The Dangers of "Self-Love"

 The term “self-love” has gained popularity, even among Christians. Some would say that Jesus affirms this notion in the Second Greatest Commandment. Is that so? What do people mean by “self-love”?

 

The Second Greatest Commandment: “...love your neighbor as yourself.”  

Some Christians believe in “self-love” because of Matthew 22:39, “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” In their eyes, “self-love” is clear because we should love our neighbors the way we love ourselves. It’s implied that we should love ourselves—”who doesn’t take care of themselves?”  

 

Taking good care of ourselves isn’t a problem... but why doesn’t Scripture write, “love yourselves?” Wouldn’t it be so easy for God to say, “Love Me, love your neighbor, love yourself?”  Perhaps a question that many people who advocate for “self-love” fail to address is, why is such a “self-love” implied? (We’ll allow the term “self-love” for now)

 

I think Scripture gives us an answer. “Self-love”, as in, taking care of ourselves, is an intrinsic function/response of every human being created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:26-28). By nature, every human being takes care of themselves (to certain extents) because God created us with intrinsic integrity and purpose. If anyone should understand this, it should be Christians—as we should realize the higher purpose we have in Christ.  

 

When “self-love” is acceptable—diligence 

Therefore, “self-love” is acceptable when some Christians have gone through extremely rough upbringings, where their environment affects their identity. Some Christians need to realize that they are created in God’s Image and with a God-given purpose, and therefore, should diligently treat their bodies with intrinsic dignity. Some people need to see themselves the way God sees us, that our holistic being has intrinsic value. In terms of virtue, this is known as “diligence”--and the opposite is “sloth”.  

 

However, to be technical, “self-love” is not a biblical term. In other words, I believe Scripture avoids such terminology for a reason. Therefore, instead of using the term “self-love”, I’d rather stick with “taking care of yourself” or more biblically, “diligence” (cf. 2 Pet 1:5). We are called to be stewards of our bodies.   

 

When “self-love” is unacceptable—indulgence”  

Perhaps the biggest problem with self-love is that, “self-love” is self-defeating. Self-love is unbiblical. Why? Because love, by definition, is selfless (cf. Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 4) Self-love appears to be extremely selfish and egoistic. It’s saying “me first”. But God says “God first” and at times, “put others above yourself.” (cf. Phil 2:3-5) Now, don’t get me wrong, diligence and being stewards of our bodies isn’t selfish but biblical and virtuous. 

(The Trinity seems to demonstrate perfect love and unity shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Father loves the Son selflessly and the Son loves the Spirit and so on. Notice how Jesus never says, “the Father loves Himself” rather, the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father —Jn 5:20; 14:31)

More importantly, self-love can become indulgence—”doing whatever I want to please myself in the name of love”. We are not called to indulge ourselves, whether with food, entertainment, earthly pleasures, lust, sex, egoism, pride etc.  This is not to say we can’t enjoy life (e.g.: Eccl 3:12-13; 3:22). Married couples are called to enjoy each other’s presence (Prov 5:18 cf. 1 Cor 7) alongside food with fellowship (1 Cor 11:17-34). Diligence, in many cases, involves rest. However, there is a line where enjoyment becomes indulgence.  

 

For example, Ecclesiastes 3:12-13 writes, “There is nothing better for people than to be happy...that each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is a gift from God.” Yet, Scripture also writes, “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 1 Corinthians 10:7  

 

Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:31-32, “So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Indulgence is running after the mere physical and external. Yet, God calls us to love Him and to seek His kingdom—and all these shall be provided (6: 33).  

 

Conclusion: 

Do you see the point? Once you cross the line, enjoyment becomes indulgence, and indulgence is not “love” as “love” seeks what is good in the eyes of God as God is good, holy, just, and righteous. Indulgence is self-harm. Some “Christians” use “self-love” to rationalize/justify indulgence and that is demonic because the enemy doesn’t seek your good. They may feel “loved” or “fulfilled” in the moment, such as one engaging in casual sex, but in the long run, there will be consequences and baggage. Therefore, God calls us to diligence, not indulgence.  

 

As for the term “self-love”, I think Christians should generally avoid it because it’s confusing. Rather, let’s be biblical and use biblical terms, such as “diligence” and “indulgence”. God calls us to diligence, the devil calls us to indulgence. Choose who you want to be your “influencer”. 

 

Preachers, Stop Manipulating Numbers!

This is an excerpt from an upcoming project on preaching:

 

Some preachers like to bring out the appearances of certain facts, names, and terms in Scripture to make a point or contrast. For instance, a pastor mentioned “the Bible uses the verb diakoneo (I serve) 37 times and the noun diakonos (servant, minister, deacon) 30 times.”

