We are all shaped, and influenced, by various people whom God has brought into our lives. The reality is that we all are the product of these teachers, counselors, parents, friends, etc. that have walked with us on our journey through life. Those who have been of great significance we often refer to as "mentors." I have had numerous mentors in my life to varying degrees. Some for a brief period, some in specific lessons, and some for many years, even into the present day.
There are three men, who more than any others, shaped me into the person I am today. (Please recognize that I acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ, who has not only shaped my life, but is my life, as being in a separate category. Far beyond that of earthly mentors.) These men are Ernie Gruen, Dennis Peacocke, and Bob Mumford. These men have through their teaching, counsel, correction, and care, formed my life and perspective. That does not mean, that I would be in "lock-step" agreement with everything they have said or taught. But I would say that their words have always carried alot of "weight" with me. (Please note: These men cannot be blamed for me and the "messes" I have made.)
Ernie Gruen went to be with the Lord last summer. I first met him thirty-two years ago. I was a young kid in the ministry and he was at that time, one of the most influential pastors in the Kanas City area. His church was the center of the Jesus people revival. He became a father to me. He taught me the "ropes" of the ministry. How to do weddings, funerals, counsel, and more. His lessons in the practical areas of ministry were worth more than 10 years in Bible college. I eventually went on the staff of his church, and later pastored one of four churches that we planted. Ernie had his faults and failings, as we all do. Ernie and I had our areas of theological disagreement, but I always knew he loved me as a father loves a son.
I first met Dennis Peacocke about 25 years ago in Dallas. He was in his early forties at that time, and pulled no-punches in delivering the message of the Kingdom. He attracted alot of young men like myself, who were ready to charge Hell with a water pistol. He was, and still is, controversial. Dennis taught me, challenged me, and caused me to re-think many things. I spoke a number of times for conferences Dennis hosted in Northern California. Through Dennis and his confidence in me, my ministry was extended far beyond my local area. I eventually served on the apostolic council for the network of churches (Kingdom Ministries International) that Dennis started. I oversaw our continuing education program for our pastors, and traveled to Europe and Central America with Dennis. It was always a joy for our family to have Dennis visiting from California. My kids remember those times well. Dennis Peacocke is president of Strategic Christian Services, which has a website called "The Transforum" (thetransforum.com) which I write for.
Bob Mumford mentored me in a completely different way. He has been a mentor to me through his tapes, books, and conferences. I have had only a few private conversations with him, he has never been in my home, nor I in his. We have not served in the ministry together, like I have with Ernie and Dennis. Yet he has imparted a great deal into my life. C.S. Lewis considered George MacDonald his mentor, though MacDonald died long before Lewis had read any of his books. MacDonald mentored Lewis from the grave through his writings. Likewise, Bob has spoken into my life and mentored me from a distance. I continually hear myself teaching others what he taught me. I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to say that I have listened to 5,000 hours of teaching from this man. For that reason alone I must consider him on this list. But in addition, it was Bob Mumford, who personally mentored Dennis Peacocke. Therefore, he "second generation" mentored me.
There are many others that I could mention who have been of great influence in my life, both living and dead, both through their books and personal contact. There are also those men who I view as "peers" that have played a major role in my life, and to whom I am greatly indebted. I will probably write more about that at a future date.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Cathedral Thinking
(You will find this on "The Transforum" website, which I write for on a regular basis.)
A few years ago my wife and I had the opportunity to visit Europe for the first time. One of the most memorable experiences during our travels involved seeing the massive cathedrals that are found in the major cities of the continent. Not only were they impressive in size, but the age of these structures in many instances, pre-dated the discovery of the “New World” by Columbus. In addition, when one understands what was involved in the building of these cathedrals you are struck with the long range planning that was essential to their construction.
Not only did it require vast amounts of material resources; it was a task that would take many decades to complete. The average cathedral took 80 years to complete and some took over 200 years of continuous labor. (The current St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 150 years of work to complete by 1656. More so - the cathedral in Cologne, Germany, with its two great bell towers, each bursting more than 500 feet skyward, required 350 years of work spanning six centuries.)
It involved a generational effort. The generation that began the cathedral would not live to see it through to completion. The first generation passed on their building skills and in many instances their tools, to the next generation, which did the same to the third generation, so that there was an unbroken continuity in the construction. The first generation hired the architect, who not only designed the building, but also supervised its construction.
