to keen on it).
In spite of that, my one time sagging escapade had given me a fresh perspective on the issue.
What say you?
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
I want to illustrate this first point by way of a brief story: In working with kids this summer at a mission for children, I remember a particularly poignant conversation I had with a young man, not yet 16, who lived at the mission. Now you just gotta know this kid: ever the smart-Alec, loved to give me all kinds of grief, but with the biggest of hearts. And I remember there was this one night I found myself discussing with him about why he had walked away from his Christian faith. You see, I had been at his baptism just a couple years prior and upon learning that he had since left the faith, I just wanted to know what had happened. What he told me that night has stayed with me every day since then, truly, and is the inspiration for this message. He said he no longer saw the meaning in following Christ. “So we pray before meals”, he said, “we drag ourselves to Church on Sunday morning”, “we do all the stuff, but where's the meaning?" I was stunned. How my friend had gone from such an eager young believer, to so totally disaffected with God and His Church baffled me, but not for long.
In Matthew chapter 22, Jesus talks to us about love. Verses 34-40 record how the Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up by asking him to name the greatest commandment in all the law. Jesus responded with a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures, saying that to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul—This is the first and greatest of all of God's commandments.
Now, at first blush, the Pharisees query doesn't seem like much of a stumper, nor Jesus' answer particularly novel, but if you had to answer this question without the benefit of knowing Jesus' response, what would you say? Well, some might answer an active prayer life. Others might point to regular Bible reading. Still others might argue for regular church attendance or a political battle; a social justice cause. Do you see the problem now? The Pharisees understood that a wrong answer to this question could tilt the axis of biblical theology so far one way or the other that it would all come crashing to the ground. However, Jesus knew this, as well, and he not only knew this, but in everything he did, he modeled for us the importance of keeping our love for God central to everything we do. Because if we miss that first part—loving God with all that we are—we can strip the meaning from everything that comes after and we'll end up just quitting altogether. That is how my friend could be so on fire for God and then not. It's how you can have senior Christians who have sat in the same pew, sung the same hymns, taken the same communion emblems for decades whose faith has atrophied and grown cold. And it's how you and I can fill our lives up with spiritual stuff that makes us feel good, or feel Christian—stuff that may very well honor God—but, in the end, be nothing more than whitewashed tombs full of dead bones. Jesus knew: if we don't love God, we excise the very heart from our faith. That's why this is so important.
So, what do we do? When our love for God has ebbed and our faith as a result, what do we do? The Bible has an answer for us: we remember where we came from, repent of anything between us and God, and then remain in Him. Remember, repent, and remain: three r's taken from the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.
You know the story, after taking his Father's inheritance, going off to a far country, and blowing it all, the prodigal soon finds himself bumming slop off a team of hogs at a farm. “When he came to his senses" in Luke 15:17 "he said, "‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!” That is, he first remembered from where he'd come from. Then in verses 18-20, “I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; take me back as one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father.” His repentance, the second R, was him apologizing to his Father and then returning to restore their relationship. The final R is remain. We don't know what happened to the Prodigal son after the story's end. We do know that his father, like God our Father, accepted him back, not as a servant, but as his beloved son, but whether the son choose to remain in that love for the duration of his life is only speculation. However, it is not enough to simply remember and repent, we must remain in God's love.
And, in closing, that's not a hard task, for when make a habit of reflecting on who God is, how great He is, we cannot love help but love Him. And when we love God, people cannot help but see .And, maybe, will come to love him too. To love God with all our hearts and minds and souls, I pray this for my friend and I pray this for us as Body of Christ, as well. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Of the many traditions of men so deeply entrenched in the Church today, perhaps none is so prevalent today as the Protestant innovation of “salvation by faith alone”, unknown to the Church for 1500 years of its 2000 year existence.
The phrase “faith alone” is found once in Bible, James 2:44: “you see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone”.
So we see the one explicit verse in the Bible using the phrase “faith alone” is denying justification by faith alone.
Not exactly the strongest of starts.
