Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Aren’t all religions just different ways to the same God?

I was asked for a response to the question,

Aren’t all religions just different ways to the same God?

There is a sense in which I think this is true. Nearly all religions tell people to be good. God delights in goodness. The Bible says, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).

People who commit to true humble goodness make the heart of God rejoice, and he responds favorably to them. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6). When people were uncertain about whether Jesus was teaching the truth, he simply challenged them to be obedient to what they knew to be right and good. He said, “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” (John 17:7).

C. S. Lewis (British scholar and author of The Chronicles of Narnia) was an atheist who became a reluctant Christian in his 30’s. He had not been looking for God at all. But he was looking for goodness. Later he came to believe that there was a connection between the two. He wrote, "[I]t is significant that this long-evaded encounter [with God] happened at a time when I was making a serious effort to obey my conscience. No doubt it was far less serious than I supposed, but it was the most serious I had made for a long time.”

I think that true goodness leads to God, and so we can applaud any religion’s attempt to urge people to be good, honest, kind, faithful, generous, courteous, selfless, and fair.

That does not mean, however, that every aspect of every religion is good and true and praiseworthy. That is just not the case. For example, I think most tender-hearted people who study the life of Mohamed will find it very disturbing that he married a six-year-old girl and consummated the relationship with her when she was nine.

If you say to a devout Buddhist, “We’re all worshipping the same God,” he or she will disagree with you. Buddhism does not believe in a personal, Creator God. Buddhism maintains that there is a karmic balance in the universe that evens out good and evil, but denies that there is any God or gods behind it.

Hinduism has many thousands of gods rather than just one. As with any polytheistic religion, I think you will find that some of the stories about those gods would indicate that they are not particularly trustworthy, and have no great love for mankind.

But rather than picking apart the flaws and shortcomings of every other religion in the world (I don’t have the knowledge or time!), I would just note this one thing that they all have in common. None of them tells me what to do about my sins and failures as a person. I know and believe the Bible message that no matter how good I may have tried to be (and honestly, I probably have not tried all that hard), I still have sins that separate me from a holy God and hinder his relationship with me.

The Bible says that Jesus took my sins upon him when he died on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). No other religion or religious figure ever did that for me. Nowhere else have I ever learned just how deep is God’s love for me.

Friday, December 26, 2014

Can A Christian Be Demon-Possessed?

Can a Christian be demon-possessed? I was asked that the other day, and my answer is below.

This is a question the Bible never asks, nor answers. But I think it would be helpful to look at what the Bible actually says about demons and the nature of their work.

First of all, the word “possessed”. Get rid of it. I do not believe it accurately reflects the Greek.

There are two words or phrases the Bible uses to describe a demonic affliction: “demonized” and “have a demon”. They mean the same and are interchangeable. The Greek word I translate “demonized” is simply the noun “demon” turned into a verb and made passive. And “have a demon” looks the same in Greek as it does in English. It is pretty straightforward.

The Bible goes back and forth as to which word or phrase it uses. For example, in Luke 8:26 it says that the man from the Gerasenes “had demons,” and then a few verses later in verse 36 it says that he “was demonized”. In John 10:20 some people accuse Jesus of “having a demon.” In the next verse some people say that he does not sound like somebody who “is demonized.” So there is no difference in the Bible between “having a demon” or “being demonized”.

I have heard some Christians maintain that a believer may be oppressed by demons but never possessed by them. This is not a distinction that the Bible ever makes.

The English Standard Version seems to try to make this distinction in Matthew 8:28 and Matthew 9:32. In Matthew 8:28 it says that Jesus was approached by two “demon-possessed men”. They were crazy and violent: “so fierce that no one could pass that way.” Jesus cast out the demons and the men were fine. Then in Matthew 9 the ESV says that “a demon-oppressed man who was mute” was brought to him. Jesus cast the demon out, and the mute man spoke.

Why does the ESV say that the men in Matthew 8 were demon-possessed but the man in Matthew 9 was only demon-oppressed? Presumably because the second man was not crazy or violent or speaking with other voices. His only problem was that he couldn’t talk. But the Greek text uses the same word of the mute as it does of the psychotic individuals a chapter earlier: “demonized”. And therein, I believe, hangs an important doctrine. Afflictions as distinct as psychosis and muteness were equally labeled demonic.

As I survey the biblical data it seems to me that where Western Christians would tend to separate afflictions into distinct categories (physical, spiritual, psychological), the Bible just smooshes them together. If we think a problem is physical we give it medicine; if psychological, therapy; if spiritual, exorcism. If a man hears voices and speaks in strange ones, that may be demonic. But if he has a curved spine, that’s just scoliosis.

