Blog Archives
Serve the Lord by staying healthy
For I was envious of the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.—Ps 73:3–4
All right, I’ll be honest. This is one of those passages in the Bible that makes me snicker every time I read it. “Fat and sleek”? Wow. Of course, if you read a translation other than the ESV, it won’t be as humorous. Regardless, the word used here does mean fat (not strong, as some translations would have it).
In ancient Israel, being fat was considered to be a good thing. That’s why Solomon praises his wife for having “rounded thighs” (Song of Solomon 7:1). Men had the hots for women who were pale and overweight. In fact, in many parts of the world, that’s still true today. It makes sense if you think about it. The greater diet problem was not obesity but malnutrition. Pale skin indicated that a woman stayed indoors all day, living the high life, rather than working out in the fields.
In contemporary America, the opposite is true, for reasons that also make sense. Malnutrition is not the problem; obesity is. So of course a thin figure is highly praised. As far as skin tone is concerned, it’s now the rich who can afford to spend all day at the beach, while the working class stay pasty. (As far as men go, the standard hasn’t changed too much; most cultures seem to value strong, rugged men who spend time in the great outdoors.)
So in a sense, beauty is relative to culture. There are some things that are true across all cultures (the cyclops will always be ugly). However, the standards for beauty have changed because physical appearance communicates different things in different cultures.
We can respond to this truth in two different ways. One approach is to view physical appearance and health as irrelevant. If we go this way, we will view the body as unimportant while focusing exclusively on cultivating the soul. Now, God’s Word is clear that “while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way” (1 Timothy 4:8). However, it is a dangerous error to neglect our physical bodies. This error is due to a Platonic view that the body holds us back and that it will ultimately be discarded in favor of pure, unhindered soul. The Bible is withering in its condemnation of this false teaching (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 2:16–23). God made the body and the soul to be together, closely integrated with one another.
The other approach fastens onto the truth that physical appearance communicates something. This is obvious to anyone who has found himself underdressed for a pricey restaurant; it is obvious to any woman who has forgotten to put on eye shadow; it is obvious to any teenage boy with a zit on his face. We communicate with other people not only through words and actions but through appearance.
As Christians, “we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). We serve him by representing him to others, communicating on his behalf. Thus, our physical appearance is a golden opportunity to communicate the supremacy of Jesus Christ to a world that has rejected his claim to be its King. So how can maintaining good health communicate the supremacy of Christ? Here are three ways (each with a caveat):
1. Servanthood.
There are many reasons why a person may eat well and exercise in order to stay in shape. As believers, our motivation must be to glorify God by presenting our bodies “as a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1). We should stay healthy not to draw attention to ourselves but rather to serve God. By remaining in good health, we present ourselves as more capable instruments to be used by him. This is particularly true in later life, when the body begins to break down; by focusing on physical health when younger, we can prepare ourselves for service to the Lord even when we’ve grown old.
(If you’re married, this also a way in which you can serve your spouse—by remaining physically attractive to him or her!)
The caveat, of course, is that our health is not always under our control. Perhaps God has given you a “ministry of suffering,” in which you glorify God by trusting him through poor health. There is more than one way to communicate to the world that we are servants of the great King.
2. Holistic servanthood.
This is simply point #1 taken to its fullest extent. By submitting our bodies to God’s Word, we demonstrate that the Christian faith is holistic—there is no part of our lives to which it does not relate. We cannot divorce the way we treat our bodies from the way we love our Lord. By showing that we value physical health, we show that the Lord wants his people to devote all of their being to him (Deuteronomy 6:5). There is no part of us that we may hold back for ourselves. All of what we do contributes to godly character.
The caveat here is that we may end up identifying ourselves more with our physical health or appearance than with Jesus Christ, whom we serve. We must take care to remember that we are not serving ourselves but him. We must take care not to become unbalanced in the wrong direction (a prevalent error in our culture), focusing solely on the physical and external.
3. Beauty.
If you don’t think physical beauty is important to God, you’ve never read the Song of Solomon! In this love poem, both man and woman are praised for the appearance of their bodies. This poetry (and its frequent garden imagery) reminds us of Eden, before sin entered the world, when “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). Furthermore, when we see physical beauty, it is a herald of the greater beauty to come at the resurrection, when our perishable and mortal bodies put on the imperishable and immortal, being raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:53). How wonderful it would be if whenever we saw a physically beautiful person, it reminded us of the coming world in which the Curse is removed and we live in perfect harmony and intimacy with all creation and its King?