The vision of that first generation would only come into reality long after they were gone. They labored in faith, believing that the “seed” they were sowing would ultimately grow to maturity. They passed on the responsibility of the vision to the next generation. They built into their children a reverence for the task, and a sense of meaning and purpose. They imparted to their children a vision that would govern their lives.
In order to build a cathedral, there had to be “cathedral thinking.” They had a “long range vision” that saw into the future and shaped their daily lives. They did not live for the present, but lived for the future in the present. They laid down their “today” in order to pick up their “tomorrow.” They sacrificed the present for the future. But they believed that the task that they were involved in was worth the blood, sweat, and tears.
We must think generationally. We must pass on the “building skills” that we have acquired to the next generation. We must impart to our children a vision that will govern their lives and provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. We must labor in faith realizing that we may never see our vision fully realized in our lifetime. Cathedral thinking enables us to press ahead despite setbacks, and what seems to be the slowness of progress. This means that we must live strategically, rather than simply “day-to-day.” We must manage our resources and prepare for the future. We must leave an “inheritance” for the next generation. We must prepare the next generation to receive the “baton” from the current generation.
A few years ago my wife and I had the opportunity to visit Europe for the first time. One of the most memorable experiences during our travels involved seeing the massive cathedrals that are found in the major cities of the continent. Not only were they impressive in size, but the age of these structures in many instances, pre-dated the discovery of the “New World” by Columbus. In addition, when one understands what was involved in the building of these cathedrals you are struck with the long range planning that was essential to their construction.
Not only did it require vast amounts of material resources; it was a task that would take many decades to complete. The average cathedral took 80 years to complete and some took over 200 years of continuous labor. (The current St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 150 years of work to complete by 1656. More so - the cathedral in Cologne, Germany, with its two great bell towers, each bursting more than 500 feet skyward, required 350 years of work spanning six centuries.)
It involved a generational effort. The generation that began the cathedral would not live to see it through to completion. The first generation passed on their building skills and in many instances their tools, to the next generation, which did the same to the third generation, so that there was an unbroken continuity in the construction. The first generation hired the architect, who not only designed the building, but also supervised its construction.
The vision of that first generation would only come into reality long after they were gone. They labored in faith, believing that the “seed” they were sowing would ultimately grow to maturity. They passed on the responsibility of the vision to the next generation. They built into their children a reverence for the task, and a sense of meaning and purpose. They imparted to their children a vision that would govern their lives.
In order to build a cathedral, there had to be “cathedral thinking.” They had a “long range vision” that saw into the future and shaped their daily lives. They did not live for the present, but lived for the future in the present. They laid down their “today” in order to pick up their “tomorrow.” They sacrificed the present for the future. But they believed that the task that they were involved in was worth the blood, sweat, and tears.
We must think generationally. We must pass on the “building skills” that we have acquired to the next generation. We must impart to our children a vision that will govern their lives and provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. We must labor in faith realizing that we may never see our vision fully realized in our lifetime. Cathedral thinking enables us to press ahead despite setbacks, and what seems to be the slowness of progress. This means that we must live strategically, rather than simply “day-to-day.” We must manage our resources and prepare for the future. We must leave an “inheritance” for the next generation. We must prepare the next generation to receive the “baton” from the current generation.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Islam and the Cross of Christ
(I originally wrote this back in 2001, I am posting it today simply to show the distinction between the Islamic view of the Cross and that of historic-orthodox Christianity.)
Islam does affirm certain aspects of Christianity that are quite interesting placed within their theological scheme. For instance, they affirm the Virgin Birth of Christ, even though they do not believe that this is an indication of Jesus’ divinity. (The denial of the divinity of Jesus is in line with the assertion of Allah as the one true God. Christianity is seen as tritheistic.) They acknowledge that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, yet believe that the prophet Muhammad was superior in his revelation. They believe as well, in the sinlessness of Christ. They even believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, though in a very distorted manner. All of these aspects of Islamic theology are an adoption and adaptation of Christianity by Muhammad. But the real issue of Christianity, while not ignoring the significance of all the complimentary components, is the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:3-8). In this regard the teachings of the Qur’an are in their greatest conflict with the Gospels.
