From Death To Life: The Testimony Of A Biblically Religious Fraud Found By Jesus

Sometimes the most religiously educated minds are the most spirituality ignorant.

Jesus confounded the religious teachers and authorities of His day. Like the time Jesus asked a perplexed Nicodemus (John 3:3-21) why he “Israel’s teacher” could not understand the basics of spiritual birth.

Nicodemus was a religious expert. He had no doubt studied Scripture his entire life. Yet his mind was dull to spiritual things, his existing knowledge clouded him, and he clearly was not understanding what Jesus was trying to explain.

What was Jesus trying to explain to Nicodemus?

Nicodemus is not the only religious authority totally ignorant of spiritual matters. Many professing Christians have the same dullness of mind of Nicodemus because they have yet to be born of the Spirit and to realize the fullness of truth.

The religiously minded tend to think they gave birth to themselves. They believe they were saved by their own study and understanding of a book. No, they will never say this in so many words, but it is evident in what they claim as the foundation of their faith and attitudes towards those who try to give credit to God alone.

The thoroughly indoctrinated church borns, those who are the cream of the crop in their own minds, are the most difficult to convince.

How do I know?

I was one of them. I was raised in a bastion of Biblical fundamentalism and religious pride. I was born in a conservative Mennonite home. (We are the best of the best and know it—Don’t let our initial humble appearance fool you!) I went into public high school arrogant enough to think I knew more about biology than the college educated teacher of the class.

This is not unusual, Biblical fundamentalist children are often ‘big fish in a little pond’ and the smartest person they know. To make matters worse, they are often isolated from outside influences (home schooled or raised with like-minded people) and too sheltered to realize how sheltered they are.

The result is that many things are just presumed to be true and never questioned. Yes, we are fed a steady diet of information to make us feel knowledgeable about everything from science to theology and philosophy. But most of it is a strawman of the other side and an attempt to vaccinate us from further questions.

But I had the misfortune of being born with a question “why” on my lips. I delved deep into apologetics, slipped on a personal tragedy, and found I could not (despite my dedicated effort and mental strain) prove the existence of God. I thrashed, gasped for that last saving breath, then disappeared into doubt and despair.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

A mother’s wail ripped a hole in my heart. All of my pretense of knowledge couldn’t save her children or keep me from my plunge into spiritual darkness. I stared at the lifeless body that had come to represent my hope for my close friend. There was no resurrection of the dead that day. My little hope died.

I had reached an end. All of the religious cliché and trite assurances were swallowed up in a tsunami of fear and hopelessness. Over the same period of time I had a falling out with the religious community that was a big part of my identity and security. I gave up. My attempts to find faith through my diligent religious effort had totally failed me.

Passing from death to life by the Spirit’s power.

Many who profess faith in Jesus believe they were saved through their religious knowledge and reading the Bible. But Scripture does not support their delusional claims. There is no evidence that we can be born of Spirit or come to faith through our own religious knowledge and effort.

Just as a child doesn’t give birth to themselves, the spiritually dead cannot bring themselves to life and this is what Scripture describes was our reality before God saved us:

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins… But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. […] For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 1-10)

There’s no such thing as half dead.

There’s no way for a fully dead person to bring themselves to life.

Those who claim to be saved through their Bible study have somehow missed the obvious. They may have read, but they clearly do not understand that dead is dead and the dead to not rise by their own accord. No, if you are spiritually alive today “it is by grace you have been saved” and “not by works” or Paul is a liar.

What I had failed to comprehend in my diligent study and dedicated pursuit of faith is the simplest spiritual truth of them all. Because of my religious education I had no grasp of my own hopelessness. I had always assumed faith was a product or result of my own knowledge of Scripture and religious devotion.

I was blinded by my pretense of knowledge. I had reasoned that I could be saved because of what I had learned about Jesus in church and in reading the Bible. I thought this was faith in God, but it was really only ever a trust of my own human rationality and circular reasoning at best. I really only had faith in my own ability to understand and believe the content of a book.

But my attempt to bootstrap my way into heaven this way failed me. It was a false hope built on presumption and self-righteous delusion. By assuming that my Bible reading was my salvation I had actually rejected Jesus and real spiritual life. Despite my sincerity and ability to argue Bible-based dogma, I was nothing but a 2D cardboard cutout of a 3D faith.

It was only after my faith in my own abilities had died that there was a realization out of the blue. The epiphany was the sudden understanding that it wasn’t my faith that saved me. No, it was God’s faith expressed through Jesus that saved me while I was yet a sinner. I was miraculously raised from the dead with Him.

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ.” (Colossians 2:9-13)

My Biblical ‘Christian’ indoctrination did not save me. No, it had blinded me. I was too full of religious pride, intellectual assumptions and the pretense of spiritual knowledge to know the truth. However, despite this pretense of faith that had taken root, I had believed in Jesus as a child and was baptized in sincerity of faith.

And now that spiritual seed of my Baptismal faith was ready to emerge from the water. Suddenly the words of the Jesus and the Apostles came alive in a new way as I read them. I was astonished, what had once confused and confounded me was now clear as day. I could finally understand the book that had caused me (and others like this guy) to fall into agnosticism.

Are we saved by our book knowledge or saved by Jesus?

I can hear the howls of protest from both the book worshipping religious people and other unbelievers: “How could I know about Jesus and come to faith without reading the Bible?!?”

But these religious cynics and skeptics lack understanding of their own spiritual ignorance:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.” (John 6:44-45)

This is the mystery those who reject the Bible and those who think their own knowledge saves them refuse to understand. They have both (tacitly or openly) rejected the resurrection of the dead and, in their self-reliance, dismiss the promise of Jesus and cling to what is reasonable to their spiritually dead mind.

But Jesus never promised we would be saved or taught by a book. That idea is a misunderstanding of Biblical terminology and causality at best. It is spiritual idolatry or rejection of the person of Jesus and blasphemy again the Spirit of God at worse. This is what Jesus did promise:

“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Now, lest any of you protest and attempt to credit your own understanding of the Bible for saving you. Go back and read the passages I’ve quoted previously, dead people do not come to understanding and life by their own reading comprehension. We are told the real teacher is the Spirit and that it is only through the spiritual anointing promised by Jesus that we avoid deception:

“I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” (1 John 2:26-27)

At first glance it might seem paradoxical to write to warn someone about deception if they don’t need to be told. However, faith is not individualistic effort or personal project and God uses many means to encourage us through the collective body of believers. Only those with the Spirit know that the words of a writer originate from the Spirit.

But, wait, isn’t that circular reasoning, how do you know?

I’ve mentioned that predisposing the Bible to be true because it says so is circular reasoning or an argument based in two unproven premises that rely on each other to be true. So, isn’t saying that I know the Spirit because I have the Spirit the same thing?

Of course, the only way it is the same thing is if we believe a book is equal in ability and power to the Spirit of God. Many Christians do this when they describe the Bible as “word of God” and claim it saved them. But the Scripture is indeed different from the word of God and we can know this as fact.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.“ (Isaiah 55:9-11)

That word translated as “word” in the passage above is the Hebrew דָּבָר (dabar) and in the New Testament Greek comes out as λόγος (logos) or ῥῆμα (rhema) and does not refer to Scripture. If it did refer to Scripture, and Isaiah is true, then it would be impossible for those who knew the Scripture to reject the word of God:

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. […] And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:25-40)

These people Jesus says studied the Scripture diligently. Yet, despite their religious dedication to a book, according to Jesus, they did not have God’s “word” in them and therefore would not come to Him for life. If Scripture is the word of God and they knew the Scripture, then how could they not know the truth standing literally in front of them?

The answer is that they knew Scripture and not the word. The two are not one and the same. One is divinely inspired writing useful to a true believer (2 Timothy 3:16) and the other is divinity embodied and a promise that cannot fail. One is infallible while the other can be twisted and misused as Peter warns:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.“ (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Scripture can be distorted the “ignorant and unstable” but God’s word is always true. Satan can quote Scripture, but we also know he always lies, has “no truth in him” (John 8:44) and this is a problem if you presume that “word” is synonymous with Scripture.

Fortunately we need not make such a presumption. Scripture and the word of God are related to each other. God’s word is what inspired Scripture. I will even venture to say that Scripture can become as God’s word to the believer. However, we must get first things first or we are deceived and Jesus always comes first.

Salvation is through faith and Jesus, not in our religious devotion to a book.

I am saved because Jesus saved me. If I were to make any other boast I would only out of ignorance of both Scripture and the word of God which inspired it. My faith and eventual salvation is entirely a gift of grace (Ephesians 2:8) and rest in the mystery of God’s power.

