Historical Validity of Jesus’ Resurrection

Personally, I think that the historical validity of Jesus’ Resurrection builds the strongest case for Him being the Son of God, and all the basic stuff that Christians believe.

Over at ilovephilosophy.com (philosophy forums) I’ve heard a couple of atheists, agnostics, or non-believers (as some I’m not sure what they are) say the same things:

1) The Gospels and New Testament letters were written too far away from the original events, meaning they cannot be trusted (and are probably mythological).
2) The disciples made the whole thing up so they could have a following of some sort (usually forms into some conspiracy theory of how the apostles were power hungry).

Of course, I’m summarising the general views.

Most of these seem to get their ‘facts’ from popular media rather than studying it for themselves. One person actually thought that Jesus died in 0 AD, and that is why they thought that since the earliest letter in the New Testament (Corinthians) was written in 54AD it was too long from the original event.

But Jesus was crucified 29-32 AD, which means that the letter to the Corinthians was written only something like 22 or 24 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

Why this is important is because Paul, in 1 Cor 15:6, claims that over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus and that many of them were alive at the time of writing the letter. In other words, there were many people around to validate the event.

Myths don’t take 20 years to develop. Therefore only 20 or so years after Jesus’ death people believe He was raised again. Why didn’t the Jews produce a body or something?

When challenging an agnostic on the fact that they thought that Jesus was crucified in 0 AD I was told that ‘history cannot be verified’ and ‘historians argue all the time’. Only that I don’t think there is one historian in history, save perhaps David Ike (okay, not a historian, but you get my point) who says Jesus was crucified in 0 AD. So what real reason do they have to believe this?

The point is that i’m often told that the ‘historical evidence’ is laughable, but when I challenge this thought I’m told ‘oh, but all the historians argue about dates anyway.’ This is suspicious reasoning. If historical evidence is ‘laughable’ then it means the person is placing some stock in historical evidence (that which we do have). But, of course, because many actually haven’t really done any actual study on the subject they’ll eventually write it off to uncertainty, or keep speaking nonsense about how the Gospels were written in 120AD and Jesus crucified in year 0.

If you don’t believe that Jesus was actually risen from the dead in history then why do you believe that? Saying “history cannot be validated” is dubious, and going on about what some pseudo-historian said on Discovery Channel intellectually lazy.

If Jesus really was raised from the dead you are forced to take Him seriously as the Son of God. Ignoring the historical studies is convenient, but intellectually dishonest.

According to a bio I read of a guy called Gary Habermas, who lectures on the resurrection, he spent several years studying the subject before he realised that the resurrection of Jesus was a real historical event. He almost became a buddhist in this time, but was convinced when he studied the resurrection from a historical perspective (so he had no bias or reason to become a Christian). His site is very resourceful around this subject – see it at www.garyhabermas.com.

Separating judgement from the Gospel

I’ve often heard it said that, as Christians (for those who read this blog that are), we shouldn’t try and “scare people into heaven” by making threats of hell when we present the message that Jesus is the savior.

I’m not quite sure what this means anymore, to be honest. While I don’t think it is in our place to judge a person (that is God’s place) or to make threats of hell, telling people that they will burn forever in a hell that resembles medieval poetry rather than Biblical truth (in other words, we don’t know enough about hell to know what it’s really like) I don’t know if we can separate the message of Jesus with the fact that God’s judgement is coming. (That’s not the same as telling someone they’re going to hell– it’s simply telling them God’s judgement is coming.)

In fact, in speaking to Gentiles, it seems the judgement is a paramount point in sermons we pick up from the book of Acts.

Take Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10) as the first example. When Peter eventually speaks to Cornelius and all those gathered at his house, look what he says:

vs 34 – “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

What does this mean? Does this mean people that don’t know Jesus but do what is right will enter into heaven? It can…

Peter then talks about how they were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry, what he did – a main point being the warfare He conducted against the devil – and then talks about Jesus’ death and then in vs 40:

“But God raised Him on the third day and made Him to appear… vs 42… and He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He (Jesus) is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that the resurrection validates Jesus as judge, which is interesting.

When Paul speaks to the Atheneans, he says something similar (Acts 17)

vs 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.“

Very interesting indeed.

I came to be a Christian because someone told me the judgement of God is coming.

You have a choice – choose life (abundant life) or choose death (abundant death). If you feel you don’t owe it to God to choose life that’s cool – it’s okay to choose death. I don’t think God judges you for choosing death, I think he does judge you for inflicting death on others (in otherwords, he will judge us all for the sins we have committed to others). If you decided you wanted death that’s what you get. If you decided you wanted life but just didn’t know how to get it, you will be judged accordingly.

If you think that doing good works might get you to have abundant life, here and now… well, it might. Romans 2: 6 seems to say so:

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (injustice?), there will be wrath and fury.”