The New Testament is emphatic on this point: Jesus died on a cross. The Qur’an is equally emphatic that He did not. There are actually two major views in Islamic theology relating to this matter. The orthodox view is that Jesus was not crucified, but " although it seemed so to them" (the Arabic phrase being, shubbiha la-hum), instead He was translated to heaven, with another taking His place on the cross (Sura 4:157). The phrase "it seemed so to them" is understood to convey the idea that the Jews thought that Jesus died on the cross. It could also be interpreted that the Jews thought that the person who died on the cross was Jesus.
The second view of Christ’s crucifixion is found among an Islamic sect known as the Ahmadis* (this group is regarded as heretical by the Sunnis), they argue that Christ did not die on the cross, but was only badly wounded and recovered in the tomb. They then state that He eventually made His way to Kashmir, where He subsequently died, and was buried at Srinagar, India. The legendary Tomb of Issa (Jesus) is a popular pilgrimage site. The second coming is not of a resurrected Jesus, but the one who bore the power and spirit of Jesus (Ahmad). This view was taught by the Ahmadi teacher, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (1893-1985), who understood the importance of the Cross and the Resurrection to Christian theology (a point missed by many so-called "liberal" Christians). He made this statement: "Once it is established that Jesus did not die on the cross, there was no accursed death, no bearing of sins for mankind, no resurrection, no ascension, and no atonement. The entire structure of church theology is thereby demolished." Undoubtedly, this Islamic writer understood that without Christ’s death on the Cross, there is no Christian gospel.
Christianity is not built upon on an ethical philosophy, though it does teach ethical behavior. It is built upon nothing less than the historical fact of the Resurrection, which was the Father’s validation of the atoning work of the crucifixion. Without the historical fact of Christ coming out of the tomb alive, Christianity is invalidated (I Cor. 15:13-19). Without the Resurrection, Christianity is left "without a leg to stand on." Islam recognizes this and thus rejects not Jesus per se, but His atonement.
* This sect originated in India in 1899 as a Muslim reform movement. It differs from orthodox Islam in that it believes that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was the promised Messiah, the coming one of all the major religions in the world. It has in the years since its founding, developed the most aggressive missionary program in Islam. In coming to the U.S., it has had its greatest success in the black community. They have produced a vast amount of literature concerning Jesus. He is viewed as a great prophet.
Islam does affirm certain aspects of Christianity that are quite interesting placed within their theological scheme. For instance, they affirm the Virgin Birth of Christ, even though they do not believe that this is an indication of Jesus’ divinity. (The denial of the divinity of Jesus is in line with the assertion of Allah as the one true God. Christianity is seen as tritheistic.) They acknowledge that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, yet believe that the prophet Muhammad was superior in his revelation. They believe as well, in the sinlessness of Christ. They even believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, though in a very distorted manner. All of these aspects of Islamic theology are an adoption and adaptation of Christianity by Muhammad. But the real issue of Christianity, while not ignoring the significance of all the complimentary components, is the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:3-8). In this regard the teachings of the Qur’an are in their greatest conflict with the Gospels.
The New Testament is emphatic on this point: Jesus died on a cross. The Qur’an is equally emphatic that He did not. There are actually two major views in Islamic theology relating to this matter. The orthodox view is that Jesus was not crucified, but " although it seemed so to them" (the Arabic phrase being, shubbiha la-hum), instead He was translated to heaven, with another taking His place on the cross (Sura 4:157). The phrase "it seemed so to them" is understood to convey the idea that the Jews thought that Jesus died on the cross. It could also be interpreted that the Jews thought that the person who died on the cross was Jesus.
The second view of Christ’s crucifixion is found among an Islamic sect known as the Ahmadis* (this group is regarded as heretical by the Sunnis), they argue that Christ did not die on the cross, but was only badly wounded and recovered in the tomb. They then state that He eventually made His way to Kashmir, where He subsequently died, and was buried at Srinagar, India. The legendary Tomb of Issa (Jesus) is a popular pilgrimage site. The second coming is not of a resurrected Jesus, but the one who bore the power and spirit of Jesus (Ahmad). This view was taught by the Ahmadi teacher, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (1893-1985), who understood the importance of the Cross and the Resurrection to Christian theology (a point missed by many so-called "liberal" Christians). He made this statement: "Once it is established that Jesus did not die on the cross, there was no accursed death, no bearing of sins for mankind, no resurrection, no ascension, and no atonement. The entire structure of church theology is thereby demolished." Undoubtedly, this Islamic writer understood that without Christ’s death on the Cross, there is no Christian gospel.
