The gospel and abortion

Posted on July 29, 2015 by Kevin Megill

[David Platt, in the Counter Culture Bible study, asked us to state how we see the gospel related to the issue of abortion. In what follows, I draw on some of the points he made in the associated study guide.]

The image of God

Humans are unique because we are created in the image of God.

In Genesis 1, God commanded the various elements: “Let there be light”, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters”, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place”, “Let the earth sprout vegetation”, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens”, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures”, and “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”. When it came to mankind, the pattern changed. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image”. Rather than commanding something to come into existence, or commanding one thing to bring another thing into existence, he “commanded” himself (!) to do the creating, and he himself is the one from whom man came.

Also, in Genesis 1, God created the various creatures to bring forth “after their kind” but of man it is said: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness … God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” The constant repetition of our creation in the image of God is meant to emphasize it. Unlike any other creature, we are uniquely made to reflect the nature of God.

In Genesis 2:7, it further emphasizes God’s unique involvement in our creation, saying that he formed (or “fashioned”) man from the dust of the ground, and breathed his own breath into him to give him life.

In Genesis 1, mankind is given the commission to multiply throughout the earth and take charge of it. They are given every plant for food. After the fall, things change. The earth becomes hostile to man, man becomes hostile to man, God judges the world through the flood, and Noah starts over. In Genesis 9:1-7, God renews his charge to mankind, but this time he takes into account the fallenness of the world.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

Whoever sheds man’s blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man.

As for you, be fruitful and multiply;

Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”

Again, mankind is told to fill the earth. Again they are given dominion over it. This time they are promised that the rest of the creatures will fear them – a promise that is only necessary in a fallen world. This time they are given the right to kill and eat any living creature, except for humans.

However, they are told not to kill humans. The reason given is because humans, unlike other creatures, are made in the image of God. We have dominion over the whole earth, to do what we want with it – but God reserves the right to decide which humans live or die. Perhaps these verses implicitly grant permission for capital punishment, but when it comes to the innocent, God alone has the right to decide when life ends. The point is this: the Bible reserves the right over life and death for God alone, and the reason it does so is because we are created in God’s image. We are God’s workmanship, and no one has the right to destroy that.

Psalm 139:13-16 says:

For You formed my inward parts;

You wove me in my mother’s womb.

I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Wonderful are Your works,

And my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

And in Your book were all written

The days that were ordained for me,

When as yet there was not one of them.

I am convinced by Luke 1:41-43 that the baby in the womb is a living human being, but I don’t think the verses here speak directly to that question. At least the final verse does not: it talks about the days ordained “when as yet there was not one of them”. If verse 16 were talking about the fetus, it would imply that none of his days had occurred yet, and so imply that he was not living yet. I don’t think that’s what it means though; it is speaking, rather, of God’s foreknowledge of the Psalmist even before he existed at all. Jeremiah 1:5 is similar.

This verse isn’t focusing on what kind of thing the unborn baby is; it’s focusing on how far back God’s creating and fashioning activity extends. It says that God planned us from before we even existed, and was involved in crafting our physical being from the moment it began.

So the question isn’t when we first became alive or first became human or first became a person. It certainly isn’t when we first became viable or when we began to have a heartbeat or a brain wave or to feel pain. The question is, when did we first become the workmanship of God, made in his image? The answer is: from the very beginning. By the time we know there is a baby there, it is already being fashioned by God and we are already forbidden to exercise our “dominion” to end its life.

The value of life

In my philosophy classes, students often discuss the morality of abortion. I’m dismayed by how frequently they assume that if a baby is going to be born into poverty, it would be a kindness to kill him instead. I often ask if they’d be willing to kill a two-year old for the same reason; many say No, but a sizable number say Yes, they would.

I’ve mulled this over for a couple of years now, and I have come to realize that it is vitally important to me that the value of someone’s life has nothing to do with how much they are suffering. Being unhappy does not diminish a person’s worth!

Jesus suffered greatly in Gethsemane and on the cross, but his life on earth was as valuable as it is possible to be. Because he suffered for love’s sake, and completely fulfilled the Father’s call for his life on earth, his life was full of meaning and purpose and majesty.

What has happened is that my students are assuming that the only value someone’s life has is that it makes him happy. When he is unhappy, then it is not worth so much anymore. What an impoverished view of human worth!

It is true that we often identify value with success. Those who are rich, happy, and influential somehow seem more worthwhile than those for whom the opposite is true. The message of Jesus’ ministry, and especially of the Beatitudes, is contrary to this. It is those who suffer, who are powerless, who are vulnerable, that are the Blessed.

I believe abortion is a tragedy, but I am not convinced at this point that it is my role as a Christian to wage a political war against it. (I’m not saying it’s not your role – I’m just not convinced it’s mine.) What I do want to stand for, though, is the truth of the enormous value of human life. In the course of debating abortion and euthanasia and evolution and many other things, we have slipped into thinking of human lives as commodities that can be assessed and then itemized in a cost-benefit analysis. The truth is that our lives have transcendent value. We are magically, mystically wonderful beings! Not because of what we do for others, and not because our lives feel good to us, but because of how God sees us and His creatorship and ownership of us. That is at the core of the gospel. You are loved; you are planned; you are called. These are at the heart of the gospel message. You matter, not because of you’ve done, and not because of how you feel about yourself, but because of your part in God’s plan.

I want people to see the baby in the womb that way, but I also want them to see themselves that way. The gospel is the story that God is telling about our lives, and understanding and receiving it lets us step into that story.

Lust for lust

Posted on July 29, 2015 by Kevin Megill

[David Platt, in the Counter Culture Bible study, asked us to write a statement about how the gospel relates to the issue of sexual exploitation. Here is my statement.]

Our culture idolizes sensuality. That means it idolizes sexual desire.

It doesn’t idolize sexual climax, but sexual desire – lust. The goal isn’t merely to have sexual desire satisfied, it’s to have it stirred up as much as possible first. Pornography isn’t about making sexual satisfaction more likely, it’s about making sexual desire more intense beforehand.

Sensuality is a focus on the body. When we are sensually driven, we tend to objectify other people, but we also objectify ourselves. We see ourselves – and seek to see ourselves – as physical machines that cannot help but follow their programming. We hide from our essential rationality and freedom to choose what to value, and pretend we have no choice at all. Think of how many times sensual lyrics or prose focus on how someone is helpless to resist their urges. Why? Because it somehow increases the sexual thrill to think of ourselves as controlled by our desires. We want to be controlled by lust, and it helps us feel the thrill more intensely if we imagine that we are.