It was knowledge apart from God that drove Adam away from the tree of life—I believe (after the fact) that it is God’s word or Spirit who “quickened” me to salvation.

There is no faith without obedience and there is no obedience outside of hearing God’s word. This is the paradox of the promised Spirit. We hear because we are made alive in the grace of Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:5) and must be faithful in the very little we know before we can expect to get very much.

I believe salvation is totally the work of God. God makes the initial payment through grace and we continue to grow in faith through obedience to to what we know. My faith is not a presupposition based in something I read in a book or a product of religious indoctrination. My faith is personal relationship and something experienced in the heart of those who believe.

I believe the word comes to us through revelation of the Spirit. It is not our mere knowledge of Scripture that saves us, but also always an act of God and work of the Spirit. It was only after Jesus revealed himself to the disciples on the road to Emmaus that they were finally able to understand:

“[Jesus] said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45)

If the very men who spent all that time with Jesus teaching them needed His help to understand the Scripture, how can we expect to do better?

But the most compelling case for direct revelation is how Paul’s explanation of how we (as believers) understand the Scripture when others with the same written texts did not:

“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived’—the things God has prepared for those who love him—these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:6-16)

Scripture is only useful for those of the Spirit and those who do not accept the Spirit “considers it foolishness” because they have yet to experience the indwelling of the word. They are spiritual blind and often the most religiously arrogant hard-headed people. If they profess Jesus Christ and seek to obey Him, I do believe they will be saved. However, because of their refusal to fully acknowledge or accept the gift of God’s Spirit they may be as those who have built a foundation somewhat on the works of men rather than completely on Christ—who will see their work burn but still be saved (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) because God is gracious to the ignorant.

For those who think the Bible is the best way of sharing the Gospel I will again point to the explanation of Paul who writes (2 Corinthians 3) we ourselves are a letter from God and it is the Spirit that makes us competent. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is always best learned through application. Bible study has it’s place for certain, in fact that is probably one of the first places the Spirit will take us. However, reading without loving as Christ loved to our best ability will limit our deeper understanding of the book.

What am I… a Calvinist?

I make no such allegiance. I have not studied John Calvin enough to know where I stand in relation to his teachings.

I believe in free will and still acknowledge the clear pattern of causality and determinism in the universe. I also do not ignore the language of predestination and election in Scripture.

I do believe in paradox.

There are many cases where dualities of both/and (as opposed to either/or dichotomies) offer the better explanation. Dualities are found in both the uppermost, lowermost and outermost limits that define the universe as we currently know it.

The singularity of a black hole, on the scale of the very big, is an object both infinity small and massive, a place where time itself ceases, defies normal reasoning. Quantum mechanics, the world of the extremely small smallest parts of the universe, brings us to an irrational bizarreness where particles behave as waves until observed and time ceases to matter.

Advanced physics is now making the long held assumptions of materialists obsolete, we can now look beyond these constraints and to possibilities once unimaginable.

Our rationality is time based.

God’s is not.

Time is an illusion.

This has huge implications.

This might explain the language of ‘is and is yet to come’ in Scripture. Jesus explained “my kingdom is not of this world” and pointed to a higher spiritual dimensionality that is beyond the reach of normal human reasoning or natural science.

Perhaps the question of free will and predestination is answered by a paradoxical both. If we are adopted by God, sons and daughters according to His word, then we will eventually become one with the Father, our Father who exists in timeless reality, and therefore we participate in our own coming to salvation through the Spirit.

Who knows? Only Jesus.

I don’t pretend to know the answers to those questions. I don’t need to know the answers to those questions. All I know I need to know is Jesus. Even if I were not a Christian I am convinced Jesus, his way of self-sacrificial love and leadership by example, is the answer.

“And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

That is the testimony I have. Only by the love of Jesus and the Spirit’s power am I saved.

Jesus is the answer that found me.

Who Are The True Children Of Abraham?

Over half a century ago there was a refugee crisis.

Vast numbers of people crossed the Mediterranean Sea. These refugees landed in a place where the inhabitants viewed them as illegal aliens, a threat to their way of life and dangerous.

There were terrorist bombings and assassinations perpetrated by those emerging from the sea—trying to gain a foothold. The native people were overwhelmed, they were unable to repel the invasion—driven from their ancestral homes and into poverty.

To many this happening is a fulfillment of prophecy and miracle from God. They use success in battle as evidence that God is on the side of the victors, they use Scriptural promises made to Abraham as proof texts, and urge the Christian church to fall in line.

But Jesus warned of false prophets who “will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

So, how do we know the difference between a miracle of God and deception? Are the nationalistic ambitions of some today reflective of the new covenant or is that a return to bondage? Is our new covenant one of physical reality or spiritual? Who are the true children of God?

#1) Jesus says clearly that children of Abraham by blood (who do not believe) are children of the devil, not God…

“‘Abraham is our father,’ they answered.

‘If you were Abraham’s children,’ said Jesus, ‘then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.’

‘We are not illegitimate children,’ they protested. ‘The only Father we have is God himself.’

Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.'” (John 8:39-47)

Jesus tells these ‘Jews’ that the true children of Abraham do as he did. Jesus suggests they are illegitimate children. They claim to be children of God because of their biological lineage and Jesus dismisses them as children of the devil.

Do we agree with them? Is God and Abraham their father? Or do we agree with Jesus?

#2) Paul says the old covenant will “soon disappear” and be replaced by the new and superior covenant of Jesus…

“But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: ‘The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.“ (Hebrews 8:6-13)

This is where historical context matters.

The text above was written before the destruction of the temple and final ending of the inferior covenant’s sacrificial system.

Jesus represented the ending of the age, the fullness of a time, and a better way. The old covenant has disappeared, we live in the fulfillment of that prophecy above and should not look backwards.

A covenant is an agreement only good when both sides keep the terms. Paul clearly says that the old covenant was broken and God “turned away” from the people who broke the contract.

Nobody under the new covenant should be pining for a return of the old…

“We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.“ (2 Corinthians 3:13-17)

Do you live in the freedom of the new covenant or do you remain with Moses in dullness of mind and persistent lacking of understanding?

#3) The physical or outward circumcision does not mean anything to God, the true circumcision is something internal and spiritual…

“A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.” (Romans 2:28-29)

Paul harkens back to the conditional promise given in Deuteronomy (chapter 30) where assurance is given “when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul” that He “will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

What circumcision is important to you? That of religious devotion and performed by human hands?

Or that circumcision of heart performed by spiritual means?

Physical circumcision is a cultural and religious tradition only—it is a ritual performed by men and has not real value to God. The true circumcision is the one performed by God when people “return” to Him and live in obedience to His voice.

#4) The true sheep hear His voice, the false teachers are unable to comprehend and despite their diligent study of Scripture…

“The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’

Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.'” (John 10:24-27)

“And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:37-40)

We see these descendants of Abraham, even with their diligent study of Scripture, did not know God’s word or voice and did not accept Jesus. They are not heirs of the promise to Abraham and are not the true children of God.

#5) The book of Revelation and 1 John tells us physical descendants of Abraham who did not obey Jesus are not children of the covenant, they are damned liars…

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22-23)

“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” (Revelation 3:9)

Can the language of Scripture be anymore explicit?

Those who have rejected Jesus are the “antichrist” and seperated from God the Father. These are people who “claim to be Jews” yet really “are of the synagogue of Satan” and liars. We want to share no part in their self-deception.

#6) Those who accept Jesus are the true seed of Abraham and the rightful heirs, not an ethnic group determined by bloodline…

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.“ (Galatians 3:26-2)

The early church dealt with the same issues we do today. Some wanted, due to religious heritage and ethnic background, to think of themselves as superior. But that is an idea in direct opposition to Scripture.

In Jesus the importance of physical bloodlines is wiped away completely. All who share the faith of Abraham are the real heirs of the promise and true children of God.

#7) So, what about Zionism and the resurrected state of Israel?

Many are bewitched and made fools (Galatians 3) by those in the church peddling the old covenant. Sensational claims grab our attention and sensational eschatology has become the biggest distraction from teaching true obedience to Jesus in many churches.

The book of Revelation does give a prophecy of the resurrected and seemingly invincible beast that emerges from the sea…

“One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?'” (Revelation 13:3-4)

In the prior chapter we learn it is at war with the true offspring of God’s promise…

“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17)

I don’t claim to know for certain what the beast is in the passages above. But I see that the “offspring” are defined as those who have a testimony about Jesus. I do also know that the antichrist is clearly defined in Scripture as those who have rejected Jesus as the son of God and we should have no part in their deception.