(And let’s face it: if you’re single and want to get married, physical health and beauty helps. A lot. Anyone who says it’s unimportant is naive and has an unbiblical perspective on the body.)
The caveat here is obvious. We can let mere external, physical beauty become an idol, treasuring it above the “imperishable beauty” of good character (1 Peter 3:3–4). We can obsess over it and devote all of our attention to it. We can let it be an end in and of itself. How we shortchange ourselves by doing so! Will the beauty of our bodies now ever compare with their beauty at the resurrection? Let’s not lose sight of the restoration that will be fully accomplished in Jesus Christ.
I hope what I’ve written helps to spur you on toward good health! I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not perfect at this. I could do a better job of eating healthy and exercising regularly. However, my goal is that I would learn to do these things for the Lord’s sake, not to draw attention to myself. I encourage you to go for it! If I can take the Hundred Push Ups challenge, trust me—there’s nothing stopping you. Physical health is probably not as hard or as time-consuming as you think.
You the people decide: Presbyterians vs. Baptists
One of my minor projects this week was to crush an opponent in heated debate. To that end, I instigated an eventful Facebook debate. The opponents:
Dave Nannery (aka Banannery)
Your favorite blogger and a master of logic and theology. Loves all of God’s creatures and was kind to a kitten once. Wildly successful and loved by all the village folk.
Kyle Borg (aka Jr. Cheeseborger)
A friend, a brother of my former roommate, a rabid Presbyterian and seminarian, and a proprietor of the super-secret Synod of Saints blog devoted to dead theologians and infant baptism.
I encourage you to read our arguments and vote on who won! (I.e. yours truly.)
Resolved: Baptists are better than Presbyterians.
I argued for the affirmative (correct) position, while Jr. Cheeseborger argued for the negative (wrong) position.
- John the Baptist (duh)
- Jesus (who loved children)
- Peter
- Paul
- All the other apostles
- Your mom
∴ QED
I think the only way you could counter my argument is if you inserted your own little three-dot pyramid.
- Premise 1: Most people believe that Dunkin’ Donuts is good.
- Premise 2: Presbyterians believe that dunkin’ babies is good.
- Conclusion 1: Presbyterians believe babies are donuts.
- Premise 3: Most people eat donuts for breakfast.
- Conclusion 2: Presbyterians eat babies for breakfast.
- Premise 4: Baptists don’t eat babies for breakfast.
- Premise 5: People who don’t eat babies for breakfast are better than people who do eat babies for breakfast.
- Conclusion 3: Baptists are better than Presbyterians.
∴ QED
∴ QED
PS: Why do you hate children?
- Regarding Luther: He’s dead, ergo your argument is irrelevant.
- Regarding Aristotle: See point 1.
- Regarding logic: Logic is not circular; it is pyramidal. Have you learned nothing from the three-dot pyramid? You are wielding its powers in ignorance, as a child wields his father’s gun.
- Regarding children: If I really hated children, I would bring them in front of the church to splash water in their faces for no reason.
- Regarding white space between paragraphs: You need it.
∴ QED
You can surrender at any time. There is no shame in giving up the debate!
.
Oooooooh, debate over! You lose!
Why is The Shack so successful?
After posting a one-sentence review of The Shack last Sunday, I followed up on Wednesday with a critique of William P. Young’s perspective on authority which he lays out in the book. Today, I want to end with a few thoughts on why I think The Shack has become so popular and why it has had such a powerful effect on many who read it. While this is not an exhaustive list, here are seven reasons why I think this book has enjoyed such great success:
1. Story time
The Shack is a story. Narrative—fiction or non-fiction—is a very powerful means of communication, and it is very effective at getting across an agenda. We could turn to the Bible itself as a prime example of this; throughout much of the Bible, theology is given legs through pictures of God actually at work through the course of history. I have read several people who try to deflect criticism from The Shack by appealing to its nature as a fictional work, but even fiction can have an agenda (good or bad), and this book certainly does. Young’s writing style varies from passable to cringe-worthy (the “gilt edges”/“guilt edges” pun about the Bible from p. 66 comes to mind); his chapter titles are incredibly corny; he can’t seem to decide whether or not to give God the Father a consistent sassy-black-woman accent. Yet the fact remains that the story is at times emotionally moving, and Young is just good enough as a narrator not to get in the way of what he is narrating.