But look at the hunchback in Luke 13. There it says that a woman at the synagogue “had a disabling spirit” (presumably a demon), and had not been able to straighten up for 18 years (verse 11). We might regard a bad back as something that results merely from injury or congenital defect. Can the devil curve a spine? According to Jesus he can. After Jesus straightened the woman out, he noted that Satan had bound her for 18 years (verse 16).

What about boils on the skin? We see that as an infection of staphylococcal bacteria. We may not see anything there of a spiritual origin or anything requiring a spiritual response. Just give it some warm compresses, antibacterial soap and maybe an antibiotic. But consider Job 2:7: “So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” The devil did it, and he did it to a good man. Bacteria were just the means that the devil used to afflict Job.

But could the devil get into the mind or body of an apostle? As a matter of fact he did. It seems that St. Peter had himself a demon when he rebuked Jesus, telling him there was no way he would ever go to the cross. “Get behind me, Satan!” Jesus replied (Matthew 16:22-23). And St. Paul had an unspecified “thorn in the side” - presumably some physical affliction - that he said was “a messenger of Satan to torment me” (2 Corinthians 12:8).

The Bible also says that Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). But Judas appeared to welcome that.

It seems to me that the Bible indicates that the devil can do all kinds of things to us. He can curve our backs, irritate our skin, deprive us of speech, afflict us with seizures, give us really bad ideas (betray Jesus, keep Jesus away from the cross), put thorns in our sides, or turn us into flat-out raving lunatics. That is the world we live in, a world C. S. Lewis famously called “enemy-occupied territory”.

But that does not mean we have to cooperate with or willingly submit to any demon that wants to afflict us. The Bible says “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). A good example occurs in the lives of the disciples mentioned above. Peter resisted and Judas did not.

So back to the question, “Can a Christian be demon-possessed?” Get rid of the word “possessed” and go with the more biblical “have a demon”, and I think the answer becomes clear. Can a Christian have a demon? Sure. On any given day, God may give some demon permission to afflict your skin with boils, your back with curvature, your vocal cords with silence, your will with temptation, your mood with discouragement, or your synapses with incompetent neurotransmitters. Why should you be immune? You’re not immune, unless God chooses to give you the special grace of immunity in some particular area. I’m sorry if I’m bursting your bubble, but the fact is, people much better than you have been more sorely afflicted.

I don’t know how a demon might go after you. My demon gave me a bad knee for a year and a half. A friend’s demon told her that she was Jesus and that she should sacrifice herself. We’re both better now. But whether your demon is giving you a toothache or causing you to believe that you can control the weather, your basic response should look pretty much the same. Do these things:

Pray. Jesus told his disciples to pray, “Deliver us from evil,” and many scholars think that means, “Deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13).

Endure. Sometimes that is what you will have to do. Poor St. Paul got left with his thorn from the devil even though he prayed against it (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

Get medical help. Paul told Timothy to take some wine for his stomach and frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23). Maybe for you that “wine” is depakote or risperdal.

Get counseling. Proverbs 24:6: “You should wage war with sound guidance—victory comes with many counselors.”

Don’t sin. This is important. Demons love sin and God hates it. Isaiah 1:16-17: "Stop doing wrong, learn to do right."

Trust Jesus Christ. In John 16:33 he told his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Is The Gospel A Sales Pitch?

At church we were discussing reasons why Christians are reluctant to tell people the good news of Jesus Christ. One man said, "Sharing the gospel makes me feel like a salesman." We all knew what he meant - even the professional salesman in the room who responded by clearing his throat loudly. Of course, there is nothing wrong with sales as long as it is carried out with integrity and good will. But somehow, salesmanship at its purest, noblest, and most necessary seems to be an unworthy model for presenting Jesus. Sensitive Christians rightly recoil from it when trying to persuade people to follow Christ. We feel a check in our spirit when we find ourselves slipping into a mode which suggests that Jesus is a product and the potential convert is a customer. Why does that mode bother us?

One straightforward answer is to say that Jesus is a Person, not a commodity. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. To put him - however unintentionally, and even if only implicitly - in the same category as a diet plan that will help you shed unwanted inches is to diminish and blaspheme him.

But another objection to the sales model has occurred to me, and it has to do with the fundamental nature of gospel proclamation. I would like to introduce it with the following device:

You are walking down a sidewalk and you see a wallet flip out the back pocket of the person ahead of you and land on the pavement. The person walks on completely unaware that he has lost his wallet. What should you do?

A classmate informs you that he has a stolen copy of the licensing exam that you will be taking tomorrow, and asks if you want to see it. What should you do?

You see a child being attacked by a savage dog. No one else is around. What should you do?

