What Christians Believe

After posting about the article in the Eufala Tribune and the lack of any presentation of Christian belief, I decided it would be right for me to post what it is that constitutes basic Christian belief here.

This is most frequently identified as The Apostle's Creed. Not all who call themselves Christians agree with all of it. I would contend that anyone who does not agree with it is probably not a Christian.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into the place of the dead;
the third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty;
from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.

Upcoming Posts

Clearly my web log does not have a vast following - if any at all. But just
in case you read this and are interested I plan to post a series of talks I
just gave to a group of 20-somethings who were (at the time of this writing,
they still are) preparing to go to three different countries overseas to do
missionary work for a month. I'll post each talk in short "clips" since
each one took about an hour and involved anywhere from 4-7 pages of
manuscript.

To be honest, I'm doing this at my wife's encouragement. I never would have
thought to do so.

There are four topics I address in five talks - The Body of Christ,
Servanthood, Spiritual Warfare (in two parts), and Holy Spirit Empowerment.
I hope you (whoever you may be) will find these helpful.

I'd be quite glad to "hear" from you as you read these. Just click
"comment" below the appropriate post and send me a note.

Christian-Muslim Dialogue

The Eufaula Tribune (Alabama) today reported on a panel discussion that took
place in that town between Muslims and Christians in the hopes that a better
understanding of each other between the two might help to establish peaceful
relations between Islam and Christianity. ("Christians, Muslims discuss
beliefs")

The Eufaula Tribune said that Imam Yusuf Hassan spoke for Muslims in which
he spoke of the Five Pillars of Islam. Each of those Five Pillars with a
brief explanation of each were printed in the Tribune article.

The article said Pastor Ken Jackson of Christian Life Church in Eufaula
spoke addressed the basics of Christian belief. The Tribune printed nothing
about what those basics were.

This is example of what troubles me in much of the reporting of the
so-called Christian-Muslim Dialogue (or Muslim-Christian Dialogue) in our
country. Why was there no mention - absolutely none - of even one aspect of
basic Christian belief? Is it just assumed that everybody knows what
constitutes basic Christian belief? Not a safe assumption! But I hardly
think that's the reason for the omission.

It seems to me that there is a clear bias in much of our media that attempts
to either denigrate Christian faith or to marginalize it. How can we - the
masses - hope to be engaged in a process of peace when the "news" that is
presented only presents the sensational. It is a huge mistake the media
makes when most of the news on Islam and Muslims focuses on the extreme.
Equally as much is it a mistake to focus primarily on Islam.

How can issues be considered when only half the issues are presented. I'll
bet the folks at the panel discussion heard from both sides. I wonder if
Eric Betts was actually present. And if he was, I wonder if he listened to
all that went on. And if he did, I wonder if he figured the Christian
presentation was irrelevant or, at best, just not news-worthy.

What it means is that there is a bias against Christianity. - at least at
the Eufaula Tribune. The Trib seems to be in good company - or at least in
company, good or otherwise. Guess I shouldn't get too worked up over this.
After all, Jesus did warn his disciples that there would be days like
this... many, many days.

A Prayer

Lord, your Word, which stands firm for ever in heaven, dwells in your
Church; may his presence bring lasting light to your temple.

Reading What's Not There

It all started with Eve, the mother of us all. The story of the first
humans, Even and Adam, opens the Bible with a tangle of loneliness,
companionship, desire, and love. It tells how woman, made in the Creator's
image, gives up a life of ease in an idyllic setting, along with the promise
of immortality, and instead, chooses to pursue wisdom and intimacy with her
man.

This how Naomi Harris Rosenblatt opens her article, "The First Rebel", in a
special edition of US News and World Report titled "Women of the Bible."
While it isn't stated in the Introduction, I can't help wondering if this
isn't directly connected to the release of the movie version of Dan Brown's
book, "The Da Vinci Code."

Quite frankly, after reading the first paragraph of Rosenblatt's article,
I'm not terribly interested in reading the rest of it. But I kept
reading...

The Garden of Eden is an ideal playground, a place of innocence where life
is beautiful and safe, lacking all challenges.

I'm wondering if Rosenblatt has read Genesis any time recently, or if she's
referring either to what she's heard others say about it or what she
remembers from having someone read it to her when she was 4 or 5. Or maybe
she has read it herself recently and decided to "fill in" what she felt was
lacking... or even completely alter some of what's already there in order
fit a 21st century post-modern feminist agenda.

