A lot of people have rejected God, for a variety of reasons. However, I believe that many of these reasons fall into one category - unfulfilled expectations. They look at what God claims he can do, and then when he doesn't do it, they conclude either that he is a liar not worthy of following, or, more frequently, that he does not exist. They do not find God the way they want him. What kind of god do they expect to find?
First and foremost, he should prevent calamity and disease. Who has not agonized over the death of an innocent child, or a baby born with a debilitating handicap and wondered how God could allow such a thing? Something strikes at our very being to see anyone suffer, of course. With adults it is easy to think that they might have done something to deserve the situation in which they find themselves. With children, on the other hand, we prefer to think that God should step in and act. When he doesn't, faith takes a hit.
What else should God do to prove he exists? Certainly the prevention of violence would be high on the list. Can't God step between a mugger and the bullet he fired at his victim? Would it be too much to expect a rapist to have a heart attack before seeking out a victim?
Another aspect would be judge of the wicked. Obviously wickedness abounds in the world today. Terrorism, slavery, drugs, human trafficking, corruption, and exploitation is a very short list of very serious actions that mankind is currently involved in, and appears to be getting away with it all the time. Where is God, if he exists?
These do not even take into account the times that we needed money at certain times, or the car broke down, or we lost a job, or the business went bankrupt - all instances where God could have intervened, but did not.
So then, someone might read where God says, "Call unto me and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things that thow knowest not," and think that it is not true. One could read "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold" and come to the conclusion that God is just toying with us when we don't get what we think we need. In fact, probably many Christians have abandoned the faith, because they could not wrap their minds and hearts around the apparent contradiction that God talks a big game, but at crunch time, he fails to deliver.
God, however, is not a vending machine, where we put money on, pull a lever, and grab the candy bar that comes out. He is not a butler, waiting at our every beck and call. He is not a child who must do our bidding, when and where we want it. On the contrary - he is the father, leading and directing, warning and disciplining when necessary, providing the basic necessities, not the luxuries we so desperately desire.
Most importantly, he is the father to his children. What does a father desire most from his children? Requests? Demands? Pouting? No. He desires a relationship with them. Jesus also said "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (John 6.26-7)
A person who wants to see what God can do must first accept God as he is, not as he "should" be. Then, he must strive to develop a relationship with him, being more interested in who he is than in what he can do.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The People in Your Church
This is a promotional video done by Ambassador Baptist Church, about some of the stories that form the membership there. It reminds us that everyone has a history, nobody is perfect, and behind the smiles are problems that can crush the life out of a person. The grace of God helps us through these difficult times and gives us a purpose, a reason to continue, as we remember that this world is not the end of all things.
Monday, November 8, 2010
What the Church Needs
I came across this today. I have had the feeling, no doubt others have as well, that the Church has lost its compass. It needs to come back to its roots, to its foundation. As it was said in the Letter to the Church of Ephesus, in Revelation 2.4, "I hold this against you, you have forsaken the love you had at first." The church is not obsolete - it remains God's plan for this age. However, may He help us find our footing again, and set us on the right path.
95 Modern Theses for the Church
95 Modern Theses for the Church
Monday, May 17, 2010
Christians and Politics
Have you ever wondered why most conservative Christians subscribe to capitalism, and liberal unbelievers ascribe to socialism? It seems a bit backwards, when you consider that capitalism is based on selfishness and greed, and socialism is based on looking out for your neighbour. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why do we support the systems that we do?
Most people want to live better than they already do. That might be hard for some people to understand, especially looking at "rich" people. Why do they need all that stuff? Isn't there a point where they can reasonably say "I have enough"? A $50,000 car serves their purpose, so why do they need one that costs $75,000? Put the shoe on another foot. Can't we just as easily say the same for a person who has a $10,000 car that is five years old? It works, so why does he want a newer vehicle? There are people who have no car at all. They get around just fine, but they would still like to have their own wheels. Ask nearly everyone who is not "rich" how much is enough? Chances are they will say something that indicates "A little bit more than I have now." Everyone is, in one sense or another, what we could consider "greedy." So which system is better?