Christianity is not built upon on an ethical philosophy, though it does teach ethical behavior. It is built upon nothing less than the historical fact of the Resurrection, which was the Father’s validation of the atoning work of the crucifixion. Without the historical fact of Christ coming out of the tomb alive, Christianity is invalidated (I Cor. 15:13-19). Without the Resurrection, Christianity is left "without a leg to stand on." Islam recognizes this and thus rejects not Jesus per se, but His atonement.
* This sect originated in India in 1899 as a Muslim reform movement. It differs from orthodox Islam in that it believes that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was the promised Messiah, the coming one of all the major religions in the world. It has in the years since its founding, developed the most aggressive missionary program in Islam. In coming to the U.S., it has had its greatest success in the black community. They have produced a vast amount of literature concerning Jesus. He is viewed as a great prophet.
Greek Word Study on Prayer
“With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints.” (Ephesians 6:18)
The Greek word most often used for “prayer” in the New Testament contains much deeper meaning than most believers realize. The word demands surrender and consecration on the part of the one making the request.
In Ephesians 6:18, Paul says, “Praying always, with all prayer…” In both instances the word “prayer” is taken from the most commonly used Greek word for “prayer “ which is proseuche. This is a compound Greek word derived from the words pros and euche. The word pros is a preposition meaning face-to-face. The Gospel of John uses this word when it declares “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (John 1:1). The word “with” is taken from the word pros. The idea conveyed by this word is one of intimacy. The Holy Spirit is telling us that the Father and the Son had an intimate, face-to-face relationship in eternity past.
The second word, euche, is a Greek word that means a wish, desire, or vow. It was originally used to depict a person who made a vow to God because of some need or desire in their life. This individual would vow to give something to God of great value in exchange for a favorable answer to prayer.
This word, proseuche, shows us two important things about prayer. It tells us that prayer should bring us face-to-face with God in an intimate relationship. Prayer is the vehicle to bring us into a close, intimate relationship with God. Secondly, the idea of sacrifice is also associated with prayer. It depicts an altar of sacrifice and consecration in prayer where our lives are yielded entirely to God. It is a place of decision and surrender where we freely vow to give our lives in exchange to God for His divine life imparted to us. Because the word proseuche has to do with this type of surrender, sacrifice, and consecration, it is apparent that God wants to do more than merely bless us. He wants to transform us! He wants us to place our lives in His hands as we come before His throne.
Now let’s take a look at the word translated as “petition” (KJV uses the word “supplication”). This word comes from the Greek word deesis, which is derived from the verb deomai and most literally describes a need or a want. This word denotes a cry for God’s help that exposes our inability to meet our own needs. This word deesis is found in James 5:17, where it states, “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly (Greek word deesis)…” Elijah recognized his inability to change the situation apart from God’s intervention. He prayed earnestly (deesis), out of his deep sense of need, asking for God to intervene on his behalf. Our appeal to God is to be out of a sense of humility, requesting Him to grant our petition.
These two Greek words proseuche and deesis are paired up again in Philippians 4:6, where Paul says: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer (proseuche) and supplication (deesis) with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” We find these two word used together in I Timothy 2:1 and 5:5 (here the NAS translates deesis as “entreaties”). It appears that Paul links these two words together for a purpose. The word proseuche focuses on the One to whom the prayer is aimed. The word deesis focuses on the need, or needs, being presented toward God.
Jesus used an interesting word for prayer when He told His disciples to “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). The word “ask” is the Greek word aiteo, and it means I ask or I demand. This word has primarily to do with tangible needs, such as food, shelter, and money.
At first glance, aiteo appears to be a strange choice of words for the act of praying, because the word is not one denoting the humble requesting of something. Rather, this word describes someone demanding something from God. But we should not be disturbed by this notion of “demanding,” when viewed in its proper context. The first part of John 15:7 provides us with a key to understanding, it says, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you.” Jesus is saying that if His words take up proper residence in our heart and mind, we would never ask for something that is out of sync with His will and purposes. His Word would so transform our mind that when we prayed it would be in accordance with His Word.
