Measuring Motivation

Violence around the world in the wake of a sleazy anti-Muslim video has overshadowed the rebellion in Syria against the Assad regime. Following the overthrow of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrian uprising has been largely cast as a Muslim sectarian conflict.

Sectarian violence in not limited to Islam. Historically, Christians have fought each other over issues of the faith, including the Protestant/Catholic violence in Northern Ireland. But that conflict was less direct religious opposition and more a political hijacking of differences in belief.

Much the same can be said of the rebellion in Syria against the Assad regime. Much has been said of Muslim factions fighting each other. But King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has stated: “Any sane Arab, Muslim, or anyone else knows that this uprising has nothing to do with religion, ethics, or morals.”

The uprisings across the middle east have been against totalitarian regimes that exploited and oppressed the population. The brutal repression of the Assad regime in Syria is simply an extension of that oppression.

Why are most of these uprisings eventually successful. Few doubt the ability of Assad to win. Some have suggested Assad’s brutal crackdown has sufficiently reduced his legitimacy to weaken him and bring him down. But Stalin survived his greater cruel regime.

The reason why the Syrian uprising will probably succeed is a simple equation: the oppressed have nothing to lose, the oppressors have everything to lose. Those with nothing to lose, are prepared to give their lives; those with much to lose, guard their lives for it. Eventually, the stronger motivation will win.

That is why Christianity stands or falls according to the depth of its believer’s devotion. Do we reckon ourselves devoted, for life or death, to His cause? Our answer may be the measure of the ability of Christianity to survive.

?

Well a day late, due to our being out all day Sunday. But this blog is an act of discipline as much as an expression of my thoughts and ideas about life. But my problem is that, like today, I have often no idea what to write about.

This seems crazy, when there is so much I feel passionate about. But nothing comes to mind that I haven’t written about recently, or I know insufficient about a subject that interests me. Writer’s block can occur for several reasons.

The usual reason is the intimidating sight of a blank page. Even if  know what to write about, how do I start? After all, the opening sentence is critical for gaining attention of readers. Too drab or mundane, and I’ve lost you already!

Apparently, even Charlie Brown and Linus, usually voluble, have the same problem occasionally.

I generally approach this by writing what comes into my head. At least that gets the mind working and starts a flow of information about my subject. Get the basic information down, and the first sentence may suggest itself. Modern technology makes revision so easy.

Which brings me to a second problem I find with writing, especially blogs. The ease of revision means an article may never get finished because I’m usually unhappy with most “finished” work. There is always something that could be improved.

But life is too short to keep revising. At some point, I must consider my work complete and go on to something else. Especially blogs; time to play with them is more limited, and, for me, they are always an interim thought on the way to greater clarity.

So what am I to write about today? Well, I guess I’ve written it, and it wasn’t that hard. Now, I suppose, I should look at that first sentence. But the whole blog isn’t that scintillating, so the first couple of sentences may be just about right!

Fellowship in Christ: A Lost Essential

I recall a dedicated pastor from a strict reform background explaining to me that his denomination had finally got Christian theology right. Perhaps they had, but I was doubtful. Did this mean that Christians for 2000 years, and all other current denominations, had fallen short?

I mentioned that he was dedicated; I had no doubt at all about his passion for the truth. His joy, in having all the thorny issues apparently settled once for all, outweighed any thought that his claim might be tinged with arrogance.

But, during the years I have been involved in Christian ministry, I found he is not alone. Almost every denomination that springs up is dedicated to some truth its protagonists claim has been lost, ignored or denied by others.

The Charismatics long for reticent Evangelicals to share their experience of the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Evangelicals counter that experience is not the arbiter of truth, Scripture is. That type of debate can be repeated myriad times, using other divisive issues.

The truth, if we are prepared to look at this issue dispassionately, is that none of us have got it all together. We all have some tunnel vision created by our pet themes, agendas or hang-ups. It is probably only by a blending of all claims that we might approach somewhere near the truth.

So how can we possibly have fellowship with others in the faith, when we disagree on so much? The answer is really simple: our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). Then what is it that they need to believe about Jesus Christ that we might have fellowship with them?

It is very little: salvation by the grace of God alone, by faith alone in the death of Christ for us. This and supporting beliefs are ser out in the Apostles Creed. A church or individual are part of the Body of Christ where these form the core of their belief—whatever “distinctives” they may add!

Don’t let us lose out by majoring on the minors; that is, those secondary beliefs upon which salvation does not depend. Not only do we fail to benefit from the worldwide, magnificent fellowship that is the Church, we also fail to convince the world the Father loves them as He loves the Son (John 17:23).