I remember the congregants sitting next to me were hectically jotting down these facts. But what good do these facts contain? How do these facts impact one’s understanding of Scripture and biblical truth?

Here’s another example:

“In the Gospels, Jesus asked over 300 questions. Do you know how many times He directly answered a question? 3 times. I’m not good at math, but could someone tell me what percentage that is? If anything, this shows us that, to be like Jesus, we should ask questions and not provide answers.”

The problem with Numbers/Stats

Numbers can be easily manipulated to make a statement or argument that has minimal scriptural warrant. We see that on TV or in presentations. I was taught this in 8th grade. In my experience, there has rarely been a case where numbers have been used well to demonstrate a biblical notion—that it was the intent of the author to use certain words and phrases for effect. On the other hand, there are countless examples of preachers who manipulate numbers, particularly the number of appearances a word has in Scripture, to stress a point that does not make biblical sense.

In my opinion, most preachers use numbers to touch upon significance. The usual argument is something like this: “Because this term appeared [X] amount of times, we should take it seriously or not as seriously;” or, “The term [X] appears [a] times, but the term [Y] appears [2a—twice] times. Therefore, [Y] has greater significance than [X].” These arguments drive me crazy. Allow me to respond with four arguments.

Tread Carefully with Numbers/Stats

First, if all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), all Scripture matters. All Scripture is important. Even if a word appears only once in Scripture, it is still God-breathed. A word or phrase is significant for the Christian believer not by how many times it appears, but by the fact that it is Scripture. If the objective of making a case with numbers is for the audience to understand significance, “that we should take the term seriously,” numbers and appearances are not the way to do it.

Second, a word or phrases’ appearance does not equate to greater/lesser importance. A word that is used a lot in the Bible does not automatically mean it is necessarily more important than another one. For instance, the word that appears most in the New Testament is kai, a conjunction that means “and, or, even,” with over 9000 appearances.[1] Yet, one would rarely hear a biblical case concerning the significance of kai. This relates to the next point.

Third, even if a word or phrase appears minimally in Scripture, it can carry massive theological—not lexical—significance. I must assert that there are some words in Scripture that contain great theological significance without anything to do with the number of appearances. For instance, “propitiation” (hilasmos) only makes two appearances (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10). Even if one were to combine the variant hilasterion (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), the total appearances of propitiation is four. Yet, propitiation is a rich theological notion that is crucial in explaining the Gospel. The word refers to ample passages in Scripture that detail the process of the Gospel. Surely, one would not consider propitiation unimportant unless they would like to deny the Gospel.

Another example is the contrast between kurios (Lord, master) and philos (friend). There are over 700 usages of kurios, in which most of them are designated in reference to Christ. While there are over 20 usages of philos, only a few of the usages indicate the relationship between Christ and His believers as friends (Lk 12:4; John 15:14-15).

Jesus is Lord and the common term to designate Christ is to refer to His lordship—He is the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). However, just because there are fewer instances where Christ calls us “friends” (philous), a fraternal term, it does not diminish the significance. Jesus is not lesser as a friend than our Lord. He is Lord over all and He is our friend.

Fourth, the attempt to make a case concerning significance with numbers assume that certain terms and phrases are used in the same way. However, a word (especially in Greek) can be used in different ways. For instance, “word” (logos) is used in Scripture referring to “Christ”, “Scripture”, “logic/reason” and (literally) “word”, in the sense of speech (something someone said). In fact, logos is predominantly used as a communication device. Counting how many times Scripture contains logos to make a case may easily ignore the different meanings that the word has. One simply cannot make a case with the number of times logos is used in Scripture.

In my experience, many preachers who attempt to make a case with numbers are not familiar with the original languages of Scripture nor linguistic practices. That’s not a problem…until they act like pros when they’re not by not doing the actual work. Please do the work and handle the word of truth correctly (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). Scripture is not a means of manipulation—even when the preacher did not intend to manipulate and to present inaccurate information.

All to say, a preacher who truly cares about the integrity of the biblical text must be careful in using numbers as an argument. I would suggest that it would be safe to not use the appearance of a term as much as possible unless the preacher has truly made a biblically true case concerning numbers—which requires ample study. A case that employs numbers well is one in which the preacher can substantially claim that the biblical authors intended numbers to be used for significance. In my own studies, these cases are few. One example where numbers are used well could be the length of a king’s rule during Kings/Chronicles. Kings who were faithful to the Law had a longer reign while those who were unfaithful had a short reign.