This word aiteo is found in James 4:3, where James warns: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your own pleasures.” When we are not abiding our motives become distorted, and our demanding produces nothing. The word aiteo is used in I John 5:14 where it explains that “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” Note the context is “according to His will.” As we allow God’s Word to take an authoritative role in our heart and mind, we give the Word the freedom to transform our thinking. Our mind becomes renewed to God’s will (Rom. 12:2), enabling us to pray in accordance. When we are abiding in Christ and His Word, knowing the will of God, we can pray with this kind of authority.
Allow me to close with the words of John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Writing in 1779, concerning the matter of prayer, he gave these words of counsel: “Thou art coming to a King, large petitions with thee bring; for His grace and power are such, none can ever ask too much.”
The Greek word most often used for “prayer” in the New Testament contains much deeper meaning than most believers realize. The word demands surrender and consecration on the part of the one making the request.
In Ephesians 6:18, Paul says, “Praying always, with all prayer…” In both instances the word “prayer” is taken from the most commonly used Greek word for “prayer “ which is proseuche. This is a compound Greek word derived from the words pros and euche. The word pros is a preposition meaning face-to-face. The Gospel of John uses this word when it declares “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (John 1:1). The word “with” is taken from the word pros. The idea conveyed by this word is one of intimacy. The Holy Spirit is telling us that the Father and the Son had an intimate, face-to-face relationship in eternity past.
The second word, euche, is a Greek word that means a wish, desire, or vow. It was originally used to depict a person who made a vow to God because of some need or desire in their life. This individual would vow to give something to God of great value in exchange for a favorable answer to prayer.
This word, proseuche, shows us two important things about prayer. It tells us that prayer should bring us face-to-face with God in an intimate relationship. Prayer is the vehicle to bring us into a close, intimate relationship with God. Secondly, the idea of sacrifice is also associated with prayer. It depicts an altar of sacrifice and consecration in prayer where our lives are yielded entirely to God. It is a place of decision and surrender where we freely vow to give our lives in exchange to God for His divine life imparted to us. Because the word proseuche has to do with this type of surrender, sacrifice, and consecration, it is apparent that God wants to do more than merely bless us. He wants to transform us! He wants us to place our lives in His hands as we come before His throne.
Now let’s take a look at the word translated as “petition” (KJV uses the word “supplication”). This word comes from the Greek word deesis, which is derived from the verb deomai and most literally describes a need or a want. This word denotes a cry for God’s help that exposes our inability to meet our own needs. This word deesis is found in James 5:17, where it states, “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly (Greek word deesis)…” Elijah recognized his inability to change the situation apart from God’s intervention. He prayed earnestly (deesis), out of his deep sense of need, asking for God to intervene on his behalf. Our appeal to God is to be out of a sense of humility, requesting Him to grant our petition.
These two Greek words proseuche and deesis are paired up again in Philippians 4:6, where Paul says: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer (proseuche) and supplication (deesis) with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” We find these two word used together in I Timothy 2:1 and 5:5 (here the NAS translates deesis as “entreaties”). It appears that Paul links these two words together for a purpose. The word proseuche focuses on the One to whom the prayer is aimed. The word deesis focuses on the need, or needs, being presented toward God.
Jesus used an interesting word for prayer when He told His disciples to “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). The word “ask” is the Greek word aiteo, and it means I ask or I demand. This word has primarily to do with tangible needs, such as food, shelter, and money.
At first glance, aiteo appears to be a strange choice of words for the act of praying, because the word is not one denoting the humble requesting of something. Rather, this word describes someone demanding something from God. But we should not be disturbed by this notion of “demanding,” when viewed in its proper context. The first part of John 15:7 provides us with a key to understanding, it says, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you.” Jesus is saying that if His words take up proper residence in our heart and mind, we would never ask for something that is out of sync with His will and purposes. His Word would so transform our mind that when we prayed it would be in accordance with His Word.
This word aiteo is found in James 4:3, where James warns: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your own pleasures.” When we are not abiding our motives become distorted, and our demanding produces nothing. The word aiteo is used in I John 5:14 where it explains that “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.” Note the context is “according to His will.” As we allow God’s Word to take an authoritative role in our heart and mind, we give the Word the freedom to transform our thinking. Our mind becomes renewed to God’s will (Rom. 12:2), enabling us to pray in accordance. When we are abiding in Christ and His Word, knowing the will of God, we can pray with this kind of authority.