2. God the mouthpiece
Young’s primary means of revelation is through the members of the Trinity. Nearly all of the important teaching comes from the mouths of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The result is that these three become Young’s spokesmen (or spokeswomen?). As his mouthpieces, they say what he wants them to say. In a sense, this is an inversion of the biblical pattern where the authors of scripture became God’s spokesmen, saying what he wanted them to say. Now, The Shack is meant to be read as fiction; however, there is a certain air of authority when it is God himself saying the things Young wants us to believe.
3. Mack the claqueur
Lest I appear more well-cultured than I really am, I’ll admit that I didn’t know what a claqueur was until last night. I actually found out while looking at the Wikipedia entry for “laugh track.” And that’s one of the major roles of Mack’s character—to provide the response to the Trinity’s teaching that Young wants the audience to have. It is remarkable how many times, after a member of the Godhead finishes pontificating on a topic, that Mack is said to feel like he wants to laugh and cry at the same time, or is said to feel a great burden lifted from his shoulders, or is said to feel excited and bewildered. Mack’s emotional responses are a sort of hint that Young provides us as readers; they are a subtle suggestion that we, too, should be feeling the same way, just like laugh tracks in sitcoms inform the audience that a joke has been told and that it is funny (unless the sitcom is That ’70s Show or Friends).
4. Emotional buzz
I’m not sure whether to be comforted or not by the fact that many people don’t seem to be reading The Shack for theology. I find it comforting because it means that much of the false doctrine taught in this book will be ignored. But I find it disconcerting because it means that these people are not reading this book to know God more. Anyone who is seeking to know God more is seeking good theology (the knowledge of God). Rather than striving for “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:8), many Christians are content to use books like this as a cheap drug, a means to getting an emotional buzz—a pseudo-spiritual “high”—that will get them through tough times. The bad news is that while the God of The Shack may make them feel better for a little while, the “high” won’t last because Young’s God is so meager in comparison to the God of the Bible.
5. Itching ears
There are others who are reading this book to know God more, and they are swallowing Young’s teaching hook, line, and sinker. In my initial review, I referred to his God as “a Trinity invented by a 21st-century American.” I doubt that this book would appeal to people outside of a modern Western audience. It is grounded so firmly in the perceived needs and worldview of our culture. We don’t want authority; we don’t want structure; we don’t want a sovereign God. We want relationship without responsibility and blessing without being broken. We want an idol carved out of God, where all his “rough edges” are sanded off and a newer, harmless deity is made for us to worship. The Shack offers us this version of God, and it is no surprise that it has become so popular. Paul warned Timothy that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
6. A vein of truth
Despite all these failures, The Shack does teach a lot of true things about God. It does portray God as caring for his people, as a God of unconditional love, as a God who isn’t a tyrant over his own. It reminds us that he is immanent—God with us. It admits that we live in a broken world, full of anguish, sorrow, and hurt. And it tells us that God wants to restore his creation to the full beauty and harmony that it was meant to display.
7. The salt has lost its saltiness
Finally, let me be blunt. This book should not have been written. By this, I mean that the above truths should be so obvious to people within the church that they do not need a fatally flawed book such as The Shack to remind them. Moreover, people outside the church should see the love of God manifested in his people and their love for one another (John 13:35). You and I—we have failed to show others the one true God by the way we conduct our lives.
As long as we refuse to give ourselves up as living sacrifices to God, as long as we hold ourselves back, we will no longer be shining “as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15). Let us live in such a way that no one around us is interested in reading The Shack because they see in us something resembling the true God. It is certainly our responsibility to refute false doctrine (Titus 1:9). But above all, let us remember Jesus’ commandment: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).
Omnipresent
“Consider that you are always under the eye of Christ, the great captain of our salvation, who has enjoined us to watch thus, and pray that we enter not into temptation.”
—John Owen, Of Temptation: The Nature and Power of It
There was nothing special about these words as I read them this morning. As long as I can remember, I’ve always known that God is everywhere present and watchful. Theologians refer to this truth about God as his omnipresence. God is not confined to one particular point in space; he surrounds us on all sides at all times. David wrote, “You hem me in, behind and before” (Psalm 139:5). We can in no way escape from the presence of God, who cannot be contained even by the heavens (1 Kings 8:27).