Preachers, for the sake of integrity and biblical integrity, don’t manipulate numbers. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:15, may we do our best in handling Scripture.

[1] Mounce, Basis of Biblical Greek Grammar, 20.  

Sproul's Error: "God is non-just"

Sproul’s Error: “God is non-just" 

 

Allow me to begin by affirming Sproul and how much I respect him, his God-given wisdom, and his work. I consider him a man of God and by no means am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the same time, I also don’t want to fall into the category of idolizing (or, fanboying) certain anointed Christians and blindly defending someone. One can be a strong believer with flaws, whether that be one’s belief or character. Church history should reveal that to us.  

Think about the high regard people have shown to John Wesley when his marriage was an absolute disaster (and ironically, he talks about Christian perfectionism). I love Moody’s quote: “If a man doesn’t treat his wife right, I don’t want to hear him talk about Christianity.” Well, Wesley wrote to his wife: “you’re better off dead.” (my paraphrase; here’s the link) ) This is why I believe we should regard Calvin higher than Wesley without considering their theology, but their character and marriage.  

Anyhow, while we should strive to be perfect as God is perfect, holy, and righteous (Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15), we cannot be not perfect in the flesh. So, some people need to be reminded that their favorite pastor or preacher are also fallen people, and fallen people have flaws. Furthermore, I think it is one thing to criticize one’s character (in which we should be a bit more careful about) and another to scrutinize one’s beliefs. There’s an objective component to doctrine, and my criticism does not stem from personal vendetta (I have never met Sproul) or an attempt to defame him but a desire to pursue truth. Shouldn’t all believers do that, in the way of the Bereans who examined Scripture regarding Christ (and by implication, theology)? (Acts 17:10-15) 

 

The Context 

Sproul’s error stems from a teaching series on God’s nature. You’ll find the video and transcript via the link below: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/holiness-of-god/holiness-and-justice  

 

I must affirm that I enjoyed 98% of the lecture. Great stuff overall. But an error is an error. The error is found at the end with the following statement:  

“I’ll close with this: a holy God is both just and merciful—never unjust. There is never an occasion in any page of sacred Scripture where God ever punishes an innocent person. God simply doesn’t know how to be unjust. I thank Him every night that He does know how to be non-just; because mercy is non-justice, but it is not injustice. 

  

So I’ll leave you with this. When you say your prayers, don’t ever ask God to give you justice. He might do it. And if God were to deal with us according to justice, we would perish as swiftly as Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah, and Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. But we live by grace, by His mercy, and let’s never forget it. 

 

Again, the video and transcript are available online. I’m not trying to blindly attack him.  

God is non-just? 

I truly believe Sproul had a good understanding of God’s nature, but this claim is absurd, and lowkey blasphemous. It’s one of those “throw-your-bible-out statements.” I once mentioned this quote to a few of my friends (without telling them Sproul said so) and their response was “If God is non just, He’s not God. What is justice?” Spot on, my friends.  Anyway, let’s look deeper into the claim. 

 

First, can God be “non-just”? Is that biblical? Does Scripture categorize Him in a such a manner? How come Sproul uses Scripture for most of his work but not this part? I would think that a big claim such as this should beg for scriptural evidence. Yet, doesn’t Scripture write,  

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.” (Rev 16:5 cf. Jer 12:1) 

Umm...unless the angels are wrong, it seems like God is eternally just—not non-just. In fact, Scripture writes, “...true and just are Your judgments!” (Rev 16:7) Isn’t it so simple? God is just and the Bible is clear. Don’t fix something that’s not broken. 

 

Worse off, there are people who take him for his word without examining what he says (and whether it aligns with Scripture) and go out into the world proclaiming: “God is non-just!” or “God is not always just.”  Here’s an example. But seriously, if God is non-just, why bother becoming a Christian?  

 

Second, Sproul contradicted himself. He began the statement affirming that God is just and merciful. He should’ve ended right there. But he didn’t and made a category of “non-justice”. If God is just, how can He be non-just? Justice is justice and justice is not injustice. There’s no in-between, especially when we’re talking about God! If God is good—He is Good eternally as He is the same from eternity past to eternity future. He is eternal in nature (Gen 21:33). He is never non-good. That just makes no sense logically and biblically.  

 

Last, justice and righteousness are married on a lexical basis (dikiaosune). Righteousness= justice. Revelation 16:5 is the perfect example. This passage quotes Jeremiah 12:1, “Righteous are you, O LORD..." Why is it translated as “just are you, O Holy One...” in Revelation 16:5? Because the word for righteous/just is the same word (from the LXX)! It’s diakaios.  Here are some examples for your reference.

