Calling

The question was: “How do you know if God is calling you towards something? Are there any signs that you can be looking for? How do you know that you're not just trying to convince yourself?”

This is a fabulous question.  Calling is something that we all wrestle with.  We want to be doing what the Lord wants us to do.  However, we often don’t get a clear voice that tells us explicitly what to do.  Generally, we’re left to exercise wisdom and discernment.

Our usual way of handling things is to pray about it some, think about it a lot, and then make a decision, hoping that we’ve made the right one.  However, I want to dispute this framework.  Yes, there are sometimes clearly choices that we should/should not make, murdering someone is not a good choice for instance.  But most of the time, decisions do not have a clear answer.  Both options could potentially work out just fine.  The framework that we often use when dealing with calling and God’s will is one which has us needing to “get it right”.  The assumption is that if you go “the wrong way”, somehow your life will be on Plan B.  In this case, God is not a very powerful or wise God.  He has somehow allowed you to bungle your life despite his promise that he has a perfect plan.  When we put it this way, questions about calling become much less angst-filled.  The pressure is no longer on us to “get it right” because we trust that the Lord will get us to where we need to be regardless of our failings as decision-makers.  Remember, this doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to weigh options and choose wisely.  It just frees us up to enjoy God’s plan instead of fretting over choices.

Now, let’s move to more practical things.  What should we take into account when we make decisions?  How do I differentiate God’s speaking and my heart speaking?

Ok, so let’s head into a framework that can help us at least gather information and sift it a bit.  This is by no means the be-all-end-all of decision-making.  A good decision-maker with regards to calling and God’s will simply exercises wisdom and discernment.  Much of this is a judgment call at its core, so this could be helpful or completely unhelpful.

****Disclaimer: I stole this from James Forsyth/Liz Cozart who take it from Paul Jeon, so credit goes to him/her/really him/me because I was in that class too/David who pointed out to me where I had gotten it from.

 So as we think about decision-making there are 5 things in which to keep in mind as we sift options.

1. Affinity – Do you feel a draw to whatever?  If you are not passionate about the thing that you are considering as a potential calling, that’s a pretty big data point.
2. Talent – Can you actually pull it off?  Are you equipped to do what you need to do in that particular calling?
3. Community – What does your community think about it?  Do they think this is a good idea?  Do people who know and understand you well think that this calling is a good fit?
4. Opportunity – Do you have an opportunity to actually transition from where you are now to pursue this calling?
5. Responsibility – How does the calling affect the responsibilities that you have?  For example, does the airline piloting job that you have dreamt about call you away from your wife and kids?

Sometimes we have an affinity for something (zeal to help the underprivileged in Africa), but little or no opportunity (you’re a middle school student).  Sometimes we have opportunity and no affinity (great job, but you’d hate it).  Sometimes we have both affinity and opportunity, but it would wreck our current responsibilities (dream that does not allow you to pay off your student loans).  Basically, we’re looking for all of these 5 things to be in accord.  We want to have an affinity, talent, our community supporting it, opportunity, and the absence of conflicting responsibilities.

If you have run options through all 5 of those, and you still come up with multiple choices, congrats!  You are able to choose!  Sometimes the Lord allows us to just choose.  The short hand of all of this is that if you’re seeking after the Lord, being wise in seeking good counsel.  If your desires are in line with the desires of the Lord (read your Bible and pray to figure this out), feel free to choose what you want!

Now for the question about convincing yourself.  We tend to second guess everything.  If you’ve done your diligence, then trust that you’ve explored your options and choose already.  Generally, if you get good counsel (I mean good counsel, not convenient counsel), and you listen to it, you shouldn’t second-guess things.

This is a great topic, but one that is hard to personalize while writing through a blog to an anonymous person.  Feel free to come talk to me in person about this.  I’d love to walk with you as you explore what you feel like you’re being called to.

Blessings,

~Frank

Mark 11:12-14

The question was: “So what exactly is going on in Mark 11:12-14?“

Great question!  It’s always great to dig into Scripture!

So, first there always must be background and context.  There are two big things that we need to keep in mind:

1. Triumphal Entry – Jesus has just entered into Jerusalem at the beginning of chapter 11.  His triumphal entry on Palm Sunday signaled the beginning of the Passion Week.  This also signals a big shift in Jesus’ ministry.  The big shake up from “the way things were” is about to be upon us.
2. Build up – Mark has been building to this point.  If we look at the structure of the book, we can see that Mark is marching the narrative toward Jerusalem and the Cross.  Indeed, the Cross casts a shadow over the whole book.  We are picking up the story pretty close to the seminal event of the book.

