Keep Yourselves From Idols

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. That’s how the Apostle John ends his first epistle. When we finished studying the book recently, that last admonition seemed to come out of left field. Throughout the letter, John talks about the love of God, love of the brethren, and avoiding sin. The warning against idol worship doesn’t appear to fit the general context of the letter.

Certainly, idol worship is a sin. Just as certainly, John’s audience lived in a culture where idols, literal statues of supposed gods, did exist in plenty. Yet because the only specific sin John had mentioned in the letter was failure to love the brethren, idolatry came as a surprise to me. Until I looked back at the immediate context of the closing remark.

The ESV translators titled the last section beginning in verse 13 as “That You May Know.” Know what? John wanted to be sure that his readers knew where true life comes from. The life John refers to here is the “life of the ages,” as the Greek puts it. It is the same life that Jesus prayed about according to the gospel of John 17:3; knowing God and the One He sent, Jesus said, is life, true life, eternal life.

So John ends his letter saying we know God and His Son, and we know He is true life. The life offered by the idols was not true life; it was fake. The “life” offered by idols tended to lead people away from what was true, from true life. That makes sense if you are a first century reader; idols were everywhere. It would be easy for John’s audience to equate following idols with sin, and that sin led away from truth, as all sin does.

But that doesn’t seem too important to John’s readers today. There aren’t many people in the 21^st century who bow to wood or stone. But what is an idol, really? You have undoubtedly heard someone say that modern idolatry is putting anything else in the place of God in your life. Like putting fake life in the place of true life. Hmmmm.

It is easy to see how an addiction puts something fake in the place of the true. A heroin addict puts finding the next fix at the center of life. Nothing is more important than finding the next high. An alcoholic is in much the same boat. So is the porn addict, the gambling addict, the sex addict and so on. We can see that, but we are none of those; we are not addicted.

Our idols are much more subtle than that. Mine is cars. I love cars. The one time I went completely off the rails was when I bought a $42,000 car on impulse; I succumbed to the lust to have that car. It took center place in my mind/heart/life. I rationalized away all the reasons why I should not buy it, and I bought it. My wife came close to throwing me out of our house when I brought it home. (Right; I didn’t tell her what I had done.) My salvation came in the form of a salesperson who knew me and my wife well enough not to turn in the deal immediately. We cancelled it the next morning with nothing but my shame to pay for.

What is your idol? If it’s not needles, it could be noodles. If it’s not gin, it could be gin rummy (or lottery tickets). It could be nicotine or caffeine. These “lesser” idols may not become complete masters of your life the way drugs or alcohol can, but they can assert a kind of mastery that becomes sin. Anything that causes you to think of it first, whether it’s the first cigarette, the first cup of coffee or the fast lane to the job promotion or the best golf club or whatever, it has become an idol. It has taken first place in your heart, and it has become an idol. Idols replace the love of what is true in our hearts. John wants his readers to know what is true. “Little children, keep yourself from idols.” Now that makes sense.

A New Way of Seeing

At my age, especially with my tendency to think too much (as some have suggested), it is rare for a new thought to come to me. Yet this morning as I was trying not to wake up, I began to see something in a way I cannot remember seeing before. I’m sure someone has seen this before, but it is new to me, and therefore exciting, as I always thrill at new thoughts.

Here it is: it occurred to me that claiming not to believe in God is like claiming not to believe in gravity. From a human standpoint, the two share several common traits. Both are invisible; both are powerful; both are indescribable to some extent; neither can be fully explained by the laws we count as fundamental; neither can be disregarded without dire consequences. On this last point, it might be said that one can apparently live as if neither gravity nor God exist, but eventually one will reach a point where the existence of both will intrude consequentially upon one’s life.

It also seems that both God and gravity are pretty much innately understood at a very young age. At around nine months, babies seem to gain a respect for the existence of gravity. Researchers are not sure why this understanding comes about, but it does nonetheless. Normal boys won’t climb to the upper branches of a tree and step out into thin air; they know better. Likewise, grown men don’t step out of a flying plane without a parachute. They understand that gravity exists, even if they can’t explain it. In a similar way, a sense that a higher power exists must be driven out of the mind of most people, according to Romans first chapter.

