How to be a Watchmen

    A couple weeks ago I broke one of my personal rules in that I told you some of the struggles in my personal life. Today I am going to break another personal rule: I am going to tell you how to do something. I hate the question how, as it is probably the most useless question there is. The questions "what" and "why" are so much more vital to understanding and life. Those are the questions that help us distinguish between the black and white through the gray. Those are the questions that lead us to discovering the principles for living life. "How" only deals with practically applying principles into our daily lives. With that is important, too often people try answering the "how" question before answering the "what" and "why". An example of this is the Jews of Jesus day. They answered the "how" of the Sabbath quite thoroughly with some 39 general prohibitions for the Sabbath. Yet, as Jesus repeatedly pointed out, they never bothered with "what is the Sabbath?" and "why is the Sabbath here?" Had they delved into these issues, they probably would have discovered the beauty of the Sabbath and made it a joy, instead of a burden. Alas, they did not.

    Another reason that I disdain the "how" question is that how a principle is applied varies greatly from person to person. Principles are universal; applications are not. Of course I answer the "how" question in my life all the time; I must if I am going to grow as a person or even function as a person. But how I apply one principle or another will probably vary from how you apply the principle. Neither is necessarily wrong nor even better. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. This is something that is important to remember as a watchman: be careful to distinguish between principle and application. Alas, the only advice I can give you on accomplishing that task is to study and internalize the principle, ask questions, and pray for the Holy Spirit to give you discernment. Easier said than done, I assure you. The point is that I cannot easily tell you how to apply these black and white principles because you are different than me.

    But today is different; I am going to tell you how to be a watchman, at least as I understand it. These are more principles than a checklist of things to do, but very practical, at least according to my experience. Understand this one point very clearly though: being a watchman will not endear you to people. Most people will get irritated, annoyed, or even angry because people do not like being told that they and their actions are wrong. Being a Christian, which I would equate with being a watchmen, will not win you any popularity contests. The ancient Israelites killed their watchmen (the prophets). The 1^st New Testament watchman was killed by a woman who could not stand being called out (John the Baptist). The Jews crucified the ultimate watchman (Jesus). They then began to relentlessly persecute that watchman's followers (the apostles, all but one of whom met an unsavory end). Throughout history, watchmen have been derided, persecuted, and murdered (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs). We are not here to be liked; we are here to change the world and the world does not like change. This is simply the way it is; if you cannot handle it, then you may need to seriously reconsider your loyalties and your faith.

    So for those who are up to the challenge, here are the principles of being a proper watchman. The first and most important thing about being a watchman is relationship. In order for people to listen to you, you need to have a good relationship with them. You need to know and accept them for who they are for two reasons: first, if you know them well, then you will be better able to discern between whether they are applying the same principle differently than you or if they are simply disregarding the principle entirely. Secondly, and more importantly, if you have a good relationship with someone, they are much more likely to listen to you because they know that you care. This is probably the most crucial aspect of being a watchman: making sure that people know that you care. As my wise mother is fond of saying, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I have no idea if she came up with that or not, but here she gets credit for it. Of course you must actually
care about said person. If you do not, then you are not the right person to be their watchman for you will have no chance at a positive effect.

    How you confront someone is also greatly important. Here the principles that Jesus laid forth in Matthew 18:15-20 are quite useful (the man was rather intelligent). Unless absolutely necessary, never call people out in public. If you are unsure, do not. Very few, if any, will respond positively to being called out and humiliated in front of their peers. While there are times for this, public confrontation is as a general rule unadvisable. When you do confront someone privately, make sure that they know you are doing this because you care about them, not because you are interested in being right. If you were offended, let them know by discussing your feelings, not their actions. This puts you in the defensive position, not them. Above all, speak the truth in love, as Paul says (Ephesians 4:15). You do this by being gentle, though there are times for a harsh rebuke, and above all communicating that you are concerned about them, not about getting your way.

    Next, you must listen. As someone, probably several someones whose names escape me at the moment, have said, "God gave us two ears and one mouth. Therefore we should to twice the listening as we do the talking." Some of us have a harder time with that than others. Hence I have a blog where I can "talk" merrily way to my heart's content and somebody is probably going to hear. However, when being a watchman ironically requires that you do more listening than talking. After presenting your concern, let the other person talk. Often they know that what they are doing is out of line, but are hurting inside for some reason or another and need someone to talk it out with. Other times they are confused about something and have questions that need answers. Be the listening ear that need; that alone is often enough to turn people around. Look at Jesus: he listened to people's pain and answered their questions. He was, as a general rule, a rather quiet individual who did more listening than talking. The only times he was loud was with the Jewish leaders who needed it. Even then, he still listened. Part of listening is asking questions. This puts both of you on the same page and also makes the other person feel heard. Being heard is probably one of the most powerful things for a person to experience because it makes them feel valued and cared for. One other thing that is important about listening is that you give the other person a chance to explain. It very well may be that they are simply applying the same principle in a different way. That is okay and now you know that they are on the straight and narrow still. Even if you are wrong, taking the time to check up on someone still builds up that relationship because you are demonstrating that you genuinely care about them. The vast majority of people will appreciate and respect that.

    Finally, let them go. After you have talked, you let them go. Either they will listen or they will not, but ultimately it is their choice and there is really nothing more we can do. A watchman cannot truly force someone inside the walls, a fact that is all the more true in the Kingdom of Heaven. The only person's fate we control is our own. If we have warned, then we have done the best we can. We have to accept people's right to choose their own path. This does not mean that we stop loving or caring about them; but it does mean that we do not force them. It also means that we do not blame ourselves for their choices. This is the hardest thing for a watchman to accept: non-responsibility. All we can do is warn and nothing more. It is a big and frightening task, but it is ours nonetheless. Some will listen, most will probably not, but that does not change our mission. We are the watchmen.

The Watchman

    After my most recent post, a wise young woman asked a very pertinent question: what is the line between taking a stand and imposing your morality on someone else? What is the difference between being a concerned friend or relative who sees an important person in their life going down the wrong path and someone who is harsh and judgmental? Are we are brother's keeper?

    Of all the prophets in the Bible, the one with the most bizarre ministry is without a doubt Ezekiel. This guy went through some really strange stuff. Ezekiel was an exile to Babylon who prophesied from about 592 B.C. to 570 B.C. (Robert K. Mciver; The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier, Ezekiel). Most of his prophecies were direct either at the Jews living in Babylon or remaining in Jerusalem. Of course all of his prophecies were eventually directed at the Jews in Babylon after Jerusalem was destroyed in 586.

Despite preaching the word of the Lord for years, no one listened to him; or rather no one took him seriously. They people continued to keep on doing the same stupid stuff day after day, year after year. In despair, he watched his people continue foolishly down a path that he knew would lead only to their destruction. Ezekiel got tired of saying unpopular things and having it do no good and he probably wanted to just quit. That is when Yahveh told him about the "watchman" in Ezekiel 33.

A watchmen, Yahveh tells Ezekiel, is responsible for his people's lives. If he sees an enemy army coming, he has a duty to sound the warning trumpet and tell everyone to get inside the walls and prepare for battle. Let us say he does that; anyone who hears that warning trumpet and ignores it, then their blood is on their own heads. They had been warned and ignored the warning; therefore the watchmen cannot be held responsible for that. However, let us say that the watchman sees the army coming and then does nothing. Anyone who is killed, which is likely to be most everyone, those peoples blood is on the head of the watchmen. He takes the blame for their deaths because he did not warn the people. He did not do his job.