Of course, none of this is new to those who believe in faith onlyism and they often use passages like John 3:16 (“who believes in him has eternal life”), Ephesians 2:8-9 (“for it is by grace you have been saved through faith...not of works”), and others that speak of the necessity of faith for salvation to prove salvation by faith alone.
This use of Scripture fails for several reasons:
Salvation by faith does not equal salvation by
I believe wholeheartedly that we are saved by faith, as the Bible makes this point clear again and again.
However, nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by faith alone.
To assume this is to make the critical error of thinking that because faith is the sole means by which we receive salvation, it is also the sole condition for being saved (an error more fully explained and critiqued by people like Dr. Jack Cottrell, Cincinnati Bible Seminary).
To use an imperfect example, faith is like a car you use to get to work (i.e., the means of your transportation to work), but it's not enough to simply have a car, there are other conditions for getting to work, such as getting in the car and driving to the destination.
In the same way, while God communicates saving grace to us by and through our faith in Him, that is not the only condition for receiving such grace.
For example, we must hear the gospel (John 5:24), repent of sin (Acts 17:30), confess Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), and be baptized (Acts 2:38).
The Bible points to all of the above as conditions for salvation alongside faith.
At this point, some of you may be asking how we can by saved by more than faith alone if we receive salvation at the moment we believe, which leads to my next point...
Salvation by faith does not equal salvation at
the moment of faith.
Two common verses used to support the idea that we are saved at the moment we believe are Romans 10:10 and Acts 16:31:
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'
Ironically, if you believe in salvation by faith alone, you have a conflict between these two verses.
One verse just says believe, while the other says believe and confess, confession being logically subsequent faith.
So at which point is the person saved, at faith or at confession of Jesus as Lord?
The answer is neither.
For one, these passages are not intending to give a full picture of God's salvation plan (there's no mention of repentance, for example).
However, it's also of great importance that neither of these verses says when a person is saved (i.e., the occasion of salvation).
Saved by faith does mean I am saved at the time of my faith, contrary to popular Evangelical thinking.
Rather the proverbial period on God's plan of salvation is baptism, and it is at that point which we are saved by our faith:
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. – Colossians 2:11-12.
Salvation by faith and not by works does not
equal salvation by faith alone
This is the biggie.
By putting faith in a special category all of its own and everything else a Christian can do in the “works” category, salvation by faith alone is found by its supporters in every verse that affirms we are saved not by works, but by faith.
The problem here is that faith is not in category all on its own and the definition of “works” most Protestants use is woefully inadequate to do the biblical data justice.
It is true that we are not saved by works, rightly defined.
However, Jesus himself says that faith is a kind of work (John 6:29) and we are saved by faith.
This is because while works of law cannot save (Gal 2:26; Rom 3:20), there is no contradiction between acts that people can do, which are a kind of work (hearing the gospel, having faith, repenting, confessing Jesus as Lord, and be baptized) and salvation by grace through faith.
The other conditions for salvation listed above are, like faith, things we do, and in that general sense works, but they are not works of the law (but aspects of gospel obedience; Romans 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8) and thus do not conflict with salvation by grace.
There are so many more things that could be said, thoughts that could developed, and arguments that could be addressed, but this should suffice for our purposes.
For us this side of the cross, the Bible nowhere teaches we are saved by faith alone or saved at the moment we have faith, but that we are saved by faith (which functions as the means which we receive salvation, among other things).
I hope you'll dig deeper into this issue and to see what the Bible is saying about this issue apart from what others might say certain passages "must" mean.
Listed below are some resources that may help (with a focus in baptism as the occasion of salvation).
Dr. Cottrell's articles on baptism and faith alone:
Dr. Cottrell's website (search “baptism” for many helpful articles):
http://bebaptized.org/ (Looks at the meaning and purpose of baptism whilst rebutting faith alone obejctions).
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/articles.htm#Baptism (The Lavista Church of Christ baptism articles)
http://www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm (Early Church quotes on baptism)
Baptism: A Biblical Study by Dr. Jack Cottrell
Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma Semper Reformandum by Anthony R. Cross
Baptism in the New Testament by G. R. Beasley-Murray
Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson.