A man could step out of a flying plane without a parachute claiming that he does not believe in gravity. He might say that because it is invisible and indescribable by the laws of physics, he chooses not to believe in it. This disbelief could be maintained for some time, depending on the altitude of the plane from which he jumped. At some point in time, however, the man would come to believe in gravity, albeit only for a split second before he entered eternity.

It strikes me that this is much the way some people are living their lives. They go about insisting that God does not exist, and, for the most part, they may be able to maintain their existence without apparent consequences. However, at some point, whether sooner or later, they will discover the existence of God. For some it will be after death, for Scripture teaches that in the final analysis, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

It would seem strange indeed to hear someone say they don’t believe in gravity, but it should strike a believer as equally strange to hear someone say they don’t believe in God. After all, God is as real to me as gravity: I trust God will someday plant my feet on Heaven’s streets as much as I trust gravity to keep my feet planted on terra firma for the time being. A wise man once said it is the fool who says there is no god. It’s just as foolish as saying there is no gravity, but the consequences are far more unpleasant and long-lasting. Remember that the next time you hear something foolish from an unbeliever.

Not Our Fathers’ God

I’m reading through the Old Testament (again), and I am struck by the violence that spills over most of the pages. In a recent post I mentioned that I was becoming depressed because it seemed that the God I was reading about was so completely foreign to our twenty-first century sensibilities that there is no way to draw people to Him. Having taken up my reading schedule again, I remain unsure what to do with the character of the God of Israel.

Perhaps I have fallen prey to the same misapprehension that colors the thoughts of many moderns: we want God to fit our concepts of who He should be. In other words, we are remaking God in our own image. We are fine with a God who brings peace to our turmoil, health to our sickness and supply to our needs. We are not so happy with a God who orders mass genocide and demands bloody ceremonies for His appeasement. How do we give an honest picture of who God is to today’s pagan?

JB Phillips suggested our God is too small. I think perhaps our God is too wimpy. I like the way the Newsboys said it a few years ago: “I’m not following a God I can lead about / I can’t tame this deity / That’s why Jesus is the final answer / To who I want my God to be.” If Jesus is the final answer, the question becomes who is this Jesus. Is He the mild, handsome man of the Sallman portrait from 1940 that populates many Boomer memories? Is He more like the Jesus People pictured Him in the 1970’s, sort of a cool hippie look.

My favorite isn’t a portrait at all; it is the Christ figure, Aslan, from C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. After all, one of Jesus’ biblical titles is Lion of Judah. There is majesty and grace in the king of the jungle imagery. But there is also something more. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis has Lucy ask if Aslan is safe. Mr. Beaver responds, “Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good… it's not as if he were a tame lion.” I can’t tame this deity.

Lewis goes even further in The Silver Chair when Aslan assigns Jill a quest: she must find the lost prince or “die in the attempt.” That is brutal. But that is the nature of things in Lewis’ imaginary world. The battle between good and evil is front and center. Lewis got it; we have missed it. Our Savior is also a Soldier. Recall that the Revelation image of the returning Christ has Him mounted on a white charger brandishing a sword. We may be doing the opposite of the first century Jews who looked for a soldier and missed the suffering servant. We worship the meek and mild but forget the mighty warrior.

But I fear a lion may be too mythical, too last century for a modern audience. I have a suggestion: picture Optimus Prime from the Transformers. He’s strong; he’s huge; he’s terrible; but he is good. I know the Transformers movies are a little cheesy, but the ideas resonate: super-powerful beings from another dimension come to save humanity. It’s not on the literary level of C.S. Lewis, but it might help some modern pagans to see our God for who He really is. Do I have any takers for a portrait of Optimus Prime in the church hallway?

Daily Bible Reading

I have a confession to make: eighteen days ago I abandoned my daily Bible reading. I know it was exactly that long because I had been using a computer reading program to keep me accountable. The electronic accountability model had been working; I read through the entire Bible in one year, and I was on a second pass through in a different translation with a different schedule. I had been faltering a little in my regularity, missing a day or two and playing catch-up, but then I stopped altogether.

