Rejecting made-up Jesuses

Why and how would you reject this Jesus?

But I cannot apply to divine matters a method of exegesis which I have already rejected with contempt in my profane studies. Any theory which bases itself on a supposed "historical Jesus" to be dug out of the Gospels and then set up in opposition to Christian teaching is suspect. There have been too many historical Jesuses - a liberal Jesus, a pneumatic Jesus, a Barthian Jesus, a Marxist Jesus. They are the cheap crop of each publisher's list, like the new Napoleons and new Queen Victorias. It is not to such phantoms that I look for my faith and my salvation.
 -- from "Why I am not a Pacifist" by C. S. Lewis (p. 88, The Weight of Glory)

I hope, by this quote, people wouldn't misunderstand and think the historical Jesus is actually to be rejected. It is what we may in our days call, the reconstruction of historical Jesus that we must reject. It is the biblical Jesus, that is also the real historical Jesus we must embrace for our faith and salvation.

As a side note, it is interesting that, while Lewis himself had some theological problems, he doesn't seem to have had much patience for Barth.

Prayer

Last time I posted, it was about prayer. It was specifically about Christian prayer. Since then, I was privileged to listen to several wonderful sermons on Christian prayer. Now that I am once again reminded of what prayer is, and how we ought to pray, I want to point out a possible misunderstanding from my previous post.
"Cliche" is not the worst enemy of the prayer. What I think Eugene Peterson was suggesting was that we shouldn't just recite the words and think we prayed. In the similar light, but perhaps a bit more concretely and explicitly, Phillip Jensen points out from Matthew 6:5-15 that it's the sincerity and the content that matter over the length, eloquence, strict style or frequency. And it all has to do with who God is.

There are several other sermons on prayer by Phillip Jensen, but this one maybe a great place to start.

(note: the audio quality isn't so great on this particular sermon, but I don't think you'll find it hard to follow.)

Cliche'd prayer?

Pose, pretense, and posturing are primary dangers that threaten prayer. Ignorance is no impediment, and most emphatically not sin. The great temptation always crouching at the door of prayer is to use prayer as a way to avoid God: using God language to avoid God relationship; using the name of God as a screen behind which to hide from God. Clichés are the usual verbal giveaways of prayer that is, in fact, nonprayer.

 --p.278 from Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places by Eugene Peterson

Prayer has to be one of the most paradoxical aspect for a Christian living. It should be the most basic and natural activity for a Christian. It's just talking to the Father who loves you dearly, and you can talk to Him about anything really. No need to craft your words and phrases. And yet, the words and phrases are vitally important, because otherwise you wouldn't actually be talking. You might be speaking or chanting, but you won't be talking. And when you are talking to someone as majestic as God, someone you love so much (at least you confess to do so), you cannot help but choose your words carefully. You engage your mind and heart as you speak — anyway, are we ever excused from doing that anyway no matter whom you are talking to? It seems to me that genuinely engaging with the Person you are talking to is what is difficult.

The biggest problem for me about praying remains to be not praying enough. But when I do pray, it isn't so hard for me, I can do it, except, it's awfully hard to pray genuinely.

(Image source: Ambrozjo)

Who am I?

If you want to know who I am and what makes me tick, don't for heaven't sake look up my IQ or give me a Myers-Briggs profile or set me down before a Rorschach test. Study me in the company of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 -- p307, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places by Eugene Peterson

No, that's not my IQ.

In the past I was so curious to find out who I was, what I was like. I was a sucker for all those personality tests, IQ test, and all sorts of categorisation questionnaires that were freely available on the internet. When I got results I was a little bit more sure about myself and happier, even more proud for what I received by those tests.

But what really mattered, what was at the core of my being wasn't revealed by those tests. It was meant to be found in my relationship with the Triune God. How am I related to God the Father? Can I call Him my Father? Do I? How am I related to the Son? Is He my Lord and Saviour? How does my life look if He is my Lord and Saviour? How does my heart look like if He is? How am I related to the Holy Spirit? Do I know Him? Do I walk in step with Him?

IQ tests and the personality tests have their uses, of course. But if I am more interested in those results than how I am related to the Trinity, I have lost sight of what is most fundamental about me and the world.

(Image Credit: ryanrh)

What is sin?

John (the Apostle) knows that we will never get love right if we don't get sin right, and the looming difficulty in getting sin right is our propensity to deny or minimize it. Euphemisms proliferate: mistake, bad call, poor judgment, error, wrong, negligent, slip, oversight, misstep, stupidity, screw-up, bungle, faux pas, and so on. But rarely, sin. We happen to live in a culture that has a low sense of sin. Here I distinguish sin from immorality or crime. Sin is a refused relationship with God that spills over into a wrong relationship with others - it is personal or it is nothing. Immorality and crime, on the other hand, are violations of rules or standards of the society, or violations of other people. Behavior is in question, not personal character. But sin is relational.
--p316, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places by Eugene Peterson, italics mine

I don't think Peterson is offering a definition of sin here, but that italicised sentence gives a pretty good summary of what sin is. Worth pondering on.