What does capitalism espouse? It is based on the survival instinct. At its core, the idea is that a person will look out for himself before anyone else. It is the survival instinct. Capitalism takes advantage of the impulse to seek a better life. That impulse might compel someone to start a business. In doing so, he might need to hire some people. People who need a job - a better position than they are in at that moment - come to apply for the job. If they are accepted, they will be able to improve their lot in life. They could then make an improvement on their house, for example, and so in turn they will have to hire a carpenter. The carpenter now has more work, and more money at his disposal. And so it goes. This is what Reagan meant by his much-maligned "trickle down economics." By allowing the (undeniably) rich to keep more of their own money, they would feel free to build up their businesses and start others, hiring people who would then spend their money on other things that would have to be supplied by different people. The system is by no means perfect. People will use and abuse it to maximize their return-on-investment, often by under-paying their employees or forcing them to work over-time. The system also lends itself to control by a select few.
What is the basis of socialism? It seems, at first glance, a decent proposal. We are all in this together. To answer Cain's question to God, Yes, we are, in fact, our brother's keeper. Therefore, we should make sure we look out for one another. When one is "out of luck," society should make sure he can keep body and soul together long enough to find a job and start up again. From this comes food stamps, unemployment benefits, health-care, and welfare to make sure that children have the basic necessities. It surely seems as though this is what God had in mind when He said, "Love thy neighbor," doesn't it?
Is it true, then, that Christianity should espouse socialism, and leave the capitalism to the atheists? Why isn't it that way? I believe there are a few reasons why this is not the case.
First, Jesus did tell us to care for one another, as the socialists claim. However, I think it instructive to note who He was talking to. In His sermons, when He gave instruction on how to live, He always spoke to the common people, never to the governing class. He never told the Pharisees and Sadducees, Herod, Pilate or any other governor that it was the responsibility of the government to take care of the underprivileged. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, He made it clear that taking care of one's neighbour was a personal responsibility.
Second, Christians have a better understanding of human nature, because they read and understand the Bible and what God says about His creation. It IS true that, under normal circumstances, a person will normally look out for himself before others. This does NOT mean that they will ignore the needs of those around him. On the contrary, many conservative Christians, rich or poor, are very generous with their time and money, trying to improve the lot of life of their "neighbours." It is a frustrating process, since in general they can help only one person or a small group at a time. This is one reason why everyone should participate - to maximize the ability of society to help those in need.
Socialists, by contrast, try to improve the lot of a large group - society in general - by direct fiat. They believe that people are not generous enough, which is why there are needy people. Therefore, taxes are levied, to fill the coffers so that help is available. This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Curiously, however, it fails to take into consideration the "greed" factor. There are some people who will take advantage of such a system. Many times, they will actually have to settle for less money if they get a job, compared to what they receive from the government, with the added benefit of having to get up early and not being able to watch television or play video games all day. Who could say "No" to such a great system? Of course, socialists and capitalists decry the abuse of both of these systems, as they should.
Socialists do not recognize man as he is; they see him as they want him to be, and try to manipulate him to be that way. Capitalists - not all of whom are Christians, by the way - see man as he is, and use the system to take advantage of his natural tendencies.
Capitalism is better able to meet the needs of large numbers of people, because it utilizes the innate driving force of the group. Socialism fails to recognize this basic tendency, and is therefore susceptible to abuse by large numbers of people, often rewarding them for not working, in direct violation of II Thessalonians 3.10, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."
Most people want to live better than they already do. That might be hard for some people to understand, especially looking at "rich" people. Why do they need all that stuff? Isn't there a point where they can reasonably say "I have enough"? A $50,000 car serves their purpose, so why do they need one that costs $75,000? Put the shoe on another foot. Can't we just as easily say the same for a person who has a $10,000 car that is five years old? It works, so why does he want a newer vehicle? There are people who have no car at all. They get around just fine, but they would still like to have their own wheels. Ask nearly everyone who is not "rich" how much is enough? Chances are they will say something that indicates "A little bit more than I have now." Everyone is, in one sense or another, what we could consider "greedy." So which system is better?