The shame or guilt or something finally overcame me this morning and I cranked up the computer and opened my Bible study program. I was surprised to find it had been eighteen days; it felt longer. Ironically my delinquency began exactly one week after I had preached a sermon that was heavily loaded with accusations that we Christians don’t read our Bibles often enough. According the the Barna group, the number of Christians who don’t read their Bible more than once a week is alarming, especially in light of the fact that over sixty percent say they want to follow Jesus more closely in their daily lives. The article asks the obvious question: how can one learn to follow more closely without reading the followers’ manual?

In my case the question becomes why I suddenly stopped reading; I know better. I could blame a changed schedule or a series of early morning meetings that pre-empted my reading time. The truth is, however, that I stopped wanting to read because I didn’t like way it was making me feel. I had completed the books of Moses and Joshua and Judges. I was half-way through First Samuel when I quit. My problem was the way my daily reading was conflicting with my daily writing. I am working on a book that explores ways to present the gospel to twenty-first century people. The sometimes violent, seemingly arbitrary way God operated with His people in the Old Testament was upsetting me. How does one make the fire and brimstone God of Mount Sinai relevant today?

The dilemma was beginning to depress me. I was even beginning to wonder if the so-called neo-evangelicals were right to downplay certain aspects of God and elevate others. After all, “God is love” sells much better than “God is wrathful.” The problem is, if you are going to read the Bible consistently, you are going to come to the conclusion that God is wrathful. I don’t particularly like that, and the delicately sensitive, politically correct masses in 2017 certainly won’t like that. I can totally understand why Rob Bell went the way he did. (If you don’t know Bell, read my series of blogs.)

I have come back to the realization that I am not supposed to like or understand everything God has done or will do. I must either believe what the Bible reveals about the Creator, or I must join the moderns and invent my own creator. The second option is even more depressing than trying to explain the God Who Annihilates Canaanites to today’s pagans. The Old Testament is bloody; get over it. The New Testament reveals the culmination of the bloody story. As ugly as it sometimes appears, there is beauty in blood as Crystal Lewis sang, “The cross, stained by blood/ The beauty of the cross/ Healing for the lost/ The cross.”

I suppose God could have reinterpreted the redemption story for every new period in human history in an effort to make it easier to explain, perhaps more palatable. But He didn’t. Nor does He need to, really. The idea that God is sovereign and humans must bow to His will is distasteful to pagans in any age, but well depicted by sacrifice in every age. That God should sacrifice His own Son to bring about the final restitution for human failings is outrageous. That is precisely why we must continue to read our Bibles regularly. God’s ways are not our ways, but God’s way is the only way to ultimate peace and eternal satisfaction. I must keep reading to renew my mind lest I be conformed to the world. Eighteen days was about seventeen days too long for me.

The Church Cannot Save the Lost

I had a bit of an epiphany last week which I would like to share. Background: I attend a pretty good little church which is doing many things right. However, the people with whom I share my Sunday mornings are mostly refugees from other churches; very few are new converts brought to Christ through the ministries of our church. My pastor and I have been having an ongoing discussion for several years about how to improve our outreach into the community of lost souls in our neighborhood. We have read several books and considered different programs, but nothing has come of our discussion.

Last week something occured to me as I was meditating and praying about the problem: the church, meaning the corporate body, was not tasked with reaching the lost. After His resurrection, Jesus sent His disciples back to Jerusalem to wait for the Holy Spirit’s coming so that they would become His empowered witnesses (Acts 1:8). He did not say they should go form a body that would win the lost; He said “you,” plural, will be my witnesses. Likewise, the Great Commission is to a plural “you” to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers Christ gave to the church are supposed to equip the saints (plural) to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12).

While it is true that the actions of the corporate church may attract some unbelievers who eventually become Christ-followers, I think that is a secondary result. The primary purpose of the church is to gather the members of Christ’s body for fellowship, teaching, breaking bread and prayer. (Acts 2:42). I suspect the idea of inviting unbelievers to “church” would have been foreign to first century Christians. In fact, during the early years of the church, meetings had to be kept secret because of violent persecution. The idea of catechism grew out of the practice of the early church teaching seekers the truths of the gospel before they could be considered members.