But how do you know when you’ve done enough? How can you be assured that your works are enough? Paul seems to follow this argument in Romans 2, asking people who teach against stealing if they steal, do they commit adultery (Rom 2:21, 22)?

You take a huge chance by relying on your own works, which will probably always be tainted with motives of some sort that are impure. Why take the chance, when you can have abundant life and know with certainty you will survive God’s judgement when it comes? How? By simply placing your faith in the Judge Himself, Jesus Christ, the one God raised from the dead and appointed as Judge. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved.

Is this scaring people into heaven? I don’t know – but last night I felt the truth of it. A judgement IS coming. Will you be able to stand in it? I don’t know. Do you know? How can you know for certainty? By believing Jesus.

This doesn’t mean I’m saying someone is going to hell, this simply means that they need to know there’s a judgement coming. I’m not making a call on the outcome of that judgement – simply to say that God WILL judge the living and the dead, and how will you stand? There’s only one way of knowing for certainty how you will stand… otherwise you take your chances and you’re on your own.

I actually became a Christian at 11 years old when someone told me the reality of God’s judgement. From that day on I never feared His judgement in the same way… and I’ve enjoyed abundant life in Him in so many other ways.

Is this scaring people into heaven, though? Or is it giving them three options?

1) Death
2) Take your own chances (works)
3) Life – in Jesus.

Which one will you choose?

Apologetics influences theology

Many of the early church fathers, including Augustine, formed theology through the realm of apologetics. Their apologetics then became accepted theology.

This seems to be the case. You can’t really separate theology and apologetics, because the apologetic wants to present a clear-cut case of theology, but in doing so he can affect theology.

Well, to illustrate my point, let me give you an example. In discussions with an atheist on the Internet we were arguing about the foreknowledge of God. I was saying that just because God has absolute foreknowledge of an event doesn’t mean God purposed for the event to happen, nor does it mean we don’t have choices in life.

He was saying that if an event is “destined” to occur it is predetermined. There’s nothing I can do to change the event. I have the illusion of choice but I don’t really have the ability to change the event – so do we REALLY have free will? We have the illusion of free will, yes.

I argued my point thoroughly that foreknowledge of an event does not necessarily mean the event is predetermined only to realise he was right and I was wrong. The event IS predetermined.

Then I stumbled upon this intriguing and excellently written essay on the topic: http://www.cresourcei.org/freedom.html

To quote the writer, Dennis Bratcher:

The biggest problem for the foreknowledge of God is the relation of foreknowledge to human freedom. If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen. That is, if God knows the event to be a historical reality, then that event must occur; it is predestined. If it does not occur than God did not know.

If you have time to read the article, you should. Basically, Bratcher advocates that the absolute foreknowledge or omniscient model is not exactly wrong, just perhaps not the whole story. A better model would be incarnation, and he attaches this to the realm of prophecy, referring to certain prophecies in the Bible that didn’t come true the way the prophet initially prophesied it, but it did come true in just a different way (a different nation etc.).

I’m aware of Gregory Boyd’s work into the concept that God, in his sovereignty, actually chooses not to know the future absolutely but rather the infinite possibilities of every choice. This means the future is not determined, and not even God really knows which choice I’m really going to make. He knows all of the infinite possibilities and has a plan for all of them, but ultimately my freedom is my freedom.

I find it fascinating and intriguing, and some of the apologetics on Boyd’s site and Bratcher’s are incredibly compelling.

The problem is that this presents theology that is unconventional and sometimes seen as heretical. In an earlier post I mentioned that we’re all going to be a heretic to someone, eventually, so I guess we have to accept that. The issue is what do we DO – if an apologetic presents a compelling case, based on the Scriptures and reason, that goes slightly against (or even opposite) to the “accepted” theology on the topic, what do we do? If the case is so compelling it may bring skeptics to faith in Christ, what do we do? What do I do in my own apologetics? When am using “heresy” to bring people to Christ, and is that wrong? Right? Are we not making a big deal out of periphery stuff?

This is a conundrum. Should I defend certain theology just because it’s the “accepted” theology, but doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny of the day? Or should we be forming new theologies based on new apologetics and intellectual discoveries? Why is it so difficult to say that Augustine may have been wrong, or he wasn’t necessarily wrong he just didn’t have the whole picture – or the questions been asked were entirely different?

One thing that Bratcher mentions is how the new generation asks different questions, but we attempt to answer it with the answers to older questions.

Yet, in the process of answering the new questions – new because the new generation is mainly post-modern or existential in its outlook – how much does this affect theology? And what should theologians, pastors, etc. do about it? What should writers do about it?

You’re always a heretic to someone

As a writer I’m faced with the constant tension of not wanting to add to all the endless information and absolute junk out there, both on the Internet and the bookstores. And the tension of wanting to publish the real TRUTH of a matter.

I mean, there is a LOT of opinion out there, and everyone has their opinion.

