Faith? - or: Being a Good Dog

A break in my opinion on the Soul of the Church.

I started this blog as a way of "working out my faith."  I would love to say that I have done it.  Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say that all my doubts are gone and I have faith.  But I can't say that.

But does that really matter?  I mean really, do I have the makeup to come to a point in my life that I will unequivocally know that there is a God?   As is keeping with my personality - I doubt it.  But I have come to a decision.  I have had an epiphany - of sorts.

When I first got Linus (see above) he was really still just a puppy.  For a few weeks we trained him - and I mean dilligently; but somehow he still exhibited some less-than-ideal behaviors.  Then we started taking him to the dog park.  It was amazing to watch him grow and mature in short order!  In no time, by hanging out with other, well-trained dogs, Linus began to come when called, sit on command (even with other dogs bugging him), and some other lesser good-dog behaviors!  I don't know how it happens, I am certainly no Dog Whisperer, but I know this - Linus emulated the actions of those "good dogs," and in-turn improved himself!

Ok, have I confused dog with god?  No.  It's like this:  I do not like not believing in God.  I don't know if I will ever believe 100%, but I have made the decision to proceed as if there is a God.  If I were to get into a debate with myself, or you for that matter, I could argue either side.  But I have no more proof that there is no God, than I do that there is.  I choose to agree that there just might be a God after all.

How did I come to this?  I dunno.

Probably this greatest influence over the past several weeks has been the sermons, emails and a couple conversations with Abby Norton-Levering.  The best part was that she didn't try to convince me, or "sell" me on God.  She spoke what was already planned in church, gave a few short answers to some (non)rhetorical questions, and during our conversations, essentially listened to me ramble on.  Right person at the right place at the right time?

The one thing that Abby said that kind of stuck in my craw and left me thinking (a lot) was that even though Abraham and Sarah doubted that God would give them a child at their advanced ages, they must have believed just enough at least once (think about it, wait for it, ah, there it is).  Sometimes the simplest things...

I always thought that the "faith of a child" was a simple faith, an unquestioning, blind faith.  But then I thought about my two children and even my own childhood.  What's the primary thing a child does (careful now)?  They ask, "why?"  To everything.  A child's faith is not a simple, blind faith at all.  But it is a faith that asks questions, then they try to understand, then they emulate those around them.

I will most likely always ask why.  I may never be completely sold.  But I choose to emulate those whom I respect.  I choose to take a step and believe, at least once.  Like Linus I will copy the other dogs and see if I end up with some "good dog" behaviors.  Maybe that's what faith is after all?

Thanks Abby!

Wuddaya Wanna Be?

When I was a kid playing Little League Baseball I dreamed of playing for the Mets (pre-changeover to the Yankees in '74).  I knew what I wanted to be:  the catcher for the Mets, and batting clean-up.  It never dawned on me that that dream might not come true.  I never had a doubt that one day...  Guess what; I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a catcher for the Mets (which after this season sure isn't a disappointment).  I'm okay with that.  A long time ago, so long ago in fact that I have no idea when, why or how, my dream dissolved and disappeared.

No, this post isn't about broken childhood dreams.  Quite the contrary actually!  I was thinking today (like I occasionally do) about who I am.  It's kind of a fun exercise from time-to-time.  I am a son, a husband, a father, a friend and so on.  It's interesting all the things we are - have you ever tried it?  Anyway, as I was thinking about that I got to remembering my childhood dream and thought - okay, what do you want to be when you grow up?

So I thought about the different aspects of my life:  personal, family, career, etc, and got to thinking yet again - "how would you describe the kind of Christian you would be if you could be one?"  Sounds weird at this point in my journey I know, but hey - I know the concepts and lingo... so I have the "head" knowledge of what it's all about.

Drum roll please!  Here it is, the kind of Christian I would want to be:

I would want to be Christian first.  Whether one believes in God or not, you'd have to agree that the Christ was a pretty impressive and good guy.  I would want to be like him.  But I have another meaning here.  I would want to be Christian first in the sense that denominations, theologies and so on would never get in the way of the fact that other people too, love the Christ.

Next I think I would have to consider myself Evangelical.  You know, that middle road between the harsh, over-reactionary line of the Fundamentalists, and the ultra-theologically liberal. As in most things in life:  moderation!

Then, I should desire to be Missional.  Now, I don't know if "works" is a part of salvation or a result of it, I'll leave that to the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debaters, but this I feel is right:  if the Church doesn't take care of our neighbors, then what's it all for anyway?

