I have seen few things in my life that cause me to wonder about our common humanity more than what happened in China last week. A two year old toddler, carelessly run down by a van in a busy marketplace. Not only did the driver just drive off and leave little Yueyue to die, 18 people passed by in the next 6 minutes and none of them made any effort whatsoever to help that poor and precious little girl laying there suffering and dying. A trash collector finally pulled her to the side of the road (how ironic is that!) but she died later in hospital.
People were quick to condemn China as a reprobate society unlike our own, pointing to things like the ‘culture of fear left over from the Cultural Revolution’, or the authoritarian state, or the newly enjoyed economics and rampant materialism. There may be some truth to those observations but to suggest that we are somehow substantively different is to be in denial. Similar types of incidents have occurred elsewhere including here in North America.
In April of last year, you may recall hearing on the news about a 31 year old homeless man named Hugo Tale-Yax who was walking down a street in Queen’s, N.Y. at 6:00 AM when he came upon a woman being threatened by a man with a knife. He came to the woman’s rescue only to have the attacker turn on him stabbing him several times. Not only did the assailant then flee but so did the woman! And then, as the surveillance video shows, more than two dozen people, walked by the wounded man as he laid there holding his stomach, groaning in pain. More than one person stopped and rolled him over to see how badly he was wounded and one person even took a picture! But no one helped. Eventually, someone did stop and called an ambulance. But more than two dozen people and 80 minutes had passed by and it was too late for Mr. Tale-Yax who died shortly afterward.
In commenting on little Yueyue’s tragic end, people have been referring to the ‘bystander effect’ but the ‘bystander effect’ doesn’t really apply either in her case or in Hugo’s. The ‘bystander effect’ suggests that the likelihood of anyone helping someone in need drops as the number of ‘bystanders’ rises. It is believed that the numbers create a kind of ‘diffusion of responsibility’. But, in both of the above cases, there were no crowds standing and watching. They were passers by who had nothing but their own conscience to guide them. There was no opportunity for a ‘diffusion of responsibility’, only an absence of it altogether! And such was also the case when Jesus, who was the first one on record to profile the ‘Passerby Effect’, reported on the case of the Good Samaritan (See Luke 10:25-37)
In each of these cases - Yueyue, Hugo, and the unnamed man on the Jericho road so many years ago - people didn’t stand there in a crowd, frozen in some kind of state of ‘diffused responsibility’ (not that this is acceptable either). One by one, they walked by … around … over… the helpless victim lying there in pain, without lifting even one finger to offer any kind of help or care. So, if the ‘Bystander Effect’ is attributable to ‘diffused responsibility’, how do we explain this?
It’s incomprehensible. All I can say is, may God deliver me and anyone who reads this from that kind of hard-heartedness.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Most Dangerous
Erik Raymond is a church planter with a blog site called ‘Ordinary Pastor’. I don’t know much about him but a few weeks ago he posted - ‘Who Is The Most Dangerous Guy In Your Church?’
That’s a pretty intriguing title, enough that I had to check it out. Here’s a quote:
“Sure, we all can spot the unbeliever who doesn’t fluently speak the language of Zion, we can identify the person from doctrinally anemic backgrounds because they keep cutting themselves with the sharp knives in the theology drawer, and of course any Calvinist can sniff out an Arminian within 20 seconds. But I submit that these types of people are not the most dangerous people that attend your church. At least, they are not in my experience.”
Last time I checked the post has 87 comments so that says something. I’m certainly not the only one looking for the answer to that question. But it might not be what you think. Here is his take on the answer:
“This is the guy who seems to have a lot of biblical knowledge. He can drop the 30 lb. words and effectively argue his point. Very often he is quite involved and appears to have things together. However, he is dangerous because of the reason you would not think, he is un-teachable.”
This really resonated with me. Not necessarily the ‘most dangerous guy’ thing, but just the whole sense of disaster when we allow an un-teachable attitude to become ours. When we start to think that we don’t need to listen anymore, that is when we stop learning, and honestly, none of us can afford to stop learning – NONE of us.