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel," Yahveh tells Ezekiel. The point is clear: I have a message and a warning for you to give to the people of Israel and you are responsible for it. If you give that message and they ignore you, then that is their choice; you are not responsible for their choices. But if you say nothing and do nothing, then you are also held responsible for their choices because you could have warned them but did not. They might have averted disaster if you had warned them but because of your silence, they came to a ruinous end. This does not excuse the actions of the wicked, but rather does not excuse the messenger from giving his message.

We are all watchmen of each other; this part of what it means to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. It means that we look out for each other's spiritual lives, as well as the spiritual condition of those that are not in the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul asks how can people believe if they have never been told (Romans 10:14, 15). In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does admonish us to take the plank out of our own eye, but then tells us to remove the speck from our brother's eye (Matthew 7:3-5). We are not to leave our brother hanging. How many times did Jesus say, "Go and sin no more"? Did Jesus not constantly try to warn, rebuke, and correct the Jewish leaders? How often did the apostles call each other out when they were going astray? Paul tells us that Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Obviously rebuking and correcting is something that we are to do to each other when we see our brother or sister going down a dangerous path.

As we progress on our journey through the gray fog of ethics to the clarity of Yahveh's morality, right and wrong become more and more apparent. Where others can only see gray, we see black and white. That knowledge carries a responsibility to inform people of the black and white. What they do with it is their choice; some will listen, others scoff, most will probably ignore. No one ever said being a Christian was easy or pleasant. A read through of Pilgrim's Progress should convince you of that. Isaiah was told right at the beginning of his ministry that the vast majority of people would completely ignore him. They would be "Ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving." Truth is their response is not our responsibility; rather ours is to give them a chance to have a response, one way or another.

How is this different than judging? Simple, judgment demands that others reach a certain level of "holiness" before you will accept them. Judging is telling people they are not good enough to make the journey to begin with, as if you were. Warning accepts people and then pushes them to become better; judging demands that you become better to be accepted. Think of the Pharisees: in order to associate with them, you had to be a "good" person. They reviled Jesus because he spent time with "sinners" (Matthew 9:9-13), people they would never be with. Judging sees yourself, intentionally or not, as God. What you understand right and wrong to be is the absolute standard; you leave no room for the possibility that there might be more that you do not understand. It is refusing to admit you are messed up; it is ignoring the "plank" in your own eye. You do not want to help people; you want to exclude them to preserve your own "purity." Judging is standing at the door of the church and filtering the people coming in based on their dress, occupation, type of Bible they carry, state of lucidity, and so on. This does not call people to a better life nor does it warn them of their own wickedness; rather it tells them that salvation is not for them so don't bother. This is the watchman taking a person and throwing them outside the gate.

Jesus accepted everyone, even the Jewish leaders, for who they were. But because he is perfect and he is the law-giver, he knew of the best life possible for people. So he told people about this life in the Kingdom of Heaven, something that was available for everyone. He accepted people where they were at yes, but he also did not leave them there. He told people that he knew of a better life that they could have. Jesus pushed and prodded the people around him to see that they could have so much more than this. Some accepted his message, others did not, some even crucified him for it. That did not (through his disciples) stop him from still being the watchman. While the rejection saddened him, he did not love or accept those people any less. But importantly, he respected it as their choice, not his (see story of rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-30). If the God of the universe who could control men's choice can respect them, then so must we.

We are to tell people about life in the Kingdom of Heaven, which means we warn and rebuke. But it also means that we must let people make their own choices and deal with the consequences. We warn, not control. Yahveh has gifted us with free choice, something we cannot take away from others. Guards we are not. Watchmen we are.

Black, White, and Gray

    This morning I was sitting in New Testament, half-listening to the professor describe the facets of John's epistles when he said that for John, everything was in black and white. Scanning through the epistles, you see he is right (not surprising given his PhD in New Testament studies). The letters are filled with images of light and dark; perfection and sinfulness; friends and enemies of God. John makes it seem that everything is either good or bad and there is no middle ground. This, of course, got me thinking. An oddity is that the class that I consider the most boring keeps stimulating my mind, but I digress.

    Is life really that black and white where there is a definite right and definite wrong? My friends who would say absolutely not; life is not black and white, but gray. "Everyone has different beliefs that work for them and are sincere about it," they tell me. "These people sincerely believe they are following god of some kind. You're telling me that God doesn't accept that because it isn't exactly in the way he prescribed?" My more conservative relations would disagree, claiming that there is an absolute truth and therefore an absolute right and wrong. "If there isn't," they argue, "then what's the point of anything? How do we know whether or not we are following God? Why bother trying to follow God if it doesn't matter what we do or believe? That's chaos."

    I say they are right. Who is right, you ask, the postmodern mind or the traditional mind? Yes. As in yes, they are both right. Allow me to explain.

    There is such a thing as absolute truth. This is because Yahveh is absolute: he, and only he, is the source of everything (Genesis 1:1, Exodus 20:11, Job 26:7, Psalm 33:6, John 1:3, and so on). As the creator, he makes the rules and has the right to make the rules; indeed he must for without rules there is only chaos. By rules of course I mean a certain way things ought to run, like my car has the rule of running on gasoline. If I tried to use diesel, things would not turn out so well. Therefore Yahveh is the lawgiver as well as the life-giver and he does not change (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8). If you break the rules, i.e. live in a way that disharmonious with the way you are designed to live, there are definite consequences, namely death. Look at Adam and Eve: they choose to go against what Yahveh had commanded and there were immediate and long-term consequences. There was a big, black line that they had crossed and there was the result, one we all live (and die) with. It was black and white; do what Yahveh says and live a happy, joyful life; rebel and die.

    Because there is an absolute creator, there is therefore an absolute law-giver. Because there is an absolute law-giver, then there is an absolute law. Because this law-giver is unchanging, then so is his law. Therefore there is an unchanging, absolute law, one that determines the best possible way we are to live our lives. Anything, anything, that is not in harmony with that law is bad. We would call it wrong, or even sinful. Hence there is an absolute morality.

    What are not absolute are ethics. Morals and morality are the ideal standards that we live by. In other words, if all was perfect in the world, this is how we would live. I am sure by now you see the catch to all of this: we do not live is such a world. This is where ethics come in: the practical application of morals in our day-day life, at least as I understand the terms. Instead of living in a place that nothing bad ever happens, we live in a place where bad is the norm. As such, we have to make judgments about what is right and what is wrong. For example, the Bible says do not take a human's life, but does that mean I allow one person to kill another because I should not take a life? Is there a difference? Is it wrong to steal money so that I can pay a medical bill to save someone's life? While we will probably never be faced with such issues in our lives, we do face issues like that, simply on a much less dramatic scale, all the time. We ask ourselves do the ends justify the means? Or do the means justify the ends?

    The more relevant issue we deal with is that so many people have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. In our culture, it is completely appropriate to have sex with virtually whoever you please before (and sometimes during) marriage. In an Islamic culture, you would get stoned for it (and I do not mean with drugs). In this culture, women can wear whatever they like, as long as it something (though that does depend on your job); in Islamic culture women are strongly encouraged to cover-up. Who is right? Or is everyone right?

    This is where things become gray. What should be crystal clear (Yahveh's law) is not. The law says love Yahveh with all your heart, soul, and mind and your neighbor as yourself. How do I do that? To be honest, I do not always know. I know it looks like Jesus, but how do I apply the principles of his life 2000 years ago into today's life and society. It is not like we all walk around wearing bathrobes and have the Roman government sitting on our heads.    The fact is that we live in a world where the black of sin and the white of Yahveh have collided, resulting a gray fog that makes telling the difference between the two very difficult.