When it comes to writing Christian stuff a lot of things are emotionally charged. You’re always a heretic to someone and I have found myself needing to accept this more and more.

Everyone has their opinion and at some stage I’m going to have one that may not even line up to the “tried and true” doctrines of the church. Actually, when you listen to what people preach and say, in general, I think there are a great deal more “heretics” out there than we would like to think. Most people don’t walk the straight and narrow to doctrine – they kind of interpret doctrine in their own way and live it out in their own way.

Take the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God. Even those who believe God determines everything that happens (I am not one of them) speak as if He doesn’t (that we have free will). The fact of the matter is that no one really sits and thinks about the conclusions of their own thoughts or what they say – their thoughts sit very much in their own subjective world.

Not that I think everyone should be philosophical about everything. As a writer, I have to be, especially if I’m going to publish something; but it often gets me in dangerous ground. I’m in the public limelight and easily labeled a heretic – just because I’m in the public limelight. I can write exactly what everyone else SAYS in their conversations or preaching, but since I have to be more philosophical about this everyone may be surprised where the conclusions of their thought actually goes – quite often into what many staunch theologians call “heresy”.

Heresy has become such a subjective thing. Is it heresy to believe that God allows people to choose Him or not? To some, yes, because they believe in predestination. But is it REALLY heresy, or just a difference in opinion? Who the heck knows?

I guess I have to suck it in and publish my opinions anyway. We’re all a heretic to someone, especially if we have a different opinion. If mine have helped me, hopefully they’ll help someone out there as well.

Blockages to Healing = Are there really any?

For the last two or three years or so I’ve taken healing quite seriously, with a desperation to see much more healings take place within my church, my life, through my church, myself, and in and through the church in general.

I’m quite serious about it for the simple reason that Jesus commanded us (He didn’t suggest it to us, He commanded us) to heal the sick. In Matthew 10 Jesus sends out the 12 to heal the sick, and in Luke 10 he sends out 72 of His disciples to do the same. Obviously this means that the ability to heal the sick is not only subject to a select few, but any who proclaim the message of the Kingdom (there are plenty more Biblical passages where this can be shown).

There are many places in the Scripture where we see that healing is a sign that validates the message of the Kingdom because it proves that the Kingdom is here – Jesus has authority over sickness and disease, and He atoned for it through His death. You want me to show you? Sure, be healed in Jesus name. See, I told you He has all authority!

Furthermore, if I am to live my life as a disciple of Jesus (one who wants to become like Him) then I am to live like Him, am I not? Of course I am. Healing was a priority for Jesus, which is clearly shown in the Gospels, and therefore it should be a part of my ministry as well.

In the last few weeks I’ve been listening to Curry Blake, who heads over John G. Lake Ministries. John G. Lake was a man who lived in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and had a very effective healing ministry. You can find out more details about the guy at Wikipedia here.

Now Blake has had a very efficient healing ministry himself, and so I decided to listen to some of his teachings given for free on the internet that I found here. (Note: the rest of the teachings on this website look weird, so I’m not advocating any of those.)

I’m inclined to give stock to someone like Blake for the simple reasons that:

1) He has been doing this for years.
2) He has a great track record.
3) He builds away from himself – in other words, he equips others to do the work, he doesn’t build a ministry around himself.
4) He is not all about himself, unlike many televangelists (as an example).

Yesterday I also listened to some of Rob Rufus’ teachings around the subject, and was delighted to hear him say similar things to Blake. Rufus leads City Church International in Hong Kong and I have a friend who goes to his church, plus he has relationships with New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI, who my church relates to), knows people I know, and he has been around to my old church a few times. He also meets my four criteria above, and he has great teachings on grace.

Now that I’ve established the two sources, I can get to the core of my post. Both Blake and Rufus mentioned a number of things which have, traditionally, been believed by people of various church backgrounds to be blockages or hinderances to healing.

Both of them, with lots of experience in this department, flat out denied that there are ANY blockages to healing, besides only two, which are the traditions of men and unbelief (Rufus says this is not the same as faith, which I’ll explain later).

Some of the usual ‘blockages’ we often hear taught include: Sin in the sick person’s life; sin in the life of the one praying for the sick; generational curses; the person being healed does not have enough faith; the person praying is using the wrong words, style, etc.

Briefly, I’m going to list each ‘blockage’ I’ve heard numerous times preached and throw some of my own thoughts and the thoughts of these two men into the equation:

1) Sin hinders healing?

This is a very popular reason why healing doesn’t happen. However, it appears that it has no scriptural or logical ground.

Firstly, when God first brings someone into salvation they are in sin. Yet salvation is a bigger miracle than healing, isn’t it? Actually, yes, it is. So if sin somehow ‘blocks’ God from doing anything, how does He get anyone saved?

Once we were dead in sin but God, rich in mercy, by His grace and through faith, brought us into salvation DESPITE our sin. So sin does not stop God from doing what He intends to do, as in the case of salvation, and therefore how can it stop God from healing?

