A Model Answer

I don't know details about Dr. Kent Brantly's faith, but per 1 Corinthians 13, "love believes all things," so I'm accepting it at face value as genuine, absent any knowledge of falsity. What I have seen has been encouraging, and I'm joyful over the public testimony he's given -- not of his medical expertise or experience surviving Ebola, but of how a professed Christian faith works in and through every aspect of life, providing the conviction to step out boldly in whatever happens to be one's earthly passion ("whatever your hands find to do, do it with all your might." "whatever you do, work as for the Lord and not for men.")

This is the video of his interview on the PBS Newshour that aired yesterday:


Dr. Brantly was there on account of his recent book, Called for Life, and here is the part of the interview that stood out to me:

HARI SREENIVASAN: What role do you think your faith played in all this?
DR. KENT BRANTLY: That’s a hard question for me to answer, because I try not to compartmentalize my life into, this is my faith life, this is my work life, this is my family life.
My faith is an integral part of who I am. It’s part of the lens through which I view everything in life. So, I can’t separate this experience from my faith.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Some people are going to say, look, the difference might not be his faith. It’s that he’s an American and he got literally the best care on the planet for this, vs. all the people who don’t get that, not just in Liberia, but anywhere else.
DR. KENT BRANTLY: I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t disagree with that statement.
I don’t think there is anything special about my faith that saved my life. If anything, my faith is what put me in a position where I got Ebola. And I’m really thankful to the United States government, to the government of Liberia, to Emory University Hospital, to Phoenix Air, to the State Department, all of the people that played a role in providing me with the treatment I received.
I don’t say that, oh, it was my faith that saved me, not those people. I believe God used those people to save my life, not because of my great faith. It just is. And so I give God the credit for it. But I thank all of those people, and I — I love them.

In isolation, those two answers were excellent. It was encouraging to see that thinking faith get national attention.

~ Rak Chazak

Transcript copied from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/missionary-recounts-ebola-fight-doctor-patient/ 

Did God Die For Everyone Who Ever Lived, or Just Some?

If some people are in hell, and you believe that Christ died for everyone,
* then Christ died for those in hell. Then His sacrifice was insufficient to save them.
* then God is unjust, committing double jeopardy, because a person's sins are judged once at the cross, and then again in hell.

If no people are in hell,
* then you reject what the Bible clearly teaches, and have asserted the Universalism heresy.

Your only logical choice is to believe that
* Jesus died for all the sins of some people.
* Those not included in the category of "those He died for" are they who populate hell.

Christianity. The thinking faith.

~ Rak Chazak

Christian Encouragement: How I Compliment Pretty Girls Who Have Good Theology

The following contains 1,700 words of fairly easily-readable monologue that I sent as an expanded version of a compliment to a girl on her theological soundness and zeal. I'll place a page break early on, to avoid cluttering the front page, and encourage you to click on "read more" to look at the whole thing for your consideration, edification, what-have-you.

Hiyah,

I came across your facebook profile on a [..............] post where you had commented. So the fact that you seemed to affirm pre-trib eschatology was what first stood out, not to mention the fact that you're following a page representing Reformed doctrine, which is encouraging. The next thing that I saw was that you're cute, which is only natural considering that I'm a typical male in that I'm visually oriented, and that my personality preference (which I find the Myers-Briggs profile to be a fairly effective measure of) is to thoroughly evaluate everything I perceive. It's a little unclear from facebook and your blog, but erring on the safe side, I'll treat you as if you're married and avoid anything that might be flirtatious. However, I have many compliments to give you.

It's rare for most young people to be very theologically astute -- I speak as one myself, who feels sometimes as if the peer landscape is very sparsely populated with Christian brethren -- and considering that roughly half of any age group is female, and only a subset thereof is of notable physical attractiveness, it's only logical to conclude that it's a very rare thing for a beautiful young woman to be so zealous for good doctrine as it is apparent to me that you are.

And mark, that is primarily what makes you beautiful:

3Your adornment must not be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 1 Peter 3:3-4

Dogmatically Held Preferences v. Preferentially Held Dogmas

I'm very unashamed of expressing what I'm confident is the truth. But, there are categories of truth--not regarding the epistemic value of a concept (in other words, there is not a gradient from falsehood to truth; they are binary poles that contrast with each other and don't overlap), but regarding the way in which the knowledge of the truth is applied.