Everyone has something they can teach me. I have to always remind myself that my perspective is singular and somewhat limited. No matter how much learning I accomplish or how wise I might become, in the end I see only a slice and someone else sees things I don’t. I’m not suggesting that truth is all subjective. Nor am I suggesting that we should simply accept anything that anyone says they believe as true simply because they see it as true. But I am suggesting that no matter how much I learn, I still have more to learn and my knowledge will always be limited and my mind will always be subject to err. And therefore, I must always be humble enough to consider that I don’t have it all figured out and someone, anyone, might see something that just hasn’t been on my radar.
In many way, humility really is the mother of all virtues.
That’s a pretty intriguing title, enough that I had to check it out. Here’s a quote:
“Sure, we all can spot the unbeliever who doesn’t fluently speak the language of Zion, we can identify the person from doctrinally anemic backgrounds because they keep cutting themselves with the sharp knives in the theology drawer, and of course any Calvinist can sniff out an Arminian within 20 seconds. But I submit that these types of people are not the most dangerous people that attend your church. At least, they are not in my experience.”
Last time I checked the post has 87 comments so that says something. I’m certainly not the only one looking for the answer to that question. But it might not be what you think. Here is his take on the answer:
“This is the guy who seems to have a lot of biblical knowledge. He can drop the 30 lb. words and effectively argue his point. Very often he is quite involved and appears to have things together. However, he is dangerous because of the reason you would not think, he is un-teachable.”
This really resonated with me. Not necessarily the ‘most dangerous guy’ thing, but just the whole sense of disaster when we allow an un-teachable attitude to become ours. When we start to think that we don’t need to listen anymore, that is when we stop learning, and honestly, none of us can afford to stop learning – NONE of us.
Everyone has something they can teach me. I have to always remind myself that my perspective is singular and somewhat limited. No matter how much learning I accomplish or how wise I might become, in the end I see only a slice and someone else sees things I don’t. I’m not suggesting that truth is all subjective. Nor am I suggesting that we should simply accept anything that anyone says they believe as true simply because they see it as true. But I am suggesting that no matter how much I learn, I still have more to learn and my knowledge will always be limited and my mind will always be subject to err. And therefore, I must always be humble enough to consider that I don’t have it all figured out and someone, anyone, might see something that just hasn’t been on my radar.
In many way, humility really is the mother of all virtues.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Children of Israel
In kids church one morning little Bobby raised his hand to ask a question. He looked perplexed when he said to the teacher,
“There’s something I can't figure out. According to the Bible, the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, right?”
“That’s right”, the teacher said.
“And the Children of Israel beat up the Philistines, right?”
“Right again” said the teacher.
“And the Children of Israel built the Temple, right?”
“Yes, that’s right also”, the teacher responded, now starting to wonder where this was all leading.
“And the Children of Israel fought the Canaanites and the Children of Israel were always doing something important, right?”.
“Again, that’s right Bobby, so what’s your question?”
“Well”, says Bobby, “I was just wondering, what were all the grown-ups doing?”
“There’s something I can't figure out. According to the Bible, the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, right?”
“That’s right”, the teacher said.
“And the Children of Israel beat up the Philistines, right?”
“Right again” said the teacher.
“And the Children of Israel built the Temple, right?”
“Yes, that’s right also”, the teacher responded, now starting to wonder where this was all leading.
“And the Children of Israel fought the Canaanites and the Children of Israel were always doing something important, right?”.
“Again, that’s right Bobby, so what’s your question?”
“Well”, says Bobby, “I was just wondering, what were all the grown-ups doing?”
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Canadian Freedom
I have decided for this post to simply cut and paste a news bulletin from Bruce Clemenger, the President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada that I received in my e-mail box today. It is a matter for much prayer. Here it is for your consideration:
The EFC to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada:
The Supreme Court is about to hear the most challenging case to our religious freedom. On October 12 the Court will be asked to decide whether it is permissible in Canada to express religious convictions that others find offensive. Do we have the freedom to proclaim biblical truth in the public square or will our speech be restricted to that which no one finds troubling? In Canada, do we have true religious freedom or only the freedom to believe but not to speak about our beliefs if theses beliefs do not offend others?