Secondly, those who believe in Jesus (Christians) are the righteousness of God anyway – seen as PURE, BLAMELESS, and SINLESS in His sight. That is the Gospel, isn’t it?

However, the fact that sin does not prohibit God from doing what He intends to do shows that unsaved people can get healed, too. And we see that happen regularly in the Bible. We often see people become disciples of Jesus AFTER they are healed, not before, and it shows, therefore, that healing is an evangelistic tool, a free gift that demonstrates the Kingdom and salvation. It is not something anyone deserves – it is free, like salvation.

I’ve said it somewhere before and it is a little saying of mine – Sin is not God’s Kryptonite! It is not true that God cannot be in the presence of sin! He is the mighty God! It is sin that runs from His presence, but He doesn’t run from its presence! He can be anywhere doing whatever He likes! He isn’t scared of sin! Sin has no power over Him at all.

Both Blake and Rufus have said that they have seen people healed, saved or unsaved, with sin or without, and healed others when they have known there to be sin in their own lives. These guys have seen it happen.

2) Generational curses

The idea of ‘generational curses’, briefly, says that if your father was an alcoholic, or involved in some form of sinful activity, the sin is passed down from the son to the father (usually the firstborn).

God says something to this effect in Exodus 34:6-7

“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

However, there are a number of things to consider in this scripture. Firstly, this is part of the Old Covenant to Israel, not the New (and better, as per the book of Hebrews) Covenant in Jesus. One could say that the curse had to do with tribes, and we are no longer part of tribes (we are all a mix and mash of different tribes).

Furthermore, what about God saying that He forgives wickedness, rebellion and sin above? Why don’t we quote that more often? What does it mean to what He says about punishing the sin on the children?

Thirdly, if I sin because my father sinned, doesn’t that make my firstborn the ‘first generation’ all over again? When does this ever end?

However, perhaps the best verse to refute this (besides the whole New Testament) comes in the form of of Ezekiel 18:

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
” ‘The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

The scripture then goes on to explain in detail how the soul who sins shall suffer and die for the sin, but the son who practices righteousness shall not die because of his father’s sin. You can go read it all in Ezekiel 18.

Enter the New Covenant. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, yes, but that doesn’t mean that He doesn’t deal with people differently in history – evidenced by the New Covenant and the Old Covenant.

Besides, and more importantly, those who are saved are now ‘heirs with Christ’ and adopted into the household of God (Romans 8: 12-17). My generation goes only one person back, to Jesus, and I have been made a new creature and have nothing to do with the sins of my fathers or my fathers’ fathers. We have to believe what the Scriptures are saying or we don’t. The Scriptures are emphatic that Jesus became a curse for us when He died on the cross (Gal 3:13). Any generational curses were passed onto Jesus when He died, and they have nothing more to do with us whatsoever.

If we don’t believe this we are really trying to live under the Old Covenant rather than the New, which Paul often says in the New Testament is a ridiculous way to live. He says in Galatians that if you want to live under the Old Covenant, then you must obey the ‘whole law’. Time to observe the Sabbath, new moon festivals, and sacrifice animals to atone for your sin.

Now, the Bible is clear that He bore our griefs, afflictions, iniquities and sicknesses in Isaiah 53:5. And by his wounds we are healed. (The Hebrew words used mean all these things). Plus, Scripture gives its own commentary on this scripture, showing that it refers to sickness, in Matt 8:17. You can go and check it out there.

Even more so, where the heck do we find Jesus going back in anyone’s past and trying to find out how Satan got his foot in the door? Heck, we don’t see any of the apostles doing it either. Jesus never had the time to check everyone’s past out to see what the problem was – nor do we ever see Him heal an affliction by mentioning ANYTHING of the person’s past. You don’t find it ONE place in the Gospels or the New Testament – absolutely nowhere! So why are we doing it?

I like what Curry says – you go to India, you don’t have the time to check everyone’s past out and cast out generational curses. EVERYONE in India has had their fathers worship idols and be involved in all sorts of things. What are you going to do to demonstrate the Kingdom? Spend years tracking everyone’s past, or just chucking out the demons and sicknesses one time? The style of Jesus is always the latter.

Is generational curses really Biblical, under the New Covenant, or actually a mix between pop-psychology (going into the past etc.) and some Old Covenant principles? I’ll leave that question to you.

For these reasons, I conclude, along with Blake and Rufus, that generational curses cannot and will not prohibit healing, and heck, I say they have no hold on ANY believer whatsoever. They have as much hold as the believer will give them (which is why I think we do see SOME results with this stuff, but usually not decisive, clean, we-don’t-need-to-go-back-there-ever-again results). Those who have faith that this stuff will work may see results, because God will still honour faith in Him to do something.

3) Lack of faith

Ah, here’s probably the biggest one – a lack of faith.