What's your relationship status with God?

(Image credit: DanAndJennifer)

Resolutions: Being fatherly on the Father's Day

Although the consumerism of our day has hijacked most of its meaning and our letterboxes and inboxes are full of junk trying to get us buy stuff "for our fathers", the Father's Day is still a helpful reminder for all of us to express our appreciation for fathers and honour them for being one. Unfortunately, for many people in our society, this Father's Day would bring back painful memories and invoke sadness or anger for their abusiveness or absence.

This got me thinking, how should I celebrate my Father's Day? As a father myself now, my first impulse was "what can I get?" Tragic. I know. But I wonder how many of my fellow Australian fathers think the same thing. A new tool, gadget, toy, or a dvd set? A new shaver, perfume, tie, shirt, shoes, or even socks? A nice meal, beers, wines, or even whiskey? How about just a lazy day when I don't have to care about vacuuming or dishwashing, kids, or my personal hygiene? Whatever it is, my point is that it is so very easy for any of us to think self-centred.

There is nothing wrong for my kid (well, when he grows up a bit more) to buy nice gifts for me, and even now, it's nice and even heart-warming when my wife cares to let me enjoy the Father's Day and shows her approval of me as a father to our child. But, as a father myself, there's something insidious about focussing my thoughts on "what I can get this Father's Day." I don't know, maybe I'm just too much of a beginner as a father and haven't learned to forget about myself and serve my family more selflessly, self-forgetfully, even on a Father's Day.

But if my suspicion on our day's culture and society is correct, many of the fathers in Australia tend to think that we deserve to be treated with gifts, ease, carelessness, and time for ourselves, at least on this Day. Perhaps it is precisely what's needed for some fathers. I doubt it to be the case for most fathers. It certainly isn't the case for me.

I don't want to be like that. I don't want to think that I somehow "deserve" gifts, extra laziness, or the whole day for myself by myself, especially on THIS DAY.

I am probably not the worst father on earth, but I know I am not the best father I want to be, and I am beginning to understand the kind of fatherhood my heavenly Father has called me to is far greater, weightier, and higher than I knew before. I don't want to give wrong impressions that the fathers need to be a kind of superman who can and does all things right. I don't believe that's a biblical picture of a good father, unless you are the Heavenly Father. I just want to be a father who models after the Heavenly Father. And even though I myself will stumble and fall, my hope is that my stumbling and falling as well as my victories will, without ambiguity, show my child the grace of Jesus.

That's why I am making these resolutions.
I will not use the Father's Day as my excuse to be a worse father for 24 hours.
I will not make it my ambition to be a couch potato on the Father's Day.
I will not imagine that I somehow "deserve" gifts from my family members on a Father's Day.
Instead, on the Father's Day, I will meditate on God's relationship with me and His character as my Heavenly Father.
And I will do one thing that will help improve my character and self-control.
And I will think how I can serve my family better as a father.
And I will do one thing that will strengthen relationships within my family.

In short, by God's grace, I will be the best father I can be especially on the Father's Day.


(Photo credit: Hammonton Photography)

Irony of marriage issues

Marriage has been in the media a lot lately.
Here are some articles related to marriage from SMH: (Not in a particular order)

Men, women, and leadership

Marriage and law of Australia

Why new marriage vows

People taking new marriage vows

More on marriage vows


Not only the same-sex marriage is in the news (and regrettably in the Parliament as well), but most recently, the new (optional) marriage vows from Sydney Anglican church have stirred some people's emotions. It was to do with the bride's vow, which included the "S"-word: Submit. To love and submit to her husband.

The issue of male leadership often brings deep emotions and I tend to think it is a good thing. At least it shows that there's something that we aren't apathetic about in this relativistic, post-modern society. But, if what I've seen and read are anything to go by, the people in our society is angry and hateful of biblical teaching about the male leadership. The article by the Archbishop Peter Jensen attracted nearly 1000 comments in just a day, mostly unhelpful, but loudly evidencing the misunderstandings and anger of many readers.