Satan uses our desires to tempt us. Most of the time, having a desire is not itself a bad thing. We only sin because we seek to meet our own desires in our own way instead of taking them to God. We legitimately wish we could have something, so we steal it. We want praise, so we brag or otherwise seek our own glory. Initially, sexual sin is similar. Someone has a normal, natural sexual desire and it leads them to act it out inappropriately – they get a little too physical in a relationship with someone, or they look at pornography, or something.

When we begin to pursue sexual desire itself, as an idol, we move into a completely different kind of desire, one which is in and of itself unhealthy. It is not something we can look to God to satisfy, because the desire itself (the lust for lust) is unhealthy. Proverbs 30:15, 16 describes that kind of desire this way:

The leech has two daughters,

“Give,” “Give.”

There are three things that will not be satisfied,

Four that will not say, “Enough”:

Sheol, and the barren womb,

Earth that is never satisfied with water,

And fire that never says, “Enough.”

The point is that this kind of desire is by nature insatiable. It cannot be satisfied, even by God, because it is in its very nature to deny any permanent satisfaction. All it does is say “Give, give”. It is like the grave, in that its recurrence is as inevitable as death (no one will ever say, “Well, he lived, because the grave was full.”) It is like the barren womb, in that no matter what is given to it, it will never have what it needs. It is like the desert earth, which is unable to absorb the water that lands on it, and even if it did, is so immense that there would never be enough. Especially, it is like fire, which only burns hotter the more you feed it.

Feeding sensual desire will lessen it, temporarily. Images and fantasies that stirred it up become commonplace, and fail to fan it. But the desire for desire just continues to burn hotter, and more frustratingly. Eventually, something taboo becomes fuel for the fire. Its forbidden nature gives it a little more intensity, a kind of kick, which makes the thrill return. This explains why a true pornography addiction tends to escalate to harder and harder forms. What was taboo is commonplace after a while, and the addict needs something still more forbidden to keep stoking the fire.

The thing about sensuality is that, paradoxically, it’s a spiritual thing. The thrill of the lust gives us a sense of meaning, of transcendence. It makes all of life glow with intensity and purpose. It becomes a substitute for real spirituality, for a real connection with God. It is no coincidence that so much idol worship in the Old Testament involved lots of sex.

The difference between the spirituality of the sensual and the spirituality that comes from God is twofold. First, the spirituality of the sensual makes everything seem transcendent when it is bathed in lust, but when the lust dissipates, everything seems meaningless. The more a sensual addict finds his meaning in lust, the less he can find any satisfaction in regular life. So as the thrills get weirder and weirder, ordinary living becomes bleaker and bleaker. True spirituality is completely different. When God breaks through our lives with the supernatural, it doesn’t leave the ordinary days emptier afterwards; it enriches them a little.

The other difference is the one I mentioned at the beginning: that sensuality reduces us to merely physical creatures. We come to identify ourselves with our physical desires. We cannot imagine anything else being real. But true spirituality awakens our sense of ourselves as spiritual people, for whom the body is only one factor of being alive. We become aware of our ability to reason, to value, to empathize, to dream, and especially to responsibly choose. We are transcendent, not through our physical lusts, but by finding that they are irrelevant to who we are most deeply.

Because there is no way for God to righteously satisfy the desire for sexual desire, though, those Christians who are trying to seek God for deliverance from sensual addiction will find themselves feeling as though life is gray and bleak and as though they themselves have nothing inside that can ever respond to anything but the physical. They may accept that there are serious consequences to a sensual life, but they will have trouble believing that there is any joy to be had in living a non-sensual one. They need to be encouraged that the spiritual joy that comes from walking with God will eventually become evident, and that when it does, it will feel as much a part of them as sensuality ever did, but in a way that enriches the rest of their lives instead of impoverishing it.

Anyway, how does the gospel relate to all this? The same way as it relates to abortion. It shows us that we are created in the image of God, that we transcend the physical realm, that we are anything but ordinary, and that our lives are tinged with the supernatural. When we come to Christ, we are called to more than enslavement to our physical desires, and have a higher purpose than sensuality and lust.

Jesus loves and accepts us, but the exciting thing is that he doesn’t see us as we think of ourselves. He sees us as we can truly be, in him. The gospel is a message of transformation. It’s an invitation to be born again, to be born of spirit, to become the kind of person who is far more than we ever dreamed. It’s an invitation to step into a new, transcendent identity as a child of God.

Counter culture study, section 1

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Kevin Megill

I’m participating in a Bible study at our church called Counter Culture based on a book by David Platt (see my previous post). I’m trying to work through this material fairly intensely, which means critiquing it as I go, to decide what I agree and disagree with. When I do that kind of thing, I tend to learn a lot.

Anyway, here are the most important thoughts I had as I worked through the first section (about 3 weeks worth of meetings).

The free-climbing story

During my grad school days, our church had monthly couples meetings in which the pastor would give a short devotional designed to encourage us in our marriages. One time the pastor showed a 15 minute video about someone doing “free climbing”, which apparently means climbing a cliff without a rope or any equipment. After commenting on the climber’s courage and perseverance, he used it as an example of the kind of commitment we should have within our marriages.

That threw me, because it was the exact opposite of what I had come to expect. As an undergrad, I’d attended a different church (in a different state) with a pastor whose specialty was pointing out how foolish and unbiblical the world’s approach to everything was. If he’d shown the video, he would have pointed the folly of risking your life for something as inconsequential as rock-climbing. He would have emphasized how desperately the world searches for meaning and joy, and what dangerous thrill-seeking it leads them into.

So I was left with this question, which really bothered me at the time: when we see an example like the rock-climber, are we supposed to emphasize the good things about the example or the bad things?

I finally decided that the simple truth is that every thing the world does always has some aspect or other which positively demonstrates the truth of the gospel and another aspect which contrasts with it. We should notice both, and then we should use whichever is relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves (Colossians 4:6). If there must be a bias, let it be toward looking for the positive, as instructed in Philippians 4:8-9.

The study guide for our first week tended to emphasize the negative side of things throughout the first week’s material. I think we must be aware of the negative, but I would rather use the positive in most cases.