The case is about flyers distributed by William Whatcott that were found by a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to promote “hatred towards individuals because of their sexual orientation.” He was fined $17,500.00. The flyers contained vehement comments about the sexual practices of same-sex couples. They also expressed his views on morality, sexual behaviour and public policy that reflected his religious beliefs. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision and the Court of Appeal overturned it. The Human Rights Commission appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As Christians, we are called to speak the truth about what we believe God requires – and so always as an expression of love. The EFC firmly believes that it is, in fact, the very opposite of hatred when we tell someone, on the basis of Scripture, that their actions are standing between them and a fuller understanding of the depth of God’s love for them.
One of the key issues that the EFC will address is whether one can challenge and denounce the activity of a person or group without being found to be promoting hatred or contempt against the people engaged in the activity. A basic tenant of the Christian faith is that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” God despises sin but loves the sinner. Likewise, as disciples of Christ, we are to love others as God loves us while standing against activity that is contrary to justice and righteousness.
As we argue in our factum, the legal brief we submitted to the Supreme Court:
"It is not only possible to criticize certain behaviour without hating those exhibiting that behaviour, but criticizing such behaviour is often an expression of love. Evangelical Christians hold the belief in redemption as foundational to our existence. This is a context for interpretation of expression in which a distinction is made between acceptance and approval, agreement and tolerance. All people are fallen. All people can be redeemed. Thus all people are accepted in their personhood, for their inestimable worth. However, not all activity is acceptable; thus, while accepting the person, the Christian is called by Christ to disapprove of certain actions."
We argue that the expression of our faith, in word and deed, is a necessary and integral component of our faith and serves the public good:
"Evangelical Christianity calls for the imperatives of love for God and one’s neighbour as demonstrated in a religious faith that is integrated, active and holistic. Evangelical Christians practice and manifest their faith not only through religious worship, prayer, and doctrinal teaching, but also through activities of social service, charitable work, social activism and through participation in public dialogue 'for the good of their neighbour', and for the benefit of their society, all of which constitute a manifestation and exercise of their religious beliefs and values."
We also argue that it is contrary to our beliefs to confine our religious expression within the walls of a church. Our responsibility before God is to express our faith and moral perspective in word and deed to the broader society in which we live.
"For Evangelical Christians, social engagement within and outside one’s religious community is part of an outward expression of faith, obedience to and worship of God. The imperative to love goes beyond the confines of the Church. The Christian is compelled to love her neighbour as herself. Jesus taught that “neighbour” is anyone with whom a person comes into contact, and that “love” includes sharing the truth, as understood from Scripture, out of a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the neighbour."
What is at stake in this case is our ability to be public about the implications of faith in Jesus Christ for life and society. We do not seek to compel belief; we do want to participate in respectful debates about the nature of truth and live according to the Gospel. In the language of the public square, this means:
“The idea that to achieve tolerance, the non-violent and peaceful views of a religious minority, even if offensive to some, must be censored and punished with a hefty fine is unjustified and legally unsupportable in a society that is constitutionally pluralist, multicultural and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience.”
The implications of this case are significant. We solicit your prayers and support as we stand for the freedom in Canada to be disciples of Christ Jesus.
I remain grateful for your support.
Bruce Clemenger
President, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
The EFC to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada:
The Supreme Court is about to hear the most challenging case to our religious freedom. On October 12 the Court will be asked to decide whether it is permissible in Canada to express religious convictions that others find offensive. Do we have the freedom to proclaim biblical truth in the public square or will our speech be restricted to that which no one finds troubling? In Canada, do we have true religious freedom or only the freedom to believe but not to speak about our beliefs if theses beliefs do not offend others?