According to Scripture true descendants of Abraham are those who have heard, believed and followed after Jesus. The real circumcision is not one of a religious ritual, not one of a physical nation, but one of obedience and heart.

Coincidentally the modern state of Israel was formed May 15, 1947 or precisely 69 years and a day ago from the date of this post.

What Are ‘Christian’ Values?

The culture war continues.

The latest salvo in the fight is over the current segregation of public restrooms. The proponents of change and traditionalists battle it out for control on social media and in the public arena.

Both argue the moral inferiority of the other side. Both claim to be defending the security of their loved ones. Both threaten to take punitive measures against those who do not comply with their demands.

It is a fight where nobody seems to win and everyone comes out a loser. But what if this two sided debate is actually false dichotomy? Could there be a third option solution where all could win?

Perhaps, if all sides of this struggle for control could put down their rhetorical and political weapons for a moment, there is a better example to follow?

I believe there is a better ‘third’ way that is neither dogmatically religious nor demandingly progressive. I believe there is an alternative where all can win and none lose.

However, before I can get to the solution I need to discuss where the other options fall short and to do this I have defined a few categories.

(Please understand in advance that there is overlap between my categories and many people may not fall neatly into one or another.)

1) Liberal ‘progressive’ or secular values are marketed as love, tolerance, inclusion and open-mindedness. The promise is a more fair or high-minded society, but the result is often as petty and even more divisive than what it seeks to replace. It is morally incoherent, in one breath claiming to be non-judgmental and making more allowance for free expression, but in the next moment enforcing strict dogmas of politically correct language and behavior.

Those who do not comply with the moral edicts of progressives should be prepare to be shamed, belittled and bullied into silence. Those who fall away, question or challenge the new orthodoxy will be labeled as a bigot, racist, homophobe, misogynist, hateful or insensitive. The shouts of “don’t judge me” are often only a tool to drown out dissent and not a consistently applied principle. These bleeding hearts are out for blood as much as those they accuse of lacking understanding or compassion.

2) Conservative ‘nationalistic’ or established values are the present cultural norms and current notions of common sense. This is the flag waving proud patriotic perspective held by those who believe their own values (football, freedom and frequent beer consumption) represent the greatness of the American past, present and future. These are the biggest defenders of the status quo, their status quo, and never minding that their current cherished culture was formed yesterday.

These are the people who complain about outsourced jobs while simultaneously shopping at Walmart and criticizing as lazy those who aren’t as successful as them. This is the moral majority of the moment that sees their own privileges and preferences as fundamental rights without respect or consideration of those who see differently. They have also abandoned the traditional values of their parents and grandparents yet still condemn those who go a step further than them.

In their eyes America was almost always right. Historic injustice is white washed with a brush of romanticism. Slavery, racial inequality, segregation of schools, massacres and other abuses against native people are forgotten. The sins of our modern imperialistic aggression and global hegemony are downplayed. “It’s ‘merica, baby, land of the free, home of the brave!”

3) Religious ‘fundamentalist’ or traditional values are those out of the mainstream who claim to represent God’s will and freely judge all people—especially those outside of their own sub-cultural group. These self-proclaimed sanctimonious gatekeepers to the realm of moral truth annoy everyone who doesn’t share their own interpretations. People call them the “Bible-thumpers” and they come with a “holier then thou” attitude that is a major turn off to those outside their own cult.

They pose as authorities on spiritual matters. However, their knowledge doen’t seem to know much beyond their proof-texting and dogmas. They use “the Bible says” and selectively quote the Old Testament when it suits their own agenda. But gloss over and don’t deal honestly with other culturally inconvenient Biblical realities like captured brides, naked prophets and daughters sacrificed in God’s name.

They make fun of the sensitivity of the progressives and then cry “persecution” when they themselves are opposed. They feel entitled to a special privileged position in society as God’s favorites. They use grace as a cover for their own sins without extending the same to those who sin differently or disagree.

4) Faithful ‘Spirit And In Truth’ followers are those who pick up the cross and live to be a consistent example of self-sacrificial love. These are those who seek to be the literal embodiment of Jesus Christ. This means they follow his commandments to love their neighbors as themselves, to do unto others as they would have them do for us and, while seeking to purify themselves of evil, leave judgment outside to God.

It is a way that doesn’t seek power to impose on others and instead is committed to self-sacrificial love and leadership by example. It is the beautiful alternative to the endless cycles of reaction, retaliation and repeat again. It forgives and frees others of their sin debt to us. It builds a new identity in Jesus and is a truth that is lived more than preached.

How are Christian values different from progressive values?

There are some similarities. Jesus broke from the established religious and cultural standard. He identified with the societal outcasts and was full of compassion for hurting people.

But Jesus did not turn to more law or greater regulation of offending behavior as the solution. He did not urge a political fight or demand his voice be heard by government authorities. He did not lead massive protests against the privileged and powerful. Instead Jesus showed the example to follow, he offered his own life as atonement for the sins of others and forgave offenses.

How are Christian values different from ‘traditional’ American values?

There are many who characterize America as a ‘Christian’ nation and really do a disservice to the truth in this. America does have some ‘Christian’ values reflected in its history and did certainly provide a haven of religious freedom.

However, this conveniently glosses over the fact that founding fathers were not faithful. Thomas Jefferson, for example, cut out portions of the Bible he found disagreeable. Ben Franklin lived immorally according to a Christian standard.

The individualism, materialism and entitlement mentality of modern America is not in the least bit reflective of the teachings of Jesus.

How are Christian values different from religious and Biblical fundamentalist values?

Oftentimes it seems those who are closest to the truth who are the furthest away. Or, at least, this was the case with those who inherited the Scripture in Jesus day and thought of themselves as experts in morality. But human efforts, even the most diligent of human efforts, cannot bring anyone a step closer to the truth.

The truth, as found in Jesus, is not an accumulation of knowledge and careful application that leads to moral superiority. No, the way of Jesus is acknowledgement of our inability—it is humble, repentant and is fully dependent on the grace of God.

Putting down Peter’s sword…

We could have everyone forced to use the ‘right’ restroom without accomplishing anything more than Peter’s sword:

“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, ‘Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?'” (John 18:10-11)

Peter thought he was defending the truth and mission of Jesus, but actually stood in the way of God’s plan. Peter, who was rebuked on several occasions for his lack of understanding and overzealousness, treated the servant as sword practice.

By contrast, the John’s account treats the man Peter wounded as a unique individual with a name: Malchus. And, in a parallel account (Luke 22:51) Jesus demonstrates a different way, he heals the ear of Malchus—a man sent to bring him to his death—and showed the true Christian value.

Peter was fighting a losing battle. He had his own vision different from that of Jesus. He thought he was defending truth when in reality he was a part of the problem. He thought his act was one of total commitment to the cause when it was in fact the opposite.

Peter’s act is perfect a metaphor of what happens when those of us who claim faith in Jesus go out militantly defending our own religious values with political force—we cut off ears.

And picking up the cross to follow Jesus…

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!’ Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.'” (Matthew 16:21-23)

Here Peter was completely willing to fight for the kingdom of God, but for his enthusiasm is called small minded, a stumbling block and mouthpiece for Satan.

Can you imagine how Peter felt?

Jesus continues…

“Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?'” (Matthew 16:24-26)

This was not what Peter or the other disciples had in mind. They pictured themselves as co-rulers of a worldly kingdom and had been arguing things like who would sit on the right hand of Jesus on his earthly throne when they finally defeated Rome.

But Jesus paints a picture entirely different. He’s predicting his death, a painful and humiliating death on a Roman cross, while urging them to follow the same path of self-sacrificial love. He was trying to explain a reality bigger than their worldly political visions and values.

What are Christian values?

Jesus, after being baptized, after receiving the Spirit’s anointing and being tempted in the wilderness, announced the start of his ministry by quoting the prophet Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

That is where we start. That is Christian values in a nutshell.

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already…” (John 3:17-18)

That’s the good news. Jesus didn’t come to condemn anyone, but to heal the sick, restore sight to the blind, forgive impossible debts, reconcile relationships with God and bring freedom to those condemned to death. It was a message of restoration and hope, not condemnation.

Christian values begin and end in living out the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not a progressive, not a defender of cultural status quo nor a religious fundamentalist, his values were higher and spiritual. He was not seeking legal power or political advantage so he could impose on others, that wasn’t his fight.

“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'” (John 18:36)

Having Christian values means one shares the same priorities as Jesus. It means talking up the cross of self-sacrificial love and showing the way of grace. Jesus was not a cultural warrior seeking to impose values by force of law or a sword, instead he is an advocate for those lost in sin.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what restroom your neighbor uses, that is an argument where both sides lose and a distraction. What matters is how our own attitudes and actions reflect those of Jesus Christ.