Integrating Christianity into our entire lives

Platt exhorts us to take what we believe about the gospel and think about everything in our lives in its light. I love that! We must get away from compartmentalizing everything. In my opinion, when our response to our culture is inadequately Christian, the problem is usually that we have not figured out how Jesus is relevant to it.

Desiring God

From time to time Platt makes the “anti-self” error. The answer is to read John Piper’s Desiring God.

Creation

How do we integrate our understanding of God as creator into our world view? How do we counter the culture using that understanding?

The answer most Christians at our church would give is to fight against evolution. I don’t think that is particularly important for most unbelievers, though. I think there are two other points which are far more relevant to the average unbeliever’s life. The positive point is that if God is our creator, then there is a Great Storyteller for our lives. That is a beautiful thing to be able to honestly believe, and as Christians we get to! The negative point is that if God created us, then he “owns” us in some sense. He designed us for his own purposes, and he has the right, not we, to say what we are created for. We are behaving irresponsibly if we just wander off script and try to write our own story. We have a responsibility, and can be held accountable, for failing to live up to our design.

How do we integrate the understanding of the fall into our world view? How do we counter the culture using that understanding?

The essence of the fall was that Adam and Eve claimed the right to determine right and wrong for themselves in complete independence from God. Platt makes use of this idea by focusing on moral relativism. He argues that anyone who rejects belief in God cannot consistently believe in objective moral absolutes. Setting aside that there are many people who think that they can believe in absolutes without being believers in God, I still think this runs the risk of missing the point. We don’t want to get embroiled in technical philosophical debates about the connection between theism and morality.

Here’s the thing: most people, even those who claim all morality is relative, still have strong, deeply held moral convictions. That’s what we should have expected, according to Romans 2:14-16. The moral absolutes approach minimizes these feelings of morality, by telling people they have no right as unbelievers to have them. That doesn’t make sense to me; wouldn’t it be better to emphasize their sense of conscience, and then show them that even according to their own moral standards they are sinners in need of a savior?

Idolatry

The study guide uses the second half of Romans 1 to explore the topic of idolatry. Platt defines idolatry strangely, though. He says that we bow before things as idols when we “look to them for our hope, meaning, satisfaction, comfort, pleasure, or prosperity and when we think they’ll make our lives better.” God often uses things and people to give us hope, meaning, etc, though, and when he does it is completely legitimate to look to what he gives for what we need — especially if we see that he is behind them and give him thanks for them.

I think I know what Platt means — he means that idolatry is when we look to those things in some ultimate sense that should be reserved only for God. I would rather define idolatry as when we use any other thing or person, including the instruments of God’s blessings to us, as a substitute for God, so that we do not have to look to him.

Platt points out the obsession of the Athenians with whatever is new (Acts 17:21), and explores the possibility that they made an idol of the new. I think this could be true, but I would like to point out that it is just as common to make an idol out of the old (as in Mark 2:21-22 and 7:8). Furthermore, Paul didn’t reprove the Athenians for their attitude toward the new — it was that very attitude that made them willing to listen to him!

Similarly, in our case, I don’t think we should quench the desire for novelty. We should just be sure that people are willing to actually act on what they discover. The Athenians didn’t really want answers; they just wanted to play around with ideas. We probably do need to challenge people to avoid that.

Platt asked us to list some of the most important idols in our day. My list is

Sensuality

Success / drivenness / the ability to get things done at any cost

Tolerance

Celebrity status

Being able to provide data / scientific proof for everything

How should we respond to culture?

Platt considers four alternatives: conform, check out, combat, or counter. When we counter, he says, we seek to redeem, not conquer. I think that is wise.

When he talks about conforming, he finds fault with our desire to make the gospel appeal to the surrounding culture. The gospel, he says, is inherently offensive. I agree that there are parts of the gospel which will offend, but it is equally true that the gospel, if we present it correctly, speaks to deep yearnings in people. It draws them. It’s beautiful. If we don’t see that, we will miss lots of opportunities. He is right, though: we must not try to water down the hard parts of the gospel. In fact the beautiful parts of the gospel usually are the same as the difficult parts. If we soften what seem hard in it, we at the same time dilute what is good in it.

There is a difference between using culture to redeem people and redeeming culture. Platt shows how we can do the first: we can take popular ideas as expressed in movies, songs, and so on, and use them to build rapport and then discuss the gospel. I think we can do the second, actually redeem the culture — not REDEEM it, in the sense of saving it, of course, but redeem it, in the sense of bringing something good out of it. The culture isn’t just a bunch of individuals, but a system, and there is evil that is systemic. We can bring about real, though somewhat superficial, change to the system. (Deep changes are coming when Jesus returns.) Just think about how the church changed slavery or the treatment of orphans, for example, or the role it had in establishing democracy. It isn’t a waste of time to seek similar transformation in our own society today, as long as we keep proclaiming that Jesus is still only ever the real answer.

We are all in the culture. If we want to counter and redeem it, then we have to live in it. Some Christians use movies, songs, and other cultural expressions merely as rapport-building gimmicks for the gospel. I think we must go further. We must allow ourselves to be moved by the movies and the songs, to find them meaningful, but to do so discerningly.

Inception

Platt asked us to think of a popular song, show, or movie, to analyze it to see what desires, needs, questions of values of popular society it expresses, and then to show how Jesus meets those needs. Here is my example.

The movie Inception (spoilers ahead) has at its core the following problem: the protagonist Cobb and his wife are deeply involved in dreams that seem completely real. As a consequence, they begin to wonder whether real life is real. His wife, driven by her obsession with the question, loses all connection with her family and eventually dies because of it. He is faced with the same danger. At the very end of the movie, he spins his totem, which is a small top. If it falls over, it is supposed to prove that he is not in a dream. At the last minute, he looks up, sees his son out in the yard, and goes out to be with him, leaving the top still spinning. The camera closes in on the totem for a moment, and then the screen goes dark without letting the audience see whether it has fallen, leaving us in doubt ourselves about whether the final scene was a dream or in real life.

Why did the movie leave the final question (Were they still dreaming?) unresolved? Not just as a gimmick, I believe. I think it was to emphasize for us the emotional state of the protagonist. He walked away because he decided he didn’t need to know after all. The movies is asking us as viewers to make the same decision, to realize we don’t need to know either. We can just live life.

There are times when we just can’t know everything for certain. When that happens, we can get stuck in skepticism and doubt, or we can move on with life.

Hopefully, none of this would be me just preaching; it’d be a conversation.