The case is about flyers distributed by William Whatcott that were found by a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to promote “hatred towards individuals because of their sexual orientation.” He was fined $17,500.00. The flyers contained vehement comments about the sexual practices of same-sex couples. They also expressed his views on morality, sexual behaviour and public policy that reflected his religious beliefs. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision and the Court of Appeal overturned it. The Human Rights Commission appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As Christians, we are called to speak the truth about what we believe God requires – and so always as an expression of love. The EFC firmly believes that it is, in fact, the very opposite of hatred when we tell someone, on the basis of Scripture, that their actions are standing between them and a fuller understanding of the depth of God’s love for them.
One of the key issues that the EFC will address is whether one can challenge and denounce the activity of a person or group without being found to be promoting hatred or contempt against the people engaged in the activity. A basic tenant of the Christian faith is that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” God despises sin but loves the sinner. Likewise, as disciples of Christ, we are to love others as God loves us while standing against activity that is contrary to justice and righteousness.
As we argue in our factum, the legal brief we submitted to the Supreme Court:
"It is not only possible to criticize certain behaviour without hating those exhibiting that behaviour, but criticizing such behaviour is often an expression of love. Evangelical Christians hold the belief in redemption as foundational to our existence. This is a context for interpretation of expression in which a distinction is made between acceptance and approval, agreement and tolerance. All people are fallen. All people can be redeemed. Thus all people are accepted in their personhood, for their inestimable worth. However, not all activity is acceptable; thus, while accepting the person, the Christian is called by Christ to disapprove of certain actions."
We argue that the expression of our faith, in word and deed, is a necessary and integral component of our faith and serves the public good:
"Evangelical Christianity calls for the imperatives of love for God and one’s neighbour as demonstrated in a religious faith that is integrated, active and holistic. Evangelical Christians practice and manifest their faith not only through religious worship, prayer, and doctrinal teaching, but also through activities of social service, charitable work, social activism and through participation in public dialogue 'for the good of their neighbour', and for the benefit of their society, all of which constitute a manifestation and exercise of their religious beliefs and values."
We also argue that it is contrary to our beliefs to confine our religious expression within the walls of a church. Our responsibility before God is to express our faith and moral perspective in word and deed to the broader society in which we live.
"For Evangelical Christians, social engagement within and outside one’s religious community is part of an outward expression of faith, obedience to and worship of God. The imperative to love goes beyond the confines of the Church. The Christian is compelled to love her neighbour as herself. Jesus taught that “neighbour” is anyone with whom a person comes into contact, and that “love” includes sharing the truth, as understood from Scripture, out of a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the neighbour."
What is at stake in this case is our ability to be public about the implications of faith in Jesus Christ for life and society. We do not seek to compel belief; we do want to participate in respectful debates about the nature of truth and live according to the Gospel. In the language of the public square, this means:
“The idea that to achieve tolerance, the non-violent and peaceful views of a religious minority, even if offensive to some, must be censored and punished with a hefty fine is unjustified and legally unsupportable in a society that is constitutionally pluralist, multicultural and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience.”
The implications of this case are significant. We solicit your prayers and support as we stand for the freedom in Canada to be disciples of Christ Jesus.
I remain grateful for your support.
Bruce Clemenger
President, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Black & White World
I’m partially colour-blind. I can see quite a lot of colour but I don’t see red very well at all and I can’t really tell a lot of the time whether something is green or brown. I am red-green colour blind. I have visions in my head of Steve Smith doing a take off of that one!) We live in a world of colour but what would it be like to live in a black and white world?
It seems sometimes as if some people do. For some people everything is either black or white. That is to say that for some people it seems as if EVERYTHING is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I need to hasten at this point to say that I am completely convinced that some things are absolutely right and some things are absolutely wrong. However, in keeping with the past few posts on this subject, I must also concede that sometimes there must be room for compromise. Now, I realize that even my use of the word ‘compromise’ will tempt some to immediately label me a ‘compromiser’ and dismiss me - those who live in a black and white world.
But maybe you will hear me out. I do realize the danger of compromise when it comes to some things and I do know that we have often compromised in areas where we should never compromise.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
But I also realize that not everything is either black or white. Absolute ‘black and white thinking’ creates a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. It is sometimes called the ‘either-or fallacy’. This error occurs when we unnecessarily limit the possible alternatives to two – black or white.