What's clear is that she's ascribing this to the Genesis/Eden account things
that are simply not there - not even between the lines.

The choice Eve had to make was whether or not to choose trust in and
obedience to God - not whether to choose an idyllic setting for an easy life
or wisdom and certainly not choosing between immortality or intimacy with
her man. The characterization is absurd... at best. Nowhere - nowhere in
all of the Bible let alone Genesis - is Eve's choice depicted as giving up
fantasy for reality.

The "life of ease" Rosenblatt depicts is not a biblical characterization
describing Eden. There is no description to suggest what life was like in
Eden except that God was present, that he talked with Adam and Eve, and that
he had given them responsibility for all that was in the Garden. Sounds
like at least some kind of work to me - not at all "lacking all challenges."
About the only description on which I agree with Rosenblatt is that it was a
"place of innocence where life is beautiful." The fact that there was a
serpent seeking to tempt them to do that which would get them kicked of such
a place means it certainly was not "safe."

May I suggest that when you read the Bible and begin to work out what it
means for your life, the least that can be done is to read what is there and
don't read what is not there. That's not as easy as it sounds. It requires
a willingness to recognize and accept that there are questions the Bible
does not answer. It was not designed to serve as an exhaustive treatise on
every subject under the sun. It is not a history book - although it
contains history. It is not a financial strategy book - although it
contains financial strategy. It is not a science book - although it
contains some science. It is not a book of philosophy - although it does
contain philosophy. What the Bible is, more than anything else, is the
revelation of God by God to Man about God's and Man's relationship with each
other. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it is the revelation of
God's heart for all of mankind, the root problem that mankind faces, and the
solution God has provided because of his heart for each and all of mankind.

But even then, the Bible does not answer all our questions. What we must
recognize is that God has answered all the essential questions, the answers
that could not be discovered apart from God's revelation. We may gain
answers to some of our questions outside of the Bible but we dare not
attribute to the Bible things that are not included within it - even by
implication.

Rosenblatt - and many like her - typically want the Bible to say more than
it says AND less than it says. Reading one's own personal biases (whether
they be cultural or political or any other) into it helps us make what the
Bible say what we want it to say. That way we don't have to wrestle with
what it actually does say... and doesn't say.

Orthodox Christianity has been taking a lot of hard knocks in recent
history. Granted, the Church deserves SOME of those hard knocks. But it
appears that our 21st century American culture has recently made the
adolescent discovery that there is someone to pick on and blame for all our
ills - orthodox Christians. You know what... it's been done before. The
Church in America ought not be shaking its fist at American culture but
bending her knees and folding her hands for Americans as well as all others.
Christians in America must not be duped into following the gods and
goddesses of American culture - literate or illiterate - even though they
must. Perhaps they should even welcome the God-given opportunity to live
among them. But those same Christians must remember that their citizenship
is in a different Kingdom, their behavior dictated by a different Law, their
allegiance belongs to a different Leader.

The Church is the one who, in regards to the Bible, is capable and
authorized to "read between the lines." But that's because she doesn't read
what's not there. She's been reading it - and listening to it - for nearly
2000 years. She hasn't always got all the details right. And there are
still a lot of details that are questioned and unclear. But she's not
trying to make the scriptures fit preconceived agendas regardless of what's
there. Her agenda is to understand and love the revelation as well as the
God who sent it. After all, the revelation is not just about God, it is God
himself.

Leap Rabbit

This is a sharp departure from my usual post.

You probably know the child's game "Leap Frog" where one person kneels down
on all fours and another person "leaps" over them. Then that person
immediately gets down on all fours and the person that was leaped over gets
up and "leaps." So goes the game.

I was looking outside out back window yesterday morning when I saw two
rabbits in our yard. That's nothing unusual. I noticed these two rabbits
seemed to be having a staring context from just a few feet apart. Suddenly,
one rabbit darts towards the other one. The second rabbit leaps up into the
air while the first one seems to "miss" the second and runs right under it.
This happened two or three times.

Wished I had a camcorder.

Probably not as funny to you as it was to me.

Okay... never mind.

Happy Meal Christians

A good friend of mine sent this to me today.

If we can't understand why Christians in America don't seem to look or act
or think any differently than most of the rest of our society and the world,
maybe this explains it.