At some point I would tell them about the dwarves in The Last Battle, the final book in the Narnia chronicles, who were offered the chance to enter heaven but turned it down because they didn’t want to take the risk of trusting what they were being told.

I’d challenge them to consider their own attitude toward the gospel in this light. Some people pride themselves on being unwilling to consider any belief in God that does not come attached to absolute scientific proof. I’d challenge them to stop thinking of God as sitting out there passively while they work their way to him by intellectually proving his existence. Instead, they should ask God, if he is there, to reveal himself to them, using as much evidence as he realizes they should need to make trust in him reasonable. When he does so, they should be open to it. I’d also explain that Christians believe God revealed himself in the person of Jesus. I’d suggest they read the gospel of Mark and try to see what kind of man this was, and whether he seems like someone they can trust.

As always, I’d welcome additional thoughts in the comments.

Selfishness

Posted on August 28, 2014 by Kevin Megill

I heard someone preach a sermon recently about selfishness, and how it is the root of almost all sin. I hear this preached a lot, by lots of different people. It depends on defining selfish as “wanting things for yourself”. We are exhorted to deny ourselves, which is taken to mean that we stop paying attention to our own desires and instead focus on glorifying God. This is the tough, mentally disciplined approach that God wants from us.

So, to summarize:

Selfishness is the root sin
Selfishness means wanting things for ourselves
We should stop expecting to have our own needs met
Instead we should only worry about glorifying God
A life of doing this will be disciplined and well-ordered and pleasing to God

While there is some important insight in this overall teaching, I think it’s wrong.

First, every Christian should go read John Piper’s book, Desiring God, and then rethink the points above.

Second, the Scripture itself does not, to my knowledge, name selfishness as the root of all sin, although I admit it gets close. It talks about idolatry and coveting and pride and fleshly lusts. Here is how I see the different meanings of these terms, in the context of this discussion.

Selfishness: wanting things for myself
Idolatry: looking to someone or something other than God to meet my deepest needs
Coveting: comparing what I have with what others have and then becoming frustrated that I have to live my life instead of theirs
Pride: making it my highest priority to manage my own happiness
Fleshly lusts: impulses for short-term satisfaction — I should ignore them if that would be better for me in the long run

James 3 and 4 also talk about something closely related to selfishness. James 3 speaks of “bitter jealousy and selfish ambition” and explicitly says that all kinds of sin spring up from these. James 4 explains that our strife with others comes from envying them and coveting what they have. The passage goes on, though, to point to pride and idolatry as the real culprits. The problem is not that we want things; it’s that we look somewhere other than to God to find them.

The biggest problem with the selfishness doctrine is that it leaves faith out of the picture. Instead of telling us to realize how much we need God, it exhorts us to need nothing. A more Scriptural approach would emphasize these truths:

We have many desires, some of them deep and some less so.
Some of our desires are for things that won’t really satisfy, so we need to have a healthy skepticism towards our desires.
God Himself is the source of all true satisfaction. We need to pursue him with all our hearts to find our needs really met. (“Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart.”)
Once we trust in God, he will call us away from pursuing many of the things that we think will meet our own needs. The test of our faith will be whether we are willing to let go of what seems to satisfy us and trust him to bring us real satisfaction.
Sometimes, he will call us away from even having certain desires. Even that, though, will be based on our trusting that His wisdom is greater than ours, and that He has a better set of desires for us to have.

The practical consequence of these ideas is this:

Have all the desire you want, but …
Take all your desires to God. Believe with all your might that he and whatever he gives will truly satisfy you.
Because you are trusting him to take care of what you want most deeply, leave it with him. Hope, but don’t pursue. Instead focus on loving God and loving others. Expect God to bring you the desires of your heart as a by-product as you live for Him.
When others are needy, don’t tell them to get over themselves; rejoice with them that God cares about the desires of their hearts too.

The difference is really important. It is one thing to say to someone, “Stop wanting so much! Focus on loving God and others!” and quite another to say to someone, “Trust God to fulfill all your deepest desires! Focus on loving God and others!”

Book review: Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Kevin Megill

I heard N.T. Wright speak at a theology conference, via online videos of the event. He seems to be famous for two primary focuses: how to interpret the Pauline epistles and how to interpret the gospels. From the online videos, I discovered that I agreed with a lot of what he had to say, I disagreed with a lot of what he had to say, and I found nearly everything he had to say challenging and full of insight.

His viewpoint on how to interpret Paul’s letters is known as the New Perspective on Paul, and I know just enough about it to know that I disagree. In the long run, it’s a little too Calvinistic for me.

His views on the meaning of the gospels emphasize having a proper understanding of the kingdom of God, the resurrection, and the second coming of Christ. These topics are near and dear to my heart, because I think they are neglected or misunderstood in modern day evangelical Christianity. From hints Wright dropped about these topics in the online videos, I came to realize that he might have a view very close to mine about the kingdom of God, but in his case there would be a lot of careful Scriptural exegesis to back it all up. At the same time, I realized he was critical of my views of the second coming. I had heard such criticism before, but, again, I knew in his case there would be a lot of careful exegesis to back it all up.

So when I heard about the book “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church”, I was eager to get hold of it. I wanted to hear both what he said that agreed with me and what he said that contradicted my understanding, and I especially wanted to hear him explain how he interpreted the Scriptures in question.

There was good news and bad news.

Good news first: The book does a nice job of demonstrating the importance of bodily resurrection and of the return of Christ to earth. I’ve noticed that while almost all our gospel presentations go like this: “Trust Jesus as Savior so that you will go to heaven when you die”, the early church’s presentations used to go like this: “Trust Jesus as Savior so that you will be resurrected and enter into his kingdom when He returns to earth.” We haven’t let the doctrines of the resurrection and the return of Christ fully saturate our understanding of the gospel. This book did a good job of making a similar point.

A second piece of good news had to do with the doctrine of the second coming itself. I had picked up the impression that perhaps Wright didn’t believe in the return of Christ to earth at all, and I was hoping that wasn’t the case. In the book, Wright makes it clear that it isn’t the case. Certain of his other teachings, he says,

“have left me open to the attack, particularly from American readers, that I have thereby given up teaching or believing the second coming. That is absurd … Let me say it emphatically for the sake of those who are confused on the point (and to the amusement, no doubt, of those who are not): the second coming has not yet occurred.” (p. 126-127).

So that’s good.

