This simple three word phrase made popular by our current President, may not be as simple as it seems. All peoples of the world would like to have hope. Hope for a better life, hope for good health, hope for a bright future for them and their children. Hope for peace. Hope for cures for all the diseases in the world. I could not agree more. Only a cold, unfeeling, irrational person would not wish for this little phrase to be true, when defined as I just did.
However, all sayings, even the ones that on the surface sound good and compassionate and rational, do not apply to all things. Sometimes the noblest notions can be completely wrong when miss-applied. For instances in Christianity, “Hope and Change” can be a good thing, a necessary thing. The Scripture is clear that “hope” is part of the theology of Biblical Christianity, as is “change”. However, it is also clear that there is at least one thing that “change” does not apply to; God.
Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” We can assume from this verse alone that if the Son is the same “yesterday and today and forever” that the Father can be characterized in the same way. If God is the same throughout all of time, past, present, and future, how has He been the same? I used the word “characterize” purposely. It is His character, His essence that is the same. Certainly there have been “changes” that have originated as a result of His grace. Some might say that God’s standards changed in regard to divorce for instance. Both Moses and Jesus dealt with this and made it clear that the change was due to the sinfulness, the weakness of man. There are other examples that I won’t go into here for the sake of brevity.
There are two issues here that I want to address. First of all, there seems to be a growing consensus that “old” is always inferior, even when it comes to ideas. Secondly, the definition, or more specifically, the re-defining of terms. Along with the idea that “old” is inferior, society in general has taken it upon itself to re-define terms and thoughts and ideas and even history to more closely resemble what it would like it to be, rather than what is.
Most recently, as a result of an ongoing conversation, I looked up the definition of faith. The reason for this inquiry was a recurring suggestion that faith, all faith, was blind faith. This was puzzling to me. In my lifetime these have always been separately defined notions. As I looked up the definition, I discovered that this is no longer the case.
1950 Webster Dictionary: Firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind.
Current Webster Dictionary: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Note that there is a significant difference in these two definitions. “Probable evidence” and “no proof”. The current definition is more consistent with “blind” faith. Of course, the Biblical Christian would agree that “blind” faith is foolish. When the Biblical Christian talks of faith, we are talking about the “older” definition. This is why it’s important to define terms when in a discussion.
This talk of “change” has permeated our society to the extent that change in and of itself is becoming the end, not the means. I recently read an article that got me thinking about this. I first saw it posted on Facebook and “liked” by a couple people I know to be professing Christians. The title alone was eye catching; “Giving Up God for Lent”. This piece is written by Brandon Ambrosino. (You can view the full piece at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-ambrosino/why-im-giving-up-god-for-_b_2683164.html) I would encourage you to read the article to get a better feel for what he is saying.
As I began to read I found myself in a somewhat hesitant agreement with Brandon. It was unclear where he was headed specifically, but I was holding out “hope” that it would be a place that I could say the “Amen”! It was then that I came upon the following paragraph. Here he is specifying what he intended to give up that he defined as a “God”.
I reached out to the author of this article, but as of the writing of this commentary and critique, I have not heard back from the author in response to my request for an expansion of definitions for each of the “gods” mentioned in this list. I am hopeful that he will respond. My request was not based on the desire to show myself to be right and him to be wrong, rather as an attempt to define terms.
The following paragraph is the list of “Gods” that the author is giving up for lent.
“Indeed, the God of my rigid ideologies, of my complacent Theology; the God who validates my unwillingness to explore heresies, and rewards me for arrogantly dismissing them as sinful; the God who grounds my intellectual arrogance in His omniscience, and my politics in his omnipotence; the God who vanquishes all of His and my inquisitive foes, forever silencing their obnoxious questions with the fires of Hell; whose very Nature demands that humans separate and categorize the world into manageable divisions; the God who has made His Will known to us through Natural Law, and a Holy Book, every word of which we are to follow without hesitation or consideration; whose ethical character remains beyond discussion; whose decisions remain beyond the scope of human analysis; the God who grounds all Thought in his Being – this God, who is Himself nothing more than an idol of Modernism, is dead.”
I apologize ahead of time that this will be a lengthy piece, but I believe it is necessary, not just in a critique of this article but in conversations in general, to discover what exactly is meant by what is said.
“the God of my rigid ideologies, of my complacent Theology;” Even after this statement, I was willing to see the positive. Legalism, for instance, is fraught with “rigid ideologies”. The Body of Christ is weakened by members who are “complacent” in the study and knowledge of Theology. Yes, I would agree with this statement. Let’s get rid of that “God”. Not so fast. At this point I was about to fall victim to that which I warned about in the previous paragraph. What about ideologies that are based on laws that God has established? What about the absolutes that are defined in Scripture? What about that which is called sin without qualifiers? What exactly does he mean by rigid ideologies? Let’s continue;
“the God who validates my unwillingness to explore heresies, and rewards me for arrogantly dismissing them as sinful;” Now here is a perfect example of the need for definition. In other words, the author here is suggesting that he would be being self-righteous and unnecessarily judgmental to not hear out the belief of someone who professes Christianity, but has a belief that is not necessarily consistent with Biblical or Traditional Christianity. On one level, he has a point. We should always be willing to “explore heresies” or for that matter, ideas in general, and never “arrogantly” dismiss them. However, if the teaching or belief is heresy, we must clearly call it such. It happens that the author of this piece describes himself as an “Orthodox Gay Christian”. Since he identifies himself as such, I will use homosexuality as an example. I agree that it would be wrong for someone to hear, for instance, Brandon speaks of homosexuality in a positive way or even to simply say he was a practicing homosexual and a Christian, and to have any kind of arrogant response. However, one does not have to be (nor should they be) arrogant to espouse the Biblical teaching regarding this practice. Also, to be against this practice, one should keep in mind that homosexuality is only one sin in a long list of sins, the commonality of which is rebellion against God and His ways. It isn’t our “rules” that we defend. It is the law of God that Christ came to fulfill not abolish, that we are all guilty of, consequently, we have no justification for arrogance. We can speak against something without being arrogant and judgmental.