The Necessity of Hell

  

Most people who believe in an afterlife agree that heaven of some sort exists, although few, it seems, are willing to admit to a hell that completes the duo. Yet part of the evidence to the existence of both is the experience of both in this life.

 

We live in the overlap of both worlds; the affluent experience a humanized heaven, the poor and subjugated often live in a reality of hell, although whether either party deserves their fortune or misfortune is debateable.

Either way, one day heaven and hell will be separated, neither experiencing or able to communicate with the other. At that time, each person will be in the place chosen by their actions, belief or disbelief during their time in this world.

But, the argument goes, there can’t be a hell, for a God of love would never place anyone in such a terrible place. This argument, of course, is based on the human value of sin—it’s not really bad enough to deserve banishment from God’s presence—which is what hell is.

Hell becomes more understandable if we see sin from the way God sees it. Justice—if we care enough about it—requires a penalty, either from the transgressor or someone willing to take his or her place. A loving God was willing to give his own Son in our place—that describes His assessment of the evil extent of sin.

I’m not sure anyone would want a heaven where everyone attained it on their own terms. Do we want a repeat of earth in heaven? Sin is like cancer, one cell can destroy the body; one sin could destroy heaven. For those unwilling to relinquish, or seek forgiveness for their sin, hell is the only place to practise it.

Are You God or Bad?

When I was young, my father taught me to ride a bicycle. Once I had learned to balance the machine, I was let loose on the neighbourhood roads. What a menace I proved to be was highlighted by an irate motorist who told me to keep to the left—this was in England of course.

The primary rule of the road—to keep left—was so obvious to him, my father never told me. But without it, chaos would ensue, driving would be impossible, and a road system useless. Fortunately, I was warned in no uncertain terms to drive on the right when I arrived in Canada.

If life is to be meaningful, the primary condition of humankind needs to be recognized and granted: the innate wickedness of the human soul. Sin is not something we do, it is what we are, yet popular wisdom continually asserts the goodness of humankind.

This seems to go against all the evidence of the entire history of humanity up to the atrocities of this year, this week, even today, angrily and rightly condemned by the media. Yet the Bible asserts that there is none righteous: we are all in the same boat.

The idea that there are some bad apples in the human race, but most of us are good, does not stand up to scrutiny. If we are honest, all of us are ashamed or guilty of something we have done. Even the best we can do is infected with impure motives.

The difference between us and a butcher like Syria’s Al Assad is in degree, not substance. Haven’t we all wished, at some point, we could stop someone’s voice permanently? And Jesus said the thought is as good as the deed, Matthew 5:21–22.

Until we are aware of our sinful tendencies, and that they are innate, not superficial, any forgiveness offered us by God, or anyone else for that matter, will be rejected. We will then be left to accept the consequences of our life’s behaviour ourselves, Romans 3:19.

Decline of the Liberal Church

A couple of articles in the mainstream media have highlighted the decline of the Liberal church in Canada, particularly the United Church. The Canadian United Church is in dire trouble due to falling attendance and corresponding loss of income.

The Globe and Mail quotes a retired United Church minister who served declining congregations all his ministry life. “In my experience, when you put your primary focus on the world, there is a lessening of the importance of worship and turning to God.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-collapse-of-the-liberal-church/article4443228/

Canada.com reports that the United church has lost half its membership since 1965. Sunday School attendance has dropped 90% in the same time. http://www.canada.com/life/Declining+membership+dwindling+finances+likely+church+agenda/7073350/story.html.

However, many evangelical churches are growing, often at surprising rates. My drive across Canada two years ago, revealed numbers of large evangelical churches being built in both the large and small cities. Why the difference?

My guess is the liberal tradition of the United Church—summed up in the idea that ‘you can’t believe everything you read in the Bible’—has weakened the movement. Miracles, as described in the Bible have natural explanations, or are legendary myths.

What is probably most damaging is the denial of Jesus’ deity; His virgin birth and resurrection are dismissed as fabrications of the Early Church. These ideas are what secular Canadians generally hold, and they became the gateway for liberal Christianity to accept Canadian secular beliefs.

Hence, the United Church, for instance, agrees to abortion on demand and gay marriage. Their main interests are social and political issues, often with a partisan approach. If churchgoers hear from the Sunday pulpit what newspapers said the previous week, why go?

If political and pagan rhetoric is all popular belief—worse still, the church—has to offer, life is dismal and pointless. It is the hope that Scripture brings through the risen Christ that draws people to conservative and evangelical churches: hope for meaning and renewal in this life and assurance for the next.

The Bible has always provided a way out of history’s swings between licence and asceticism. As we develop a relationship with our Creator, we discover the empty, vague, and uncertain direction of the world’s philosophies.