The bad news is that when I finally got to the point, a few chapters in, where he was going to refute my understanding of the end times, I found this:

“The first thing to get clear is that, despite widespread opinion to the contrary, during his earthly ministry Jesus said nothing about his return. I have argued this position at length and in detail in my various books about Jesus and don’t have space to substantiate it here.” (p. 125)

Aargh! Apparently I bought the wrong book! I needed one of the ones where he substantiates his position at length and in detail.

After reading more about what Wright wrote, I have discovered that he has two bodies of writings: books written for the general populace and scholarly works in which he makes the case for his theology. I read “Surprised by Hope”. I should have been reading “Jesus and the Victory of God”.

Actually, that’s my one complaint in general about the book. It was fine, but it wasn’t what I wanted. It was all sort of watered down. There weren’t a lot of specifics about anything.

So … it was mildly interesting as a book, but not much more. I give it a 5 out of 10. Rereadibility factor? Now that I know where the book is going, I may reread portions of it, but probably not cover to cover. I haven’t given up on N. T. Wright, though. I’ve just learned which books to look for.

Submitting to authority

Posted on January 18, 2013 by Kevin Megill

[I’m back! After a two-month hiatus. I apologize for my long absence!]

In a recent post in my philosophy blog, I explored the relationship of morality to the laws and traditions of the culture we live in. I suggested there that possibly “we have no moral obligation to obey either the laws or tradition, but we have a moral obligation to be willing to obey the laws and to be willing to follow tradition, which is almost (but not quite) the same thing.”

For most of my Christian life, I would have said that we do have a definite moral obligation to obey the law. I held a pretty hard-line view of the importance of submission to authority, which I was sure the Bible supported. I would have pointed to the following Scriptural ideas:

The original sin by Adam and Eve was rebellion against God’s authority, and in one sense rebellion is still at the root of every sin. (Genesis 3:1-7)
God has placed authority over us for a purpose, and if we want to trust God we must be willing to submit to that authority. (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 5:5)
There are specific spheres of authority in our lives and we are commanded to submit to authority in each of the relevant spheres. The spheres are: family, church, work, and government. (Colossians 3:18-25, 1 Peter 2:13-3:6, Hebrews 13:17)
Even when an authority figure is rejecting God, we are expected to honor their authority and wait for God’s deliverance. (Example of David and Saul. For example, see 1 Samuel 24)
When two authorities order us to do conflicting things, we should obey the higher authority. Especially, if obeying an earthly authority would require us to disobey God, then we must obey God instead. (Acts 5:27-29, Daniel 2, Daniel 6).
In addition to submission, we need to be respectful and show honor to those in authority, for the sake of their position. (Acts 23:3-5)
God is able and willing to change the mind of those in authority over us when we need Him to. (Proverbs 21:1 and several other verses)

I still agree with most of this, but my emphasis would be very different. Two things have changed my mind.

First, my interpretation of 1 Peter 2:13 changed. Here’s 1 Peter 2:13:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution …

A couple of verses later, it adds:

Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

I used to read these verses as saying,

“By God’s design, you are under the authority of various human institutions. Now that you belong to Christ, stop rebelling and be a submissive person.”

Now I read them in light of the truth that we are no longer citizens of this world, but citizens of the kingdom of God. We are here only as ambassadors – foreigners who live here but whose allegiance is to another land. Therefore I take them to be saying,

“You are now free from human authority, and serve God instead. However, for the sake of His reputation, and as good ambassadors, and as those under His command, continue to humor the human systems around you by submitting to human authorities. That will serve God’s purposes best.”

The practical result is the same: obey human authority. The reason is very different: obey not because you are under human authority, but because you are under God’s authority.

So we have an indirect moral obligation to obey the laws, but no direct moral obligation to do so.

Second, I’ve begun to realize that if the Bible has, say, a gazillion warnings (by command or example) about the dangers of rebellion, it must have about two gazillion warnings about the dangers of unjust authority. Just as powerful as our desire to rebel is our desire to be tyrants.

I think a Biblically balanced view of authority will be careful to emphasize the warnings given to those in authority at least as strongly as the warnings given to those under it. It will encourage a healthy suspicion that those in positions of power will tempted to abuse that power. I believe my previous way of looking at things was too naively trusting of systems of authority.

Thoughts?

1 Corinthians 1 and intellectual pride

Posted on October 21, 2012 by Kevin Megill

OK, suppose I want to use my mind to serve God, but I am worried about becoming intellectually proud. Does God have any direction for me?

Absolutely. There are lots of Bible verses about pride in general, of course, and I love that, but there is also a specific Bible passage whose central theme is intellectual pride: 1 Corinthians 1-2.

I started to write something about this passage last week, but it sort of got away from me. Here it is, a week later, and I still haven’t really finished. What I would like to post for now, though, is lots of stuff about how to interpret it, with just a few closing comments on how to apply it.

Framing the passage

First, note the context. Paul wrote this letter to the church in Corinth. They had a ton of problems. They accepted immorality as normal for their members, turned their worship services into sideshows, and compromised the doctrine of the resurrection. They also had a real problem with spiritual pride, manifested in the form of major divisions in the church. Paul talked about that throughout the book but it is the focus of the first four chapters.

In 1:10, the instructive instructive part of the book begins with these words:

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you … (1 Cor 1:10)

Later in chapters 3 and 4 Paul reproves the Corinthians for this divisiveness. He starts by saying,

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of Christ, as to infants in Christ … for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor 3:1-3)

After offering himself and Apollos as examples of people working together in unity to serve Christ, he concludes this way:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Cor 4:6)

In the middle of all this fall the verses from 1:17 to 2:16. There Paul narrows the topic of spiritual pride in general to intellectual pride specifically. He shows the conflict between the gospel and the arrogant wisdom of the world in 1:17-2:5. In 2:6-2:16 he contrasts that with the godly wisdom we’ve been granted in Christ, concluding that we have been given the supernatural capacity to understand spiritual things because we have “the mind of Christ”.

We will focus specifically on 1:17-2:5 and 2:14-16.

Interpreting the passage

For now, let me just make two obvious but fundamental observations about the meaning of this passage.

First, notice how anti-intellectual it seems at first glance. It sure looks like it is saying that the Christian gospel is not particularly rationally justifiable, but it doesn’t matter, and we shouldn’t try to justify it rationally anyway.