This is still a little difficult for me to accept, but we do see Jesus often heal in the Gospels when someone has no faith at all. We see him commend those that do, but we don’t ever see faith prohibit His work.

We do see a lack of mighty works done in Jesus’ hometown in Mark 6:5 and Matt 13:53-58. The Bible says a few things in this scripture:

a) That He did lay His hands on some sick and they were healed.
b) That the people admitted He could do mighty works (Matt 13:54) but took offense at him (vs 57).
c) The Bible says, in Matthew 13:58, that He could do no mighty works because of their ‘unbelief’ (ESV Bible). Rufus reckons that ‘unbelief’ is not the same as ‘lack of faith’ due to the fact that the unbelief was caused by their offense, not that they didn’t believe He could do anything. This was a stubborn unbelief, a refusal to come to Jesus, despite the knowing that He could heal them. He has a strong point here.

Jesus heals despite unbelief in Mark 9: 14-27. Despite the guy’s unbelief, He still came to Jesus for the healing, which may have been the real point.

4) Style

Perhaps one of the most liberating things to hear someone like Blake say, after all of his experience, is that style doesn’t really matter. While there are a few obvious principles, God will use any style. And this makes sense.

One of the principles would be that we don’t ever see Jesus or the apostles pray to God about the healing – they command the sickness, or rebuke the demon, but don’t ask God to do it for them.

However, we sometimes see Jesus or the apostles just touch people, without commanding the sickness or doing anything like that, and see them healed. Sometimes Jesus spits on someone’s eye, and sometimes he tells lepers that they will be healed on the way to the temple. We see Jesus use different styles, but some obvious principles are also there.

Blake mentions how Smith Wigglesworth, another famous healer of history, kicked a baby once and it got healed. Now, when Wigglesworth was a child, someone came to pray for him (I think it was his appendix that was sick) and that someone hit him in the infected area, and Wigglesworth got healed. So Wigglesworth placed a lot of confidence and faith in that kind of style from then on.

The point is that kicking babies does not bring healing to babies! And healing has very little to do with style or methodology. While there are some basic principles, we can (and probably should) have our own style of doing this.

About the only two things that do hinder healing.

Both Blake and Rufus say that only the traditions of men (of which we have listed four above) hinder healing – because we believe them rather than the word of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing this in Mark 7:13 – “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.”

Secondly, unbelief is another problem – a persistent disbelief that God will do it.

I think that unbelief today, at least in my own life, is largely due to the traditions I have been taught – that God doesn’t always heal; that you need to earn your healing in some way; that I don’t have enough faith for it; that I don’t have the character yet to heal others; that I’m not ready yet to heal others; that I don’t have the ability to heal others (God has the power and the ability, and He lives in me, doesn’t he?); that generational curses will prohibit quick healing of others (or my own); that some sin somewhere in my life prohibits me from being healed or healing others; that I haven’t received the special ‘gift’ of healing (but I have the Holy Spirit, don’t I?); that I don’t have enough this, that, or I’m not good enough etc. etc. etc.

Yet Jesus seems simple about this – just do it. I think what I need to do is unlearn all this other stuff and learn what the Bible really says about this – and just do it.

Saying Goodbye to the God of the Ideal

In my own life I’m going through a new phase, a new era… I’m getting married. Next week Friday, to be exact, and in this process leading up to the marriage I’ve been reminded again that God is not the God if the ideal. In fact, God isn’t interested in the ideal– he seems interested in something else, entirely.

Both me and my wife-to-be have made certain prayers during this phase, most of them to do with our financial matters and such; and today I found myself quite disappointed, as I was hoping for a particular financial matter to be sorted out (in some form of miraculous way, as that was really my only option left) and at the eleventh hour… nothing… at 11:45… nothing. At 12? Still nothing. So the only way I was able to sort it out was to borrow money (from the bank, as in… a credit card) and then had to wrestle with God with a ton of questions.

“God, don’t you say that debt is a bad thing? Why have you allowed me to get into debt?”

“God, don’t you say you will supply my needs? Well, this was a need, and you haven’t seemed to have come through…”

“God, don’t the psalms say that if we trust in You we will never be disappointed?”

Yes, probably in the next week I’ll be able to pay off the credit card, so God hasn’t truly let me down – He has supplied me enough business so that I can meet the need eventually. But why didn’t He sort it out so that I didn’t have to get into debt in the first place? Would it not have been ideal if I got paid the money I’m owed from various people today, as I was promised, so that I could pay for the thing we needed to have done? Why didn’t He do something? Why didn’t He produce the miracle I’ve heard other people talk about – you know, the cheque under the door, the surprise deposit, the something? Do I need to make excuses for Him – write this off with some excuse about me not praying hard enough? Or not planned wisely enough? Or not done something that somehow I was supposed to know to do even though I didn’t?