I think this explains why there is nothing in the New Testament describing programs the church operated to reach the lost. Individuals shared their faith in the context of daily life. This squares with the language of the Great Commission which begins with the word, “going.” It might be translated, “whenever and wherever you go, make disciples.” Once a disciple is “made,” he or she is baptized into a body for continued teaching, fellowship and all the many one-another aspects that flood the New Testament instructions about body life.

I am not opposed to children’s church or VBS or services for the poor and needy. These are legitimate ways a church can program opportunities for the lost to come to Christ. I believe, however, that even in these contexts, it will be individual contact and relationships that ultimately bring the greatest harvest. And I don’t think individual believers should be waiting around for the next program. The “program” that Jesus instituted is for every believer to live out his or her faith in front of a watching world. Those whom the Father is calling to Himself will see the Savior through the lives of His followers.

If you are having a hard time imagining how you would become that kind of disciple-maker, I can recommend a few resources to help. I am just finishing a book called Lead a Horse to Water which you will find on Amazon very soon (Lord willing). Another great book to get you started is God Space by Doug Pollock. Many people have found Tim Stebbins’ Friendship Evangelism by the Book helpful. If you want a more psychological/academic approach, Joseph Aldrich’s Life-style Evangelism is interesting; however, I would only recommend this book to mature believers who are well-grounded in sound doctrine as Aldrich’s assumptions and suggestions can be taken to unbiblical extremes.

You don’t need special training or a degree in evangelism to be a witness for Christ. If you are a believer you have a life to live and a story to tell. You also have a command to obey. If you are not living your life in a way that makes people ask for your story, maybe you need to reconsider your level of obedience. After all, the church cannot save the lost; only you can.

Women's Attire - Again!

A Facebook Friend recently posted a couple links to articles about Christian women’s responsibility to dress modestly. I dealt with the topic previously in a post titled “Debating ‘Christian Cleavage.’” However, the second blog my Friend shared raised my ire to the point where I feel compelled to write again. I think the modesty issue is symptomatic of a larger problem which is evident in Christian circles today.

The root of all misbehavior can be found in the original sin committed in Eden: Adam and Eve wanted to be independent. They did not want to depend on God to order their lives; they wanted to make their own rules. A close cousin of the spirit of independence is found in the cult of individuality that pervades our culture, and the church has not escaped it. While it is true that Christ’s blood saves us individually, we are baptized into a body. It is the corporate inter-dependence that gets lost when individuality reigns.

It is this attitude that allows a woman to write that she no longer feels accountable for the lustful thoughts of men who look at her (Read her entire blog). The discussion of Christian modesty often devolves into the placement of blame on men for lusting. This is not the real issue; men are solely responsible for their thought lives. However, women also have a responsibility to their brothers to avoid things that would lead them into temptation. It is this corporate aspect of an individual’s responsibility that many modern Christian women reject. Their attitude is the opposite of what Paul counseled that we should, “Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of each other than you do of yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3, Phillips New Testament)

This same “not my fault” argument appeared in the second blog my Friend shared, but it was made worse by the clumsy misinterpretation of Scripture to support the point. Joel Michael Herbert makes several faulty arguments against women dressing modestly before stating that, “The Bible does not breathe a word of such nonsense.” Herbert then picks out one word from 1 Timothy 2:9 that is often cited in this argument. He claims that the word sometimes translated “modesty” has little or no reference to alluring dress but only to expensive attire.