This can’t quite be right. Paul’s missionary practice, according to Acts, often involved reasoning with unbelievers to persuade them to believe. The words used to describe what he did are things like arguing, reasoning, persuading, and so on. So there must be more to it.

After a second glance, it seems likely that the real emphasis isn’t being rational but rather being proud. I think the guiding principle in interpreting the entire passage is to distinguish between seeking rationality in pride or in a way that panders to others’ pride, vs. seeking it humbly and in a way that encourages others to be humble.

At one point, I planned to walk through the verses phrase by phrase talking about the best way to interpret them, but I’ve decided that isn’t really necessary. Just go read them for yourself: (1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.)

Applying the passage

Far more interesting to me is how these verses apply to our own day. Here are the six points I see as most significant. I’ll expand on them soon.

Think hard, think well.
Don’t demand that things always make sense.
Don’t value intellectuals about non-intellectuals in Christianity.
Discern cultural strongholds of intellectual pride.
Understand what it means to have the mind of Christ.
Keep the gospel pure.

Intellectual humility

Posted on October 7, 2012 by Kevin Megill

When I was a kid in school, I was bright and caught on to ideas quickly. I got lots of A’s. One of the things that confused me was what being humble meant. Was it pride to notice that I was smarter (academically) than the kids around me? Was it more humble to pretend that wasn’t true?

I heard the story about the rich young ruler. He was unwilling to follow Christ because he would have to give up all that he had. I felt like that. I was afraid that I would be unwilling to get saved if I wasn’t willing to become a fool for Christ. How could I be humble enough to respond to God if I was aware that I was smarter than a lot of people around me?

In high school, I attended a Christian fellowship for a while that emphasized the importance of discarding “worldly wisdom” and just believing God instead. They were worried when people tried to analyze spiritual truths too much. I tried — I really tried — not to think about my faith so much. After about a year, I said to God, “God, I can’t stop thinking! No matter how much I try to just believe, my mind just keeps running. I want to be humble, and just have faith, but I can’t figure out how much it’s OK to think about everything.”

The thought that occurred to me then — as though God were speaking to me — was something like this: “Kevin, don’t you realize that I made you the way you are? That i know you like to think about everything, and that I designed you that way for a purpose? Go ahead and think all you want! Just remember to surrender your thinking to me.

These days, I approve of Christians thinking! At the same time, I think there is a danger to putting our reason ahead of God. I think intellectual pride is a very real danger for us as Christians. I think every Christian intellectual ought to be aware of the Biblical warnings for those who think well (or think they do!).

So what is the Biblical teaching about intellectual humility? I’d like to write a little about that in the next few weeks. At this point, here are the passages I want to consider:

1 Corinthians 1,2 (“worldly wisdom” as a barrier to salvation)
1 Corinthians 12 (intellectual humility toward other people)
James 3 (teaching doctrine, heresy-hunting, and intellectual humility)
Matthew 23 (the Pharisees and how intellectual pride can poison spirituality)
A word study on “humility”
Some scattered verses from Proverbs (intellectual integrity)

I think these passages are the core of the Biblical understanding of intellectual pride / humility.

If you are interested in this subject yourself, spend some time reading the passages above. Pray about what you already know and believe. Work out what you think intellectual humility means. Write me your encouragement, advice, or questions.

Are there other passages or topics do you think I need to consider?

Doing theology

Posted on September 21, 2012 by Kevin Megill

Here is something I wrote about 8 years ago about theology for the ordinary Christian. I think I still agree with most of it. It’s very long, but I decided not to break it up into pieces just for the sake of doing so. Feel free to read it a little at a time 🙂

Doing Theology in the Local Church

Doing Theology vs Using Theology

I love doing math. My favorite part of being in grad school getting a computer science degree was the chance to do research in mathematics. Most people that I talk to, though, don’t really understand what “doing math” means. Not realizing that there is a distinction between “doing math” and “using math”, they vaguely imagine me sitting at a desk doing rows and rows of arithmetic problems (or maybe calculus problems). Instead they should be imagining me inventing calculus (I wish!): studying the structures and patterns in numbers, exploring the logical implications of various mathematical hypotheses, or investigating the relationship between various mathematical definitions, both to create approaches that other people can use for problem-solving and simply for the sake of understanding itself.

Similarly, there is a difference between learning or using theology, and doing theology. Many pastors and writers are concerned about the first. They note that most Christians in America are sloppy about or ignorant of theological issues. They simply don’t know very much about their faith, and are distressingly willing to compromise on principles that previous generations of Christians fought long and hard to establish. My concern in this article is with the second: I believe we need to create a space in the culture of our local churches in which gifted individuals can do theology, i.e., can create their theological positions on modern questions in addition to responding to the traditional theological systems developed by past generations.

Critical Reflection on the Church’s Teaching and Practice

There are many possible definitions of theology, but one that I have found helpful is that theology is critical reflection on the church’s teaching and practice. It is in this sense that I believe we need to provide room for local church members to do theology.

Let’s dismantle this definition. First, note that theology is reflection, and reflection takes time. Some churches and church programs are constantly reinventing themselves and their aims in order to stay on the cutting edge. Leaders plunge into the fray of ministry without taking much time for analysis. They get a few details wrong, but most things right, which is enough to bring spiritual success. Afterwards there doesn’t seem to be much point in working out what should have been said or done differently, because it’s too late to do anything about it; the church has moved on to a different battle.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with this kind of fast-paced, rapidly changing ministry in and of itself. I believe God can use it greatly. However, I also believe that God places within each local congregation those whom He calls to do theology – and those men and women will need time to ponder what the church is doing and saying. Once they work out a careful and constructive critique, they can usually clarify what was good and bad in the church’s approach. Wise leaders will sit down at some point and listen carefully to this critique, even though it no longer seems relevant to the current programs and direction. The value of such post-program evaluations may seem small, but over time the positive effects of repeated evaluations will accumulate. Leaders will find themselves making more Biblical decisions without even consciously thinking about it.

Second, note that theology is critical reflection. That doesn’t mean that theology should tear down churches or their leadership. There should be no negativity or complaining in theology – in fact, a balanced theology will take particular care to ponder what a church is doing and saying that is especially good, so that future generations will not take it for granted but continue to emphasize it. However, it does mean the theologians must have the freedom to question the church’s systems, traditions, values and culture. It is frighteningly easy for us as the people of God to become blind to our own greatest areas of sin, but through a courageous humility we can expose ourselves to God’s searching gaze, acknowledge our sins, repent, and begin to “grow up into all aspects into Him who is the head”. The theologians in our midst can lead the way in this process, if we will listen carefully to their concerns without being offended by their questions or becoming defensive. In turn, it is the responsibility of theologians to avoid becoming rabble-rousers, to refuse to exaggerate their concerns or make major concerns out of minor ones.