We must put our rhetorical swords down. We must love our (political) enemies and heal rather than cut off ears.

False And True Knowledge

I am dismayed when fellow Christians (especially those claiming to speak for the church) make definitive statements that are unsupported in the evidence. There are many who take a dogmatic black and white stand on ideas not supported logically, scientifically or in appropriate understanding of Scripture.

I am dismayed because we stand to hurt our credibility when we make our stand on things we do not actually know and with reasoning that falls apart under closer scrutiny. It is too often the case that those who think they are defending the Gospel truth are actually destroying it in their stubborn obstinacy and inability to see past their own presuppositions about the evidence.

This is a problem in the fundamentalist circles I am most familiar with. Instead of simply taking a stand on faith or sticking to the text of the Bible as they claim, many add their own assumptions. They go another step off the firm ground of what is truly known and onto the quicksand of over-interpretation, unsupported inference and baseless speculation. It is sad because it is unnecessary, it too often is the bathwater that conceals the true baby of Christianity, and drives critical thinking people away.

Two examples (often given in opposition to Evolution theory) is the idea that there is a clean break between living and non-living things. The other is a misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the word “entropy” to mean something that it does not. Both of these ideas originate in extrapolation from Biblical language, but neither one of them is actually as definitive in the Scriptural record as some might assume.

Postulate #1) Life cannot originate from non-life.

It seems obvious enough at first glance, doesn’t it? I mean, have you ever seen mud materialize into human form, then suddenly become animated, walk and talk as a human would? I have not. We do not typically see dead organisms come back to life without a miracle.

And yet, under the microscope, it is interesting that the line between life and non-life is actually blurrier than one might imagine. Viruses are considered dead because they do not have the ability to reproduce without a host cell and do not replicate themselves in the typical way of cell-division. However, a virus can reanimate a dead cell, take control of it and use it to replicate.

Cells themselves are not ‘living’ in their individual components any more than a car is alive when you start it. Yes, in one sense there is life, but it is the ‘life’ of chemical reaction (albeit in a complex system) and in physical processes not considered as living taken independent of each other.

Think about it: The sun (due to gravity and other forces) is orderly, it takes hydrogen and, through a process of fusion, creates light energy and heavier elements. Cells likewise, take one form of matter and through chemical process convert it to something else. The difference between the sun and a cell, when we cut past the descriptive language to the actual material substance, is one of complexity and size rather than living or dead.

Our physical body is basically a complex machine comprised of individual self-replicating cells that work in concert with other different cells to produce organs, tissues and a body. At the smallest level it is all chemical reaction and a sort of mechanical process that usually considered non-living. But, at some point, taken together, these dead parts become something considered a living organism. It is bit of a both/and paradox rather than an either/or dichotomy.

The difference between life and non-life seems to be a continuum more than a black and white line. We do not consider a bacteria as equal to a plant or an animal equal to ourselves and the difference is probably the amount of ‘life’ each organism represents. Likewise, I do not know if we can consider an animated universe something ‘dead’ with all the creative processes at work. All, to me, are expressions of a creative and living God.

Postulate #2) Entropy is corruptive and not a good thing.

Lay people often misunderstand the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time) as some kind of moral statement. This misunderstanding is understandable. Entropy is associated with decay and the universe is (by appearances, because of entropy) like a wind up clock that will finally someday be exhausted.

However, the increase of disorder or entropy in the universe is not an entirely bad thing. In fact, entropy is how we get the energy and substance we need to survive. When a man enters an ‘orderly’ forest, cuts a swath out to build a cabin and cultivates the space created, he has increased entropy. Our favorite star (aka: the sun) taking ‘orderly’ hydrogen and turning it into a mix of heavier elements and light is increasing entropy. Entropy is what makes the universe work and allows something as complicated as biological life exist.

Another way to understand entropy is to see it as an increase in complexity. A stack of lumber is an orderly arrangement and has a relatively low state of entropy. Hire a carpenter and turn the orderly stack into a house and, with addition of work to cut the lumber to different lengths, along with the contamination of nails, drywall, windows, doors, plumbing, and other building materials, you have increased entropy.

A pile of rocks is at a relatively low state of entropy. People, one the other hand, represent a very high level of entropy. We are arguably the pinnacle of disorder in the universe with our complexity and creative abilities. Our turning orderly raw materials into complex creations, the process we use involving the dispersal of energy, is creating a higher level of entropy. A 747 is a product of entropy as much as human engineering.

Entropy is like the sun or rain. The same sun that produces the energy we need to survive can also cause skin cancer and kill us. The rain cycle that we depend on for fresh water is also capable of producing floods and destruction. Entropy is not exclusively creative or destructive, it is not something moral or immoral, it just is, and it is necessary for life to exist as we know it.

If life is an emergent property of physical complexity or entropy, then what?

The idea of life being an emergent quality of complex physical processes is unsettling to some. There are serious philosophical questions and potentially big theological implications. Nevertheless, if honest use of terms is our concern, we must be fearless and follow the evidence where it leads.

One idea at stake is our human exceptionalism. In the book of Genesis we read an exceptional account describing the creation of man. In it we both see humanity as being “in the image of God” and also that God ‘breathed’ the “breath of life” directly into man. This is directness in the creation of humankind is unique in the Genesis narrative, but what does it really mean?

We are not exceptional to animals in our physical body. A human heart can be patched with a valve from a pig. Human insulin can be created with bacteria and our genetic code is not too significantly different from other animals of our level of complexity. It would appear that other animals also have consciousness at some level.

So clearly, for the Genesis account to be true, we are somehow special, touched uniquely by God, yet not in a physical sense. When defining the terms used in Scripture, it is good to compare different accounts and see how similar language is used elsewhere. In the case of breathing we are not without another reference for sake of comparison.

Genesis is not the only time in the Biblical canon that the divine breathed on men and gave them life:

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.'” (John 20:21-22)

The disciples of Jesus were clearly already physically alive. But they were not yet ‘born of the Spirit’ and therefore could not understand the things of God. Read John 6, Jesus talks about the “living bread” he represents and understand that he is not speaking about physical bread nor about physical life. There are many cases in Scripture like this one where a completely ‘literal’ (physical reality) interpretation is incorrect.

So, perhaps what many have been taught and think they know about the book of Genesis is wrong? Perhaps the book is less about physical reality and more about a greater spiritual truth? I believe that is possible, even probable, and leads to less conflict with what is known through scientific inquiry.

Knowing what we need to know…

I believe many Biblical fundamentalists confuse the bathwater of their own established interpretation, traditions and dogmas with the baby. The baby or fundamental truth of Christianity is not found in historical documents nor proved with scientific evidence. The truth of Christianity is found in knowing what Paul knew:

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)

The truth of Christianity is Jesus. And, by Jesus, I do not mean the historical figure who’s words we read in a book and the religious traditions that borrowed his name. I mean the Jesus that we live out daily and our having the mind of Christ today. The church must represent Jesus to the world presently, the power of the Spirit must be our reality now or our religious words only perpetuate a fraud. Jesus must be experienced in our lives today and his will expressed through us or the truth is not in us.

When we find our answers in Jesus (rather than Genesis) and should have spiritual experience in our lives. What makes us unique is the emergent quality of faith and the breath of God’s own Spirit in us. We are in the image of the divine because we have the mind of Christ. These are things revealed by faith and not products of mere human knowledge.

We need not know more than the way of Jesus. If we live that out our lives will reveal the truth of Christianity without our need of superfluous or false knowledge to bolster our case. Let the proof of faith be in the truth of our actions and the image of God found in our divine love.

Biblical Faith vs. Bible-based Religion

Two different religious traditions use the same Scripture. One tradition says the text points to a man named Jesus who preached in Roman occupied Judea a little over two millennia ago and was God’s only begotten son came to save people from themselves. The other tradition rejected these claims and still waits on Elijah to return as a prelude to the arrival of the Messiah.

“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.” (Malachi 4:5-6)

Note the choices in the passage above. There’s option a) repentance and changed hearts, or option b) face total destruction. And, depending on perspective, there might be an option c) both.

We know that Judaism was split in two because of Jesus (some believing him, others rejecting him) and also that Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70CE. The glorious temple, the very center of Jewish worship, was completely dismantled as Jesus had foretold and has never been rebuilt.

Temple #1: Symbolic, representation of truth, built out of stone and sweat of men, located in Jerusalem:

“As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!’ ‘Do you see all these great buildings?’ replied Jesus. ‘Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.'” (Mark 13:1-2)

Clearly Jesus is referring to the destruction of buildings that the disciples were admiring and that destruction literally happened.