What does capitalism espouse? It is based on the survival instinct. At its core, the idea is that a person will look out for himself before anyone else. It is the survival instinct. Capitalism takes advantage of the impulse to seek a better life. That impulse might compel someone to start a business. In doing so, he might need to hire some people. People who need a job - a better position than they are in at that moment - come to apply for the job. If they are accepted, they will be able to improve their lot in life. They could then make an improvement on their house, for example, and so in turn they will have to hire a carpenter. The carpenter now has more work, and more money at his disposal. And so it goes. This is what Reagan meant by his much-maligned "trickle down economics." By allowing the (undeniably) rich to keep more of their own money, they would feel free to build up their businesses and start others, hiring people who would then spend their money on other things that would have to be supplied by different people. The system is by no means perfect. People will use and abuse it to maximize their return-on-investment, often by under-paying their employees or forcing them to work over-time. The system also lends itself to control by a select few.
What is the basis of socialism? It seems, at first glance, a decent proposal. We are all in this together. To answer Cain's question to God, Yes, we are, in fact, our brother's keeper. Therefore, we should make sure we look out for one another. When one is "out of luck," society should make sure he can keep body and soul together long enough to find a job and start up again. From this comes food stamps, unemployment benefits, health-care, and welfare to make sure that children have the basic necessities. It surely seems as though this is what God had in mind when He said, "Love thy neighbor," doesn't it?
Is it true, then, that Christianity should espouse socialism, and leave the capitalism to the atheists? Why isn't it that way? I believe there are a few reasons why this is not the case.
First, Jesus did tell us to care for one another, as the socialists claim. However, I think it instructive to note who He was talking to. In His sermons, when He gave instruction on how to live, He always spoke to the common people, never to the governing class. He never told the Pharisees and Sadducees, Herod, Pilate or any other governor that it was the responsibility of the government to take care of the underprivileged. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, He made it clear that taking care of one's neighbour was a personal responsibility.
Second, Christians have a better understanding of human nature, because they read and understand the Bible and what God says about His creation. It IS true that, under normal circumstances, a person will normally look out for himself before others. This does NOT mean that they will ignore the needs of those around him. On the contrary, many conservative Christians, rich or poor, are very generous with their time and money, trying to improve the lot of life of their "neighbours." It is a frustrating process, since in general they can help only one person or a small group at a time. This is one reason why everyone should participate - to maximize the ability of society to help those in need.
Socialists, by contrast, try to improve the lot of a large group - society in general - by direct fiat. They believe that people are not generous enough, which is why there are needy people. Therefore, taxes are levied, to fill the coffers so that help is available. This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Curiously, however, it fails to take into consideration the "greed" factor. There are some people who will take advantage of such a system. Many times, they will actually have to settle for less money if they get a job, compared to what they receive from the government, with the added benefit of having to get up early and not being able to watch television or play video games all day. Who could say "No" to such a great system? Of course, socialists and capitalists decry the abuse of both of these systems, as they should.
Socialists do not recognize man as he is; they see him as they want him to be, and try to manipulate him to be that way. Capitalists - not all of whom are Christians, by the way - see man as he is, and use the system to take advantage of his natural tendencies.
Capitalism is better able to meet the needs of large numbers of people, because it utilizes the innate driving force of the group. Socialism fails to recognize this basic tendency, and is therefore susceptible to abuse by large numbers of people, often rewarding them for not working, in direct violation of II Thessalonians 3.10, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Sixth Day of Creation, Part 1
Well, it had been a busy week, comparatively speaking. First, there was nothing, then water, light, dry land plants, sun, moon, and most recently sea life and birds. However, God was not finished yet. The land needed some inhabitants. "Let the land produce living creatures; livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so."