Let’s dive into the story.  It’s Monday of Holy Week, and Jesus is heading back into Jerusalem after spending the night in Bethany, which was just down the road.  On his way back into Jerusalem, Jesus is pretty hungry.  He sees a fig tree on the side of the road and it’s in leaf.  However he doesn’t find any fruit there.  So he curses the tree.

A little later that day, Jesus heads into the Temple area.  He sees merchants and money changers selling to those in the courts.  They would be selling animals for sacrifice and exchanging money since the temple tax and offerings had to be paid in the local currency.[1]  Their presence is understandable, but their business practices are not.  They would frequently price gouge and engage in unethical/unfair practices to make extra money.  This is why Jesus refers to them as a “den of robbers.”

So what’s a fig tree got to do with anything?  The scenes at the Temple and the fig tree are meant to be understood as parallel events because of their close proximity to each other both chronologically and textually.

Let’s go back to the fig tree.  For those of you that are not intimately familiar with fig trees and their fruit production patterns, the text says that it was not in season for figs.  So it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the tree to be absent figs.  However, some fig trees do bear fruit out of season.  One of the primary signs that a fig tree has fruit is the presence of leaves.  So in essence, the fig tree is falsely advertising that it is fruitful, when it actually is not.

So if we understand that the point of the fig tree episode is to point out hypocrisy, it’s easy to see the parallel with what happened at the Temple.  The Temple is the designated spot for God’s chosen people to commune with Him.  It is a holy site, and one that is supposed to be a blessing to the people.  It is through the Temple that widows and orphans are taken care of.  Righteousness and forgiveness were also supposed to be mediated through the Temple.  Indeed, the Temple had all the outward trappings of righteousness and holiness.  But like the fig tree, the Temple was not a place that had fruit.  Those who were wrapped up in Temple life, Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious elite, looked impressive, but ultimately were fruitless.

In addition, Jesus’ curse against the fig tree also goes against those at the Temple.  He now takes away the special place that the Temple had.  Rather, Jesus signaled the big shift where our bodies have become Temples for the Holy Spirit rather than a temple building (1 Cor. 6:19).

There is another parallel as well.  The fig tree represents hypocrisy.  We are all used to seeing hypocrisy in others, especially in those outside of our circle of beliefs.  The Pharisees and Sadducees thought that their external righteousness was sufficient.  But even in the Temple, the designated place for communion with God, there was hypocrisy and unfruitfulness.  We are like this as well.  We, who claim to be Christians, are hypocrites.  We do not obey God’s commands, and arrogance and self-righteousness are often our calling cards.

But thank the Lord for the Gospel.  Yes, Jesus brings judgment upon the hypocritical fig tree and the hypocrites that he finds in the Temple.  But just a little later on that week, he brings judgment upon himself so that hypocrites like you and me might have life.

Jesus is both judge and savior.  His love is displayed through his justice.  We put on the I-have-it-together face at church, at school, and everywhere else.  But inside, we’re a mess.  We all know it.  We are hypocrites to the core.  But it is for sinners that Jesus died.  This passage gives us a great view of how much God doesn’t like hypocrites, which also gives us pause to contemplate the greatness of his love to send his only son to die for such as these.

I hope that was helpful.  Let me know if you have any other questions.

Blessings,

~Frank

---

[1] Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible reference note for Mark 11:15

The Unforgivable Sin

In the Bible I read that the unforgivable sin is to claim one is God. But, I was led to believe that if we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, all of our sins would be forgiven. Surely if someone turned to Christ and accepted their past deeds as erroneous, than the Lord would see the new creation and not the old sin?

Thanks for the question! This touches on several important aspects of our walks with the Lord.  So that I am clear, I’m going to rephrase how I understand the question portion: “How can there be an unforgivable sin if Christ’s blood covers over all sin?  Doesn’t that mean that Christ’s blood can’t cover over everything?”

I think we first need to get a couple of things straight. 

1.  What is the unforgivable sin?

The unforgivable sin is mentioned in Matthew 12:22-37, Mark 3:20-30, and Luke 12:8-10.  The sin is not claming oneself as God, but rather blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.  Notice that the sin is specifically against the Holy Spirit, not against Jesus. 