Then I’m reminded, again and again, that somewhere in my mind I still struggle to get rid of the lie that had been pumped into me from our culture, both inside and outside the church: life is supposed to be ideal. Life is meant to be what you need NOW. Life is Woolworths. You know, it’s nutritious (so they say) and it’s quick – just pop it in the Microwave. All you need in only a few minutes…

It's the happy Jesus... yes, I couldn't afford to buy it from iStockPhoto... didn't you read the entry?

Faith is largely a journey of disappointments that end in surprises of joy. But it is not the journey of the ideal… yet, has not the modern church insisted that it should be? Haven’t we all heard the formula before? You know, the do x and y happens formula?

The live righteously and God will come through… miss it, and He won’t formula?

So, if God is not coming through, you’ve missed it buddy. You didn’t believe hard enough… you didn’t pray hard enough… you didn’t say the right thing to your mom this morning… you messed up, and so God didn’t come through. Had you not messed up, then He would have come through.

In disappointment there’s two people we can blame – either ourselves, or God. But neither of them are actually the problem… perhaps what we’ve been taught is the problem. Perhaps our culture is the problem.

We believe in the god of the ideal. Well, that’s not the true Living God. If it was, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die for us… He would have probably just appeared and forgotten the whole thing.

Why a bloody crucifixion?

Why a mystery?

Why not fit into a box, God?

Why not do the ideal? What’s wrong with you?

What is God doing? Would the ideal not be to come down and sort out all the injustices of the world, right now? Why

Obama's got the Colgate smile... if Obama's got it, shouldn't Jesus?

put it in the hands of Christians to do (with Him, but nevertheless make it our responsibility)? Why is He not interested in the ideal? Why doesn’t He just do what makes sense?

On the journey of faith, we must let go of the God of the Ideal and latch onto the God who gets His hands dirty, who spits into the eyes of the blind, who writes in the sand. The God that doesn’t have a Colgate smile, but rather a dirty cloak and messed up hair. Maybe His breath even stinks. The God that died naked on a cross – dirty, ugly, smelly, disgusting… yet a sweet and beautiful fragrance. A picture of glory, of true joy! This is the tension of faith, the life on the edge, the beautiful view at the end of the cliff – where we’re on the knife-edge of danger and peril.

Let’s let go of the God of the Ideal, who we can formulise, theologise, scientifogise. It’s time to embrace the mystery… to embrace the dirt… to let our breath stink…

to die naked on a cross…

And perhaps not even know why…

But still know that He is good.

The Need For a Definition of Homosexuality

This post is the first of many in response to the homosexual posts and debates taking place at the futurechurch website, mostly here and here.

So far there still seems to be, in my opinion, one central thread that’s coming through : gender. Seeing homosexuality as a gender is implied in many of the articles supplied by Graeme Codrington here, but it simply makes no sense to accept homosexuality as a gender. We don’t (and neither do any of the articles) consider heterosexuality as a gender; so is it fair to accept homosexuality as a gender?

The ancient cultures always accepted male as male, or female as female; based on anatomy. The article about the eunuchs (again, see Graeme’s list of articles here) is implying that homosexuality should be seen as a gender, and some of the other articles were too.

This doesn’t make sense. If we are going to accept homosexuality as a gender, we will have to accept heterosexuality as a gender. In other words, we would have to change the way we define gender. To put it simply, a doctor could not say to you ‘it’s a girl’ or ‘it’s a boy’ when your baby is born, because no one knows the child’s sexual orientation. But now how does the child know it’s own gender? And what is it to be until that gender is made clear?

Am I the only one who sees major pastoral, parenting and pretty much everything implications here? How does a child or teen or even adult know, for sure, that they are homosexual or heterosexual? It seems pretty obvious, given by the history Graeme has provided and common sense, that most people could probably switch as they prefer. What is a child’s gender until the child reaches the age of sexual attraction (whatever that means)?

A re-interpretation of Romans 1, in the pro-gay-lifestyle view, says that Paul is referring to heterosexual men and women exchanging their natural heterosexual orientation for a homosexual, and labels this ‘exhanging’ as sin. If a homosexual switches to heterosexual, they sin, and vice versa. Therefore, Paul is saying homosexuals should remain homosexual and heterosexuals heterosexual, and not switch their ‘natural’ orientation for another.

But this interpretation creates a mass of problems amongst us all. How do I know if I am heterosexual or homosexual? There’s no way of telling, since (even taking Romans 1 into account) most people can seem to switch. How do we know if our teen boy is not now saying he’s homosexual simply because it’s not working out with the girls – and he assumes that this means he must be homosexual? Or because he is getting more interest from the boys than the girls, it may mean that he is homosexual?

How do we know how to parent that child, since the child is no longer considered ‘boy’ but either homosexual or heterosexual, and they’re not of ‘age’ to know whichever they are anyway? There’s a mass of problems here that I don’t see discussed.