What struck me this morning is the gap between my confessional theology and my functional theology. Confessional theology is what we assent to on an intellectual level. It’s what we say we believe. If you were to ask me, “Do you believe that God is sovereign over his Creation?” I would respond, “Absolutely!” On the other hand, functional theology refers to our actions. The way we think and act during the course of the day or the week flows from our functional theology—the worldview which governs our lives. The gap between our confessional theology and our functional theology is often tremendous. In my confessional theology, I am a strong proponent of God’s sovereignty; in my functional theology, I doubt that God knows what he’s doing, and I worry about being late to a meeting or how an event will turn out or what my future will look like.
When it comes to God’s omnipresence, the same problem appears. I say that God is omnipresent…but the reality of his presence is not impressed on my heart throughout the day. I tend to pigeonhole God into a devotional time and forget him the rest of the day. Of course, there are some days where I commune with God continually, whispering short prayers as I go about my day, constantly acknowledging his goodness and my dependence on him. However, I usually pass my time in a sort of functional atheism, focused on the tasks at hand or breathing in the narcotic of television or the Internet. Of course, when I spend so much of my day indoors, in my office or my house, that just contributes to the problem. It’s a lot easier to be an atheist when you’re cooped up in an office all day, hiding away from the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). It’s easy to forget about him—even while working at a church! It’s easy to become lazy, forgetting that you’re working for the Lord, failing to fix your eyes on Jesus at all times.
If we as believers better understood God as omnipresent, this knowledge would protect us from temptation as those under his watchful eye. It would encourage us because we cannot flee from the One who loves us and blesses us. As for unbelievers, a knowledge of God’s omnipresence necessarily drives them to the cross, because a God of inescapable judgment and wrath is not one from whom you can flee.
Now, this battle is not unique to me. Like the man of Mark 9:24, you and I cry out to Jesus, “I believe; help my unbelief!” Our culture is deluged in silent screams against the omnipresence of God, in which his existence is denied—or more often, ignored or pushed harmlessly to the side. We go along with this so easily; we’re hardwired to think this way from the moment we are conceived. Satan is all to happy to ally himself with our own flesh in treachery against the Almighty.
So how do we gain ground against these enemies? I suppose we need to meditate on this doctrine. Here are three passages of scripture where we can start:
- Psalm 139
- Jeremiah 23:23-24
- 1 Kings 8:27
Another good way is to pray and meditate on scripture throughout the day, not just at one set time. We need to be reminded all day long that God is present, rather than tuck him into a corner of our workweek. We need to talk about him with other believers as often as possible, even in casual settings, getting over our ridiculous fear of marveling together over the One in whom our souls delight.
The aim of our charge
The book I’m tackling after Ephesians is 1 Timothy. This is a weird book. It’s got all sorts of unusual and controversial stuff in it, so it’s going to be a challenge to figure out how deep into the difficult sections I should go.
The first passage that has stood out to me is right at the beginning:
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Timothy 1:3-7)
Our aim as believers is love — to love God and to love others, particularly other believers. This flows naturally from “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (v. 5).
What has apparently happened in Ephesus is that some people have become obsessed with untrue philosophies and myths. Because their hearts are not pure, their consciences are not good, and their faith is not sincere, they have turned away from love and have embraced intellectual elitism. Ironically, they understand less than the people they look down on — they may have pinned down all sorts of facts about the law, but they don’t really understand its truth and application.
This is a sobering reminder of how easy it is to get caught up in theology that doesn’t pierce the heart. While solid, biblical theology is necessary for the Christian life, it is too often perverted into a trump card to make oneself feel better than other believers. As I’ve grown in my faith, I’ve become more and more concerned with how the theology I know applies to my life. For example, how can I claim to know that God is sovereign when such “knowledge” doesn’t change the way I think and live?
It’s clear in my own life that God is calling me to love. I think the first time I wanted to be a pastor was my freshman year. I was with a friend of mine, visiting guys in Cary Hall. One of them was particularly struggling, and I remember coming away from that meeting wanting to be able to help people like that. For this reason, I want to be a pastor rather than, say, a theology professor. I don’t want merely to teach theology; I want lives to be changed through theology. I want to see the strongholds of Satan torn down by the truth of the gospel. I want to see the Spirit of God comfort those who are weak and broken.
We are called to love. Biblical love cannot be separated from theological truth. But I need to be on my guard to ensure that the truths I’m learning are really sinking in. A hard heart is the most deadly disease imaginable.