But, there’s more…

Temple #2: Figurative, fleshed out truth, the life work and example of Jesus, located in history:

“The Jews then responded to him, ‘What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ They replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?’ But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” (John 2:18-22)

Jesus also used the temple as a metaphor for himself, predicts his own death and promises to resurrect his body.

Then at the trial of Jesus…

“Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: ‘We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.'” (Mark 14:56-58)

Note, in the third passage, we are told that the witnesses at the trial of Jesus spoke falsely. However, we see in the prior two Gospel accounts quoted above that the words they spoke were half-true—It is indeed true that Jesus spoke about the destruction of the temple and probably said something about a new temple not built with hands—The false part is where they claim he would do it by his own hand.

Jesus foretold his own death using a metaphor of himself or his body being the temple. But he was also prophesying about the literal building of stone in Jerusalem. His words a double entendre, one meaning of the word “temple” was figurative about his own death and resurrection and a second concrete meaning about the literal destruction of the temple built of stone. However, there is a third use of temple and not the temple of the body of Jesus or the temple in Jerusalem built of stone.

Temple #3: Spiritual, a truth experienced, lived practically and today, located in the heart of believers:

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

“Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.'” (John 14:23)

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:27)

That is a radical message. It takes us from a man-made building of stone and religion. It takes us to the man named Jesus “the stone the builders rejected” (Psalm 118:22, Matthew 21:42, Acts 4:11) and then finishes with us being the place where God dwells and being Jesus. It is the message that got Stephen killed:

“After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things?‘ You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:45-51)

I can imagine why that was insulting. Stephen basically just invalidated the entire religion of his audience using their own Scripture.

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem marked the end of a religious system. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of something very different: A chance to be a dwelling place for God, and an opportunity to be a true child (adopted, not begotten) of God.

Jesus, talking to a woman who asked about the proper place to worship, said:

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

Oddly enough, many professing Christians today are waiting on a literal temple of stone and a literal bodily second coming of Jesus. They seem to me like those who wait on a literal Elijah, who did not recognize John the Baptist as the spiritual Elijah, and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have a Bible-based religion, they diligently study Scripture, yet they seem to be missing something as far as understanding and faith.

Bible-centered religion and regulation is false security. Jesus never told anyone that Scripture would replace him as teacher. Jesus did, however, promise that the Spirit would “teach you all things” (John 14:26) and will come to all who believe. I believe many have been deceived and believe their ‘Biblical fundamentalism’ will save them. What they actually have is fundamental misunderstanding, they are relying on their own human religious traditions. They have a Biblical religion only and not the true faith described therein.

“The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

It is the Spirit that makes the Bible discernable. Those who place their security in the Bible itself (or their fundamentalist book-based religion) are not fully submitted to the Spirit and cannot fully understand the things of faith that are described in Scripture. They bind themselves up in “false humility,” create “regulations” that have “appearance of wisdom,” (Colossians 2) yet they are false and—like those who “study the Scripture diligently” (John 5:36-40) that Jesus rebuked—they do not have the word of God to discern truth from it.

“Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:15-18)

The truth that brings freedom is of the Spirit. Religions give adherents false security, but true faith that originates from the indwelling Spirit gives freedom and ability to experience God first hand. Bible-based religion leads men to talk about Jesus. Spirit-led faith allows men to *be* Jesus and bring salvation to a lost and hurting world.

Religion relies on rituals, one size fits all prescriptions and manipulation through fear. Faith is dynamic, applies grace as liberally as necessary and motivates by being an example of a love that transcends. Religion hides behind a veil of human inadequacy and attempts to legislate morality into existence without ever changing hearts. Faith overcomes fear and produces fruit out of passion that comes from true unity with God.

The Bible is a book that can only be understood properly by those with the “mind of Christ” and Spirit. Knowing when the language of Scripture is figurative, metaphorical, spiritual, concrete, literal (or some ‘all of the above’ combination) requires the indwelling of the word. Discernment through any other means but a mind renewed in Christ (be it be an old tradition or a new commentary) is incomplete.

“…without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

No amount of religion finagling or diligent study can replace the indwelling word. Jesus made it possible to remove the veil of religion and experience the full presence of God. Seek after Spirit-led faith, not Bible-based religion.

Have you experienced the promise and freedom of faith?

Or, are you still waiting on Elijah to return?

Truth and Hypocrisy

In the midst of this age of information overload is it any surprise that deep thinking people give up on the idea of discernable truth?

Competive and contradictory claims assail us from all angles. Advocates on all sides are seemingly equally convinced that they see more clearly than those who of a different perspective.

We would be persuaded, they say, if we just opened our minds, examined the facts fairly and were honest with ourselves. But, despite their confidence, to me often all sides seem to lack a clear perspective and bring a bias that is only obvious to those on the other side.

Hypocrisy in Action

How is it the same people who want to string up leaders as war criminals are the same who demand only compassion and understanding for a woman who aborts a life because pregnancy is inconvenient?

How is it that gun owners and passionate pro-lifers are some of the same saying that we should judge all Syrian refugees as a potential terrorist and protest to keep them out rather than value them as individuals as they demand for themselves?

Everyone is convinced in their own minds. Everyone believes that they think rationally and most can give reasons for what they believe. But somehow everyone, including some very smart people on both sides, cannot agree on everything and oftentimes we vehemently disagree.

Even those who claim the same religious texts as their guidebook to life arrive at vastly different conclusions about what it says—often with perspective each claiming they are authentic and the others are the imposters. Both come with carefully crafted theologies and neither side shaken from the moorings of base assumptions that lurk somewhere outside the realm of their conscious thought.

Muslims see terrorism as the result of western intervention. They can point to the fact that terrorist organizations like Islamic State and al-Qaeda were nurtured to life or a direct consequence of foreign policy decisions of the United States of America. Many Americans, by contrast, see radicalization as a genetic flaw of Islamic faith and downplay their own responsibility.

We tend to see only the noble intentions of those who share our own particular ideological alignment. The same people who demand absolute accountability for others are often the most creative at manipulating the evidence in order to absolve themselves of even shared guilt.

Meanwhile, with a smug satisfaction (that I cannot know is genuine or facetious) I sit here thinking I know something and maybe I do?

Could it be that none of us can claim to have a complete picture of the truth and that all of us share some in creating this flawed reality?

I know it is more comfortable to assume our perspective is infallible and the we ourselves have no major fault. It is easy to outsource blame for the problems of the world, wash our own hands of responsibility, and pretend it is moral to distance ourselves sanctimoniously. However, isn’t that exactly what is wrong with the other side?

I say we all resolve all the more to clean our own side of the street. Lead the world by making no excuses and being an example. If you wish for people to be open to your own perspective try to see theirs. If you do not wish to be judged wholesale by the actions of a few bad actors then do not judge others that way.

Truth in Action

I believe there is truth to be found, but it is not something we profess so much as what we practice. The truth is the love that we live and not a proposition that is only possible when others do our bidding. Truth is our walk in consistent love not our words in hypocritical judgment.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

Do we give up on describing truth? No. I believe that there is some value in trying to put truth into words and arguing for what we believe is right and good. However, we must always speak in humility and be as brutal to ourselves as we are to those who see things differently.

Trump: The Man and the Myth

A fellow Christian (and conservative) friend asked me to list the problems I had with Donald Trump as a Republican candidate. The hard part is knowing where to start.

Trump claims to be conservative. He is definitely saying things that resonate with those who are concerned about jobs, border security and immigration. But, I believe proven character and integrity is far more important than what a person claims about themselves.

Trump supporters are convinced he is genuine simply because he says things they want to hear. Yet seem to forget that the art of demagoguery is to say what plays well with a particular crowd. Trump is shrewd enough to make a sale, but is he honest?

Myth #1—Trump ‘says it how it is’ and is honest.

Trump’s claim to fame is not personal integrity or conservatism. He is known for salesmanship and a bestselling book, “The Art of a Deal,” where he talks about creating a big impression. In other words, try to create an appearance of success and dazzle.

Trump parroting popular prejudice doesn’t make a him honest anymore than me moonwalking makes me Michael Jackson. There’s a strong possibility he may just be saying what some want to hear in order to make the sale. Those saying that Trump ‘says it how it is’ might want to consider who they are dealing with.

Trump, like the used car salesman who sold you that clunker, is trying to make a deal with you.

Sure, he might not be saying what ‘they’ want to hear, just as a used car salesman might also act like he’s at odds with the management because the deal he is making with you is going to cost ‘them’ too much. But that doesn’t mean you take the salesman at their word on it!