These are only a few examples of a mass of confusion in seeing homosexuality as a gender. At this point it would be helpful for pro-gay-lifestyle guys to step in and explain how they view this as I see it as a huge problem.

We have to ask: is homosexuality or heterosexuality perhaps not simply a persons preference in how to have sex? Or is it a legitimate gender? Is homosexual love characterised by the emotional affection of two same-sex people for each other, or is it characterised by sexual relations with each other? See, two males can have a deep friendship that doesn’t have to spill over to sex and as Graeme Codrington has pointed out, is this not really all about sex?

So, at a basic level, we need a definition of homosexuality and perhaps all who are contributing or who would like to contribute should provide their definition. No doubt there’s gay people out there reading this, and I would love to hear their definition of homosexuality.

Is it attraction to the same sex? Well what does that actually MEAN? Heck, I can tell one attractive guy from another. I’m sure any guy can. I’m pretty sure, and this is something most straight guys wouldn’t admit, that its actually quite easy to be attracted to men. Really. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not that difficult. I have just never tried. For this reason I struggle to understand why homosexual men claim to be ‘put off’ by the idea of being attracted to women.

Now, what if I did try? What if I made a decision to look at men differently? Does the fact that I can do that make me homosexual? If not, then what actually makes someone homosexual? That they DON’T like the opposite sex? Well, to be pretty blunt, what if they’ve just never tried?

Especially since the historical evidence seems to show that most men were able to switch quite easily between men and women as they saw fit. Then, it also seems to show that some just ‘preferred’ being with men – but what does that MEAN? “Preferred” is not the word that most homosexuals I have met would like to refer to their orientation, as it implies that their homosexuality is a choice – an idea that most homosexuals – especially Christians – abhor.

So, I think we need a solid definition of homosexuality before the debate can really continue. The scriptural thought on the matter then may be much more clear.

Definitions anyone?

The Foundation For Ministry and Leading

This is a post about “maturity” and part of a synchroblog. For a list of those involved with the synchroblog, check at the end of the post.

In the light of the recent Todd Bentley event (for those of you who don’t know, Todd Bentley has apparently separated with his wife, stepped down from the Florida revival thingie, and was apparently ‘emotionally involved’ with another woman of his staff) I thought that maturity was an apt topic to write about.

Some of you might not know who Todd Bentley is, which is fine. You can google him or see him at YouTube. Todd Bentley is a guy who does healing, and – although some would say that not all of his healings have been validated – it seems to me that there is a great deal of genuine healing going around his ministry.

Where the problem comes in is that Bentley seems to have lacked some of the intrinsic character needs that are (so often) lacking in the healing ministry. My post isn’t to show, so much, that this is Bentley’s fault but more to say that those around Bentley (including some well known guys such as Rick Joyner) seemed to have been in such a rush for revival that they were happy with Bentley doing his thing despite their own knowledge of some character issues that needed to be ironed out.

Generally, the church (I mean the people, not some institution) seems to be in such a rush to do ministry that we lose the basics of character, rather employing an attitude of needing results NOW before laying the necessary foundations that take TIME. I’m in no doubt that Bentley does possess the gift of healing (even if it is not as prolific as all the marketing around him made it out to be) and in a rush to get everyone healed we now sit in a situation where the ministry that did take place looses momentum and, more sadly, has now once again lost a lot of credence. Many people are now more skeptical over healing, when they were previously in a place where they might have just accepted God’s healing as something that He really does. I’m one of them, having lost a great deal of faith in God’s will to heal because so many of the healing cases are coming up as moot.

Jesus didn’t seem to be in such a rush, having only started his ministry at 30 and at a party told his mom that his time had ‘not yet come’. He still performs the miracle, but it doesn’t seem that he would have done it had he not been asked by his mom (who he obviously loved).

If a man possesses a great healing (or any) anointing that could touch thousands of lives, but lacks maturity in Christ and has some character problems, should we still launch him out into ministry because of the fact that the gospel will be told and many will be touched? It seems to me that, more and more, the answer is no. ESPECIALLY if the guy/gal’s ministry is going to be so public (but, in Todd Bentley’s case, we could also argue that the relentless MARKETING that went behind the ministry is completely unhelpful and has no real place in the church or in ministry). It seems that Jesus was in no rush to begin his ministry – he waited when God had sent Him, despite Him knowing something of what God intended for Him to do. He asked His disciples to do the same – telling them to WAIT in Jerusalem until power fell from on high.

Maturity is paramount in ministry, and true ministry requires it. Otherwise, sooner or later, the ministry can fall because it is not built on a strong foundation but is built on sand. The foundation is relationship with Christ, and this is a foundation that takes years to build. It seems, to me, that God is interested in quality first, and isn’t in a rush to refine us like gold until we are exactly right to do our ministry in its fullness. Don’t get me wrong, there are some things we should be doing from day 1 of our walk with Christ (like, friendship evangelism for instance) but we require maturity before we start leading churches, and it seems to me that most of the church is impatient and want to lead a church before they have any form of real, lasting, solid, refined maturity and relationship (and, relationship(s) with others!).