    During the American Revolution, the British and the Americans fought over New York in the Battle of Long Island. The Americans were soundly beaten and in danger of being destroyed, which have relegated the Revolution to a mere footnote in history. General George Washington had to retreat, which he did. During his retreat, which was near perfect, there was a thick fog that obscured the Americans from the British who were nearby. It was so thick that one American claimed you could barely discern a man six yards away. The last Americans could say that they heard the British soldiers digging their trenches, they were so close, but the British did not know the Americans were gone.

    Life is like that. We are caught in the middle of this dense fog between two sides. The closer we get to Yahveh, the clearer and clearer the picture becomes, but it is still a shadow or silhouette. So is there an absolute morality? Yes. Can I, in good conscience, claim to know it? No. Rather understanding right and wrong is a process that takes a lifetime to figure out through the fog. Some days I am nearing the enemy's side and so what appears to be right is really wrong and vice-versa. Other days I come closer to Yahveh's side and the gray of life becomes more black and white. But this does not mean that I can impose my sense of morality on anyone because I might be wrong. This is a personal journey that each of us must undertake for ourselves. To be sure there are things that we discover together and if we see those we love veering wrong, we try to help them. In return, we must be willing to admit that we may be wrong and need to correct ourselves. But in the end, the search for absolute truth is an individual journey that we must make and cannot impose on anyone else. Therefore, morality is black, white, and gray.

What is God?

Ever ask yourself that question? Not who is God, but what is God? I mean by that that when we say "god", what are we referring to? Are we referring to a person? A title? A job? A name? In essence, what is the concept of "god"?
A couple months ago, I was sitting in my New Testament class when the issue of the nature of the Trinity came up. As is almost always the case when discussing things that are beyond our understanding, half a dozen people began to argue their particular perspective against another's. This dragged on until the girl sitting next to me, who apparently had less patience than I, raised her hand.
"This is essentially pointless," she said (although I am paraphrasing). "God is way beyond our comprehension so knowing how the Trinity works is something that we simply won't understand." So far so good, but she did not stop there.
"Trying to understand God is a waste of time because if we understood God, then he wouldn't be God."
Hold on, what? If we understood God then he would not be God? How does that makes sense? To my surprise, many people, including my professor, nodded in agreement. Some even commented on how right she was that if we understood God he would no longer be God. This is a statement that I have heard made several times and is generally agreed upon.
But before we say amen, let us think about what exactly that statement means. God's identity, his ability to be God is entirely dependent on whether or not we are capable of being able to understand him. It is the same kind of statement that God cannot exist without faith, which is equally absurd. Essentially we are saying that God's existence and substance is dependent on us. How then can this being truly be God?
This brings us back to the question of what do we mean when we say "god." In the ancient Near East, the Canaanites had a whole pantheon of gods, the most famous of which are Asherah (Astarte), Ba'al, and Molech. But there was one deity that was over and above all of them and he was simply called "El." He was the father of the gods and of people. He had no temple and there is little known about him. He simply existed above everyone else. His was a title.
In time, this word came to be a generic term for "god." in the Hebrew language. In Exodus, when God is talking to Moses, he introduces himself saying, "I am the God (Elohe, a construct of El) of your father, the Elohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac, and the Elohe of Jacob." (Ex. 3:6). But this does not tell Moses who this being is, merely what this being does. He is the powerful creator and sustainer of existence. That is his title and that is his job, but not truly his identity. So later, in verse 13, Moses wants to know who this Elohe is. There are lots of Elohe, but who are you? Moses essentially asks.
This Elohe obliges and says that he is the, "I am who I am." From this comes the Hebrew name for this Elohe, Yahveh. That is his identity, that is who our God is. That is the person behind the title.
Think of it like the President of the United States. Currently, our President is Barak Obama. President is his job and his title. However, none of us, I hope, would be foolish enough to say that President is what defines the person who is Barak Obama. They are two separate things that work together. One is the person; the other is the job that person does. Yahveh is the person; God is the job that Yahveh does.
Now let us say that I got to know Barak Obama, the person, on a deep and intimate level. Say we became best friends and I could really say that I understood Barak Obama. Would then Barak Obama cease to be my President because I understood him? Of course not. Even if I understood his job as well as his person, he would still remain and be able to function as President. His ability to do so is not dependent on my lack of understanding. The reason for this is simple: who Barak Obama fundamentally is as a person is not dependent on my understanding of him. He is who he is whether I understand him or no. The same is true for the office of President. Whether I understand it or not, the nature of the office itself does not change. It has existed long before me and very likely will exist long after me as well. The same is true with Yahveh being God. Who Yahveh is no more depends on my ability to understand him than does Barak Obama. The position of God does not change with my understanding of it. The authority, power, and responsibility is the same and independent of my understanding.
If anything does change, it is my respect, which could only increase. The more I would get to know Barak Obama the person, the more respect I would have for Barak Obama the President as I see the man struggle with the awesome responsibility the office holds. The more I get to know Yahveh the person, the more respect I have for Yahveh the God. The more I see and understand that only Yahveh has the strength to be God and that there is no way that I could ever do such a task.
This in no way says that we will actually be able to truly understand Yahveh. The inability for the finite (us) to grasp the infinite (Yahveh) is another topic. Rather, the point here is this: god is a title and job, one that can only be filled by the person Yahveh. Behind the office is a person, an infinite, loving, kind, yet wise and just person who likes you and wants to get to know you. And he wants you to get to know him.

A confession and an understanding

Typically I will not do this, write about my personal issues. I have people that I talk to, but I do not feel that this is the proper venue for such things. In this case, however, I am making an exception to share something that I believe will be meaningful to whoever reads it.

I have all the skills to be a pastor. I have a very active mind that thinks in abstract ways. I can decode a Bible verse with the best of them and draw out its meaning. I am philosopher at heart. I can preach, teach, give a Bible study, confront anyone on sin. You name it, as a pastor I can do it.

What I lack are the skills to be a Christian. Sad irony, I know, but true. I do not really have a relationship with Yahveh. I suppose on shallow level I do, but the fact is that whether I want to admit it or not, Yahveh is just a tool for me. Any motivation I have to get closer to him or to let him into my life is simply a stepping stone for getting something that I want.

I wanted to become a better person to get a girl, to show her that I was worthy of her. Of course being the intelligent Christian, I knew that the best way to become a better person is to get close to Yahveh. So I did, honestly thinking that it was for the right reasons. I am apparently a master at deceiving myself.

By now any possibility (if there ever was) of that relationship has gone the way of the Dodo. With it went my motivation for getting closer to Yahveh. For the longest time I have tried to convince myself that it was some other reason why I seemed to be in such a rut with God, but I cannot avoid the truth any longer. I am not getting closer to Yahveh because my motivation is no longer there.

This in no way is a knock on the girl or anything related to her. In fact, she has nothing to do with the real problem; the situation simply helps illustrate my point. I only get closer to Yahveh when it will ostensibly get me something that I want. Yahveh has become an means to an end, rather than an end of itself. No wonder I am in such a rut with him. I am the worst of fair-weather friends.

I have deep commitment issues. Long ago, I taught myself to never make promises in case I could not keep them. Ever since I was young, I would never extend my hand so far that I could not draw it back if I needed to. Perhaps this also has to do with my innate and deep distrust of people, I do not know. More likely this is just plain selfishness on my part.

Like I said, I never commit to anything so that I can be free to do what I want. This usually involves wasting my time in front of the computer or TV, disconnecting myself from every form of reality. I say no or maybe to events. Even on the rare occasion I say yes, there is at best a fifty-fifty chanced that I will actually show up. My promises and word means nothing. And honestly, neither should it. I am often unsupportive, unprepared, uninterested, unreliable, uncaring, and all around lazy. This is how I have treated my friends and family and this is how I have treated God. This, I am realizing, has got to change.