That's all I can think of right now.  There's probably a bunch of other labels I could attach to myself, but I'll cross that bridge when and if it ever becomes necessary!

Exploring Faith (and how to get some?) Part the First

So here's the deal.  NOBODY can prove there is a God.  By the same token, NOBODY can prove there is no God.  It's a real dilemma.  I have studied theology for the better part of my life.  I have studied philosophy for the better part of my life.  I know the arguements for a God, and can explain each and every one of them away through philosophical logic and scientific theories.  But they're just that - theories.  It's a dilemma.

So it comes down to that "F" word - faith.

As in everything else when it comes to man's constructs of God and religion, there are many divergent opinions on what faith is and how to "get" it.  Chief among them in Christian circles are the Calvinist and Arminian camps. Without walking too far down that treacherous path, I have to briefly glance at these schools of thought on the subject of faith.

Even a brief look at these divergent views would be too long for a single post, so I will start with a more Arminian view:

Looking at "Faith" from an Arminian viewpoint leads one to see that faith is not a gift given in a monergistic fashion, but is developed synergistically in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Calvinists may object with Ephesians 2:8,9  "forby grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." But consider this analysis:

"By grace you have been saved" had already been mentioned in Ephesians 2:5 "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-- it is by grace you have been saved." (NIV) But I think that both of these have been imprecisely translated using the dative of means, whereas it is more likely the author meant for the dative of manner to be used "with grace" or "graciously" rather than "by grace". For graciously describes the manner in which he saves us, as he has an attitude of graciousness. "by faith" is using the preposition "dia" in the genitive exlusively indicating instrument or mechanism of salvation. God grabs hold of our faith and pulls us to safety. But those without faith are not saved. Or as Robertson puts it in Robertson's NT Word Pictures, "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" ours.


Now there are those who interpret the phrase "And this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God," to be referring to faith being a gift. But such an idea cannot be supported by this passage. For "this" is neuter, while "faith" is feminine, and therefore "it is" is not referring to faith. Rather "that" refers to "gift" which is neuter. What it means is "that gift is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God". But this alone does not resolve the issue, for now we must consider what "that gift" refers to. Is he saying "that gift (faith)..." or "that gift (salvation)..."?

First of all the specific Greek word for "gift" being used does not support the idea of "faith" being the gift, but does support the idea of "salvation" being the gift. For the word "gift", there are two words most commonly used for "gift" in the New Testament. "dorea" emphasizes the freeness of a gift, while "doron" is used for sacrificial offerings. You would think he would have used "dorea" in this context, but instead he uses "doron" speaking of the sacrificial offering He made through Christ's atoning work on the cross. Salvation is the sacrificial offering of God, as opposed to being obtained by one's own works.  He speaks extensively of this in Romans and Galatians, contrasting the righteousness obtained through faith in Christ as opposed to the righteousness of the law which is obtained through one's works, being a performance-based salvation concept.

Romans 3:20-24 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.  But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

Thus we have "for graciously you have been saved through faith, and that sacrificial offering is not from yourselves, but from God, not of works, that no one would boast."


Thus if "faith" is the gift, then it is faith and not the atoning work of Christ on the cross which is the sacrificial offering made up to God. Furthermore is the issue of boasting. Is it true that if God does not give us faith as a gift that there would be reason to boast? Not according to the Bible. "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God.  For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'" Rom 4:2,3 Here the contrast is between works and faith. It is not between faith being a gift versus faith not being a gift. And the same contrast is drawn in the Ephesian's passage as well. Yet Paul mentions nothing here in Romans about the necessity of "faith" being a gift. He simply states that since it is by faith and not by works therefore there's nothing to boast about.

And they may also bring up Hebrews 12:2 "looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith", and demand that "author" means that we have no part in developing our faith. But again the Greek reveals otherwise. For the word for "author" simply refers to Jesus being our chief leader or Prince, as the word is translated in a number of places. But a leader is not a leader unless he has followers. He leads, we follow. This is the synergistic relationship of which Arminians speak.


This Blog is new.  I doubt anyone is really reading it at this point, so this post is most likely me "thinking out loud" so-to-speak.  However, if there is anyone out there in the ether, and you have read this and are wondering what in the world I'm talking about, please feel free to comment or email, and I will translate this into less of a "Theological" language!  Next up:  a simplistic look at the Calvinist view of faith.

What's the Point?