Third, note that theology responds rather than initiates. It reflects on what the church is already doing and teaching, rather than initiating programs of its own. That means that theology, which always has the right to slow down and ponder what has occurred, never has the right to blackmail the rest of the church into slowing down with it. The church must be allowed to plunge ahead in mission and ministry as needs arise, and let the ponderers work it all out later. It also provides a practical safeguard for theology from its own self-destructive tendencies. First, by keeping things relevant: because of its self-searching nature and its predilection for fine-tuning systems of thought to make them better, theology is always in danger of losing its bearings in the real world. It is easy for theological thinkers to get more and more involved in complex but irrelevant systems of doctrine that are no longer related to the mission or ministry of the church. Second, it safeguards theology from elitism: having to respond to the practical initiatives of the church in mission keeps theologians humble. It reminds us what the central purposes of the church are – that living the truth is far more important than verbally formulating it. Third, whenever theory neglects empirical evidence, it degenerates into consistent logical systems which are fundamentally untrue. This is because the desire for elegance exerts a pressure on the theory which is unchecked by the messiness of reality. Having to reflect on what the church is really doing and saying forces theologians to rework their systems to account for the way things actually are.

Fourth, note that theology reflects on the church’s teaching and practice. Theology as I am defining it is not merely reflection on God Himself, nor on one individual’s personal relationship with God, nor on the world. God is infinitely more important than we are; and theology must necessarily ponder His character and nature, but having done so it must always go on to consider what our response should be to Him. Since the church is people rather than programs or official organizations, the spiritual health of the church is determined by the individual spiritual state of each of its members, as they stand alone before God in their hearts; nonetheless, doing theology is essentially performing a ministry to the rest of the body of Christ, and I must always pass from what is important to me in my spiritual walk to what can edify the whole body. The world with its ever-shifting culture is the source of most of the challenges theology must face, but in trying to answer those challenges theologians must look to the church, which is God’s appointed vehicle for communicating Himself to the world in this age.

Finally, note that theology reflects on both the practice and the teaching of the church. If we focus on the teaching of the church only, we will be critiquing only what the church says it believes, not what it really believes – which shows up in how the church makes decisions, uses its money, responds to crises, and so on. Sometimes the most important messages a congregation communicates are things they don’t even know they are saying. On the other hand, words do matter. If the church is to be a pillar and support of the truth, it must learn to articulate that truth accurately and clearly. For that reason, theologians must pay attention not only to what a church means, but to how it says what it means. The church, then, needs people who will evaluate and critique both what it says and what it really means.

Based on Scripture

One thing missing in the definition of theology given above is that Scripture must be at the center of the reflection theologians do. To do theology, we don’t just ponder the work and purpose of God in the world by the light of our own insight – rather we seek to compare every human activity and attitude to the truth of Scripture and discover where the differences are.

In many theological questions it is easy to discern two camps among Christians. One camp tends to blend Scriptural ideas with current philosophies and perspectives to make gospel truths more relevant. The other camp stands guard against worldly ideas and rejects all those that are not from Scripture. Both are being theologically sloppy, in my opinion. The point isn’t to accept a given position wholesale or reject it wholesale; it is to sift it carefully, separating out those things which agree with Scripture from those that do not.

Sifting a given perspective is not easy. Sometimes an idea arises from anti-Christian presuppositions but rediscovers Biblical truth despite itself. In other cases unbiblical ideas become a part of the church’s world view and are couched in Biblical language, with verses given to support them. In addition, theologians need to discover not only whether a given idea contradicts Scripture but also how it contradicts it. We need to bring the Scriptures up against the idea in question and compare the two all along the line, exploring the precise nature of the relationship between Biblical truth and the idea we are analyzing.

Usually a given “worldly perspective” is really a variety of related but distinct perspectives, some of which are farther from the truth than others. We must be especially careful not to set up straw men. We must listen carefully to the real objections people have to Christian thinking, not just find the easiest version to refute. I even believe it is important to look for ways to make our opponents’ logic sounder and their criticisms truer, so that we don’t miss important critiques which God meant for us to hear through their confused challenges. Ideally our understanding will grow until we are able to answer fully and satisfactorily the sincere questions of any honest skeptic.

Giftedness

The Bible never speaks of the gift of “theology”, but some of the other gifts it mentions – teaching, knowledge, perhaps wisdom or discernment – are well-suited for doing what I have described. In this sense, it is appropriate to speak of certain individuals as being gifted to do theology.

Because theological ability can spring from giftedness, those who are gifted for it must keep in mind some important balances. If I believe I am gifted for doing theology, first I must recognize that this will not be true for most of the church. I must not be frustrated if Christians around me seem sloppy in their thinking or indifferent to theological accuracy or resistant to reflection on the church’s doctrine and programs. Second, I must be willing to set a high standard for myself in theological responsibility. It is not enough for me to compare myself to Christians around me and decide “well, I’m doing better than most Christians are”. Rather I need to push myself to excel far beyond the norm. God has given me the gifts to do so, and I will be judged by what I was given, not by what others were given. Third, I should be careful not to push these standards onto others whom God has called differently. I must let God lead others to the priorities He has for them, refusing to believe that my calling is somehow special compared to theirs. Fourth, I can anticipate that as I faithfully fulfill my own calling, in fact the rest of the congregation will begin to raise the level of their own theology, because of my example. Though they will never emphasize it to the extent I do, nor should they, nonetheless the pace I set will help stir the whole church to do better. Finally, I must recognize that they have callings and gifts of their own. I must be willing to recognize the importance of the things God has called them to, to admit my own failing in the same areas, to let them set the pace for me, and steadfastly refuse to consider myself more spiritual than they on the basis of my calling being somehow more central than theirs.

Local

Global Christianity already has an institution which is well-suited for theologians: seminaries, which provide on a national and international scale exactly what I have been talking about. In seminaries, professors can work out the results of their thinking at their own pace. Afterwards they have a platform through their writings and the classes they teach to speak to the church at large about what they have seen. What I am advocating is a way for people in local churches to do theology.