I am now truly intending to commit myself to Yahveh. There is (as far as I can tell) no motive for pursuing a deep relationship with him. He is the end, not the means. Things are going to change for me, big time. I am going to have to give of myself, my time, my interests, even my personality. It means that I am going to have to commit myself to being there for Yahveh and others. It means keeping my word and giving it my best, whether I feel like it or no. It means really getting involved in something that is living like Jesus, no matter how awkward or time-consuming it is. It means truly investing in people for their sake, not mine. Yes, things are going to change. For those who I have let down (which is just about anyone who has ever met me) I am deeply sorry. I hope that I have not damaged things too much to be beyond the point of repair. Tomorrow is a new day.

Speculation versus Doctrine

Quick preface: I am departing from uploading the book I have been working on to simply posting thoughts of Yahveh that come to my mind every now and then. If you wish to get a copy of God Likes Us, then email me at jgardner@southern.edu. Same rules still apply as in the introduction.
The Bible is an amazing book. It truly is; in its pages are the words of life and what we need to know about God. It is the standard of truth by which all other things claiming to be truth are measured. It gives us something sound and sure to base our lives on.
All that said, the Bible certainly does not tell us everything. In fact, it does not tell us everything about God. There are a lot of blank spots when it comes to God that Word of God simply does not fill. This is where the issue of speculation versus doctrine comes in.
We humans are a rather curious bunch. We have this need to figure everything out and know everything. That is what got us into this whole sin mess to begin with; a need to know and have an answer for everything. Sometimes, whether we like to admit it or not, there is not an answer that we can grasp. Somethings of God are simply beyond our understanding.
But because we mustknow the truth and we must have an answer, we make one up that somewhat makes sense to us and go with that. This is what is called speculation, meaning that we come up with an explanation for something that is not based on clear, irrefutable evidence, but is instead a guess. Educated guess it maybe, but a guess it is nonetheless.
In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis gave an analogy for speculation when he was dealing with how Christ's death saves us. He said that exactly how it works is like a physicists model of the atom. While the model helps us understand the atom and gives us picture to go with, no physicist would claim that the model is exactly what the atom looks like. The reality of the atom is in the mathematical formula, but that does not help us visualize it. So it is true with models of Christ's saving death. I would venture to say that such a principle applies to all forms of speculation.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is the formula. It represents something that is real, even if it makes no sense. Jesus' death saves me from my sins. That is irrefutable in the Bible; that is the truth; that is what happens. This tells me nothing about how exactly it works, just that it does. A formula tells us what happens, not what it looks like, nor even exactly how it happens. Just that it does. That is doctrine.
Here is where things become a problem: often people (theologians are particularly guilty of this) confuse speculation with doctrine. They think that their model is absolute truth and everyone else's is wrong. What they fail to see is that their position is no more provable than their opponents. And so we get into huge debates about things that we really do not understand.
Let me give you an example of this: for over a century in the early Christian church, there was a huge debate of the nature of the Trinity. No one was really denying that there was a Trinity; instead people were debating how the persons of the Trinity related to each other. Some said that God was only one conscious, but three manifestations of it. Others said that God created God. Others proposed three individual entities that were God.
Who was right? God (literally) only knows. Why? Because this is all speculation. The Bible is clear that God is one and yet made up of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But that is where the Bible stops. The Bible does not explain exactly how the Trinity works or exactly how they relate to each other. In all likelihood, the true answer is something completely beyond our comprehension. Truth be told, it does not really matter exactly how the Trinity works. If it did, God would have bothered to make that point very clear. But he did not, so we must assume that such knowledge is a) beyond our understanding and b) not dreadfully important to our salvation.
The point here is not to discourage speculation, but to caution it. It is good for us to stretch our minds and imaginations when reaching closer to God. We are designed to want to get to know him more fully. We are meant to draw closer and closer to him. So taking guesses and coming up with pictures that help us understand God more is a good thing, as long as we remember that we are still just guessing.
We must remember the line between speculation and doctrine. When it comes to something that is doctrine, we defend it with all our might. When it comes to speculation, we temper it by knowing that it is simply a guess. Above all, we DO NOT hold speculation as doctrine. We leave each in their respective realms.
We must understand that with speculation, it is not the real thing, nor does it accurately portray the real thing, like the model of the atom does not accurately portray the real atom. Rather it is a device that helps us comprehend the incomprehensible. So we must understand that whatever it is we speculate on, the reality is probably still much different.
I do not know exactly how Christ's death saves me, neither do I know exactly how the Trinity works. I simply know that Christ's death does justify me and that God is three and one at the same time. And yes, I do have speculative models that help me understand how these things work. Yet these are just models and nothing more. I would never hold such an opinion as doctrinal truth.
So, continue pursuing a deeper knowledge of God. But as you do, remember that at times, often even, you will probably be out of your depth. That is okay, as long as you know it.