Now it’s important to understand what is meant by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.  It’s far more deliberate and radical than just offhandedly slandering God verbally or in your own thoughts.  Rather, in the context that we see it in, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is actually an intentional, public, and deliberate act to attribute works of the Holy Spirit to Satan.  It’s also important to note that this is done in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  The Pharisees are making an informed, willful, and intentional decision that comes out of the evil of their hearts.  Essentially, the Pharisees had been presented overwhelming evidence of God’s goodness, purity, and power through Christ’s work.  They clearly saw the evidence, and they rejected it completely.  But it goes farther than just rejecting the evidence.  They took it much farther, attributing miracles which displayed the absolute goodness and purity of the Holy Spirit to the absolute evil and filth of Satan.  This is far more radically evil than the simple refusal to believe.

2.  We need to talk about our theology of salvation (ordo salutis) now.

We believe that Christ’s work on the cross and his subsequent resurrection has paid for our sins and won the victory over sin.  Sin’s power is broken as a result of the cross and resurrection.  However, Christ’s work does us no good without the benefits of his work being applied to us.  We are still in sin, and responsible for all the penalties that come with being in sin, if Christ’s work is not applied to us.  It is our theology that it is by the work of the Holy Spirit that we are united with Christ, and thus receive the benefits of salvation. (Titus 3:5, John 3:5, Romans 8:9)  Our justification (which encompasses forgiveness) flows out of our union with Christ.  It is in our union that what is mine (sin) is his, and what is his (righteousness) is mine.

Answer:

Since it is the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and unite us to Christ which gives us our forgiveness and salvation, rejecting and blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is kind of a big deal.  You are rejecting the only one who can unite you to Christ, which closes off the possibility of being united to Christ.  Therefore, if there is no union, there can be no forgiveness.  Hence, this is the unforgivable sin.

Pastoral Aside

The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible article on Mark 3 says this about concerned Christians.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is informed and intentional, motivated by evil.  Because it is unforgivable, it cannot be committed by a Christian or by someone who is not yet a Christian but who later will come to faith.  Even so, sincere Christians sometimes fear that they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.  Usually these people have simply misunderstood the nature of such blasphemy or have misjudged their own actions.  In any event, since the reprobate (those who will never come to faith) annont truly repent of their sin (cf. Ac 11:18), Christians who fear that they may have committed this unpardonable sin generally show by their very anxiety and repentance that they have not done so.

I don’t know where you are with Christ, but if you’re asking about repentance, then that’s a good sign that you haven’t committed this sin.  When I first read this passage, I thought to myself, “Well I’m toast!” I was struggling with just how sinful and rebellious I was.  Don’t be discouraged though.  Your question and wrestling with sin is proof that the Holy Spirit is working to make you more holy.  You haven’t done the one thing that could keep you from God, and the one who is infinitely worthy has paid the enormous cost to make you his own.  Romans 7 and 8 are great chapters to read if you want to take another look at the sin-life dynamic.

I’ll leave you with this quote that I think captures our situation since we’re don’t fall into the special case category of the unforgivable sin.

“Do you believe that the God of Jesus loves you beyond worthiness and unworthiness, beyond fidelity and infidelity, that he loves you in the morning sun and the evening rain, that he loves you when your intellect denies it, your emotions refuse it, and your whole being rejects it?  Do you believe that God loves without condition or reservation and loves you this moment as you are and not as you should be?” -- Brennan Manning

Thanks again for you question!  As always, you can contact me either through this blog or at my email, frank@mcleanpres.org to talk about this or anything else.

I am here for you!  <3

Blessings,

~Frank

In school we talked about euthanasia and whether or not it was moral to kill people in either extreme pain, a vegetative state, or those who have a debilitating disease that will ultimately kill them or rob them of their functions. I have heard stories of people "waking up" after years, even decades, of being in a coma or living in a vegetated condition. Abortion came into the discussion as well, and I couldn't help but wonder where God was in all of this.

Hi!  Thanks for the question!

This is a great question.  But it's extremely hard to write about this with the nuance that is needed to avoid misunderstanding.  So it would be best if you could come to me and talk about this.

The short answer is that it is not moral to kill people who are in extreme pain, in a vegetative state, or in the midst of a debilitating disease that robs them of their functions such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

However, I think that there are two things that are going on here.  First, there is the question about the morality of killing or assisting in the death of someone who's quality of life is very low or dwindling rapidly.  Then there is the question, "Where is God in all of this?"

Is it moral to kill or assist in the death of someone who's life is very low or dwindling rapidly

Though it is terribly dry and heady, the PCA's position paper on the use of heroic measures is quite helpful.  You can find it here.  In it, it outlines the biblical commitments that we have to preserving life and dignity.  The section that I found particularly helpful is copied below.