Allow me to close with the words of John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Writing in 1779, concerning the matter of prayer, he gave these words of counsel: “Thou art coming to a King, large petitions with thee bring; for His grace and power are such, none can ever ask too much.”
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher (Movie Review)
The name Lonnie Frisbee may not be one that you are familiar with. But Lonnie Frisbee was a key figure in the "Jesus Movement" of the late 60's and early 70's. There was probably no more of a significant representative of the revival that swept through that time than this long-haired, bearded preacher. He was the instrument that God used in both the growth of Calvary Chapel and the development of the "signs and wonders" theology of the Vineyard movement.
This 2007 Emmy-nominated documentary chronicles the life, re-birth, and death of a man whose name has been erased from the pages of 20th century church history. Why? Because Lonnie struggled with the sin of homosexuality throughout his life. He experienced times of victory, but also times of defeat. He died tragically of AIDS in 1993. He presented a dilemma for many. How could God so powerfully use such an unclean vessel? (Of course, the reality is that God has always worked through "unclean vessels.")
Producer, director, and writer David Di Sabatino pulls together the compelling elements of this story through archival footage and interviews. This is a film that is thought-provoking and discussion generating. I highly recommend it for those willing to wrestle with the issues that it raises.
It is available through Amazon.com.
This 2007 Emmy-nominated documentary chronicles the life, re-birth, and death of a man whose name has been erased from the pages of 20th century church history. Why? Because Lonnie struggled with the sin of homosexuality throughout his life. He experienced times of victory, but also times of defeat. He died tragically of AIDS in 1993. He presented a dilemma for many. How could God so powerfully use such an unclean vessel? (Of course, the reality is that God has always worked through "unclean vessels.")
Producer, director, and writer David Di Sabatino pulls together the compelling elements of this story through archival footage and interviews. This is a film that is thought-provoking and discussion generating. I highly recommend it for those willing to wrestle with the issues that it raises.
It is available through Amazon.com.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Trinity: Theology has Consequences
(This is a brief theological treatise I wrote about five years ago addressing the importance of the Trinity in the development of Western civilization.)
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as “truth.” This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called “sacred” writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, “ideas have consequences,” this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word “culture” is derived from the word “cultus,” which is a Latin term signifying “worship.” What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood “God is a sweet society within Himself.” Within the Trinity we have an “economic (functional) subordination,” at the same time we have an “ontological equality.” Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his “being” to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist “smoke screen” to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called “Lex Rex” (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of “Rex Lex” (King is Law). You have heard the phrase “No one is above the law,” meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a “mystery” revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected “The One and the Many,” they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a “oneness” without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, “It’s not safe to think in this part of the world.” (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as “truth.” This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called “sacred” writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, “ideas have consequences,” this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word “culture” is derived from the word “cultus,” which is a Latin term signifying “worship.” What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood “God is a sweet society within Himself.” Within the Trinity we have an “economic (functional) subordination,” at the same time we have an “ontological equality.” Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his “being” to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist “smoke screen” to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called “Lex Rex” (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of “Rex Lex” (King is Law). You have heard the phrase “No one is above the law,” meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a “mystery” revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected “The One and the Many,” they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a “oneness” without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, “It’s not safe to think in this part of the world.” (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Power of Persistence
Jesus spelled out prayer for us very clearly. One day His disciples came to Him saying, ”Lord, teach us to pray.” After giving them a model prayer, He told them a parable about a man who went to his neighbor’s home to beg for bread because of the late arrival of a friend. The neighbor refused to even get out of bed. But the man kept pounding on the door insisting that his neighbor rise and grant his request. Jesus concludes the parable by saying, ”I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs” (Luke 11:5-8).
In another place Jesus illustrates prayer comparing it to a widow whom kept coming and pleading her case before an unrighteous judge. The judge finally said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because the widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, lest by her continually coming she wears me out.” Jesus concludes by saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now shall not God bring about justice for his elect, who cry out to Him day and night . . .? However when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” Take note that Jesus is equating faith with “continually coming, crying out day and night” (Luke 18:1-8). In other words, faith expresses itself through persistence.
We live in a push button, instant, microwave culture where we can have virtually anything instantly. Unfortunately, this carries over to the way we approach God. We casually ask Him once or twice, then quit and wonder why He doesn’t answer. We are like the man who prayed, “Lord, I want patience and I want it NOW!”