For example, Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me”. (Matt 12:30) He can say that and it is absolutely true because He is God in the flesh, “who cannot lie” ( Titus 1:2) and “who does not change like shifting shadows”. (James 1:17) However, if I were to make a statement like that about myself, I would be stating a fallacy. Why? Because there are times when you should agree with me because there are times when I am right. But there are also times when you should disagree with me because there are times when I will be wrong. There are times when we actually do the truth a disservice by refusing to consider more than two mutually exclusive alternatives.
This actually happens all the time in Christian circles. You have to either be a Hybelite or despise the man. You have to either be a Warrenite or campaign against him. Some Christians like to set planning and prayer against each other. They feel that planning is a business function that has no place in the church and that we are planning when we should be praying. The truth is that planning can be wrong if it becomes a substitute for prayer but that need not be the case. The two are NOT mutually exclusive and there is another option. We can do both. And so we should. To attempt to coerce people to choose between the two is to err.
When it comes to interpersonal relationships, black and white thinkers are destined for failure because they see everything from their perspective and there is no room for the possibility that the other person’s view may have some merit. It has to be either their way or your way and since they don’t see it your way, conflict is inevitable and often irresolvable. They are colour blind.
The biblical term for discernment comes from the idea of dividing. To discern is distinguish between. However, it is not always the ability to discern between absolutely right and absolutely wrong.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” 2Tim 2:15
In the Greek text, the phrase translated ‘correctly handles’ is literally to ‘cut straight’. But this isn’t just separating truth from error, this is separating truth from truth! Biblical discernment includes the wisdom to be able to discern where there are other options. And sometimes the wisest thing you will ever discern will be in the form of a compromise.
It seems sometimes as if some people do. For some people everything is either black or white. That is to say that for some people it seems as if EVERYTHING is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I need to hasten at this point to say that I am completely convinced that some things are absolutely right and some things are absolutely wrong. However, in keeping with the past few posts on this subject, I must also concede that sometimes there must be room for compromise. Now, I realize that even my use of the word ‘compromise’ will tempt some to immediately label me a ‘compromiser’ and dismiss me - those who live in a black and white world.
But maybe you will hear me out. I do realize the danger of compromise when it comes to some things and I do know that we have often compromised in areas where we should never compromise.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
But I also realize that not everything is either black or white. Absolute ‘black and white thinking’ creates a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. It is sometimes called the ‘either-or fallacy’. This error occurs when we unnecessarily limit the possible alternatives to two – black or white.
For example, Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me”. (Matt 12:30) He can say that and it is absolutely true because He is God in the flesh, “who cannot lie” ( Titus 1:2) and “who does not change like shifting shadows”. (James 1:17) However, if I were to make a statement like that about myself, I would be stating a fallacy. Why? Because there are times when you should agree with me because there are times when I am right. But there are also times when you should disagree with me because there are times when I will be wrong. There are times when we actually do the truth a disservice by refusing to consider more than two mutually exclusive alternatives.
This actually happens all the time in Christian circles. You have to either be a Hybelite or despise the man. You have to either be a Warrenite or campaign against him. Some Christians like to set planning and prayer against each other. They feel that planning is a business function that has no place in the church and that we are planning when we should be praying. The truth is that planning can be wrong if it becomes a substitute for prayer but that need not be the case. The two are NOT mutually exclusive and there is another option. We can do both. And so we should. To attempt to coerce people to choose between the two is to err.
When it comes to interpersonal relationships, black and white thinkers are destined for failure because they see everything from their perspective and there is no room for the possibility that the other person’s view may have some merit. It has to be either their way or your way and since they don’t see it your way, conflict is inevitable and often irresolvable. They are colour blind.