“The God who grounds my intellectual arrogance in His omniscience, and my politics in his omnipotence;” Once again, definitions are necessary here. Taken on the surface I would agree that there is no place in Christianity for arrogance, period. “God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble”. If this is what he means, I agree. However, there is also the belief out there, amongst professing Christians, that would consider it arrogant to believe that Jesus is the only way to the one true God. This can be seen in the “Coexist” bumper stickers. In fact, there must be a defining of that as well. If by “Coexist” one means that we live together in mutual respect and treat all men fairly, then the Biblical Christian would agree. If by “Coexist” one means that we have to agree that all the represented faiths found on this bumper-sticker are equally true, then we must not “Coexist”. By definition, Christianity claims to be the only way (John 14:6). Further is “politics in his omnipotence” referring to military or physical force, suggesting that God is on the side of the US and so we will force our will on others? If that is the case, I agree with the author (though it would take much more discussion to fill out this subject) and would suggest that this is a Biblical stance.
“The God who vanquishes all of His and my inquisitive foes, forever silencing their obnoxious questions with the fires of Hell;” The first thing that comes to mind from this statement is the hell-fire and brimstone preachers of my youth. Again, depending on the intended meaning here, I would agree, at least partially. I believe one of the things that the church is guilty of is over simplifying, and too quickly condemning any questioning regarding the faith. On the other hand, if he is saying that telling someone that hell waits for the one who refuses to repent and submit themselves to God through Christ Jesus, then the Biblical Christian must disagree, and condemn this as a dilution and distortion of the Gospel message.
“Whose very Nature demands that humans separate and categorize the world into manageable divisions;” Before I could agree with this totally, I would need to know what the author would consider a category. If he is talking about races, I would totally agree in that there is but one race. There are many ethnicities and cultures, but only one race, in my view. Certainly, the Scripture puts all men in one category; “For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”, Romans 3:23. I’m not sure what else he could mean beyond that. If he is suggesting that those who are members of the Body of Christ and those who aren’t have the same access to God and ultimately heaven, then we have another discussion.
“The God who has made His Will known to us through Natural Law, and a Holy Book, every word of which we are to follow without hesitation or consideration;” As I read the article this is the one that made me go back and re-read the list. In fact, I would say that we dare not give up this God for lent. As is the case more and more in our society, we are allowing for the self-defining of one’s faith, and while everyone has the ability to do so, that faith would no longer be Christianity. The Bible declares that all have knowledge of God (Romans 1), at the very least, through nature itself, that the Scriptures are the only God inspired texts and that we are to follow without hesitation. I would strongly agree with the author that we should not do so without consideration. This is where theology comes in. By definition, theology is “the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings” (World English Dictionary). Of course, the Biblical Christian would define the “divine” as God. It is extremely important that we follow the Word with “consideration”.
“Whose ethical character remains beyond discussion; whose decisions remain beyond the scope of human analysis;” If this statement is taken literally, word for word, I can agree without hesitation, for nothing is beyond discussion, nor is anything beyond human analysis. If, however, he is suggesting that God’s character and decisions are subject to the approval of man, and that those things one disapproves of can be taken out of the mix as one defines Christianity, then the Biblical Christian has to disagree.
“The God who grounds all Thought in his Being – this God, who is Himself nothing more than an idol of Modernism,” This one is the second of the list that I don’t see any room for the Biblical Christian to agree with. It would seem to me that what the author is espousing is a type of universalism that would say there are many other sources of the divine, and that there are many other sources of ultimate truth. Further it would appear in the second half of this statement, he is suggesting that, in fact, for “this God” to see Himself to be the only God, the only Divine, the only source of ultimate truth, should qualify Him to be nothing more than an idol of a bygone era. Obviously, the Biblical Christian would argue against this sort of belief.
We have entered a time in which we can no longer assume a common definition on virtually anything. If we do not clarify the definitions of words and ideas, we may find ourselves agreeing or disagreeing with something that is totally contrary to what we assumed was meant. Though it has never been a good thing, now more than ever in modern times, we must not be assumptive and lazy in our conversations. And while it is ultimately important for the Biblical Christian to communicate clearly so that the Gospel is presented accurately, it is also necessary for the discussion on any number of subjects that come up on a daily basis.
To be continued…