It is true that the context would allow the economic issue to be considered, but it is not explicitly mentioned, and the connotation of all three words Paul chose as qualifiers clearly applies to the sensual nature of a woman’s appearance. The first word (κοσμιω) means “orderly.” To clarify what type of “order” is in view, Paul follows with a word that means “having a sense of shame,” (αιδους) according to Strong’s Greek Concordance. The word might be rendered “bashful,” especially in the presence of men. The final word (σωφροσυνης) means “sober or self-controlled.” One must ask how a sober, bashful woman would order her wardrobe. I think Herbert completely misses the point.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous for Herbert to assert that “modesty” appears only once in the Bible. It may be true that the word he chooses appears only once in the NIV, but a more honest approach to the subject will uncover many more passages that are relevant. Crosswalk, for example, finds seven passages that speak to the issue. (Seven Scripture Verses Your Daughter Needs to Hear About Modesty). Finally, Herbert’s shameful reinterpretation of Jesus’ words on lust in Matthew 5:27–32 borders on sacrilege. To imply that Jesus was being sarcastic or teasing His audience is outrageous. The Master’s use of hyperbole does not give license to assume He was kidding around.

More to the point is the fact that all the defenders of scantily clad Christian women ignore the larger principle of concern for others. It is also important to remember Paul’s comment that while all things might be lawful, not all things are edifying. In other words, it might be lawful to strut your stuff half-naked on the beach, but it is not going to be profitable for anyone else, especially the men who will see you.

It is selfish and immature for a woman to say that her right to dress as she pleases trumps her responsibility to care more for others than for herself and to avoid a behavior that may incite sin. For a man to say the same thing is simply bad advice, or in Herbert’s case, bad theology. This issue is uncannily parallel to the Original Sin. After the First Couple decided to make their own rules, God’s first reaction was to clothe them. It seems that a woman’s desire to be unclothed goes all the way back to a tree in The Garden, a Serpent, and some forbidden fruit. God save us from our non-dependence.

Our Daily Work

One of the biggest “buts” in all of literature comes at the beginning of Ephesians 2:4. Paul has been describing the utter hopelessness of all those who are outside of Christ, using the metaphor of life and death. He says everyone was once metaphorically, symbolically, spiritually dead. Everyone was doing the bidding of the “prince of the power of the air,” the one who works in all the “sons of disobedience” which means everyone – “all mankind.”

“But God,” Paul says, “made us alive together with Christ.” God cancelled the penalty due for disobedience and brought life into that which was once dead. And not just any life, but spiritual, eternal life, according to the Greek word Paul used. As if that were not enough, Paul goes on to say that God has “seated us with him in the heavenly places.” And there we sit, positionally, not yet physically, in the throne room of God. That’s quite a promotion: from death to life, from earth to Heaven.

The natural question is why. Why would God do such an amazing thing? Paul says it’s because God wanted to, “show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Then comes a couple verses that are among the most well-know, often-quoted in all Scripture: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” So through no work of our own, God gave us this marvelous promotion just to show His grace.

Next question: to whom did God want to make this demonstration of His marvelous grace? We have to skip into Chapter three to find the answer. Verse 10 says, “So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” Throughout the New Testament, “rulers and authorities” is a way of referring to angels, either good or bad angels. Angels are a higher class of created being, created before humans (I believe) for the purpose of doing God’s work. For some reason known only to God, He wanted to show His love and grace in action to a watching group of angels. Et voila, here we are.

Last question: what is it we are supposed to be showing the angels? Bottom line: God’s love for us. Paul says that God abolished the penalty against us through His grace so that He might reconcile us to Himself. Now that we are reconciled, seated in the heavenly places, what are we supposed to do about it? Work. 2:10 says, “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.” We are supposed to stop doing the works of the prince of the power of the air and start doing the works the Creator of the universe has prepared for us.

Those of you who work for a living probably have at one time or another heard from the boss what you are supposed to do with your workday. It may have been once in a job description, or it may be every day you are told what to do. It’s kind of like that with the Big Boss too. In Ephesians 2:8-10 Paul says we are not saved because we work, but because God worked. He worked out the details of our salvation before we were born… before the Earth was born. Paul then says that we were saved in order to work the works that God planned for each one of us way, way back when He planned our salvation. God has something specific for each one of His chosen to do, something that is part of His ongoing, eternal plan. You have a part in the ongoing, eternal plan of the Creator of the universe. Have you checked in with the Boss today to see what work He has scheduled for you today?