Explaining Liberty

There's a concept of Christian liberty, which is demonstrated in Romans chapter 14. It's in the context of observing dietary restrictions, but has a wider application. The verse in Romans 14:14 does the best to give a succinct explanation of this concept:

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

In other words, suppose that something is not a sin to do. If you realize this, and do that thing (suppose as an example the drinking of alcohol), then you are not sinning. But suppose that someone does think that imbibing alcohol is a sin; then if they were to do that act, even if drinking it were not a sin, the act of going against one's conscience and doing what one believes to be a sin against God makes it a sin. It's a matter of the heart, as Matthew 5:21-30 explains. Sin begins in the heart, and that's why it's possible that for two people doing the same thing, one is committing sin and one's conscience is clear. 

There are certain things that are unequivocal in Christian doctrine, and these doctrines are called essential doctrines. Then there are foundational doctrines, ones that have massive importance to the faith but which it is in theory possible for someone to be mistaken about and still be saved. Then there are areas of practical daily lived-out faith that fall under Christian liberty, where it's fine for one person to forbid something and fine for someone else to allow it. Paul explains it this way in 1 Corinthians 10:23

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful; all things are permitted, but not all things edify.

This is the basis for allowing Christians to variously persuade themselves to take specific positions on subjects not explicitly condemned or required in Scripture. The idea is that by the proper application of Biblical exegesis, believers will reach the right conclusions. Allowing them liberty in what conclusion to draw ensures the greater positive benefit that they reach their personal conclusion for the right reasons, i.e. that their thought process is reasonable. It would be far worse if, as in Islamic tradition, every minor aspect of life is rigidly controlled, but those adhering to it benefit little because they generally don't understand what the overarching spiritual purpose of those restrictions are.

Liberty to Adhere to a thing Preferentially or Dogmatically

A dogma is an authoritative doctrine that sets forth truth and morality in absolute terms. 
A preference is a choice we make as to what we'd rather do based on personal feelings or opinions.

A preferential dogma is a religious rule that is held, not because it is true and ought to be followed, but because the person judges that it is relevant to his or her interests, essentially that it is useful for them. Dogma then becomes no longer absolute but is harnessed and subjugated by the absolutism of the person's vain preferences. Vast bulks of religion around the world is of this nature. Men who make God a mere tool to serve their ambition have a preferential approach to dogma. They hold to what they feel like because it suits them.

A dogmatic preference is a rule of conduct that is recognized as not-binding on others, but which the person who adopts it is convinced that it follows soundly from consistent application of spiritual truths that are unalterable and may not be dealt with preferentially. Therefore, in his opinion, it is not really a preference, only inasmuch as it is simply the best or better alternative--and if the premise is that we should do what is best, then it is no question but that this thing must be done. But it is recognized as a preference in the sense that others may not be convinced of its necessary association with fundamental doctrines, and that the adherent won't attempt to force his preference on others as an across-the-board rule for all to follow.

Preferential dogmas result in people being forced to follow the opinions of others.
Dogmatic preferences result in people being free to do what they think best and to learn from the experience.

Examples of dogmas held by preference (preferentially held dogmas):

• KJV only true translation
• Anyone who thinks you’re sinning by celebrating holidays or wearing pants of a certain length, etc.
• Making a preference into an article of faith in a church, such as forbidding alcohol
• Frowning upon "interracial" dating or marriage
• The idea that a 10% tithe on income is required to be paid by the faithful to their church

In fact, I'd go farther and say that while you may have personal preferences for a given Bible translation, dress code or fashion, alcohol, beauty, etc, when you go and tell others that they are wrong for not being as strict as you, that may very well be a sin itself! It's not the preference that's wrong, it's when you start to forget that it is just that -- a preference, not the only hold on the truth, nor something that everyone needs to follow lest they be in error -- that you cross the line into religious (do this do this do this don't do this) fanaticism.

Examples of preferences held dogmatically (dogmatically held preferences):

• Making a personal choice to not participate in a celebration because of its association with pagan ideals
• Man asks woman on date, drives, and pays for dinner.
• Individual churches' decisions on how frequently (every week, monthly, biannually) to hold Communion
• Refusal to patronize stores that serve halal meat products
• Lifelong celibacy v. marriage. 
• Whether you are in favor of jewelry piercings

These lists could be enormous in length if I sat long enough and thought about examples I've come across in daily life. But suffice it to say, in general, dogmatically promoting a preference is not wrong, and it's even admirable (so long as your preference isn't totally made up but actually a reasonable induction from Scripture!!), but choosing to promote dogmas merely because you prefer them to others is a dangerous path where you place yourself as the highest authority on Scripture and morality. Since that is not your rightful place, you are bound to become a tyrant, sooner or later, and find yourself deposed from your throne.

Exercise liberty but do it with restraint. And respect the liberty of others.