• “God is a righteous judge” (Ps 7:11)  

• “…righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” (Ps 97:2)

• “Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.” (Ps 119:5)  

• “Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.” (Ps 119:137) 

• When Scripture describes God as “the Righteous One” (Prov 21:12; Isa 24:16; Acts 3:14; 7:54; 22:13), it’s same as God being the “Just One”.  

• “Your righteousness is righteous forever” (Ps 119:142)

• "The LORD is righteous in all His ways..." (Ps 145:17)

• “for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that He has done...” (Dan 9:14) 

 

If Scripture affirms God’s righteousness, Scripture affirms God’s justice. Hence, if God is non-just, He is non-righteous. Now that’s purely unbiblical. By the way, I don’t think Sproul believes that God is not righteous, but his rash statement actually implies this.  

 

The Locus (focal point) of the problem 

I hate to say this, but I don’t think Sproul demonstrated an accurate understanding of God’s justice and mercy. In fact, the example he used prior to the quote (about him showing mercy as a professor to students who submitted their papers late) was terrible. The problem lies in a presupposition, that is, God’s justice demands instantaneous action. He believes that (1) since God is just and the standard of good and evil, and (2) we are fallen human beings in sin, (therefore) God’s justice demands instant eradication/punishment. But when God shows mercy and does not wipe us out, God is suppressing His justice in favor of mercy and grace—thus “non-just”. And somehow, we should not pray for God’s justice as He might kill us like how He killed Sapphira. 

 

But wait, aren’t our sins atoned for by Jesus on the Cross? I’m not sure if the same applies to Ananias and Sapphira given how Satan filled their hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5: 3).  

 

I’m baffled by this because Sproul interprets Scripture brilliantly before the end of his lecture, and somehow, he got to this without any scriptural reference. He conflated justice with “imminent destruction/retribution” but this is how God describes Himself,   

““The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exo 34:6-8) 

 

The fact that God does not clear the guilty means that He is just and righteous. Scripture does not prescribe God as having the obligation to zap anyone immediately in response to His justice. God remains just and righteous while merciful irrespective of instant retribution. (shoutout to Nathan Reyes for pointing this out clearly) 

 

Consider Romans 2:5, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.” Just because God has not fully revealed His wrath does not mean He is non-just. If Paul (and other biblical authors) had an ounce of belief that God is non-just, that would’ve been clear. No, Scripture unanimously presents God as righteous and just.

 

Think of a court. Just because a judge doesn't instantly condemn a mass murderer does not mean he did not administer justice. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), He is righteous/just eternally. He is the Righteous One eternally. He cannot be righteous and act non-righteous. Hence, He cannot be non-just, or He’s not God. As mentioned above, the fact that there is eternal judgment means that God is just, but that He is also “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” (Exo 34:6) Certainly, believers will not taste that because of Christ’s atonement, but that’s precisely an example of God’s justice and mercy being displayed together! Both the Cross and final judgment attests to God’s mercy and justice working together.  

Donald Macleod states:

“The antithesis between mercy and righteousness is a false one. The true opposite of mercy is not righteousness, but cruelty; and the true opposite of righteousness is not mercy, but unrighteousness or injustice.”

 

Verdict:  

While Sproul may have thanked God for being non just, I thank God every day for His justice! Ultimately, I thank God for His justice through Christ’s propitiation—that He took on my sin in my place, so I am not considered as an enemy of God (cf. Rom 5:10) but as His child and friend, that I am righteous in His sight not by my works but by His grace (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). Let’s never forget who God is—that He is righteous and just.  

 

 

 

Identifying Culture as means of Spiritual Growth

 As a Missionary Kid (MK) and Third-Culture Kid (TCK), transferring from over 15 schools across 5 countries, I’ve seen and experienced Christianity across different cultures. An unsurprising realization is that Christianity may look different across different cultures. This ranges from worship and homiletic styles to interpersonal communication and events within a local church body. Obviously, some differences may simply be a matter of personal preference in which there may not be an objective or moral value to it (i.e.: chopsticks vs forks; different styles of worship, in which some are more expressive than others). At the same time, I believe that believers should not assume that all cultural aspects and practices are by default innocent, harmless, or pure. By the way, by “culture”, which is quite hard to narrowly define, I’m broadly referring to “the way of life of an individual” that is cultivated through one’s background (ethnicity, language, family, neighborhood etc.). If this is insufficient as a definition, please forgive me as I’m not an expert.

Also, the target audience of this post are professing, bible-belieivng Christians.