I won't go into explaining all this myself here. I don't think I can do better than Peter Jensen anyway. But I just wanted to note that all these uproar against the biblical teachings on wife's submission and husband's leadership is quite ironic in our society. They all seem to view this husband's leadership and wife's submission as an attack against women's value and dignity, and hence an evil we need to get rid of from our society. But do we, as a society, really value and respect women? The biblical notion of male leadership is never oppressive to women nor is it degrading for women to submit to the male leadership. But how is it so much of an issue in OUR society? How are women treated in OUR society today? On a surface level, women in our society are well dignified; they have the same voting rights as men, no education is kept from women, they are not barred from work or fair pay (some still argue they are, but it is marginal and our law provides way to continue improve it where appropriate), etc. But just below the surface, our society is engaged in activities that terribly degrade women. Pornography, prostitution, overtly revealing images of female models on magazines and ads. Sexualised objectification of women is rampant in our society. Just a few months ago, promotional games for Lingerie Football League was a big success, I heard. Right near my work place, literally just outside the train station ticket gates, there's a bar where women serve in lingeries. And then there is the Fifty Shades Trilogy, which set the record as the fastest selling paperback of all time, even surpassing the Harry Potter series (according to the wikipedia).

So, why is our society up in arms about the new marriage vows? As I perceive it, our society is not against the new vows because it is so concerned about the dignity of women, nor is it trying to protect women. Our society as a whole is simply refusing God's authority over His creation, us. At the core of all the recent marriage issues is the society's refusal to recognise God's goodness in the way He created us, men and women, and rejection of His loving rule over us. Even still, the most ironic and tragic of all is that this confusion and refusal of God's design for marriage has crept into many churches in Australia.

It's not a new thing that the world rejected and hated God. That's precisely the reason why Jesus came and died on the cross, in order to create a people who will love and submit to God. We, Christians are the ones who confess that God has rescued us through Jesus' sacrifice, and now as a result, we respond by loving and submitting to God. But this marriage issue seems to be not only a debate between the Church and the World, but also a debate within the Church, amongst Christians! It is terribly sad and most ironic scene to behold, that Christians would reject God's good design.

I must admit though that I have to keep on reminding and challenging myself too. Pornography is just a click away. Women in revealing clothes are on huge billboards and also sitting just few seats away on the train. Undignified comments about women, men, and the relationship between them are too common, and my ears itch to hear the jokes and my mouth eager to tell. God warned us through Paul, "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)
It won't do to simply assent to the biblical teaching of male leadership. It isn't enough to just agree with Peter Jensen. It must be accompanied by everyday life that acts towards women with respect, dignity, and holy love.

Yearning for something definite

From the book, Australian Christian Life from 1788 by Iain Murray, Alexander Edgar said:

'One of the most striking features of the present day - so the press is reiterating - is the drifting away from dogmatic preaching. It is argued that if you preach dogmatic theology the people will turn from you. I assure you that I do not believe this, for I am convinced that the heart of humanity wants something definite. We must not misunderstand the boldness and directness of that firm declaration of Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36)'.

This is not my first time hearing something along this line, but what was different this time was that Edgar was saying this in 1901. The drift towards pragmatism and watering down of doctrinal stance seems to have been going on for a long time. But then the warnings against it also have been given for a long time. We, Christians, need to take heed of this warning today.

Marks of true revivals

Once or twice, I heard some friends saying that there had been no revivals in Australia. I didn't know how to respond to that when I heard it because I had no idea whether that was true or not, and also because my understanding of revival seemed to be somewhat different to what those friends emphasised.

Recently I have been reading Australian Christian Life from 1788: An introduction and and anthology. In this fascinating book (which I will be posting about later on), John Watsford is introduced. According to the author, Iain Murray, John Watsford was the first outstanding preacher to be born in Australia.

What John Watsford says about true revivals is instructive. Referring to the revivals that occurred in areas around Parramatta, Liverpool, and Windsor in 1840 - 1841, which he himself witnessed, he wrote:

These were true revivals. The fruit soon appeared in changed lives, in earnest work for Jesus, and in cheerful giving to His cause. What collections we used to have! At one of our missionary meetings at Castlereagh, Mrs. G---- brought in her missionary gold. When the box was at last opened, sovereign after sovereign rolled out, until we counted forty. At one of our meetings Mr. Lewis and I had to stop the people in their giving. We positively refused to take any more.

-- p.155, from Australian Christian Life from 1788: An Introduction and an Anthology

God serves men, but He's not a servant to men.

Guido: (learning how to be a waiter) How far do I bow? I suppose I can even go 180 degrees.
Eliseo: Think of a sunflower, they bow to the sun. But if you see some that are bowed too far down, it means they're dead. You're here serving, you're not a servant. Serving is the supreme art. God is the first of servants. God serves men, but he's not a servant to men.
-- from the movie, Life is Beautiful

God serves men, but He is not a servant to men. I reckon John Piper would agree with it. What do you think? Do you know how this is so?