From a Christian perspective, there is even more need to be discerning and skeptical of claims that sound good to us:

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5)

Trump has claimed a mythological net worth of near nine billion dollars, but Trump’s actual net worth is half of what he claims according to Forbes. So is Trump clueless about his own business holdings? Or does he know that the attention span of the average person is short and that he can dazzle people with a huge number that they’ll never check?

Even Trump’s business prowess seems as grossly exaggerated. Yes, he’s extremely wealthy, but he also had a huge head start and his daddy’s fortune to build from. It is said that the first million is the hardest and there’s some truth to that. You are far ahead when you can reinvest rather than spend your income on necessities. Trump had that advantage.

The real way to measure Trump is to put his accomplishments in perspective of his own peers:

Reality check: Trump’s success really is not as impressive when put in proper context. Trump is trying to make a sale, he is out to make a big impression with his target audience and willing to deceive.

Myth #2—Trump is rich and therefore he cannot be bought.

John D. Rockefeller, the world’s wealthiest man, was once asked: “How much money is enough money?”. His reply: “Just a little bit more.”

Rockefeller’s answer should be the end of this myth that the rich man cannot be bought or bribed. G.K. Chesterton took it a step further and said:

“You will hear everlastingly that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man.”

I could understand how a secular person could be fooled into believing that wealth is a virtue. But a Christian has absolutely no excuse, Jesus makes mention of the “deceitfulness of riches” (Mark 4:19) and may well have been paraphrasing the book of Habakkuk:

“Wealth is deceitful. Greedy people are proud and restless—like death itself they are never satisfied.”

Could it be that Trump is rich because he has already been bought?

The wealth of a man does not prove anything positive about his character or integrity. There are good wealthy people, but there are also many wealthy people who would steal from their own grandmother and wouldn’t think twice about scamming you.

Is every wealthy person a crook? No, certainly not! I disagree with those who automatically equate wealth and greed. However, in many cases great wealth can be a sign of moral bankruptcy.

One of Trump’s holdings could say a bit about his philosophy in business and in life. That is that he’s in the Casino business. Sure, this is a perfectly legal enterprise, gambling is an activity many people enjoy, but it is also a game stacked against the participant, the house always wins, and the people who can least afford it are often the losers.

Reality check: Trump’s wealth may be legally acquired, but that doesn’t mean it was acquired through morally upright and non-exploitative means.

Myth #3—Trump is a political outsider and not an ‘establishment’ candidate.

During the debate Trump was asked:

“You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies, you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business related favors. And you said recently, quote, “when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

Trump answered:

“You better believe it… I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”

Now some may say such a brazen admission is a ‘breath of fresh air’ and refreshing honesty. I suppose a serial killer bragging about how he outwitted investigators could also be considered the same. But I’m not sure a shameless corruption is an improvement over the run of the mill variety.

If Trump were a poor person gaming the welfare system to his own advantage and bragging about it, would we applaud his shameless corruption or condemn it?

If Trump were a politician, would an ‘everyone else is doing it’ rationale and a witty response about the Clinton’s attending his wedding absolve him of guilt for being complicit in corruption?

Then there’s the matter of Trump’s attempts to use eminent domain for personal gain. As a National Review editorial puts it:

“Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property.”

Trump tried to use government power to force a widow from her property and was struck down in court. That is the modern day equivalent of king Ahab seizing Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21) and is the kind of crony capitalism that is the problem.

There are two sides of the political establishment. One side is the politicians and the other side is men like Trump who work tirelessly to corrupt politicians. Men with money, like Trump, who exploit the system for personal gain, are just as much the problem as crooked politicians who take their money.

Trump is as much a part of the political establishment as a Bush or a Clinton. He is not an ‘outsider’ by any stretch of the imagination. So, it is time to see past the sales pitch, do not be dazzled by a man who has never proven himself loyal to anything besides his own self-interest.

Reality check: Trump shows no sign of having embraced Christian ethics. Trump’s confessions of his own corruption come without any sign of remorse and repentance.

Myth #4—Trump will govern differently than he does business.

If we have not learned by now maybe we will never learn. But every manipulator on the planet claims that they will change if only you give them what they want.

Trump shows no sign of remorse or repentance for exploiting the system for personal gain, yet we are supposed to believe he would never abuse government power for personal gain if he secures the White House?

If you believe that, I have a bridge I am selling…

Love: Feeling or Choice?

This blog is about ideas and the idea that ideas matter. I believe the ideas people have can dramatically influence the direction of their lives. Our choices, based in our ideas, could actually help shape reality in a ways not previously understood.

The view that seems popular today makes people simply products of the universe. We emphasize the role of genetics and the influence of environmental factors in shaping what a person is, which is an idea that is certainly not without merit. We bear a close resemblance to our parents for a reason and had no choice in determining that. There’s also a good explanation of why I am writing this in English rather than Chinese.

Obviously we have a given nature and are influenced by the nurture we received, which could lead to a ‘it is what it is’ fatalistic view that we have no choice or free will and ability to determine the future. But could there be more than that? Is it possible that the universe is only an influence and not a dictator of our consciousness? Could it be that our own consciousness acts as a co-creator of the future universe?

Advances in physics have opened a whole new realm of possibilities. The wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics is a paradox that suggests there is a bigger picture of the universe and one that could put our own consciousness in a far more important role than previously understood. If our observation actually shapes reality at a quantum level (collapsing the wave function) then the future may not actually be determined outside of our own mind and will as is a common assumption.

If the future is not a destiny and is in fact something we co-create, then that could change many things including our ideas on love, which leads to the question…

Is love an existent feeling or a willful choice?

Both religious and secular people have seemed to have embraced a fatalistic view of love. We could be scientific and point to natural explanations like pheromones, cultural expectations, chance opportunity, etc. It is basically to conclude that love is something pressed out of a myriad of factors that all combine at the right time—which is a view that makes love seem sort of like sausage. The religious, on the other hand, may turn to a meant-to-be (or God-did-it) rational to explain love and downplay choice.

Our culture, religious or otherwise, tends to emphasize the feelings of attraction above all else. Love is something we are told we should ‘fall’ into and that there is a ‘right’ person out there for everyone. The idea is that attraction produces a feeling that produces a choice that produces commitment and ends with happily ever after.

Unfortunately, I believe this is a view of love that has produced a great deal of disappointment and disillusionment in our day. It doesn’t work for many people. For some the problem is that they never find someone who produces that feeling of attraction enough to make them commit and they remain single or go from one relationship to the next in search of it. The problem for others is that they marry based in superficial feelings, eventually those feelings fade away and they want out of the commitment.

In both cases (above) the idea of love centers around feelings of attraction and presents love as a product of circumstances outside of our own control.

But what if there is an alternative view? What if we flip the order of things and put commitment first? Or, rather than love being a fate produced by an initial attraction that eventually ends in commitment and happily ever after, could love be a commitment to love that lead to a continual choice that produces a deepening relationship that produces a feeling of love and marital bliss?

It is my view that love is less of an ‘it is what it is’ fate and more an ‘it is what we make it’ choice. I believe the idea of love as a choice would produce healthier more sustainable relationships than the current popular view. We believe we would see a reversal in trends towards non-commitment if we stopped waiting for the ‘right’ feeling to come and started to be more actively loving to others even when the feelings do not exist.

What is the (proper) Christian view of love?

In the American church there is a heavy emphasis on experience and emotion in worship. We want music, we want excitement and entertainment, because the more feeling we have in the moment the more we love God, right?

Wrong.

Christian faith is not supposed to be primarily about feelings or ‘spiritual’ experience. Christian faith should be about obedience to the Spirit of love and that is the true evidence of faith according to Jesus:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

Many Christians have confused positive emotions for spiritual depth. A person who proclaims the loudest how great God is and puts on the biggest public display of praise is not necessarily the one who loves God the most. The Gospel presents a different view of love that doesn’t resonate as well with our feelings based culture. Jesus says, “if you love me, keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) and equates love with obedience.

To obey Jesus means to love others as we wish to be loved (Luke 6:31) and to love perfectly like God does:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)

If Christian love were a feeling and emotion how would it be possible to love our enemies? Enemies are, by common definition, the people we do not love because they have in some way offended us or they are out to destroy us. But, perfect love is not a feeling. Perfect love is a choice to obey and love in action even when the feelings aren’t there. Perfect love is a choice rather than a feeling, perfect love is the kind that sacrifices our own selfish ambitions for the good of others, and without that kind of love we are not actually true disciples of Jesus:

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” (1 John 4:7-21)

Christian love is preemptive. Christian love follows the example of Jesus who loved us BEFORE we loved him. True love is not based in initial attraction nor does it wait in fear of not being reciprocated. True love steps out in faith. Perfect love is not a pursuit of an immediate feeling or instant gratification.