Does God Really Like Us?: What the Bible says

This concept is neither radical nor new. It fills the Bible from one end to the other. The idea of Yahveh searching for friends is one of the main themes of the Bible, but somehow it keeps getting missed.
Start with Genesis. Right at the very beginning of the Bible we have Yahveh creating humanity in his image. Why? For the purpose of living in relationship with him. Think about it. What was the first thing Yahveh did after creating Adam and Eve? He set aside the next day as a day of celebration between him and his creations. Yahveh set aside an entire day for the sole purpose of spending time with his creations. Why? Because he liked them.
Or what about the Fall? What was the first thing that Yahveh said after Adam and Eve fell? Was it "You idiots, how could you be so stupid?" No. Was it "Well, guess we go to plan b now."? No. It was "Where are you?" Yahveh felt the separation that sin caused and missed his friends.
Since sin causes a wall between Yahveh and his people (humanity), Yahveh choose a special people to be his conduit between him and the rest of the world. They were to be his light, drawing all men to himself. These people were, of course, the Israelites.
So the last half of Genesis follows as Yahveh begins to mold this people from a single man, named Abraham. A man that Yahveh calls his friend. Exodus opens with Israel being oppressed in Egypt. Who comes to their rescue? Yahveh, of course, through his servant Moses. Through Moses, Yahveh leads the Israelites out of Egypt to the Promised Land, where Yahveh will make them a "nation of priests". What does a priest do? A priest communicates and communes with the god they serve, in this case the true God.
Now here is where things get really interesting. What is basically the first thing that Yahveh does with Israel after leaving Egypt? He personally talks to them and relates to them the 10 Commandments, which are a description of his character. Have you ever stopped to think about how radical and insane that is? Yahveh, the perfect, sinless, almighty Creator actually stepped down and talked with a group of ex-slaves and rebellious humans. And he told them what he was like. How many gods have you heard of doing that? Yahveh talked with people.
Understandably, the Israelites couldn't handle it. Yahveh, even hidden in a cloud, talking with them was too much to bear and they told Moses to talk to Yahveh for them. Yahveh understood, but he still wanted to be close to his people. So the very next thing Yahveh had them do was build a tabernacle for him. In fact, Yahveh tells Moses, "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you."
Now there is something fascinating about the word tabernacle. In the ancient Hebrew, the original language, the word is mishkân. Now that word has a fascinating meaning. It means dwelling place or habitation. Often the NIV translates it tent. It is used 129 times in the Old Testament, mostly referring to the Tabernacle. The other times that word is used is reference to places of residence, where people live, or dwell. In fact, mishkân comes from the verb shâkan , which is used when Yahveh says "dwell". That word means to permanently reside, to inhabit. So what Yahveh is saying here is that he is asking the Israelites to make a place for him to permanently reside, or live, among them. Yahveh is trying to get as close to his people as he can. What other god goes to such great lengths to reside, live with his people? Why else would Yahveh desire to be so close to his people?
After 40 years of kicking around the desert, Israel finally enters the promised land. Yahveh's ideal of making a nation of priests is never realized. Time after time, Israel would run after other gods; useless gods of wood, stone, and metal and nothing more. They traded the living, real Yahveh for an easy counterfeit. How often do we do the same?
To try and get them back, Yahveh sent enemies to get the Israelites attention. After a few years of oppression, they would cry out to Yahveh, who would then send a judge to rescue them. The judge would lead for a few years and the people would remain faithful to Yahveh. But, inevitably, as soon as the judge died, they would be back to their old ways and forget Yahveh. This soon became a cycle that was repeated time after time after time.
Eventually, the people gave up on the whole judge idea. It was time for a king to lead them, a strong, centralized government that would give them stability. Although not too jazzed about the idea, Yahveh gave in. And for a while, it actually worked quite well. For nearly a hundred and twenty years, Israel avoided idolatry (for the most part) and followed Yahveh under a united kingship of Saul, David, Solomon.
This was the closest Yahveh ever came to his dream being realized. Under David, Israel's greatest king, they had established themselves as a military power and were the nation of that time. By the time he died, David had either conquered or beaten into submission every nation around, controlling the world's trade routes. Solomon took the military power and turned it into an economic empire, making Israel the world's most powerful nation.
At the center of all of this was Yahveh's temple that Solomon had built for him. It was the most impressive, beautiful structure of its time. People from all over the world flocked to Israel to see what was going on with this group of shepherds. They naturally started asking questions about Yahveh, questions which the king and people were happy to answer.
It was right there, just where Yahveh wanted it, about to accomplish amazing things, where everything fell apart. Solomon got both proud and remarkably stupid and let his wives talk him into following other gods. And, of course, as the leader goes so do the people. Everything that he and his father David had worked with Yahveh to build began to crumble.
Solomon died and the kingdom spilt in a civil war, destroying the power that had once been. The northern kings of Israel went on the straight and narrow path straight down. One king after another got progressively worse, leading the people farther and farther away from Yahveh. What had once been so promising was running full-bore for disaster. In Judah, there was some hope. Every now and then, a king would take the throne that held true to Yahveh, stemming the tide of destruction a little, but it was not enough.
But Yahveh did not just sit there and let his people run after other gods like the local slut. To combat the disastrous course of the kings, which were leading people away from Yahveh in worshiping false gods, he sent prophets.
Prophets were people with whom Yahveh spoke directly, and then they relayed that message to the public. Essentially, they were Yahveh's mouthpiece. Prophet after prophet was sent to Israel and Judah. Through them, Yahveh pleaded, begged, and threatened his people to get them to come back to him. Some were listened to by one king, but then scorned by the next. In Israel, they were unilaterally ignored. Others were so hated that they were executed by either the king or the people. But most were simply ridiculed and ignored. Once again, a Yahveh in search of friends was ignored by the people he had so lovingly cared for.
Of course this blatant disregard for Yahveh and his people could not last forever. His own nation were destroying his name and driving others away from him. Something had to be done. So Yahveh, ever so reluctantly, sent Assyria and Babylon. Assyria utterly destroyed Israel, scattering the surviving inhabitants throughout the nations, ending the Northern Kingdom.
It was over a hundred years later before it was Judah's turn. Babylon came and ended their independence, but did not destroy them. Yahveh had not given up on Judah yet. Instead of wiping them out, even though they richly deserved it, he simply exiled them to Babylon for 70 years. 70 years to think about what had happened, where they had gone wrong. A 70 year timeout, if you will.
Amazingly enough, the Jews (as they were now known), actually seemed to do that. Quickly after the exile, they focused on getting their act together. There were a few slip ups here and there of course, but on the whole, they seemed to be following Yahveh with their whole hearts. Soon, rabbis, or teachers, began popping up, expounding on the Law, explaining what it means and how to follow it.
This seems like a good thing on the surface. In many ways, it was. People began to turn more and more to follow Yahveh. But slowly, yet surely, things began to breakdown again, just in a different form. Instead of following after other gods, the Jews began making a god out of the Law.
Now, in and of itself, the Law is not bad; indeed just the opposite. However, the rabbis began to focus almost exclusively on the "how" to follow the Law. Frightened of the possibility of another exile, they began making rules to prevent a person from actually breaking the Law.
Once again, on the surface, this seems like a good idea. After all, Yahveh gave his Law and intended it not to be broken, right? Of course, the Law is meant to be followed. But the Jews began to focus exclusively on the Law, as if that was Yahveh himself. See the problem developing here?
To give an example, one of the causes of the Exile was the repeated breaking of the Sabbath. The ancient Israelites pretty much stomped the Sabbath to death. In fact, the length of the Exile was determined by how many Sabbaths had been essentially destroyed. So, when the Jews came back from Exile, they were determined not to break the Sabbath again, or even come close. As such, the rabbis came up with 39 prohibitions on the Sabbath. Each of these were expounded upon to be more specific for daily situations.
To continue down this road, one of the 39 prohibitions (forty less one, officially) was against cutting on the Sabbath. Therefore, you were forbidden to climb a tree. Makes sense, right? Well, the logic followed thus: if you were to climb a tree, you run the risk of breaking a twig. If you break a twig, that was cutting, ergo you had worked and broke the Sabbath. This is just one of the many, many rules made to protect the Sabbath.
Of course, this attitude was not just with the Sabbath, but everything in life. Period. See the problem now? How can one live like that? All the joy of following Yahveh was sapped out. The Law was turned into these walls that protected the Jews from outsiders. As such, the Jews developed this "holier than thou" attitude that drove people away from Yahveh, rather than drawing them to him. So, Yahveh's people had swung to the other extreme and were still not following him.
In the middle of all this, a man appears. This man is a Jewish rabbi that goes around telling everyone that all of this is wrong. He tells people that what Yahveh really desires is a relationship with his people, that what Yahveh really desires is love, mercy, compassion shown to man, not condemnation and judgment (something the Jews handed out with regularity). He told the people that following Yahveh was a way of being, rather than what we do. This man's name was Yeshua; we call him by the Greek name, Jesus.
This was the Messiah, the one promised back at the gates of Eden, the one that the entire Tabernacle service had been built around, the one that the Prophets had been predicting for thousands of years. He was what everyone in Israel had been longing for and waiting for. He was the Savior and Deliverer from sin. This was Yahveh come down in human flesh to tabernacle, dwell with his people. In John 1:14, the author says that the "Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" The word used for dwelling is the Greek word skēnoō , which means the same as the Hebrew word shâkan. It is a reference to when Yahveh dwelt with his people in the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
The sad part is that the Jews were so blinded by their devotion to the Law, that they could not see the Lawmaker standing in front of them. The one that they had been hoping and praying for was there with them and they could not see it. His message was about breaking down the walls, about setting people free from the rules to truly follow the Law and the Jews could not handle that. Jesus message was so contrary to what they held dear, that they could not follow the Messiah they had been longing for.
Instead, they killed him by hanging him on a cross. The cross was the most gruesome and humiliating punishment in the Roman Empire (rulers of the world at that time). For a Jew, it was even worse, for anyone who was hung on a tree was condemned for all eternity. They tried to send to hell their Creator, Redeemer, and Messiah.
Of course, Jesus knew all along that he was going to die. That was his purpose in coming; to die for all and thereby providing forgiveness for all. He died the death that all of us deserve. In dying, Jesus ultimately smashed down the wall that sin had put between Yahveh and humanity. His death and subsequent resurrection bridged the gap between us and Yahveh, so that now we can live forever with him as we were intended to.
This, quite naturally, changed everything. No longer was it about the Jews as Yahveh's chosen people. From then on, it was about the Christians who had chosen Yahveh. Yahveh was raising up a people from all those who truly sought him. Hence, the Christian Church was born with the express purpose of going out into the world to be agents in rescuing and redeeming the lost. Unlike Israel, which had people come to it, the Church was to go to people and reconnect them with Yahveh.
Now is where we come into the picture. We are part of this Church, this new people bent on following Christ and bringing others to him. Over the last couple of thousand years, the Church has had its ups and downs, but the core of those following Jesus is still here. What is our purpose? To reconnect people with Yahveh. Indeed, that seems to have been his purpose throughout the Bible.
The question that I must ask is why does he wish to reconnect with us, to recover what was lost in Eden? There are two answers to this question. The first is that he loves us. Living disconnected from Yahveh, living apart from him, leads to chaos, pain, and eventually death, true death, which is non-existence. Living connect with Yahveh leads to order, joy, and true life, eternal life that is full.
But there is a second, deeper reason. Yahveh really does like us. He misses that closeness we shared with him in the Garden. He desires to walk and talk with his people as he once did, as friends do face to face. Essentially, Yahveh misses our company, our friendship. Thus he has bent all his resources in recovering that friendship, doing whatever it takes to get that back. In the end, he will succeed with all those who want it too. All through the Bible, you find a Yahveh longing for people that he can share a friendship with.
So what does this mean? What are the implications of having a Yahveh that not only loves us and does what is in our best interest, but actually likes us, that longs for a friendship with us? A prominent implication is that instead of a Yahveh who dictates a list of do's and don'ts, we find a Yahveh who is about relationships, not rules.
Yahveh's entire goal and purpose has been to return us to the Garden State (not New Jersey) of being, where there was perfect harmony between Yahveh and man and the world in general. Yahveh's purpose, as we have said over and over again, is to return to a real, genuine friendship with his creations. Therefore, it is all about the relationship with Yahveh, not the rules.
Conversely, Satan, who is Yahveh's enemy, is about only the rules. Rules, by themselves, make walls, barriers between people. Walls separate, don't they? They get between people and between Yahveh and people. They destroy, not help relationships, don't they? One look at the Jews of Jesus day proves this point.
Satan is all about destroying relationships any way he can. Focusing solely on the rules accomplishes that quite nicely. Therefore, Satan is about only the rules, whereas Yahveh is strictly about the relationship.