“What Baptism Meant to the Early Christians” in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up by David Bercot
“Baptism and the Lord's Supper” in Pagan Christianity? By Frank Viola and George Barna
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Nationalism is defined as "a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their countries", of which I have no beef.
However, nationalism or patriotism, for too many Christians, has morphed into something more than promoting citizenship, becoming for many idolatrous.
Having once held the following views, to some degree or another, I give you three signs I believe are indicative of a heart infected with the idol of extreme nationalism:
You Prioritize National Welfare Over Humanitarian Welfare.
While there may be times when the good of your country means the good of those in need, this is quite often not the case.
For example, the welfare of any given nation usually depends, in some way and at some point, on the nation's willingness to go to war to eliminate an enemy (or potential enemy), meaning that humans, innocent as well as guilty, will be killed.
In addition, while legalizing marijuana (or other harmful, addictive substances), prostitution, gay marriage, video gambling, porn shops, and the like may rake in loads of revenue from eager customers, making a country more financially “prosperous”, these vices still run counter to the betterment of humanity.
Furthermore, the United States government has a nasty habit of establishing (or helping to establish) and funding brutal dictators in the Middle East and Africa (think Egypt) that kill, imprison, and oppress Christians.
This happens because, despite how these wicked men treat disciples of Christ, their governance in some way benefits American international interests.
Finally, caring for the poor and needy, whether at home or abroad, may drain a country's resources while all the while benefiting the individual receiving the assistance.
These are just some of the ways national welfare and humanitarian welfare correlate negatively.
That being said, when the time comes for the Christian to make a choice between what's good for his country versus what's good for person or people group “x”, and that time will come, if he chooses his country, you can be sure it has become for him an idol.
Why do I say this?
Because while the Bible has much to say about how Christians are to help their neighbors (Mark 12:31; Luke 10:25-37), friend or foe (Gal. 6:10), not once are we commanded to work at propping up any earthly government with our service (remember giving taxes was about rendering dues, not national advancement).
This does not mean working for the edification of a nation is wrong, necessarily, rather that when the decision is between what God has commanded (i.e., help your neighbor) versus what He has not (i.e., serve your country), we must obey God's command (Acts 5:29), even if it runs counter to the welfare of the earthly kingdom we live in, trusting God to make up the difference.
You Place Politics over People.
|From the Facebook page "Christian Conservatives"|
(As a side note I tried to find a similar example from the Christian Left, but was unable to do so.)
What you just read (and there were plenty more statements of the same un-Christian caliber) was written by people who love party politics so much that they hate their neighbor.
Every day, I read things online, hear on the news, or experience first-hand in conversation people who cannot see past political labels long enough to realize that the people they malign are human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
And I'm sure you have too.
Let it be stated, I am not talking here about criticism; I am talking about the wide-eyed hysteria that “they”, the other political side, are trying to “destroy our country” or “take away 'x' rights” or what have you, leading to the kind of hate-fulled invective we see above.
Believers who let party politics come before Christian decency and charity have created an idol.
You Support Warfare as a Means of Securing “Rights”.
Like the sacrifices and offerings the Israelites offered to the golden calf in the wilderness, war is the sacrifice made to the twin idols of life and liberty.
When we decide that “life and liberty”, as prized concepts, are worth killing people for, despite the biblical command not to resist our enemies with violence; (Matt. 5:38-39; 2 Cor 10:3-4), Houston, we have a very big problem
When Christians support war....
Not shedding innocent blood (which God hates; Prov 6:17) is traded for talk of “collateral damage”, “necessary casualties of war”, and the “greater good”.
Love your enemies (Matt. 5:44) is abandoned in favor of killing our enemies.
Take up your cross (Matt 16:24) becomes take up your weapon.
He who wants to save His life will lose it (Matt 16:25) devolves into "He who takes a life saves his own”.
When we say "yes" to warring, we declare there is something more important than obedience to God: preserving life and liberty.
And like putting country and politics before people, disobeying God by going to war amounts to idolatry.
Did I miss something? Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment for me in the box below.