True Free Will Chooses God's Way

I think that the only way to have true free will is to know everything and to know everything objectively.  What we have instead is a partial picture of all things - partial knowledge, partial understanding, incomplete ability to place value correctly - and too many influences,  in the form of people and experiences and tastes, not to mention God and Satan, whom I do believe exist (in fact, this post is directed primarily at Believers, though I welcome anyone else to read and discuss it as you wish).  If we could live without bias and understand all of the premises and all of the possible conclusions - know all of the possible effects of the weather and the spinning of planets and the growth of plants and the rise and fall of businesses and empires and the unions of people to create new people in the world - we would at last have a free choice.  As it is we are blown about by the wind and still think we have full control over our choices, so long as "nature" or "God" or "other people" don't get in the way.

And if we had true free will, in this manner, but still had our other human qualities, I believe most of us would choose God's way unquestioningly because it would obviously be the best way to do things.  As it is, we see so little of the picture and we're telling the only Person who can see everything, and who has our good at heart (for all things are done for the good of those who love God, and for His glory), that we know better where to go and what to do.  It's no wonder we regularly fall into pits the moment he lets us try our own way for a little while.  We can't actually see almost anything.

I'd like to develop this thought further, but for now I'd like to put it out there as it is and see what discussion occurs in the comments.

On Forcing Our Beliefs On Others

I think the biggest complaint I hear from non-Christians, regarding Christians, is that we like to "force our beliefs" on other people. They consistently get offended or annoyed because, hey, can't we all just believe what we want to and leave each other alone?

‎First of all: no. To quote the character Emerson Cod from Pushing Daisies, "The truth ain't like puppies, a bunch of them running around, you pick your favorite. One truth! And it has come a-knockin'." I would like to explain why, exactly, we "force our beliefs" upon the unbelievers, and why we consistently "come a-knockin'" even after you have disconnected the doorbell, removed the door knocker, and hidden under your bed.

Christians operate under a set of beliefs that can be found in the Bible. The primary belief, especially in terms of sharing the Gospel, is that Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [him]" (John 14:6). Jesus is the way, the only Way, to a positive afterlife (commonly known as "Heaven"), and, many of us contend, the only Way to goodness and virtue in this life.

We could simply believe that for ourselves, and have good lives and afterlives for ourselves, not worrying about what happens to other people, except that selflessness is a tenet of Christianity as well. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus's response was, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40). So, if I love my neighbor - neighbor being loosely defined as anyone with whom I may come in contact - and I believe that my neighbor will live a dissatisfying mortal life and an unbearable post-life eternity without Jesus, it is only reasonable to do everything in my power to bring that person to Jesus, as soon as possible.

We don't always. We worry about mockery, insults, minor persecution, or losing the friendship. But should we? For Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11). The issue of timidity in the face of evangelism or open belief is addressed again and again in the New Testament, always saying that we are blessed by God though we are hated by men for belief and righteousness.

So this is why Christians "force their beliefs" on others. It is senseless to suggest that we should simply let people believe whatever they like, and that it does not matter. To suggest this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Christianity is not a crutch to get us through this life. It is not a mere set of rules for morality. It is not a philosophy chosen because it sounds nice. There is only one question of importance, in deciding to accept Christianity: is it the Truth?

Obviously, I contend that it is.

As always when I reference Bible verses, I encourage you to look up and read the context for them. Biblegateway.com is a good source if you don't want to leave your computer or don't have a physical Bible.

The Bible Is Not An Oppressive Read

The Holy Bible is not an oppressive read. It is not impossible to get through it, nor impossible to understand. It is not a chore, it is not outdated, and it is not boring. There is no requirement that it be read in the oldest English you can find, nor that you begin at the beginning and go straight through to the end. You may use footnotes, multiple translations, modern translations, Strong's Concordance, and Bible study groups to give you understanding, or you may read through each book purely on your own.



The Bible is not a paperweight. It is not a decoration, a good luck charm, or an object that makes you holier just because you have it. It is not a piece of fiction. It has not lost its meaning over the years. It was not put together by men in an effort to control the church. Its stories are not the same when retold by other people; they are best read straight from the scriptures. It is not simply a book of stories.

The Bible is not a single book by a single man. It is all God-breathed, but it is sixty-six different books and letters, by different people, with different purposes, written at different times and places, with different moods and mindsets. You are not required to read the books in sequence. The books are all intertwined with the others.

The Bible is a book of mystery. The Bible is a book of understanding. The Bible is, above all, the Truth, and anyone seeking the truth, or seeking to destroy the truth, should at once begin with the Holy Bible.

"Reasonable" Christians

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." --Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

I have returned from Youth Camp, where I was a counselor for the Junior Highers, and I have much to say in the wake of its effects. Fortunately, I will be able to translate that into blog post after blog post for some time (I hope and pray), and I will do so unapologetically. I begin this pseudo-series with some thoughts on the idea of being a "reasonable" Christian, according to members of the world.

I have been called a "reasonable Christian" and similar things by a few atheists whom I know, and I took these things as compliments, if dubious ones. I think that it is not a good thing after all, because what is a "reasonable Christian," to an atheist? It is one who keeps his or her faith relatively private, who seems to condemn little sin, who sins without repenting, who does not quote the Bible, and who seems to be as much a part of the world as the world itself.