Love is a choice to invest in the good of another person even when we do not feel like they are worth our investment. Love means a choice to obey and the choice to obey is a choice to follow the example of Jesus.

So, if love is a choice, then feelings do not matter?

No, not exactly. I do believe feelings do matter. But, a love based primarily in initial superficial attraction is a shallow love and deep love is only possible with deep (and self-sacrificial) commitment. Deeper love is a continual choice to love more than a fleeting feeling of love. For that reason we should be emphasizing the choice to love over the feeling of love and not the other way around.

This is not to say that those who started with a feeling of superficial attraction never develop depth of relationship—some do and some do not. But I will say that love that is a choice and a commitment in faith is starting at a deeper level. The better love is not a feeling. The better love is a choice to put aside fear (or hate) and invest in the betterment of another person. It is a love that is based in faith rather than feeling.

If love is a matter of will rather than a determined or predestined fate, then when a person says that they cannot love a person what they are really saying is that they unwilling to love that person. The feelings can never develop in a person who is not willing to step out in faith. Therefore, if you want to find love, be willing to bring love into the world and give it away in faith.

Love first. Plant seeds of love in the world. Do not wait on feelings to arrive before investing in the good of others. Do not expect the Spirit of God to come to you (or the world) unless you live in obedience to the command to follow Jesus and love self-sacrificially by his example. Love before you expect love to arrive. Yes, this is absolutely a paradox, a causality dilemma, but that is the nature of our reality in a quantum universe.

Do not be resigned to an idea that we are haplessly tossed about without a will of our own. Instead, consider the last lines of Invictus, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” Choose to love supernaturally. Be a co-creator of a higher and deeper love rather than a mere consumer of the feelings produced by base human nature.

I prefer open racism…

I shook my head as I read a social media post from a well-meaning white friend thanking various “people of color” for not doing him harm because of historical and current injustices.

Many of his friends liked the post—a vast majority of the affirmation, despite his diverse mix of friends, came from his white friends. On the surface his post is contrite or considerate and praise-worthy. What could be wrong about a man owning up to the sins of his own kind?

But under the surface of his post lurks something insidious. It uncovers a secret expectation that “people of color” should be irrationally violent and thus are deserving of his praise when they are not. It is a demeaning and belittling message cloaked in empathy. It actually reinforces an awful stereotype.

Think about it: Would it be praise to thank a white man for being civilized or would it be patronization and a backhanded insult?

What is more disturbing is this persistent idea that a whole race should be held accountable for the sins of one of their own. Apparently I should be judged by the depraved acts of Dylann Roof (and every white man in history) because I share his skin color and gender. But isn’t that exactly the logic of every racist in history and the way of thinking we are trying to escape?

I believe ‘white guilt’ is a symptom of racist thinking rather than a solution. When we thank “people of color” for not harming us as white people we are perpetuating the idea that people should be judged as a race rather than as unique individuals. It is a tribalist suggestion that violence against a whole race is justified therefore we need forgiven as individual members of a racial tribe.

But this thinking is racist to the core. It keeps “people of color” as something separate from us. It treats them as something to be pandered to in a way that we would never do to another white man. (My thanking a white man for not killing me today would be taken as foolishness or sarcasm.) It is also saying that we expect irrationality and violence from them—which is exactly the same reasoning of a racist killer.

We cannot help but see people as white or black. We should not be ignorant of historical injustice or continuing racism either. But we can stop believing that people are fundamentally different because of their skin color. Part of that is not apologizing in a grandstanding fashion for our own skin color. Part of that is not treating “people of color” as inferior by thanking them for things we would not even thank a small child for.

We recognize calling a black man “boy” may be insulting. We also see the battle flag of the Confederacy (the “rebel flag”) as symbolic of racism. However, do we see subtle racism of those who’s words betray an expectation that black people should be irrational and violent?

I myself prefer those who display their true colors openly, because then we know what we are dealing with and don’t need to dig through the layers of carefully hidden prejudices to find the truth.

Gothard: Messenger or Manipulator?

I was walking across the mall with no time to waste. Up ahead was one of those Dead Sea salt kiosks staffed by Israelis trained to intercept passing Gentiles.

My intentions were to stride on by, keep my eyes focused ahead and totally avoid the high pressure sales tactics that make men of less mental fortitude into suckers. I am not a sucker.

But as I passed I failed. She spoke sweetly with an irresistible accent. I was too nice to not answer a friendly greeting. Sales people are human after all. I let a reply slip. “Thank you,” I said, “but, I’m in a hurry…”

She was ready with an answer before I had even opened my mouth, my forward progress had somehow stopped, and she was rubbing lotion on my hand before I could think to protest. My higher cognitive functions suddenly neutralized by the sensory input filling that primal need of physical touch.

I still was determined to resist. I refused to make a purchase. I am a consummate saver, a responsible spender, only buy things I need, and have no need of lotion, deep cleansers or any of that overpriced slime. And, no, not for my mother, nor my sister, and what girlfriend, right?

“You’re really good at your job.” I said, as I as I paid penance to the wiles of a soothing seductress, and contemplated male stupidity, and wondered what I would do with all the clutter she left in my hands, as if I had an obligation to spare her embarrassment of failure to sell.

She never gave me the satisfaction of being right about her insincerity.

What is manipulation?

To manipulate is to bend, form or move something and make it conform to your will. We use a hammer as a persuasion device to manipulate steel or to pound a nail into a block of wood. We try to manipulate our environment to make it more suitable to our own desired ends.

There are also people who manipulate other people, like my temporary friend at the mall kiosk, and try to control people through false means or fear. This goes beyond simple persuasion. Psychological manipulation, according to Wikipedia,“is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or abusive tactics.”

In the political sphere there is fear-mongering, demagoguery and pandering as manipulative tactics. The manipulator plays on the emotions of the target audience. He set himself up as an authority or in the know and trustworthy. She poses as a concerned friend, a common person standing up against the bad people, or a heroic altruist. But beneath the rhetoric is often a cynical calculated effort to buy votes and control people.

This is also an unfortunate aspect of religion. Jesus warned of those who “tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders,” and yet, “they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23) These people, he goes on to say, are “hypocrites,” who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” He’s speaking of the religious experts, the “teachers of the law” and Pharisees.

The Pharisees were outwardly righteous, they followed many rules trying to please God, they would continually ask, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” But, despite their “diligent” study of the Scripture, we are told, “the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.” (John 5) They missed the answer standing literally (literally) in front of them.

They were deceived, self-decieved, and destroyed the very people they ‘won’ over by their dedicated missional efforts, making them “twice as much a child of hell” as they are according to Matthew’s account. They posed as gate keepers to the “kingdom of heaven” and, unfortunately, did not enter themselves. They are “blind guides” who neglected more important matters of actual spiritual weight. These were men full of themselves and not the Spirit of God.

Who is Bill Gothard?

Bill Gothard, PhD is a teacher popular in some Biblical fundamentalist communities. He is known for his seminars which give “principles” loosely based on the Bible. He is an elderly man now, he was never married (although he does give marriage and child rearing advice) and founder of Institute in Basic Life Principles. He recently resigned from his organization amid sexual harassment allegations.

(Read the “about me” on his website: http://billgothard.com/about )

I was asked for my thoughts about Gothard after my last blog post. I had made a passing mention of him as one who rationalizes sexual abuse as a product of female immodesty or rebellion (kind of like earthquakes in Nepal) and I was also criticized for jumping on the bandwagon against him. The link I provided was written from a “victim’s perspective” and apparently (in the critic’s opinion) the only right response for those who suffer abuse is forgiveness.

Well, I am not a victim of Mr. Gothard. I have never met him in person. I will leave it for God and others to judge Gothard’s personal life. But, as one committed to “rightly dividing the word of truth,” (2 Timothy 2:15) I feel I must examine his teachings against Scripture. I am familiar with his teachings. My church has hosted his seminars. I have had questions about his ideas and long before the Duggar family sexual molestation controversy put Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute in the spotlight.

My primary concern in this essay is with Gothard’s Scriptural hermeneutic and his theology, not his person. There is some obvious overlap between the influence of his teachings, his behavior as a person and what he believes. However, I prefer to stick as much to what is verifiable. I do, as always, recommend looking for yourself rather than just take my word for it. So I will give my perspective as an invitation to study for yourself and find the truth.