The biblical term for discernment comes from the idea of dividing. To discern is distinguish between. However, it is not always the ability to discern between absolutely right and absolutely wrong.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” 2Tim 2:15
In the Greek text, the phrase translated ‘correctly handles’ is literally to ‘cut straight’. But this isn’t just separating truth from error, this is separating truth from truth! Biblical discernment includes the wisdom to be able to discern where there are other options. And sometimes the wisest thing you will ever discern will be in the form of a compromise.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
When Timing Is Everything
“Timing is everything”. That’s an old saying. Is it true? Not in the absolute sense. It is hyperbolic. Timing is not everything, but it can often be so important that everything else ceases to matter. For example, maybe you need to say something to your spouse and maybe you do and maybe you say exactly the right thing. BUT, maybe you picked the WRONG TIME!!!
So, are you starting to understand that, sometimes, TIMING is everything!
This relates to last week’s post, of course, about how much truth is relative in nature. Some things are absolutely true but most truth is relative.
A country song from the 70’s comes to mind. Kenny Rodgers had a lot of hits back in those days and one of the big ones was his famous ballot of Tommy Spencer, the ‘Coward of the County’ (The song even inspired a movie!). You may recall, if you are old enough, that the song contains two truths that at first glance seem to be contradictory but really aren’t. Rather it is a matter of circumstance or timing. When Tommy was 10 years old, just before dying in prison his father made him promise he would walk away from trouble when he could because of this truth – “You don’t have to fight to be a man”. Many years later, as a full grown man, Tommy finds himself in a situation that none of us would want to be in and ends up speaking this truth back to his father’s memory – “Sometimes you have to fight when you’re a man.”
I’m not a huge country music fan, but like a lot of others, I’m a sucker for a good story song for sure. And whether we agree with the logic of the situation and Tommy’s response, the point is still made and the point is valid - SOMETIMES you have to fight when you’re a man.
Another song comes to mind, and this one is not taken from someone’s imagination. It is actually taken from Scripture:
1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
I know that some people would say there is never a time when war is right or that hate is right. While I respect why they feel that way, I sadly disagree. As much as I wish it were not so, there is a time for hate and a time when we must fight. There is even a ‘time to kill’ as well as a ‘time to heal’.
If you’re still struggling to understand how this works, here is one of the best examples of relative truth that I have ever seen. Take a look at this passage:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.”
Proverbs 26:4
Now, take a look at the verse which immediately follows it:
“Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
Prov 26:5
Skeptics, of course, would simply say that this is typical of how the Bible contradicts itself. If that were so, however, the person who was collecting these wise sayings and putting them together would have had to have a squash for a brain.
So, how are we to view this apparent discrepancy? Quite simply like this - SOMETIMES it is best not to answer a fool, and SOMETIMES it is imperative to do so.
And this is instructive as we study the wisdom literature and particularly the book of Proverbs because proverbs are by nature ‘relative truths’. The exception is where they refer directly to God who does not change (I refer you to my previous post on September 21st). So, for example, Proverbs 3:5,6 where it promises that God will lead us as we trust Him is absolutely true. But where the proverbs address life in this ever-changing world, it’s all relative. Let the wise man take heed:
“If a man loudly blesses his neighbor early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse.”
Prov 27:14
Sometimes, timing is everything!
So, are you starting to understand that, sometimes, TIMING is everything!
This relates to last week’s post, of course, about how much truth is relative in nature. Some things are absolutely true but most truth is relative.
A country song from the 70’s comes to mind. Kenny Rodgers had a lot of hits back in those days and one of the big ones was his famous ballot of Tommy Spencer, the ‘Coward of the County’ (The song even inspired a movie!). You may recall, if you are old enough, that the song contains two truths that at first glance seem to be contradictory but really aren’t. Rather it is a matter of circumstance or timing. When Tommy was 10 years old, just before dying in prison his father made him promise he would walk away from trouble when he could because of this truth – “You don’t have to fight to be a man”. Many years later, as a full grown man, Tommy finds himself in a situation that none of us would want to be in and ends up speaking this truth back to his father’s memory – “Sometimes you have to fight when you’re a man.”
I’m not a huge country music fan, but like a lot of others, I’m a sucker for a good story song for sure. And whether we agree with the logic of the situation and Tommy’s response, the point is still made and the point is valid - SOMETIMES you have to fight when you’re a man.