We are not supposed to be of this world. We are supposed to be Satan's worst enemies, this side of Heaven. We are not to sin nor approve of sin. "No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." (2 Timothy 2:4, NKJV) And yet, we fraternize with the enemy, give secular advice, do not fall back on prayer, compare ourselves to the ideals of our friends rather than the Ideal who is Christ, and hide our faith and our opinions. We worry about the "persecution" that takes the form of scoffs and mockery. We want the world to find us "reasonable," when the only reasonable thing is to follow Christ alone and to ignore the world's opinions. We are a gaggle of fools.

P.S. To my atheist, lapsed, agnostic, and differently religious readers, I do realize I have you, probably wondering when my blog turned so preachy. Believe me, there is much to be gained from these writings for you, as well.

P.P.S. I do hope you folks read the context of the verses I have mentioned, on your own. www.biblegateway.com is a good place for this, especially if you do not have your own Bible.

Christ-Follower, or Christian?

I had another idea for today's blog in mind, but it looks like I'll be saving that for Saturday.

My friend Ben (you can find his blog here) posed this question on his Facebook: "Ever since the whole Emerging Church movement got rolling, I've noticed more and more people referring to themselves as "Christ-followers" instead of Christians. Also, I've noticed more and more people (primarily evangelical, or maybe neo-evangelical, in orientation) saying things like "It's not about religion, it's about relationship". I have my own thoughts on such ideas and phrases, but I wanted to know what you (my fellow Christians, Christ-followers, or whatever you want to call yourselves) think about such things. So...shoot!"

Today's blog will be my response, edited lightly to make better sense here (the original was in the context of Facebook conversation).

First of all, I must mention that there were responses before mine, most of which seem to indicate that the things which Ben mentioned are at best misguided and at worst wicked. I had had no such thoughts. Rather, it sounds to me that many of the people who choose to call themselves "Christ-followers" are not ashamed of Christ (which would make no sense), but ashamed of what Christians have become. The word "Christian" carries a connotation, for many people, that is very, very far from what the Word actually contains, and people who choose the different nomenclature want, perhaps, to give a fresh start to the Word and to the idea of the believer.

Currently, the term "Christian" takes on a connotation of either the holier-than-thou type, or the painfully naive type, with a good dose of hypocrite thrown it. Many people note their religion as "Christian" on Facebook, but don't live like a follower of Christ. People who choose to go by "Christ-follower" instead are likely trying to get away from this connotation and show that they are "different" from the stereotypical, hypocritical Christian, in that they really actually follow Christ.

As for religion versus relationship, it's the same thing. In our current society, "religion" has a connotation of naivety and superstition, or of arrogance. To put aside the idea of superstition (and all the rest), some say it's not "religion," not just a set of beliefs, but rather a "relationship" with Christ, something real and personal.

I think both issues are just folks trying to shake off the stereotypes about believers--at least as said stereotypes might pertain to themselves.

Those are my explanations. I still use the word "Christian," but I fully understand why people want to differentiate. Many folks use the term to mean "I celebrate Christmas, I pray when I want something, and I think my father has a Bible somewhere." For the word "Christian" to be redeemed, instead of merely replaced, it would take more Christians living like the disciples we claim to be (yes, I, too, fail in this matter). Such a revolution would result in more than saving a word, of course--we'd be saving our society. Temporarily, at least.

[Thoughts on this? That's what the comments are for! Have at it!]

On Fixed and Wandering Churches

When a church has a building, it has security. It has the ability to run multiple morning services, Christmas Eve services, Sunday School, mid-week services, VBS, youth group, staff meetings, and anything else necessary in the same building without giving it a second thought. Churches who don't have buildings of their own, those who meet in homes or colleges or places that they rent, have no such security. They don't know if they can count on having the same place for Sunday service a year from now, and they often have to scrounge for places to meet for anything extra. Holding a VBS of their own is essentially out of the question. For some of these churches without buildings, their size is simply much too small to warrant one; for others, they are growing and could use one, but the financial situation makes it impossible.

However, a church without the security of a building has to rely somewhat more on God, not knowing where they will be in a year, or what they will do for a location if they are blessed with more growth, and that can create a better spiritual foundation for the church. On the other hand, churches with buildings may have paid more than they could reasonably expect to afford, getting space for more people than they could reasonably expect to have, and if it was pride rather than God telling them to go ahead with the building project, they should not be surprised if the security that they expected never shows up.

If, while the weather is dry, God says to Noah, "Build an ark," and Noah complies, he can trust that the floods will eventually come. Conversely, if Noah decides on his own to build an ark while the weather is dry, expecting that the floods will come, but has no word from God that he should do such a thing, why should he expect the floods to come? If God tells Noah to build an ark of a certain size, and he chooses to build it bigger or smaller, should he expect to survive the flood? Should he expect to be blessed?

If a church does everything that God asks of it, if the leaders pray and listen before taking the steps to gain a building, and the reply is "Yes, build," and they are good stewards of what money they have, the church ought to be able to trust God that the finances will be worked out, regardless of their apparent state. Yet, if, out of pride, they build when they should not, or if, from lack of faith, they do not build when they should, they surely can expect the growth of their church to stagnate. Are we not instructed to be faithful even with little?

The church is the people, and moreover, the relationship of the people with God. The temple would not have been built if the building meant nothing, and yet, the building would be nothing without the people in it to learn and to worship, and the building is nothing without the presence and the blessing of God.