Gothard‘s teaching manipulates Scripture.

There are many different perspectives on Scripture and many opportunities to be wrong about what the Bible says. I’ve made my share of mistakes when it comes to correctly understanding written texts. I cannot fault a person for an occasional error in their interpretation and application of the Bible. The Bible is a complex book and difficult to understand according to what is written in it:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.“ (2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV)

Gothard’s teaching goes beyond just a simple misinterpretation of Scripture. He makes fundamental and systematic errors in his Biblical exegesis. He reads his own presuppositions into the text of the Bible and in ways that go directly against the actual explanations supplied within the text itself. His understanding of Scripture seems to revolve around his own established ‘principles’ rather than go the other way around. He neglects important concepts of faith while emphasizing his own prescriptions at the expense of whole truth.

This is not a perspective of Gothard’s work unique to me. In a paper, “Issues of Concern—Bill Gothard and the Bible: A Report,” published May 30, 1984, Ronald B. Allen, ThD expressed the following evaluation:

“Gothard’s approach is not that of the careful exegete who wishes to determine the meaning of the text, but of the engineer who wishes to use the material in his own programmatic approach which is mechanical and not personal, mechanistic and not dynamic. Gothard does not really teach the Scripture; he really uses the Scripture to fit into his own categories.”

Gothard seemingly throws out the baby (what the Bible explains) to keep the bathwater of his own preconceived notions and prescriptive formulas. His analysis of the book of Job is a glaring example of his editorial manipulation of a text. Gothard actually comes out on the side of those who are rebuked by God for their false attribution of reasons for Job’s suffering, as Allen explains:

“The clear teaching of the Book of Job is that a mechanistic, cause-and-effect, approach to life may be way off base! Is it any wonder that Gothard tries to evade the clear teaching of the Bible that Job was a righteous man (the only reading on which the book works!), and finds many sins and character flaws in him (overwork in Christian causes, neglect of his family, embittered sons, estranged from family, wrong attitudes toward the workers). In this way the book is turned inside out and by this strange alchemy Job supports Gothard’s lists.“

There is nothing in the Biblical text to suggest Job brought his suffering upon himself for something wrong he did. In fact it was the righteousness of Job that was the theme of the book. At the end of the book God vindicated Job and rebuked his persecuting comforters:

“After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has… My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” (Job 42:7-8)

Gothard is repeating the folly of Job’s falsely accusing friends and does so despite having the end of the book where God sets them straight. So, why would Gothard take the Job story and turn it upside down? Well, perhaps it is because he over-applies an idea of sowing and reaping (or cause and effect) to every circumstance? It becomes quite evident in Gothard’s teaching that every bad thing that happens to a person is a result of their own sin.

This erroneous idea is nothing new or unique to Job’s friends or Bill Gothard, the disciples of Jesus made the same mistake when they encountered a blind man in this Biblical account:

“As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:1-3)

Sometimes bad things are the result of nobody’s sin. Jesus made a similar point as why we should show grace to all people when he reminded that God“causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45) In other words, sometimes (or even most times) a rainstorm is just a rainstorm and not judgment or a reward for behavior from God. Not every good thing that happens to a person is a reward, not every bad thing that happens is a punishment.

Gothard’s teaching manipulates people.

One of the responses to my last blog came from a woman molested by her own father at age nine. She did not invite that upon herself by something she did. Sexual abuse victims often feel a sense of guilt or shame and need to be freed from that to be able to move on. But, if she goes to Gothard, this may be the tenor of the advice she gets:

Note the fourth point, “Why did God let it happen?” In that there is “Result of defrauding by” and that followed by a list of four subpoints: Immodest dress; Indecent exposure; Being out from the protection of our parents; Being with evil friends?

I spoke at greater length about what the Bible actually says about modesty in my last post and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says sexual molestation or rape is a result of female immodesty. That woman molested at nine years old did not dress to draw her own father’s attention, she was in her own home, she was molested by a parent and, again, in her own home! So that is quite the exception to the logic of “defrauding” laid out by Gothard’s counseling literature. There should be a big exception clause at very least.

But Gothardism doesn’t allow for exceptions to his own rules. In Gothard’s view, as with his mistreatment of Job’s suffering as somehow self-inflicted, if a young woman is raped then she must’ve done something to deserve it. In his “character sketches” he twists the Biblical account of Dinah by attributing wrongful attitudes to her that cannot be found anywhere in the text. Gothard makes Dinah out to be a rebellious daughter and thus responsible for what happened to her. Then he turns the opposite direction and is critical of Tamar for actually obeying her father’s request. Gothard’s logic is self-contradictory and contradicts the Bible. Worse, it shames sexual assault victims by implicating them and it adds a weight of guilt undeserved.

The Bible doesn’t support the false dichotomies and overly simplistic principles of Gothard’s teachings. But, rather than admit his thinking is flawed and repent, Gothard attempts to manipulate the Bible to fit his own preconceived ideas. That is to elevate his own opinions above the very explanations given in Scripture. Gothard manipulates Biblical evidence in the same way Satan twisted God’s words to deceive Eve and in the same way Satan later misused Scripture to tempt Jesus.

Gothardism attempts to manipulate God

It also appears Gothard thinks of God like a vending machine: You insert devotion to a list of basic principles, you turn a few levers, pull a few knobs and out pops a blessing. This is a mechanical view of God. Another blogger critiquing Gothard put it this way:

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Gothard’s heterodoxy is what it does to God. Not only does God plays little or no part in a believer’s life through omission, but Gothard actually teaches that God’s grace is bound to the limitations of our own abilities. It is not simply that God helps those who help themselves, but that God will not and cannot help anyone who is not already practicing the right principles.”

It is an underestimate of God that essentially makes us our own savior and that is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sure, I see many good things in what Gothard teaches, his textbook contains many interesting anecdotes and observations about human nature, but it is missing something. It reminds me of when Jesus said to the Pharisees, “go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” (Matthew 9:13)

The quote Jesus used was from the sixth chapter of the book of Hosea. At the time there was a complex ritual of sacrificial devotion to God and in that chapter the people, treating God like a vending machine, give a superficial repentance. But God is not impressed. God answers with “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” and doesn’t accept their religious devotion.

Gothard seems intent on trying to please God by his devotion to a set of life principles. Unfortunately, in that he seems to have gotten off track and is so concerned about tithing spices of his own system that he neglects the weightier matters of spiritual life (Matthew 23) and that being genuine relationship with God. God is not a machine. Faith is not mere religious devotion to a set of principles.

What is missing from Gothard’s teaching?

Grace is the wild card in a black and white world of determinism’s cause-and-effect dictates. The Gospel without grace is like a car without wheels. Over and over again in the critique of Gothard’s work is mention of a lack of his proper understanding of grace. Yes, there is mention of grace in Gothard’s work, but there seems to be a difference between what he means by grace and what is spelled out in Scripture. Grace is not a mechanical process of our careful application of correct principles, it is a mysterious paradox of God’s love:

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:4-10)

This is the work of religion…

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.“ (Colosians 2:18-20)

This is the work of faith…

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” (James 2:14-20)

Christianity, authentic Christian faith, is about love and not manipulation. Jesus told his disciples:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

Is Gothard a false teacher?

I wish matters like this were as simple as the Dead Sea salt kiosk where it was quite obvious I was being manipulated. My initial reaction is that Bill Gothard is a false teacher. It is not because he does not have some good insights or points either. I was reminded of the time when Jesus rebuked Peter, saying “get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23) Peter went on to be a powerful example of God’s grace.

I worry about the tendency of fundamentalist’s to ‘circle the wagons’ when it comes to someone who claims to uphold ‘Biblical principles’ and conservative values. The same people who repost scary internet memes about “Charlie Charlie” will welcome a man like Gothard into their church or home without stopping to consider that he could be a false teacher and potential traitor to the Gospel.

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.”

That above is part of the warning Marcus Tullius Cicero gave in Roman times. He was speaking about threats to nations or governments from within them, but his words could also easily apply to the church today. We need to be aware of the enemy within the gates. Satan was described as subtle, are we looking for the subtle deception or only the obvious threat?

As far as Gothard, I have stepped back from my initial reaction. I am content to let God judge him and his teachings. However, for myself I will go to another source of authority rather than him, I believe there is a primary source greater than even the best of commentators and it is that wisdom I seek. For you who teach, I leave this:

“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)

Be careful teachers what you teach!

	Joel on By Way of Deception
	Michael on By Way of Deception
	Joel on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	radre4m on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	Joel on A Conservative Mennonite and F…

Irregular Ideation

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

Truth