-----------------

Happy Meals

For years our family's choice in restaurants was determined
largely by our children. They preferred, of course, to eat at a place that
had a play area and happy meals. They were mesmerized, not by the
nutritional value of the food they were eating but by the free toy included
in their meals. The person who came up with the idea of a happy meal was a
genius at marketing. Kids continue to flock into these types of restaurants
not necessarily because they have the healthiest food of all, but simply to
enjoy the "happy meal" experience.

I'm afraid the craving for happy meals is not just restricted to fast food
restaurants but is also seen in churches today. It seems that worshipers
have developed an appetite for a church experience that has plenty of fluff
and frills. Marketing strategies have lured church leaders to do whatever
works to get a crowd. Many churches have plenty
of activity and excitement. The crowds are attracted by the gimmicks and
happy meals are served all around.

But I wonder if we are missing something. I wonder if we are missing the
balanced diet of biblical teaching that we are called to serve to those who
come. The people in the book of Hebrews had a problem. They had neglected
the solid food of biblical teaching and had become dull of hearing. They got
tired of listening to the careful exposition of Scripture and now would only
tolerate milk. They had become "happy meal Christians." Hebrews 5:14 tells
us that those who are spiritually mature will have a craving for solid food.

Don't you think it is time for those of us who want to grow strong in our
faith to insist on a well balanced diet of the whole counsel of God? That's
the only kind of food that will help us to grow more and more into the image
of Jesus Christ. Don't settle for a happy meal church experience. Insist on
the solid food of the Word of God.

Pastor Jim Stultz
Calvary Baptist Church, Wabash, Ind.
www.jmsmeditation.blogspot.com

Strangers In Our Midst

Here's a link to a great article by Charles Colson on just one of the
problems we face regarding illegal immigration and how the Church can and
should be responding. (Just click on the message title.)

WARNING: This is not even close to most of what comes out of your TV,
radio or newspaper.

The Church is called upon to present to the world's problems (which really
has only one problem from which all others stem - that being infection from
Sin) an alternative that brings true healing, wholeness, truth and life as permanent solutions. And while there certainly are many in this world who are, at best, un-interested in the alternative the Church offers (at worst, they want to destroy not only the Church but the alternative the Church offers), there are many who are crying out for exactly what the Church provides.

Forgiveness

Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Colossians 3:13)

Of course, the question that ought to follow that is, "How did the Lord
forgive me/us?"

What Jesus did was to take the judgment against our sin upon himself. He did
this on his own. It wasn't put on him. He wasn't forced. It wasn't even
with a sense of heavy obligation. Although he certainly struggled as he
closer to it as the reality of what it would cost him became ever clearer
and more imminent, he still chose to take that judgment upon himself.

Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

So I need to take the judgment of my offender's offense upon myself. Just
as Jesus chose to bear what should have been my consequences for my offenses
against him, I need to bear the consequences of what my offender would
otherwise suffer for his offenses against me.

Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

First, this obviously means that retaliation is out of the question.

Second, it means that even thoughts of retaliation must be eliminated.

Third, it means that I should not even desire that something "bad" should
happen to my offender.

Fourth, it means that this is going to take something more than what I am
capable of in myself.

Forgiveness isn't just saying, "Oh, that's okay." God never does that with
sin. That means I should not, either. And forgiveness can't mean that I
simply accept the way the offender acts (offensively) because God had
something to say about that, too. (I do not condemn you. Now, go and sin no
more.)

That's what Jesus did! He took on himself the condemnation that was mine.
That's what forgiveness is - taking the condemnation of my offender's sin
into myself.

But if I've been wounded through someone else's offense, doesn't it mean
that taking the condemnation of his offense into myself will wound me more?

Probably - but I think what we see in Jesus is that he understood that, even
though he would be terribly wounded - mortally so!! - it was not the end.
Indeed, even though taking that condemnation into himself ultimately killed
him, death did not have the last word.

That's what we, who claim the name of Christ for ourselves, need to realize.
Even though the cross brought death (which was the rightful consequence to
our sin) to Jesus, death was not the winner. Death was not the end. Death
lost.

When we forgive someone their sin, we, in essence, take into ourselves the
condemnation they deserve. In other words, we die. And dying always feels
terrible. But we must remember that, because of Christ and because of the
faith God has given us in him, death is not the winner, Death is not the
end. Death loses.