Local theological work has several advantages. First, it allows more people to do it. Many people who are gifted theologians in God’s eyes may not have the academic bent that is required for success in a seminary. Most will not have the time or money to attend a seminary, let alone teach in one. Others may not be called to do theology exclusively but will be fruitful doing it part-time, in between their other ministries and responsibilities. Second, local theologians can focus on local issues and questions in a way that seminary professors don’t have the time to do. Third, when theologians form isolated enclaves of their own, as can happen in seminaries and thinktanks, apart from the pressure of daily ministry with real people, and away from the frustration of having to deal with Christians whose gifts differ from theirs, their thinking gradually becomes more ingrown, drifting away from its original purposes. Fourth, local theological work will actually increase the audience for the good things coming out of the seminaries, so that local and national theology can mutually reinforce each other.

Authority

Many people assume that the theologians in a church should be the pastors. I am arguing for a different point of view. First, I think that those who are pastors need to have a certain level of theological savvy, but I do not think they need to be doing theology very much themselves. Second, I think that those who are not pastors but are gifted for theological reflection need a way to contribute their gifts to the church.

If this is true, however, it implies something significant. When pastors do theology, it is relatively easy for them to implement their conclusions immediately. They can simply change the direction of the church accordingly. (I realize it’s not really quite that simple in practice!) When non-pastors do theology, the most they can do is suggest to the leadership what they have seen. They must be willing to leave the reins of church government where God Himself has placed them. That means we must keep doing theology separate from church authority.

Encouraging people not in leadership positions to reflect critically on a local church’s practices without undermining the respect and authority due to its pastors may be tricky at times.

Let me make several suggestions. First, theologians should see themselves as advisors, not decision-makers. They are accountable to God to alert the leadership to possible dangers; they are not responsible for the leaders’ response. Theologians don’t have enough facts to make the best decisions: it is the pastors who are most aware of the needs of the members and can judge best which of several competing needs should have the first priority at a given time. Theologians will also not be specifically gifted to make the decisions, whereas the pastors are those to whom God will give the specific grace and wisdom to lead the church.

Theologians also need to realize that other people have the right to disagree with them without explaining why. Often a spiritual leader may be correct in disagreeing with a theologian’s conclusion, but be unable to articulate the reasons for his position. My being able to out-debate my opponent says more about my forensic ability than about which of us is really right. If pastors find themselves being argued into a position intellectually which they sense in their hearts is wrong, they need to stick to their guns and not back down.

On their part, pastors must work hard to give a legitimate voice to the theologians in the church’s midst. They must encourage theologically-minded church members to feel the freedom, in appropriate settings, to challenge the most treasured church traditions and even to question orthodoxy (occasionally and temporarily).

Within every congregation there are doctrinal controversies. Theologians can be of immense help in such situations, not by settling the controversies but by clarifying them. Since theology thrives on the freedom to explore alternatives, both pastors and groups of local theologians should resist the temptation to legislate uniformity in such issues. The invaluable role of the theologians is instead in replacing heat with light by helping each side understand what the other is saying and by working out acceptable compromises.

Why do I believe the Bible is inspired?

Posted on September 16, 2012 by Kevin Megill

When people ask me why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, I answer very differently than the average evangelical, although I share the same doctrines.

The first thing I became convinced of was the truth of the spoken gospel itself. I had heard the gospel before. I understood the theological statements in it. I comprehended the claims it was making. But one day it suddenly became real for me. All at once it seemed absolutely and irrevocably obvious that I was a sinner in need of forgiveness, that Jesus had died for my sins, that he was alive and calling me into relationship with him, and that the very illumination I was suddenly experiencing was the work of the Spirit of Jesus himself, showing it to me.

Second, I noticed than when I read the Bible, portions of it came alive in the same way. I had heard God speaking to me in the gospel; now I heard him speaking to me as I read the Bible. The transcendent intensity of this experience of “being spoken to” drew me back again and again. Sometimes I felt it when I read the Bible; other times I did not.

Third, I began to pay attention to what the Bible said about itself, and about this experience. The key concept was the “word of God”. Sometimes this referred to the spoken gospel, sometimes to the written Scriptures. Always, it was spoken of as having the power to penetrate to our hearts and convince us of its truth.

For example, these verses to the Thessalonians could easily be describing my own experience:

… our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction … 1 Thess 1:5

and

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. 1 Thess 2:13

Note what Paul did not say here: he didn’t say, “Good for you, for accepting our word as true”. He said, “Thank God that his word performed its work in you”.

Similarly in Rom 10:13 Paul said

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

By hearing, here, he means really hearing, i.e., the sharp burst of illumination in which you suddenly really get that it is true, and he says it is the gospel itself that brings that illumination and inspires faith.

Speaking of the written and spoken word of God both, Paul said:

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God … but a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor 2:12-14

What does this mean? Obviously there are many intelligent people who are not believers who are able to understand the theological statements made in the Scripture. Paul’s point is that without the Holy Spirit they do not appraise them correctly. That is, they comprehend the meaning but are unable to see that they are true.

The author of Hebrews says:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Heb 4:12

This described very accurately what was happening to me when I read the Bible sometimes.

In this context, 2 Tim 3:14-16 is very relevant.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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

In other words, all of the Scriptures, not merely the parts that have spoken to me thus far, have the capacity to speak to me.

That last set of verses is very important because it shifts the focus from my own experience of God speaking to me to the objective words of the Bible itself. God got my attention and convinced me the Bible was His word through the felt conviction of the Holy Spirit; in the future, I can believe that this is so even without that felt conviction.

Now, I understand perfectly well that to someone who is unsure whether the Scripture itself is inspired, none of the verses above can prove that it is – that would be circular logic. But to one who already keeps hearing God speak to him in the Bible, these verses explain what is happening and why.

Finally, I was taught the technical details of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. That doctrine is important. At its best, it summarizes and synthesizes all the many things that the Bible says about itself and the Christian experience and understanding of those statements across history; it unwraps the complex implications of those statements; and it guards against heresies that have sprung up from age to age. In my case, though, I was’t taught much about the Bible’s inspiration until after I was already reading, believing, and obeying it the best I could.

Here’s my primary point: sometimes we evangelicals are say, “It’s important that people believe the Bible. If they aren’t willing to believe the Bible, how will they believe the gospel?” I think that gets things backwards. Most of the time, people believe the gospel first and the Bible afterwards.

Musing Out Loud

Category Archives: Misc