Another song comes to mind, and this one is not taken from someone’s imagination. It is actually taken from Scripture:
1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
I know that some people would say there is never a time when war is right or that hate is right. While I respect why they feel that way, I sadly disagree. As much as I wish it were not so, there is a time for hate and a time when we must fight. There is even a ‘time to kill’ as well as a ‘time to heal’.
If you’re still struggling to understand how this works, here is one of the best examples of relative truth that I have ever seen. Take a look at this passage:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.”
Proverbs 26:4
Now, take a look at the verse which immediately follows it:
“Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
Prov 26:5
Skeptics, of course, would simply say that this is typical of how the Bible contradicts itself. If that were so, however, the person who was collecting these wise sayings and putting them together would have had to have a squash for a brain.
So, how are we to view this apparent discrepancy? Quite simply like this - SOMETIMES it is best not to answer a fool, and SOMETIMES it is imperative to do so.
And this is instructive as we study the wisdom literature and particularly the book of Proverbs because proverbs are by nature ‘relative truths’. The exception is where they refer directly to God who does not change (I refer you to my previous post on September 21st). So, for example, Proverbs 3:5,6 where it promises that God will lead us as we trust Him is absolutely true. But where the proverbs address life in this ever-changing world, it’s all relative. Let the wise man take heed:
“If a man loudly blesses his neighbor early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse.”
Prov 27:14
Sometimes, timing is everything!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Absolutely Not
I believe in absolute truth. Some things are absolutely true. This means that some things are true regardless of whether we are in India or America; whether it is 2011 or 1911; whether it is my life or yours.
The foundation for my belief in absolute truth is my biblical understanding of God’s unchanging nature. God has always been and always will be unchangeable (Malachi 3:6). Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). So, matters relating to God’s character and purposes do not change. They are immutable.
I further believe that nearly all contemporary thinking goes awry because it fails to appreciate this one momentous truth. The technical term for this error is ‘relativism’. For example, relativism would claim that there can really be no right or wrong because it is always, only, dependent upon the situation – there are no absolutes. This is a grievous error.
However, in a similar way, much traditional thinking makes a grievous error when it fails to recognize the existence of relative truth. That is to say that while absolute truth exists, not all truth is absolute. In fact, most truth is not. Most truth is contingent upon the situation or the time or the individuals involved. While not all truth is relative, a lot of it is.
An example of relative truth would be that it was once true that our North American society was defined primarily by our Christian heritage. That is not so true anymore. It was relative to a day and age that is now past.
So while some things never change, most things do, and what we need to do is learn to apply the absolute unchangeable truths of Scripture in a way that recognizes and allows for the changes in society.
The unchanging God has created a changing world. And I would argue that God is about the only thing (One) who doesn’t change. While some things never change, most things do change and this too is biblical teaching.
God created time, as well as our means of marking it. The universe has a rhythm and everything and everyone is marking time. And the Bible speaks not only of time, but of ‘times’. And when the Bible uses that expression, it denotes a clear distinction between some ‘times’ and other ‘times’; or between these ‘times’ and those ‘times’.
As an example of that, the OT chronicler spoke of the men of Issachar as those who “… understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” (1Chron 12:32)
Inherent within this statement is the reality that different times call for different measures.
Nothing frustrates me more than the suggestion that we should do things the way they have always been done. That’s ludicrous! Different days and situations have their unique challenges and call for different approaches and strategies.
Someone I read many years ago said it well, even though I can’t recall who it was. They said that the world is changing and the church too must change or else become an island of irrelevance in a sea of human need.
The world is not a museum. The church shouldn’t be one either. It bothers me when people want to treat the church as if it was their own personal museum, as if it should stay the way it is because that is how they like it!!! Some people can be quite hypocritical this way. You go to their homes and they have electricity, running water, shower, phones, medicine, refrigeration … but they object when we seek to use technology in the church setting.