Note that I did not ask what you would do. Only God knows that. You might be a greedy corrupt coward who would pocket the wallet, cheat on the test, and leave the child to be mauled. Or you might be a decent person and hopefully confident that in each case you would do the right thing - but find that, in the actual pressure of the moment, you become as morally weak as St. Peter on the night before Jesus was crucified. But I'm not asking what you have done or what you think you actually would do in such circumstances. I am making this easier by asking, "What should you do?"

There is another question, in each case, that I did not ask. It is, "What would be in your best interests to do?" That question elicits a different set of answers from the "should" question. In the first instance, it is in your best interests to pocket the wallet and delight in found cash. In the second, it is in your best interests to look at the test beforehand so you can ace it and move forward in your career. In the third, it is in your best interests to let that poor child fend for himself, because if you intervene, you yourself will get hurt, and probably pretty badly.

Let me head off the objection, "But it would still be in my best interests to do good because my selfish behavior might be found out, and then I'd be shamed, held accountable and penalized." I stipulate that, in these hypothetical circumstances, you know for a fact that you won't get caught. "But even if I never get caught, my conscience would trouble me, and since living with that pain would devastate me and leave me unhappy, I can still say that it would be in my best interests to do right." I answer, "Why let the voice of conscience trouble you? Surely by now you have learned how to silence that annoying little bastard. And if you haven't learned, it won't be hard for me to teach you. Here is lesson one: Acknowledge that it is in your best interests to free yourself from the shackles of irrational conscience. Our friend Nietzsche will help you absorb the sweet logic of this liberating truth."

My point is that a great chasm yawns between "I should do X" and "It would benefit me to do X." Sometimes those two things meet or happily coincide, but they never do so out of necessity. That is, they are not equivalent or derivable one from the other. They are not two ways of saying the same thing. Sometimes I should do what is clearly not in my best interests, and sometimes the thing that is in my best interests is something I really should not do.

Now a sales pitch is always an appeal to your best interests. That, at rock bottom, is what a sales pitch is. The salesman has his own interests as well, and they do not necessarily correspond with yours. (Mainly he needs to put food on his family's table.) But his best interests are not the basis upon which he tries to get you to buy his product or service. Only a desperate poor sap of a salesman says, "Come on, buddy, buy this, I gotta make quota here." If he is a good salesman, his focus will be on you and your need. He labors to convince you that whatever he has to offer will benefit you, and therefore well worth the money. If you don't buy it, it will be your loss. A sales pitch goes no deeper than that.

I maintain that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not, at rock bottom, an appeal to one's best interests. Since gospel proclamation has devolved in much of North American evangelicalism to resemble such an appeal, it seems to me the time has come consciously to resist that model. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no benefit to an individual who believes and obeys the gospel of Jesus. There is. Eternal life in the blessed presence of the Creator is a benefit that exceeds all reckoning. I am just saying that the foundation of gospel appeal goes deeper than self-interest - and so, so much deeper that matters pertaining to our benefit might almost be considered an afterthought, an add-on, a "What? Do you mean I get that too?"

The gospel is a statement that is true and a commandment that is right. (I defend at length the idea that this is the Bible's own understanding of the word "gospel" in two essays: "The Gospel's Hard Edge" [June 20, 2014] and "The Gospel Is Something You Obey" [June 22, 2014]). True statements and right commandments have this in common: they don't care (if I may put it that way) whether you benefit by believing or obeying them. They remain just as they are no matter what their effect upon you and no matter what you do with them. Your potential benefit cannot render a false statement true or an evil commandment good. Neither can your potential detriment impeach a truth or invalidate a just command.

Though we who proclaim the gospel must do so as graciously and as winsomely as we can, we must never forget that we proceed from a position of strength. Our gospel stands on the hard, unmoved and unmovable pillars of goodness and truth. Just as we would not feel it necessary to say to someone, "It would be in your best interests to save a child from a savage dog," so we need not say, "It would be in your best interests to bow the knee to Jesus Christ." (Again, it is in the person's best interests, but that is beside the point.) Moral imperatives stand alone and need no buttressing. It's, "Rescue the child!"; "Return the wallet!"; "Don't cheat!"; and, "Submit to Jesus Christ!" Truth likewise requires no support from self-interest. If I want you to believe that the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter yields a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction, I want you to believe that because it is true, not because it will do you any good.

To avoid slipping into the salesman mode that rightly repels all thoughtful communicators of the gospel, remember that - deep down - we are not so much pleading with people to buy as we are commanding them to bow. And we are proclaiming something true: Jesus Christ died on behalf of sinners, he rose again from the dead, and he reigns forever with absolute authority. The chief beneficiary of that truth is Jesus himself.