Many people tend to mix two biblical stories at this point - the Creation account, and the account of Noah and the Ark. Since everyone "knows" that Noah took two of every kind of animal with him on the Ark (which is not true), it is easy to conclude that God made two of every kind of land-dwelling animal. It is beyond doubt that He created only two humans in the beginning. While merely alluded to in Chapter 1 ("male and female He created them," without clarifying a quantity), it is clearly stated in the events of Chapter 2. It is reasonable to think that God brought the animals to Adam in pairs, because it says that "no suitable helper was found." It was as if Adam was naming animals, thinking, "There's two of these, two of those, over there is another pair of something...hmm, I wonder where the other one of me is?" Whether this is true or not, it is NOT automatic that God created only two of each kind of land animal, or sea animal, or bird, for that matter.
Consider that there was a LOT of land. Probably, as I mentioned, there was more land than water at this stage. What would prevent God from making a herd of animals of one type, instead of only two? Obviously, I cannot prove this hypothesis, but it certainly seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, if God did create only two, there would have been enough genetic information for natural selection to develop all of the species we see today, including all of the extinct ones that have been discovered as fossils.
Many people tend to mix two biblical stories at this point - the Creation account, and the account of Noah and the Ark. Since everyone "knows" that Noah took two of every kind of animal with him on the Ark (which is not true), it is easy to conclude that God made two of every kind of land-dwelling animal. It is beyond doubt that He created only two humans in the beginning. While merely alluded to in Chapter 1 ("male and female He created them," without clarifying a quantity), it is clearly stated in the events of Chapter 2. It is reasonable to think that God brought the animals to Adam in pairs, because it says that "no suitable helper was found." It was as if Adam was naming animals, thinking, "There's two of these, two of those, over there is another pair of something...hmm, I wonder where the other one of me is?" Whether this is true or not, it is NOT automatic that God created only two of each kind of land animal, or sea animal, or bird, for that matter.
Consider that there was a LOT of land. Probably, as I mentioned, there was more land than water at this stage. What would prevent God from making a herd of animals of one type, instead of only two? Obviously, I cannot prove this hypothesis, but it certainly seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, if God did create only two, there would have been enough genetic information for natural selection to develop all of the species we see today, including all of the extinct ones that have been discovered as fossils.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Fifth Day of Creation
When all of the base material was in place, God began to fill it. And fill it. And fill it. "Let the water teem," He said. Now, 6,000 years later, we STILL don't know what is hiding in the deep parts of the sea. It has been said that we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our own oceans. There are microscopic plants, plants that can barely be seen with the naked eye, small ones, medium sized ones and large ones. There are also microscopic animals, animals that can barely be seen with the naked eye, small, medium, large and extra large ones, and the famous and beautiful whales, giant octopus and squid. Who is not captivated by underwater documentaries? Hollywood is scarcely able to invent stranger things than what already lurks beneath the surface of the deep.
But God was not finished there. He filled the sky as well. These also vary enormously in size, from the frenetic buzzing of the diminutive hummingbird, to the majestic soaring eagle of modern times, and included the gigantic Quetzalcoatlus, sort of a Pterodactyl on steroids. It had a wingspan of 10 meters - more than 30 feet! What a breathtaking sight it must have been to see the sky filled with these types of creatures.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Fourth Day of Creation
Day Four is one of my favourites. It has a phrase that just blows me away. We will get there, but first, let us consider what was created.
In contrast to Day One, when God said, "Let there be light," the Bible says, "And God said, 'Let there be lights . . .'" I find it interesting that until Day Four, the light that was created before had no real source. It was not emanating from anything, unless, as I mentioned, it came from God himself, but it seems as though the light is separate from him. Here God gives a source to the light. The two principle ones, of course, being the Sun (the "greater light") and the Moon (the "lesser light").
So what is the phrase that knocks me off my feet? It is only five words, which indicate the other things that God made on this particular day. The Bible says simply, "He also made the stars."