Instead we must be like Jacob, who wrestled all night with the angel of the Lord, and said: “I will not let go until you bless me.” That should be our persistent attitude in prayer. Note Paul’s words; “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints . . . “ (Ephes. 6:18). [The word translated as “perseverance” is the Greek word proskarteresis, which is a verb meaning “to wait until one’s trial comes before the court” or “to diligently remain at one’s work.”] One of the greatest intercessors in the history of the Church was George Mueller of Bristol, England. He was a man who exemplified persistence in prayer. In praying for the salvation of lost individuals he made this comment: “I have persevered in believing prayer for more than fifty-two years for some, and shall continue till the answer comes: ‘Shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night unto Him’ (Luke 18:7).”
I once saw a plaque in a brother’s office that made this declaration: “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. That may be an overstatement, and though it does not speak directly to the issue of prayer, there is wisdom in it.
Prior to his becoming Prime Minister, Winston Churchill was invited to come and speak to the students at Harrow, his alma mater. At this time his fame was an orator was widely known. Everyone expected a great feat of oratory, as he would pass on his wisdom to these students. There was a hush over the assembly as he approached the podium. His speech was simple and brief, he said, “Never, never, never, . . . give up.” He then took his seat.
With that one sentence, Winston Churchill electrified the audience. What gave Churchill’s words such power was the fact that he was not merely repeating a “motivational” principle. It was something that he adhered to in his own life. He was a man who never gave up. (I recommend for your reading Stephen Mansfield’s book entitled Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill, published by Highland Books.) Though he was not addressing the issue of prayer, his words are applicable to it.
I recognize that effective prayer involves more than simply being persistent (See I John 5:14), but it is a factor addressed in the Scriptures. May we all, by God’s grace, become more consistent and more persistent in our prayer life.
In another place Jesus illustrates prayer comparing it to a widow whom kept coming and pleading her case before an unrighteous judge. The judge finally said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because the widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, lest by her continually coming she wears me out.” Jesus concludes by saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now shall not God bring about justice for his elect, who cry out to Him day and night . . .? However when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” Take note that Jesus is equating faith with “continually coming, crying out day and night” (Luke 18:1-8). In other words, faith expresses itself through persistence.
We live in a push button, instant, microwave culture where we can have virtually anything instantly. Unfortunately, this carries over to the way we approach God. We casually ask Him once or twice, then quit and wonder why He doesn’t answer. We are like the man who prayed, “Lord, I want patience and I want it NOW!”
Instead we must be like Jacob, who wrestled all night with the angel of the Lord, and said: “I will not let go until you bless me.” That should be our persistent attitude in prayer. Note Paul’s words; “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints . . . “ (Ephes. 6:18). [The word translated as “perseverance” is the Greek word proskarteresis, which is a verb meaning “to wait until one’s trial comes before the court” or “to diligently remain at one’s work.”] One of the greatest intercessors in the history of the Church was George Mueller of Bristol, England. He was a man who exemplified persistence in prayer. In praying for the salvation of lost individuals he made this comment: “I have persevered in believing prayer for more than fifty-two years for some, and shall continue till the answer comes: ‘Shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night unto Him’ (Luke 18:7).”
I once saw a plaque in a brother’s office that made this declaration: “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. That may be an overstatement, and though it does not speak directly to the issue of prayer, there is wisdom in it.
Prior to his becoming Prime Minister, Winston Churchill was invited to come and speak to the students at Harrow, his alma mater. At this time his fame was an orator was widely known. Everyone expected a great feat of oratory, as he would pass on his wisdom to these students. There was a hush over the assembly as he approached the podium. His speech was simple and brief, he said, “Never, never, never, . . . give up.” He then took his seat.
With that one sentence, Winston Churchill electrified the audience. What gave Churchill’s words such power was the fact that he was not merely repeating a “motivational” principle. It was something that he adhered to in his own life. He was a man who never gave up. (I recommend for your reading Stephen Mansfield’s book entitled Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill, published by Highland Books.) Though he was not addressing the issue of prayer, his words are applicable to it.
I recognize that effective prayer involves more than simply being persistent (See I John 5:14), but it is a factor addressed in the Scriptures. May we all, by God’s grace, become more consistent and more persistent in our prayer life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