Furthermore, contrary to the opinions of the ‘Biblicists’ among us, it isn’t enough to know the Bible. Don’t misunderstand me on this point. Knowing the Bible is most important, but we also have to know the times. We need to know people and culture. We need to know what is going on in our world and in peoples lives. We must understand the issues. And, yes, we must understand it all, in the light of God’s Word.
According to a eulogy given by Paul Swarup, the late great theologian John Stott (1921-2011) counseled his students to ‘double learning’ which means “listening to God’s word as well as God’s world”. Said Swarup, "He urged us to hold the Bible on one hand and the newspaper on the other so we could preach relevantly and communicate the Gospel effectively to people of the world."
It is very unfortunate that we have somehow created an understanding that if something is slow, backward and out of touch, then it must be biblical!!!
Remember, the same God who said, “I am the Lord, I change not” also said, "Forget the former things, do not dwell on the past. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." (Isaiah 43:18,19)
The foundation for my belief in absolute truth is my biblical understanding of God’s unchanging nature. God has always been and always will be unchangeable (Malachi 3:6). Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). So, matters relating to God’s character and purposes do not change. They are immutable.
I further believe that nearly all contemporary thinking goes awry because it fails to appreciate this one momentous truth. The technical term for this error is ‘relativism’. For example, relativism would claim that there can really be no right or wrong because it is always, only, dependent upon the situation – there are no absolutes. This is a grievous error.
However, in a similar way, much traditional thinking makes a grievous error when it fails to recognize the existence of relative truth. That is to say that while absolute truth exists, not all truth is absolute. In fact, most truth is not. Most truth is contingent upon the situation or the time or the individuals involved. While not all truth is relative, a lot of it is.
An example of relative truth would be that it was once true that our North American society was defined primarily by our Christian heritage. That is not so true anymore. It was relative to a day and age that is now past.
So while some things never change, most things do, and what we need to do is learn to apply the absolute unchangeable truths of Scripture in a way that recognizes and allows for the changes in society.
The unchanging God has created a changing world. And I would argue that God is about the only thing (One) who doesn’t change. While some things never change, most things do change and this too is biblical teaching.
God created time, as well as our means of marking it. The universe has a rhythm and everything and everyone is marking time. And the Bible speaks not only of time, but of ‘times’. And when the Bible uses that expression, it denotes a clear distinction between some ‘times’ and other ‘times’; or between these ‘times’ and those ‘times’.
As an example of that, the OT chronicler spoke of the men of Issachar as those who “… understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” (1Chron 12:32)
Inherent within this statement is the reality that different times call for different measures.
Nothing frustrates me more than the suggestion that we should do things the way they have always been done. That’s ludicrous! Different days and situations have their unique challenges and call for different approaches and strategies.
Someone I read many years ago said it well, even though I can’t recall who it was. They said that the world is changing and the church too must change or else become an island of irrelevance in a sea of human need.
The world is not a museum. The church shouldn’t be one either. It bothers me when people want to treat the church as if it was their own personal museum, as if it should stay the way it is because that is how they like it!!! Some people can be quite hypocritical this way. You go to their homes and they have electricity, running water, shower, phones, medicine, refrigeration … but they object when we seek to use technology in the church setting.
Furthermore, contrary to the opinions of the ‘Biblicists’ among us, it isn’t enough to know the Bible. Don’t misunderstand me on this point. Knowing the Bible is most important, but we also have to know the times. We need to know people and culture. We need to know what is going on in our world and in peoples lives. We must understand the issues. And, yes, we must understand it all, in the light of God’s Word.
According to a eulogy given by Paul Swarup, the late great theologian John Stott (1921-2011) counseled his students to ‘double learning’ which means “listening to God’s word as well as God’s world”. Said Swarup, "He urged us to hold the Bible on one hand and the newspaper on the other so we could preach relevantly and communicate the Gospel effectively to people of the world."
It is very unfortunate that we have somehow created an understanding that if something is slow, backward and out of touch, then it must be biblical!!!
Remember, the same God who said, “I am the Lord, I change not” also said, "Forget the former things, do not dwell on the past. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." (Isaiah 43:18,19)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)