Does God Really Like Us?

Yahveh is selfish? Okay, that is not quite what I meant. What I meant was that Yahveh desires something from us, there is something that Yahveh wants from us. This too, is a pretty bold statement. What could Yahveh possibly want from us? Isn't he the infinite Almighty? Doesn't he have everything already? You know, cattle on a thousand hills, right? Is there actually something that we could give Yahveh, something that Yahveh desires from us?
When one really understands what like actually is, to say that Yahveh likes us is a rather intense claim. It is to claim that there is something that Yahveh doesn't have, something that we could give Yahveh that would bring him joy and pleasure. At first, such a claim flies in the face of an infinite, almighty Yahveh. It seems to reduce Yahveh to this dependant being with superpowers.
Yet there is something that we possess that Yahveh doesn't have and that Yahveh wants. This doesn't actually lessen the majesty of Yahveh, if anything it enhances it. What Yahveh wants is us; you, me, the guy sitting next to you, every single one of us. He wants the human race as a whole and he wants you as an individual. Yahveh desperately wants you to want him, he wants your friendship. Let me say that again; Yahveh wants your friendship, to be your friend.
However, Yahveh doesn't necessarily have that. This is because Yahveh has left it up to you and me to choose him. He has chosen us to be his friends, his companions, but he wants us to choose him back. This is what it means that Yahveh likes us. Screwed up as we are, Yahveh enjoys our companionship and desires that. There is something about us that he enjoys being in relationship with. Yet Yahveh does not, indeed cannot, force us to give that to him. Only if we give it to him of our own choice does he receive what he desires.
So often we focus on the fact that Yahveh loves us, which is both true and appropriate. But it is also obvious. I mean, he created an amazing and perfect world for us to take care. We dropped the ball on that one. But instead of simply abandoning us to our fate, as he had every right to do, Yahveh chose to send Jesus to die for our sins, to give up the majesty of heaven to suffer and die for people who had turned their backs on him. Even today, he continually gives and gives selflessly for our benefit. Yahveh most certainly loves in ways that we cannot possibly fathom.
But it is so much more than Yahveh just giving to us. There is a dimension to Yahveh that actually likes us, that wants us to give something back. Yahveh desires us to be his friends, to live in relationship with him, to be with him. That is what is meant by Yahveh likes us, because he does. There is something we can give Yahveh; our friendship and ourselves.
(Psalms 50:10)

Love versus Like: Lines Getting Blurred

Truth is that the line between love and like is very blurred for us, isn't it? Our use of the terms does not help much. How many times have you said that you love pizza? With these definitions in mind, does that even make sense? How can you love pizza?
Or how about this one: how often do we in the same paragraph or sentence say that we love pizza (or something like that) and say that we love our parents, husband, or girlfriend? What are we saying with that? That in our eyes, pizza is on the same level of our significant other, or that our significant other is on the same level as pizza?
Another is that we say that we like this person to indicate romantic interest. That's it? You like them and you're considering a life-altering relationship? How is liking someone make that same person different from other friends, other people we would say we like?
Our popular culture seems to use these terms interchangeably, as if they are the same thing, just at varying levels. Both are essentially defined as emotions by our culture. We think like this, don't we? I mean, we first like someone, then, overtime, we come to love them. How many TV shows develop whole episodes around the concept of saying "I love you" as if it is the next emotional level.
Now there is a difference between saying I like you and I love you and actually meaning it because they are dealing with two separate ideas. But our culture has conditioned us to think of love and like as different points on a scale, rather than understanding that they are different scales.
A major part of this problem is that love and like tend to go hand in hand. We love people we like. An example of this would be me and my friends. I love them and would do anything for them, regardless of how they treat me. But I also like them. I enjoy hanging out with them and being with them; such an experience is pleasurable. They make me think, push me to grow, are funny, smart, and generally a fun bunch to hang with. One fact does not negate the other, they simply coexist. However, in our minds, we run the two together as if they are the same thing.
However, one can love another without liking them and vice-versa. Growing up, my sister and I most certainly did not like each other. Actually, we almost never played together, despite being only a year and half apart, and when we were forced to be together, we picked on each other non-stop. Drove my parents crazy, I have no doubt. However, we loved each other. If the one was in trouble, the other was there to back-up the first in a heartbeat.
I remember the one time that Lindsay and I were in the same classroom. She was running around the room and slammed head first into a table. She split her head open and was very dazed. Who was the first person there to help and see if she was okay? Me. Another time we were actually getting along and playing in my room. I stepped out for a moment and Lindsay fell of my bunk bed and broke her arm. Who was the first one there? Me, despite the fact that both my parents were closer to my room. Now this got me in trouble because my mother instantly blamed me for the incident, of which, for once, I was innocent of any wrong doing.
Point is that despite our constant bickering and disdain for the others presence, when the chips were down, we were there for each other. Never did we want the other to really, truly suffer. Why? Because we loved each other, even if we did not like the other. As time has gone on and we have matured, both of us have come to actually like the other person too.
The opposite is true as well, liking someone without loving them. This is something that we are much more familiar with: the concept of the fair weather friend. You know what I'm talking about, the person whose company you enjoy, but little more than that. If something terrible happens to them, you don't particularly feel obligated to give them assistance if it is inconvenient. All of us have had such a friend, and all of us have been such a friend.
Point is that while love and like are often found together (friends, spouses, children, and other such people), they are still different concepts. This leads to another reason that we get the two ideas mixed up in our heads: we don't really love.
Love, as repeatedly pointed out, is based in being selfless with another person. We are sinful, and at the core of being sinful is I, me, being selfish. Therefore, being selfless goes against our programming. So love, while we can theorize about it, is nigh impossible to actually put into practice. Ever notice that the people you are willing to sacrifice the most for are the people that you like the best? Ever think that there might be a reason for that? It is because we don't truly love others, we are simply more willing to give the more a person gives us joy. Hence, we love those people we like.
Again, love and like are different things. Again, they often run together. Love is the giving of you completely to another person. Like is the selfish desire for another person because of what they give us.
And that is what I mean when I say that God likes us.