 I think one of the things that always discouraged me about church was how seemingly useless it was.  I know that might sound a bit blasphemous, but really now - how many sermons about hell and the Second Coming of Christ can one really find useful?  Then there's the totally polar opposite - that style of church that seems like an around the clock, week-after-week therapy session.  You know the ones I'm talking about- the sermons are all flowery and all the teaching is about how to overcome childhood fears, manage your money better, and so on.  Not much about God, or the Christ for that matter.  Understand this - it was never the people of the church that bothered me...it was the doing of the church that I found so anemic.


The traditions of the church are fine.  Lighting candles, singing, preaching, corporate prayer, the Liturgy - all fine.  Each of these things have meaning to us on a number of levels, from the cohesion of generations, to the security they can provide (and many, many more), but in my estimation they have little practical value.  By the same token, a church that focuses only on activist causes leaves the soul longing for more.  It seems a conundrum.  Really, I suppose what's ideal in a church is just like life - balance.


Here's the thing that keeps sticking in my mind:

Luke chapter 10 reads -

25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

Anne Jackson over at FlowerDust.net recently posted this on her blog:

A couple of weeks ago, Atlanta was hit by serious flooding. As in, houses were submerged…completely devastated. In an area called Austell,thousands of families are displaced because of the damage.

People. Have. Lost. Their. Lives.

Last week, I met Pastor Shaun King for the first time, face to face. He shared with me a movement his church has started to help flood victims called Hope ATL.

Hope ATL is pulling together resources, financial and practical and human, to help these victims. Victims who have lost, literally, everything.

The thing that amazed me during my conversation with Shaun was that their church doesn’t have a lot of money. Or people. A couple hundred, at most. Instead of having meetings about how to help, or who to point people to in case they needed help, they simply stopped what they were doing…and helped.

Now, the thing that disturbed me during my conversation with Shaun was that he had made many calls to many churches in the area, and so many churches said…

No.

They couldn’t help.

I was shocked. Where is the Church when a city needs it the most?

That didn’t stop Shaun. He kept rallying the people he could and went into the most dangerous and most flooded places and they went to work. They even decided to NOT meet in their building on Sunday or in their offices during the week and instead they met at the largest Red Cross Shelter for flood victims in Marietta (near Austell), where the flooding was worst, so they could provide care and hope and a place for people to see Jesus. They didn’t take up an offering that Sunday either, as most of the people who came had nothing. 50% of Austell is now homeless. So they gave back to them instead.

And they’re still working.

For the rest of this story click here.  

So this seems useful.  That church saw neighbors in need - and DID something about it.  My question about those other churches that couldn't (or wouldn't) help is this:

WHY WOULDN'T THEY HELP??

Was it because they were already helping the community in a different fashion? (I really hope this is the answer)

Was it because their membership was dispersed because of the floods?

And let me say this here - I hope like hell it wasn't because Shaun King's church WASN'T FROM THE SAME DENOMINATION!!!!  Sounds silly, but I've seen that happen.  Sad.

Beginning - again

Some call it Deja Vu, some Second Sight, still others may say "Doing it all over again." But it's a beginning. A friend of mine spent years trying to quit smoking. At the start of each attempt he'd say that that particular day was "day one", when in fact it might have been the 30th time he had tried... it was a new beginning.

And so here I am again - at a beginning. In the last, well let's say decade, I have made several attempts to begin (again) my spiritual journey. Of course I don't know that this particular journey ever really comes to an end, but I feel like this one might have the potential to be for real.

Here's my problem, or problems if you like:

1. I don't think I believe in God.

2. I think I might believe in God.

3. I want to believe in God.

4. I don't know how to believe in God.

Get the picture? I've been told that I just need to have faith. Okay! Great! Where do I get some? I truly envy the faithful - those who just know deep down inside that God exists. I am not one of those people.

So last week I visited a church. It was nice, the pastor's cool, and the people seemed genuine. I met with the pastor one day and she seemed genuine, and the best part was - she didn't try to sell me on the simplicity of faith!

Okay, now I have to say this: I'm not a particularly vain person, and I'm certainly not vain enough to think that a pastor would craft a sermon with me in mind, but today's sermon was pretty interesting. It was the beginning of a series on Abraham and Sarah, and the number one thing that I remember being said was something along the line of, "Abraham and Sarah doubted God's promise that they would have a child, but they must have trusted God enough to at least try once!" Interesting. Seems to fit in nicely in my situation. Maybe I don't believe in God, maybe I do - but at least I'm going to take the step, have taken the step of going to church.

We'll see...