Have you ever considered the amount of material that is included in those five words? For about 5,600 years, man thought that all those lights were mostly the same - glowing specks of luminosity helping him find his way around at night. Galileo was one of the first to be able to differentiate between stars, planets and moons, which he did shortly after the invention of the telescope. It has been only within the last few decades, however, that we have been able to get a good look at what was created on Day Four. When we look up and see a "star", it could be a planet, star, galaxy or even a cluster of galaxies, each with billions of stars. Furthermore, advanced telescopes such as the Hubble have sent back incredible images of deep space, and some of the wonders of the magnitude of the creation of God.
What surprises me is the understatement. You would think that such an impressive display of creative majesty might deserve more than five words, but that is all that it gets. It is as if Adam was writing down the events as God had explained before the Fall. He got the part about "moving on the face of the waters," and "everything after its kind," followed by the greater and lesser lights. Perhaps at that point he had writer's block, and could not remember what came next. So he yells to the kitchen, where Eve is washing the dishes, "Honey, what else did God say He created on day 4?" Eve replies, "Did you mentioned the stars?" Adam slaps his forehead, "Oh, yeah, thanks," and writes, "He also made the stars."
Perhaps the explanation has something to do with the way God relates to us. I am not sure that he ever boasts about his works for the sake of boasting. Obviously, he does tell us many times of the things he has done, but with a purpose - to let us know that he is with us, that he cares, that he is able to deal with whatever problem we might be facing. Based on what he has done before, we can trust him with the issues we are facing now, as well as the ones to come.
Describing this truth is truly beyond my ability. Loui Giglio has done a much better job at trying to put the majesty of God into words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewKtSKbWZUI&feature=PlayList&p=128B484C4AC2D804&index=12
In contrast to Day One, when God said, "Let there be light," the Bible says, "And God said, 'Let there be lights . . .'" I find it interesting that until Day Four, the light that was created before had no real source. It was not emanating from anything, unless, as I mentioned, it came from God himself, but it seems as though the light is separate from him. Here God gives a source to the light. The two principle ones, of course, being the Sun (the "greater light") and the Moon (the "lesser light").
So what is the phrase that knocks me off my feet? It is only five words, which indicate the other things that God made on this particular day. The Bible says simply, "He also made the stars."
Have you ever considered the amount of material that is included in those five words? For about 5,600 years, man thought that all those lights were mostly the same - glowing specks of luminosity helping him find his way around at night. Galileo was one of the first to be able to differentiate between stars, planets and moons, which he did shortly after the invention of the telescope. It has been only within the last few decades, however, that we have been able to get a good look at what was created on Day Four. When we look up and see a "star", it could be a planet, star, galaxy or even a cluster of galaxies, each with billions of stars. Furthermore, advanced telescopes such as the Hubble have sent back incredible images of deep space, and some of the wonders of the magnitude of the creation of God.
What surprises me is the understatement. You would think that such an impressive display of creative majesty might deserve more than five words, but that is all that it gets. It is as if Adam was writing down the events as God had explained before the Fall. He got the part about "moving on the face of the waters," and "everything after its kind," followed by the greater and lesser lights. Perhaps at that point he had writer's block, and could not remember what came next. So he yells to the kitchen, where Eve is washing the dishes, "Honey, what else did God say He created on day 4?" Eve replies, "Did you mentioned the stars?" Adam slaps his forehead, "Oh, yeah, thanks," and writes, "He also made the stars."
Perhaps the explanation has something to do with the way God relates to us. I am not sure that he ever boasts about his works for the sake of boasting. Obviously, he does tell us many times of the things he has done, but with a purpose - to let us know that he is with us, that he cares, that he is able to deal with whatever problem we might be facing. Based on what he has done before, we can trust him with the issues we are facing now, as well as the ones to come.
Describing this truth is truly beyond my ability. Loui Giglio has done a much better job at trying to put the majesty of God into words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewKtSKbWZUI&feature=PlayList&p=128B484C4AC2D804&index=12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)