Love versus Like: Love and Like

Categorically, love is a relationship, a one-way relationship. This may seem a backwards idea, as most of us define relationships as actually being two-way, or dysfunctional. That is true, to a certain extent. The ideal is for both people in a relationship to love each other, hence making the love going both directions. But love in and of itself goes only in one way, that being the direction of the object of our love.
It is a relationship in the sense that love is a way of acting and relating towards another person. Love is the determiner in how you interact and relate with the object of your love. Love is what connects you to this person; what binds you to them. Thus, at least to my understanding, love is a relationship.
True love gives completely and totally of self with no thought or even desire for reciprocation. A person who truly loves another takes joy in that persons best interests being fulfilled and being an agent in bring those to pass. It is all about the other person. This leads to the fullest joy we can know, especially when that person returns the love. However, the person returning our love is not our goal; our goal and desire is the best thing possible happening to that person.
One of the problems is that none of us have ever really loved like that. We all have our own motives in relationships, conditions that must be satisfied before we are ready to give of ourselves, don't we? Yet, true love has no conditions, no requirements. When asked the question why, love simply responds, "because I do." That's it. So simple, yet so deep and difficult for us to attain. Praise Yahveh we have an example of this.
Ironically, that example is Yahveh himself , in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus demonstrated true love more clearly than any other act in the history of the universe on the cross. Understand, that Jesus did not die just for the saved, but his sacrifice is for everyone. The writer Paul underscores this principle in his letter to the Romans, saying that Christ died for the ungodly. A couple verses later, he says that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Christ's sacrifice is not good only for good people, but for sinners, of which we all are.
Earlier in the same letter, Paul points out the all-inclusive nature of Jesus' sacrifice. He says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Everyone of us have screwed up and sinned; all of us need a Savior. Yahveh provided that person, in Jesus, for sinners.
Point is that Jesus sacrificed himself for us, risking so much for people who may or may not accept him. He did it anyway. Jesus did it because he loves us and will do whatever is best for us, even if that means he has to die on a cross, taking our sins on himself. And he will do this (did it, actually) regardless of whether we accept it or not. That is a purely one-way relationship. That is love.
Jesus talked about the pure selflessness that comes with love in his last talk with his disciples. He told them that "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friend." To paraphrase, the culmination of love is that a person sacrifices his life for the person he or she loves. That is ultimate love. To clarify, let me ask you a question: what does a person really gain by dying for another? Nothing, of course, since they are dead. It is all about what that other person can gain from the that person's death. If this is ultimate love, then love is a completely selfless relationship. A relationship that is all about the other person.
Conversely like falls under the category of desire, or want. Indeed like is synonymous with desire. It is akin to lust, although pure lust is quite destructive, in that it is a desire for something that we enjoy, that we find pleasure in. This is not bad, Yahveh created pleasure and enjoyment. To be sure, they have been twisted, but that does not make them an evil in and of themselves. But I digress, so let me give you a personal example of like.
There are many foods that I eat a ton of; some examples would be Brussels sprouts, spinach, bread, cheese, and just about any kind of fruit. However, there are also foods that under no circumstances will I consume. Mushrooms, tomatoes, onions, and pickles are my ultimate culinary nemesis. The thought of eating them makes me nauseated.
The question is why will I, or any of us really, devour certain foods, but rather starve to death than eat others? After all, food is food, right? The answer is, of course, because I like the foods on the first list and dislike the foods on the other list. In others words, I enjoy eating brussell sprouts, spinach, bread, cheese, and fruit (sometimes all together). It brings me pleasure. Eating anything on the doomsday list most certainly does not bring me enjoyment and pleasure.
Essentially, like is about pleasure and enjoyment. It is about what you get from the experience. Like is, at the core, about you, what you get from the whole arrangement. There is nothing wrong with that at all, either. Again, Yahveh created pleasure. We are meant to like things.
So what does this look like in the context of a relationship? Liking someone is about what you get in return from the relationship. It is the "take" of a relationship between two people. Really, liking someone is recognizing that there is something about them that you enjoy. They bring pleasure into your life, and so you want to be around them more because of that. You like that person, which is good because it is recognizing that Yahveh made them amazing.
However, it is still all about you. What you get from this arrangement. It is not much different than liking a certain food, or a certain activity, or a certain car. You like them because they give you something that you enjoy, there is something in them you find pleasurable. It is about you.
Love and like are completely different concepts. Love is this selfless relationship that we enter into with others. Like is recognizing that something or someone possess or does something that we enjoy and brings us pleasure, then desiring to have that in our lives. Yahveh both loves and likes us.

Credits

Something I quickly realized as I was posting stuff is that there are no footnotes. Much of what is posted here is drawn from a book that I am in the process of writing. In this book, I have done extensive research and of course cited my sources in the footnotes. The same footnotes that do not translate on to the blog. No infringement of rights is intended and I will give credit here to the major influences on my beliefs.
NIV Bible and all those responsible for translating it.
C.S. Lewis, the most profound Christian author of the 20th Century.
Rob Bell, the new C.S. Lewis.
Ellen White, the best Christian author of all-time.
Strong's concordance.

Any others I have missed will be noted. Thanks to all who have helped and contributed.

Love versus Like: Introduction

God likes us. God loves us too, but for the moment I want to focus on the fact that God actually likes. Both these concepts are important, but the understanding that God really does like us seems to get ignored.
Something that I should mention at the beginning is that I am huge on semantics, or what words mean. This can be a problem because I often argue against someone when we are really saying the same thing. We are arguing because the other person is not saying it the same way I do and I just won't let it go. In that, I tend to miss the big picture. That said, there are moments where my focus on semantics comes in handy; this is one of them. So, to begin, I am going to define (sort of) love and like, at least as I understand the terms. If you disagree, that's okay, because these are my definitions and for the purpose of you being able to understand what I mean when I say love or like.
Love and like are inherently different from each other. In my opinion, these terms tend to get mashed together into different levels of the same idea. However, they are not the same thing at all, but deal with quite different concepts. What are those concepts, or categories?