Those who have contributed to this synchroblog are :

Phil Wyman asks Is Maturity Really What I Want?
Lainie Petersen at Headspace with “Watching Daddy Die“
Kathy Escobar at The Carnival in My Head with “what’s inside the bunny?”
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith with “Long-Wearing Nail Polish and Other Stories”
Beth Patterson at The Virtual Teahouse with “the future is ours to see: crumbling like a mountain“
Bryan Riley at Charis Shalom is Still Complaining
Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church with “Maturity and Education“
KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
Bethany Stedman at Coffee Klatch with Moving Towards True Being: The Long Process of Maturity
Adam Gonnerman at Igneous Quill with “Old Enough to Follow Christ?“
Joe Miller at More Than Cake with “Intentional Relationships for Maturity“
Jonathan Brink at JonathanBrink.com with “I Won’t Sin“
Susan Barnes at A Booklook with “Growing Up”
Tracy Simmons at The Best Parts with “Knowing Him Who is From the Beginning“
Joseph Speranzella at A Tic in the Mind’s Eye with “Spiritual Maturity And The Examination of Conscience“
Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
Liz Dyer at Grace Rules with “What I Wish The Church Knew About Spiritual Maturity“
Cobus van Wyngaard at My Contemplations with “post-enlightenment Christians in an unenlightened South Africa“
Steve Hayes at Khanya with “Adult Content“
Sound and Silence considers Inclusion and Maturity
Lew A at The Pursuit talks about Maturity and Preaching
Kai Schraml tells us about Mature Virtue

Todd Bentley

I’ve been watching Todd Bentley from the USA with some interest in the last few days. For those of you who don’t know him, you can see his website : www.freshfire.ca

I’ve posted this entry at www.emergingafrica.info to see the conversation there (which is usually more interesting than here) so you’re welcome to read this there and comment – or, just comment here!

Todd has, of course, caused some stir amongst Christian circles with the usual rumblings : he’s a heretic this, and a heretic that; OR, he’s the best thing to come since Christ Jesus.

Both views do, in my opinion, miss the point. But I’ll be honest : I always find myself skeptical when guys preach about these visions they’ve had, and that they’ve gone up to the ‘third heaven’ and spoken to this or that angel. Probably, I can understand some people do have a lot of visions (so, I can live with those — even if some of them seem a bit wierd.) But as for all the angels stuff, I just worry when people get all hung up on that. Too much of his teachings do focus around angels, and I’m like “why?”

I’m pretty sure that people are probably getting healed at his meetings. It’s impossible for someone to run a slick con-operation on this kind of scale. I always wonder why God seems to use the guys who we all might see as ‘wierd’ for this kind of thing — I just wish we could have normal, down-to-earth people in the healing ministry (There is Francis Macnutt, who I think seems pretty normal.) Maybe it’s because the eccentric are usually the only guys willing to make a fool of themselves, and the rest of us are trying too hard to be respectable? It would be interesting to hear thoughts on that.

(I do wish I could see someone like Francis Macnutt do this sort of thing : pity there’s no real free info of him on the web. I don’t think I can really afford to import a video — although I do recommend his book “Healing” which I am in the process of reading the second time now.)

Anyway, what do you all think about this sort of thing? The healing stuff does intrigue me, especially since I think healings of all types should be what the normal Christian life is about. Hopefully, one of these days, God will use me more extensively in healing ministry. I hope He uses us all! (or, rather, we’ll all be willing to let Him!)

Should we give up our respectability for a bit of eccentricness? Have you had any experiences of healing? I’ve been healed a few times myself, and only seen people healed from minor things at my prayer. Although, I’ve seen guys healed of some major things at the prayer of pastors I know. Anyone around here prayed for someone and seen them healed? Want to share it? And your thoughts on this stuff?

I do think Todd Bentley’s website sucks : it represents a typical American ‘give us money’ type of approach. Whether that is his heart or not is hard to say. I imagine he is probably too busy to worry about his website : but guys should make sure their team represents them well.

Revising my book

I don’t regularly update my blog (I mean, it’s not that popular anyway so there isn’t really a need to. I don’t even think my Mom visits here!) but for those who bought my book ‘Single’ you may be happy to know that the book is two years old — and so I’m currently revising some of it (particularly the chapters on sex, to bring in some of my newer thoughts from below.)

The reason why it’s cool (well, for those who care) is that the two revised chapters will be available on my website once they’re done (give or take two weeks.) So check www.ryanpeterwrites.com or here for details. Tell your friends!

As for my fantasy-fiction book, When Twin Cities Fought,  an Agent got hold of me two days ago and I’ll be sending my Manuscript to them. So, holding thumbs that the book garners some interest!! I’ve put a lot of work into it, and I still need to put some more work in before I send it.