A second principle is that life is not be abandoned simply on account of suffering. Endurance as well as service finds its place among the purposes which God has for our lives in which He is glorified. This task is vividly set before us in Jesus' words to Peter following his resurrection. 

• I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, 'Follow me!' (Jn. 21:18-19).

We are not told in the Bible how this prophecy was fulfilled, so we cannot be certain as to its precise meaning. But it appears that Peter in his old age was to suffer some loss of independence, self-determination, and mobility before his death. This situation no less than his active apostleship was for the glory of God, and Peter once again receives the call to discipleship; "Follow me!" The clear implication is that we should consider the time and manner of our death as an opportunity to glorify God as followers of Christ to the end (Cf. 1 Pet. 2:21). Avoidance of suffering or dependence upon others are insufficient in themselves as legitimate motives for hastening the hour of one's death. Yet, there is no reason to believe that extraordinary means that extend life only by increasing suffering and dependence are always to be chosen as means of glorifying God.

In short, the prospect of suffering or death is insufficient to hasten death through active means.  On the other side of this, there is the question of withholding measures that keep someone alive (ex. taking someone off life support).  Since that was not the question, use the link to the position paper to get a feel for how decisions are made in those situations.

Where is God in all of this?

I think that when we bump against hard issues like end-of-life scenarios, we often ask, "Where is God?".  This is natural.  Sin is not the way that God intended things to be.  We live in a fallen world that constantly makes us think, "It shouldn't be like this! GAH!".  Romans 8:22 says that the creation "groans" because of the curse of sin.  A previous blog post, which has been moved to Derrick's site, is helpful for parts of our reaction to the overall not-so-pleasantness of these topics: http://www.askburb.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-constantly-pray.html

The answer to the question is that God really does care.  He cared so much that he sent his son for us.  Think about it.  We have disease, aches, pains, conflict, distress, etc., etc., etc.  We live in the muck and mud of a world that is broken, and that curse afflicts us all the time.  God does not live in that world.  He lives in the perfection, glory, riches, and awesomeness of heaven.  Yet, his heart was so moved for his people and his creation that he left all of the comforts of heaven to be with us in the muck and mud.  He became one of us for many reasons: so that he could be our substitute (to bear the penalty for our sin), so that we would know that he understood us, so that we could see how he dealt with hard things, especially the suffering that pervades this world.  He cared so much that he willingly went to the cross to suffer and die that we might be restored to relationships with him.  Imagine just how much Jesus suffered when his heavenly father turned his face away, forsook his son whom he had a perfect relationship with, and poured his wrath out upon him.  Indeed, he went to the cross that we might share in his inheritance, that when he comes again, we might be glorified with him.

Thus, our hope is not in or of this world.  Our hope is not that we will have a cushy life or deal with the effects of the curse or our sin.  No, our hope is in Jesus.  Our hope is in the promise that he will return. (Acts 1:11, Revelation)  Our hope is that God will come back and make all things new.  Our hope is that he will restore things to the way that they were meant to be.  Our hopes is that he will wipe every tear from our eyes, that there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, and that we will be made whole. (Revelation 21:4)

So where is God in the sinfulness of taking life, either at the beginning or the end, in the disease and death, and in the suffering?  God is right there in the midst of it, working to bring about the restoration of all things.  He has plopped himself right smack in the middle of it to deal with it.  And deal with it he has through Jesus.  Now we haven't seen the complete fulfillment of it all, but we can rest assured that that time is coming.  The Father paid for us and his creation with the blood of his very own son.  Do you think he's going to just leave us to wallow in the muck and mud of this world?

So persevere.  We face hard things in this life, but we have a hope that puts suffering, even terrible suffering into perspective.  We have something awesome coming.

Love you in God's way!

blessings,

~Frank

During Mr. Young's talks, he spoke about denying science and stuff. I talked to a friend who goes to a more liberal church, and he told me about how evolution isn't incompatible with the Bible. I actually felt like it made a lot more sense in my opinion. I understand that as Christians we will have unpopular beliefs, but I don't see any reason that we should deny science. What do you think about all of this?

That is a really important question. For those of you who weren't in Sunday School this past year, this question stemmed from apologetics series that we did with the Young's last year. In fact, Mr. Young did not say we should deny science. He explicitly said the opposite. If you want to hear his full argument, it comes early in his curriculum on the origins of matter, and the recording is on the Harvest website. You can find the audio here. It's the August 19 talk.

