Truth and the Value of the Church.

Looking above, such a church may exist, but I doubt it would have any value. To have value, a church must hold something that is true as true. Without central truth, no value can be had. Relativism, believing truth is relative to the situation, will never bring value because value is fleeting and changeable in relativism. Guess me and the emergent church part company at this point. Although, I do hear some of the points they are making.

Whenever I stand in the pulpit, I am confronted with an inescapable fact -- I have former EVERYTHING in front of me. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal (Hey, that's behind the pulpit too), Charismatic, etc. are all present. In addition, there are several Tried Everythings as well. When I try to find something we have in common, it comes down to a single fact that we all got fed up with religiosity of our other churches and wanted to find a church where we could be Christan and yet have our differences respected. We were looking for a place where the commonality of our faith was the core, not how we differ from others of Christian faith.

That said, there are central truths we uphold at Hersey Congregational Church that are the common ground and give our church its core values:

1. The Bible is our authority and is the inspired word of God: what 'inspired' specifically means is open for debate. We all believe God had a hand in the Bible, but the exact 'how" he did it is open to interpretation because in truth the Bible really does not say itself 'how it works'. What we do not question is that the Bible has the authority to tell us how to live and what to believe.

2. The Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three in One. One God, three persons. As confusing as this doctrine can be, it is found throughout Scripture and is a central tenant of being a Christian and understanding God.

3. The Historical Life, Work, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Honestly, is their a point being a Christian if there is no historical Christ who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross and rose from the dead? Christ -- Christian -- get it?

4. Salvation through Faith in Christ: What 'faith' is and means is Bible defined, but the definition does have fuzzy edges when in the context of works (i.e. James or Paul or both), but in the end faith is not doubt. It is trust and evidence of that which is not seen (Hebrews 11:1). There are tons of issues under the heading of 'salvation' and how one is saved, but we point back to Christ regardless of which ones people personally have.

5. The Return of Christ: Christ said several times he would return to return his people to himself. When, where and how may be debatable, but one thing is for sure: He is coming back.

All of these, constitute what we believe to be the central tenants of the Christian faith. They represent a true expression of True Fundamentalism. Everything else is not necessarily relative, but these are the convictions that a Christian should be will to live and die for. Otherwise I would really doubt the Christianity of a Christian who cannot believe these core understandings.

So what about the rest. In the end we allow freedom to hold differences, discuss them, but still be brothers and sisters in Christ at the end of the day. They simply are not core enough, in my opinion, to break fellowship with someone because we disagree. Only the five above items justify such a break. Although it should be understood, the first one has the implication of following what is clearly said in the Bible. Murder and adultery are defined as Biblically wrong so they are wrong for everyone under 'the Bible being the authority' for example.

The central theme for us then truly becomes: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Both Augustine and Wesley (two guys with very different views) were fond of this saying and so am I. I may not always agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I stand with them in unity about Jesus and love them no matter what.

Truth gives a church value, but also allowing each other liberty allows us to enjoy that value and walk in that truth. Otherwise all you have is religion which seeks to control and manipulate, neither of which are loving things to do.

I have finally found my church and it is one that fits me as a pastor. It allows me to walk in the liberty of the truth of Jesus Christ and love each person because I can allow them to be free as well. Instead of trying to control the flock, I work to have them know the truth so they can be free and follow Christ. I can only wish the same for everyone else.

Science Fiction and Theology - Part 7 - Cryogenics

Time to finish this series up.

Cryogenics is the science of trying to freeze living matter to the point of death but with the ability to revive that matter back to normal life. In science fiction this has been put to various uses.
1. Storage of clones as extra body parts
2. Putting criminals 'on ice'.
3. Use for space travel in that the crew is frozen for long duration while the ship travels.
4. Medical -- store the person until a cure can be found or a donor comes along.
5. Effect a form of immortality. Body is slowed in function, but brain is allowed to roam a virtual world (The Matrix)

Where this crosses into theology is in the field of ethics -- medical and social.
1. Medical ethics - is a clone life? Robert Heinlein theorized in Time Enough for Love, that cloning could get so advanced that an entire body could be cloned without a true functioning brain so that when a person got old their brain could be moved to the new body. Along with other rejuvenation technologies, this could give a person effective immortality. What happens to "appointed once to die and then the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)
2. Is it really punishment to put criminals in cryo-freeze based on the Bible? Not really, just prolongs things and releases that criminal back into society unchanged. Not really justice from a Biblical point of view.
3. Space Travel has been discussed but what are ethics of volunteering for a trip from which you may not wake up should technology fail on the way?
4. In the case of medical waiting till a cure is found I can see some uses but at what point does it end and how do we determine who is valuable enough for this?
5. Living in a virtual world brings in the whole ethical questions of the what is life and how do we live it? Effective immortality or slavery?

Next: Lest We Forget - Robots.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.

POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.

POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.

Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?

Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?

Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).

You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.

Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.

Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.

The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 5 -- Sex

Probably up till now you have been saying -- "I have heard all this before" Your probably right as these are common topics of relationships building mentors and gurus. Sex in a Christian context a continuing conversation might be a little different.


One thing I get here is -- "Your talking after marriage right?" No I mean before marriage sex needs to be talked about. Too many times I see Christian young people acting on sex before marriage instead of talking about it. If they talk more and act less they might make it to their wedding day with their virginity still intact. My Biblical test case is the Song of Solomon.

I plan on writing on the Song of Solomon in the near future, but my view, in short, is that the book has nothing to do with Christ and His Church and the relationship between them. Sorry, this is an erotic poem about two lovers who can't wait until the night they wed to consummate their marriage. It is God's answer to the Kama Sutra.

That said, there is a discussion here of sexual activity before the two come together and the end of the book emphasizes the fact the bride was a virgin. If you talk about sex before marriage it simply makes it easier to talk about it after marriage.

What should be discussed.
1. Christian Boundaries -- Hebrews 13:4 gives a lot of liberty in sex but it must be stressed, as I once read somewhere, it also has a boundary to it -- marriage. Once there though, it should be stressed that even then there are boundaries -- no body else but the two of you -- one male. one female for life (strange I have to say that).
2. Personal Boundaries -- Lets just say that some things may be uncomfortable for you or your future or current spouse. Respect these things. Some people are never comfortable making love with strangers or certain family members in the house, certain sexual activities might be uncomfortable or, at first, embarrassing. That said, it should also be noted that it is unfair to be comfortable with something done to you but you refuse to do it back. Boundaries cut both ways.
3. What will you do about children when they come and how will that effect you love life? This was a big one for me and my wife when my kids were say 6 to 13 -- old enough to understand and act if something is out of the ordinary but not old enough to get it. It takes some careful planning and patience when you have kids. It also helps to have lock on your doors. Getting a babysitter to take them to the babysitters house while you have a romantic evening is a good idea. Be creative and take advantage of any time there is time.
4. Parents -- this one has come up for me at times, in fact right away for me and my wife because for the first two months before heading to Trinity we lived with my folks. My wife was uncomfortable at times with the thought of sex with all of us in the same house. My dad also had a way of making lite of the subject so eventually she could laugh about it -- a little. One fact should be mentioned even though your married and your parents are close -- call before going over. Parents still have sex long after the kids leave. I know that's gross to you, but don't ruin it by being rude. It may be the reason your parents are miffed at you.
5. Talk about when your tempted to sin in this area. Why? because you are supposed to be each others defence against such things. It can also lead to some interesting things in the bedroom. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.

Things change in the sexual areas as you grow closer and live together longer so keep talking. This is one where as you become more intimate you will open up more to each other. It also starts with talking about it early and keep talking.
Finis