Introduction/Preface/Thingy: A quick note

A quick note before diving in is on the translation I use. For writing and speaking, I use the New International Version. All Bible verses that are quoted or referenced are referenced from the NIV. I did, of course, use other versions as well, in addition to consult the original Greek and Hebrew. In addition, I may quote other versions for the sake of word choice or to give a more complete view. Such incidents will be clearly marked. However, the vast majority of the time, I will be using NIV. As such, I do not cite the translation because it is assumed to be NIV, unless otherwise stated. Any translation will do, of course, and if you are a proficient enough Greek or Hebrew scholar, then by all means look it up.
The reasoning behind my choice of translation is simple. The NIV, in my understanding, provides the best balance between accuracy and readability, both of which are necessary. Not nearly as dynamic as the New Living Translation, nor nearly as literal as the New American Standard Bible, it provides a unique balance that makes it handy for such purposes as writing and speaking. If you have something against the NIV, tough. Read all verses in whatever version you prefer.
Another note is on the Greek and Hebrew. The lexicons that I used in my study are cited at the end. However, I also give the Strong's concordance numbers in footnotes for those who wish to do their own study. However, the Strong's definitions were consulted secondarily in context to the other lexicons that I used.
A final note is that you will have noticed that I use the name Yahveh to refer to God. Occasionally will I use the word "God". You will also probably notice that I do not capitalize "he" or "him" when in reference to Yahveh. Since the Bible does not use special pronouns to refer to Yahweh, neither will I. This also makes writing easier for me, which is the primary reason for doing so.
As for my use of God's name, I do so for two reasons. The first is because the term "god" is a vague and general term that can be applied to any deity. We have a specific name for our god, Yahveh. He gave it to us so that we can be close to him, not to shelve and refer to him in a general sense. We do not call Buddha, Shiva, Athena, Zeus, Vishnu, or any other god, "god". Instead, we refer to them by their names. We have a name for ours, so I have chosen to use it.
In the Bible, the name is derived from the Hebrew to be verb, hâyâh. Essentially the name of God means that he is self-existent; in other words he just is. Now, the ancient Hebrews came to regard this name so special, so sacred that it was never said. I disagree with this, but that is another issue. Remembering that Hebrew originally did not have vowels, no one really knows how this name is actually said. In fact, some have speculated that the name is unpronounceable because it is the sound of breathing.
The consonants spell YHVH, or some say YHWH. Now some have taken this and made the name Jehovah, which I don't like because the Hebrews did not have a "j" sound. Other have come up with the name Yahweh, or Yahveh, the latter of which is the one I have chosen to use. Strong's concordance renders the name yehôvâh, for those who wish to do their own study on the word.

Introduction/Preface/Thingy: Questions, questions, questions

What does one do to avoid the wrong theology, the wrong pictures of God, and find the right? Never stop studying, never stop searching for God everywhere, never stop pursuing God. He will find you and he will take care of the rest. He promised that he is there with you when you are studying with others . He promised that his Spirit will be with us always, guiding us into "all truth" .
Never be satisfied with what you have. Constantly question and re-examine it. As you learn more about God, what you have learned in the past will need revision and updating. Challenge everything you hear, even (especially) what is written here.
There is this odd thing about God. The more you discover about him, the more answers you get, the more questions you find. There is always something more, something deeper to God. He is infinite and so you can always go a little deeper. That is one thing I have discovered in the journey that has culminated in this book. There are always more questions to be asked. Never stop asking questions, for there is greater power in questions than answers.
Answers are good in their own way, but answers are an end. Once you have the answer, there is no more beyond. We need answers, no doubt, for they make the question worth something. But answers need questions to make the answer mean anything. To give you an example, think of Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The answer to life, the universe, and everything is....42? That doesn't mean anything. Why? Because it is only an answer. Only when you know the question does the answer make any sense at all.
Questions, on the other hand, are born out of a desire to go deeper, to understand more. If one is satisfied with the answer, then there is no push to go deeper. That is what God wants with us, is for us to go deeper with him. This pulls us closer and closer to him. Above almost anything else, never stop asking questions and never stop seeking answers. God will reward you.
That is something that you will find in this book. There are far more questions than answers. I freely admit, I don't have it all together. I don't have all the answers; I don't even have most of them. This isn't about getting answers, but asking questions. Even the answers I have, I don't know how to put into practice. Let me be perfectly clear: I am not perfect, I make mistakes. I still struggle with pornography and objectifying women. I still struggle with pride and thinking entirely too highly of myself. I still am prone to indifference. The list could go on for pages. The list could be the book. Point is, I am a sinful, screwed up human. Therefore I don't know everything. Therefore I ask questions.
If you have been allowed to read it, it is with the purpose of making you think, of making probe, not for you to come away thinking that this answers everything. This is what I, a mere human, believe to be true. This means I maybe (likely am) wrong on some things, perhaps a lot of things. So think critically, test what I'm saying. And if you find me to be wrong, I would really like to know! Remember, this is not the Bible, nor the words of a prophet, or of God himself. Simply my understanding of them.
What do you believe? Who do you understand God to be? The purpose of anyone reading this book is to inspire those question, to make you search for God. To make you ask questions.
So, as Rob Bell would say, may you not be satisfied with the answers, but ask the questions that keep you searching more and more. May you hunger and thirst after God and never give up studying him. Above all, may you come to know the real, living, awesome, and loving God. It is worth the struggle and fight. I know it is for me.

Introduction/Preface/Thingy: Theology

I suppose it would be best for me to give an introduction to this blog. Although I am “publishing” what is written here in the format of a blog, understand that this is not really intended for everyone. Anyone, of course, can read it, but this is not written for everyone. This is really for me. It is what I believe, the truth as I see it, if you will. When this project began, it was with the simple idea of laying out my theology in a clear, logical, consistent way that I could understand and use. It was for me to make sense of what I believed, if you will. An extended purpose was for me to root out any errors and problems that are in my belief structure. In so far as that goal is concerned, it has largely been accomplished.
But as I studied and wrote, this document became more than just a series of beliefs, a la What Adventists' Believe, it became a picture, a reality. I found myself beginning to understand God more and actually form a real picture of what he is like. By studying abstract philosophies and ideas, God ironically became more real to me.
The reasoning behind this is simple: everyone is a theologian, plain and simple. You may not have a degree or be a pastor, but that does not make you any less of a theologian. What makes you a theologian is that you have a belief about God. Everybody does, whether you believe that everything is God and God is everything or that there are lots of separate Deities or that God is one and involved in this earth, or that God is real, but doesn't care, or you're not sure, or that you don't believe in God at all, you have a belief about God. That is the definition of theology. So, if you have a theology, then you are a theologian.
What are theologies? As stated above, they are beliefs about God, what God is like. Again, as stated above, everybody has them, whether they are aware of it or not. These beliefs shape our actions, our minds, and our lives. These beliefs we have form a picture of God, one that we respond to in one way or another. The picture I am beginning (for I am far from done studying God) to see is one so amazing, so awesome, one cannot help but fall in love with God. He is that cool. So the question is why is it that so many people complain about "too much theology"?
The answer is simple, I believe. People have not taken the time to study it out for themselves, to understand what they really believe. Instead, they sit and absorb all that people around them say about God, like spiritual parasites. In the end, they end up with a bunch of pieces, instead of taking the time to form them into a real, cohesive picture of God. For them, it is like looking at the pieces of a puzzle scattered throughout the room, but not putting them together to form the picture. It's dry, boring, and, frankly, useless. No wonder people get turned off when others start discussing "theology".
But the problem is not theology, it is the people who do not study it out themselves, Instead of embracing the challenge the puzzle brings, they choose to walk away. In the end, they miss seeing the picture. It is sad, on a deep and profound level.
Now understand, theologies are not God himself. They are snippets of what God is like, but not God himself. Theologies are peoples beliefs about God. As such, they can be wrong. When theology is wrong, it is like trying to put a piece of the puzzle in the wrong place, or choosing to leave a piece out, or using a piece from another puzzle. It messes up the picture, doesn't it?
What does this mean? It means that we must be careful what we believe. So many people get confused and warped images of God because they believe wrong theology. As such, they end up confused and walk away from God altogether. There is great destructive power in wrong theologies.
However, just as there is great destructive power in wrong theologies, there is great power in correct theologies. When the pieces fit, we get a clear glimpse of how amazing God is. It drives us to him, the real him. The beauty of true theology is that it allows us to develop and aides us in developing a real, vibrant relationship with the real, living God.
Whether we want to admit it or not, there is truth and there is error. Error leads us down a path away from God, whereas truth leads us to him.