In that class he noted that it is fashionable for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to assert that “religion is at war with science.” Mr. Young warned us not to take sides in that argument because the choice between religion and science is a false choice (It's setting up things as mutually exclusive when they are not.). Instead, he said the real choice or tension is between "good science and good theology" – both of which strive to understand the truth – and "bad science and bad theology" – which both work to protect a prejudice. Unfortunately, what your friend said is not true. Evolution, as we understand it (bacteria to apes to people), is incompatible with the Bible. However the major theme across the three weeks that Mr. Young spent on origins is that if you look at the three theories on the origin of matter (Big Bang, Biochemical Predestination, and Evolution) from a purely natural framework/viewpoint/paradigm then evolution is also incompatible with proven science.

When he talked about good and bad science and theology Mr. Young said bad theology opposes good science when it asserts something God never said in order to try to support some other point. Basically bad theology puts words in God's mouth. He cited the example of the medieval Catholic claiming that the Earth was the center of the solar system in order to show man was special. That was bad science built on an assertion that is not found in the Bible. On the other side, Mr. Young said bad science usually contradicts good theology when it refuses to acknowledge something God did–assuming away the supernatural explanation, even when no purely natural alternative makes sense.

Because truth is truth, Mr. Young noted that when bad science contradicts good theology it will also contradict good science. That was the point of this section: that a purely natural or secular account of creation is bad science because the three base theories each contradict at least one known scientific law. Since a purely secular account of creation claims to be science and it disagrees with proven science then it is self-contradictory. So the choice is not between scriptural teaching and science, but rather between bad science and good science. Because truth is truth, good science will be consistent with our theology.

He noted several specific examples of the "good science–bad science" tension. Regarding the creation of matter he noted, for example, that the Big Bang Theory holds that the entire universe was once compressed in a single sub-atomic particle. If the estimated 200 million billion stars and solar systems were compressed in a particle that was smaller than an atom that particle would have had infinite mass and infinite gravity. General Relativity tells us that time does not pass in an infinite gravitational field. Stephen Hawking took this law and applied it to the Big Bang Theory. If time is not passing for the particle, and the particle encompasses the universe, then time in general could not pass (Time is bounded by the universe. By definition, where the universe ends, time ends.). Hawking puts it this way: Time did not exist at that point. In his classic book, The Short History of Time, he demonstrated that time was created by the Big Bang.

If the Big Bang happened the way that scientists now claim – and Mr. Young did not take a position on that– the fact that time was not passing until it happened could only be logical if the Big Bang was triggered by a creator who is outside of time, and who controls time. But the secular view says that there is no supernatural being outside of time. The secular view says the Big Bang – the event that science proves created time - was a natural event. It is an axiom of all physical science that no event can occur when no time passes. So an event occurring to create time is, by definition, impossible. So a purely secular view contradicts proven science.

Mr. Young noted that Dr. Hawking, an avowed atheist, tried to solve that problem his discovery created by coining the term “singularity” - an event that could not happen more than a single time because it is impossible, and so to occur even once it had to violate the laws of nature. Mr. Young noted that a “singularity” – an event that violates the laws of nature – has the same characteristics as a “miracle”, with one exception. That exception is that good theology can explain the cause of a miracle, by recognizing a God who is outside of time and nature and is in control of both. In contrast, a purely secular view cannot explain what causes a singularity, nor how the laws of nature can be broken from inside the laws of nature.

Ultimately, the purely secular view of the origins of matter asserts that four things must have happened, none of which can be explained, and two of which violate laws of nature. Mr. Young concluded that a belief in un-caused causes that violate natural laws may be superstition – but it is certainly not good science. He ended the lecture by reviewing the things that we know to be scientifically true about origins of matter and noting that, while none of them can be explained rationally through a purely natural view, all of them are easily explained when we acknowledge a creator who is outside of time and nature and sovereign over both. In other words, he demonstrated that good science and good theology said the same thing.

Thanks for the question!! Come talk to me or drop me another question if you want to talk more. Love you in God's way!

blessings,
~Frank

Hi friends,
Welcome to the Breakthrough and Blast Blog.  This blog is a space for you to ask anonymous questions that you may have pertaining to God, faith, or whatever.  Just respond to this post by clicking on the comments button below (this post) with your questions, then I'll post them as individual blogs with a response that you can comment on.  Any further discussion can be seen in the "comments" section of each post.  The questions that have been asked already are below.  Check 'em out.  Please note that some questions have been responded to and others have not. Please be patient, each question will be given the attention that it deserves. Also, feel free to e-mail me directly with questions if you so desire. Please feel free to send your friends here as an outlet to reason or to ask questions as well. The only bad question, is the one that isn't asked.   Thanks!  Frank Wang, frank@mcleanpres.org