~ Rak Chazak

Theological Lyrics Thursday: Friel-Proof Christian Music

Hello Internet,

12 days after starting blogging, my post entitled The Wretched Podcast is the most popular, due largely to Elizabeth Prata's encouragement from a blog post on her website, http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/. In that post, I made mention of Todd Friel's radio program, and used it to springboard into a discussion of song-lyrics in Christian music and the danger of judging it by how it sounds rather than what it says. 

The idea hit me that I could present a few songs once a week, as a regular upload, to encourage any potential readers to check out songs that can offer them not just a good listen but also theologically meaty lyrics, to help us grow in our walk and remain 'heavenly minded.'

Since I can't limit myself to just one, here's what I'll do today--I'll make three categories:

1. Doctrinal Exposition -- this song emphasizes an important Biblical doctrine of some kind.
2. Good Idea -- this song delievers a message consistent with, or derived from, the Bible but isn't necessarily phrased in doctrinal language; less explicit, essentially.
3. Mostly Air -- this song may or may not have some redeeming qualities, but will be mostly fluff, with little or nothing to distinguish it as exclusively Christian music, and would be best avoided. However, in most cases you can get away with listening to it as long as it doesn't make up the vast bulk of your music library. 

Here comes the first batch:

Doctrinal Exposition: Children of God, by Third Day

+3 Brownie Points for having the singer look like the stereotypical 'Anglican' Jesus we see in paintings.

Here's what's good about the song: 

It emphasizes the doctrine of adoption -- the brief clip at the beginning emphasizes that point. The Bible says in Ephesians 1:5 that through Jesus Christ we (those who are saved) have been adopted as children of God into His family. Romans 8:14 says that "all who are led by the [Holy] Spirit are children of God." So the message is more than just sentimental, but an important Biblical truth to recognize. That's the great strength of Third Day's song. Extra credit is awarded for the manifold references to us being redeemed, the fact that we are "free from the judgment that we deserve," the implicit references to the Trinity through reference to the Father and the Son, and the correct identification of believers as Saints -- "we are the Saints, we are the Children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven," a bridge chorus that shows up later in the song.

In an age of deception and misinformation about who the Saints are, and who is a child of God, this song does a great service by emphasizing that both of these terms refer to believers in Jesus Christ, in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching that Saints are an elite, exclusive class of believers who have died and now answer prayers directed to them, and the false worldly misunderstanding that everyone on earth is a child of God, when in fact unbelievers are referred to as "children of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)

Good Idea: Blessings, by Laura Story

Here's what's good about the song:

It questions the mentality that says that God will make life into a cake-walk for every believer. It directly challenges the 'every day a Friday' attitude that expects Christians to be happy all the time and everything hunky-dory for them. It repeatedly questions, in several clever ways, whether the seemingly bad things in life may in fact be "blessings in disguise," reminding us that "this is not our home," and suggesting in one verse that "we doubt your goodness, we doubt your love, as if every promise from your word is not enough." This challenges us to be careful to not lose faith when prayers are not immediately answered with the relief we seek. It points the listener away from their material circumstance and refocuses them on God's promises. This is not 'your best life now.' Our best life is a future life after death, promised to us by God, for those who persevere in faith through the trials of life. (James 1:3) (Hebrews 6:12)

Take-away verse:

What if my greatest disappointments, and the aching of this life, is a revealing of a greater thirst this world can't satisfy?

Mostly Air: 10,000 Reasons by Matt Redman (has redeeming qualities)

There are many songs out there that aren't terribly BAD, they're just not full of theology. In this case, I've chosen one of the better ones; I have this one in my library and I'm not worse off for it.

The main message of this song can be boiled down to a single verse: no matter what happens, praise the Lord continually without giving up. Hey, that's a great message. But if you remember my suggestion in the article The Wretched Podcast, if you remove the brief shout of "Jesus!" at the end of the song, then this song can be sung by Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics; and when even the monotheistic versions of Hinduism can appropriate it, it means that it's not a remarkable song--it isn't distinctively Christian.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the song is taboo, or terrible. But if you were trying to casually witness to someone on Facebook, and were going to use a song out of these three that I've given today, to give to someone in one of the religions I mentioned above, then you would do well to choose the first one in the list. This one can be fine to listen to to worship God, but be wary of the cumulative effect that many such songs can have on your personal theology.

The most theologically distinctive the song gets is the single line, "You're rich in love, and You're slow to anger." It implies, but doesn't exactly scream "Jesus," so be wary of getting watered down. 

As long as you're cautious, you can listen to music with watered-down lyrics, or shall I say, with a low doctrine-to-verse quotient? But when you're setting priorities, do your best to seek out songs with a more complete message than just "worship God."

Tune in next week for a second installment and three (or two, depending on how you're reading this) more songs!

~ Rak Chazak