As CS Lewis once wrote that there is “no netural ground in the universe” (if someone knows where this quote is from, please let me know) and as Christ says in Mark 9:40 (cf. Matt 12:30; Lk 11:23) that “for the one who is not against us is for us,” it is safe to deduce that culture that is uncultivated by God and biblical values are cultivated by substances (thoughts, ideas, demons) that may be against Him. One cannot blindly assume culture as innocent. I’m not saying that everything belonging to a worldly culture is evil and wrong as we are still created in His Image. However, worldly culture may oftentimes be a deviation from the culture which God ordains.

Thus, as believers and people of God’s Kingdom, I believe the culture that the church should cultivate is Kingdom culture—the Spirit-filled and Spirit-driven way of life that is prescribed in Scripture. I oftentimes find that Kingdom culture is somewhat opposed to certain aspects of various cultures, both corporately in a large group setting (i.e.: ethnic culture) and smaller group setting (i.e.: family culture). Let me present a few quick examples of Christian believers that may display cultural aspects that are against Kingdom culture. These examples range from large group settings to small group settings.  

**Disclaimer:

1. Please note that I’m not claiming that everyone of a certain culture acts and believes the same thing or shares the same tendencies. You will notice the use of “subjunctives” and conditionals—not absolutes.

2. Some of the examples presented below derive from my perspective, which is very limited.

3. Given that I am raised in an Asian background, some of the examples below may somewhat tend to target Asian tendencies.

6 Examples:

1.     Communication in some cultures may operate passively. Someone embedded in such cultures may communicate less directly. They may not reveal what they truthfully believe. Such a manner of communication could come into conflict with passages in Scripture that promote confrontation and direct communication (e.g.: Matthew 18:20-25; Eph 4:15; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2).

2.     On the other hand, some cultures may be more verbal and outspoken. Someone embedded in such a culture may occasionally come into conflict with Scripture’s imperative to be “quick to hear and slow to speak” (Jas 1:19).

3.     Some cultures may be more open to idolatry, as in, physical sculpted images. People in such a culture may adopt pagan sculpted images without seeing anything wrong with them because their culture does not see anything wrong with idols. This may come into conflict with what Scripture writes concerning physical idols (yes, idolatry is more than physical idols). Scripture affirms that there are demons behind idols (1 Cor 10:20) and God commands us to “keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn 5:21 cf. Ezek 20:7).

4.     Some cultures may be more reciprocal, in which giving or performing a good deed comes with an expectation of receiving something back in return. This may come into conflict with passages such as Luke 6:35, “…and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return.”

5.     Fathers in some cultures could be somewhat more “detached” from their children in terms of interpersonal engagement. For instance, some fathers may provide, but not play with their children. (I’m not suggesting that “playing with kids” is a biblical mandate) Nonetheless, Scripture instructs Christian fathers to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord,” (Eph 6:4) which definitely demands communication and time. As a trivia note, the phrase “bring them up” is ektrepho, which is also translated in Ephesians 5:29 as “nourish”. It appears that the word itself connotes a continuous action, as nourishment takes time. Thus, perhaps it is safe to conclude that the command to “ektrepho your children” demands continuous interpersonal engagement.

6.     Some cultures may emphasize more on filial piety (honoring the elderly). This could go both ways, good and bad. With certainty, Scripture instructs believers to honor their parents (Eph 6:1) and to not rebuke an older man (1 Tim 5:1). Hence, believers originating from a culture that emphasizes filial piety may find such biblical instructions easier to adhere to—great! On the other hand, since people in filial piety culture tend to deem people of advanced age as more mature and worthier of respect, this may thence naturally translate to the church where elderly Christians somehow are more spiritually mature and have more say on biblical and spiritual matters. This could be dangerous as age may not necessarily equate to spiritual maturity (cf. 1 Tim 4:11-12; Jer 1:6-7; Titus 2). Think of how doomed a church would be if all the congregation naturally looked to the older Christians as spiritual leaders because of their age…and not their spiritual record.

The point I’m trying to convey is that, as believers, we are called to promote Kingdom Culture. I believe that every true believer would try to do so, but oftentimes an obstacle that stands in the way of developing a biblical, Spirit-filled culture is our hidden cultural influences and presuppositions (also shaped by our culture) that may not stem from a Christian or biblical root. It is key that we identify these issues. Again, I’m not presenting absolutes.

An Analogy

If I could provide one quick example and analogy before presenting biblical exposition, consider a child raised in an abusive family (childhood abuse).

I hope everyone reading this would agree that it is vital for the child to acknowledge the “wrongness” of his/her parent’s actions and that both physical and emotional abuse is not ok. I hope you would also agree that if the child encounters a person out of romantic interest, only to discover that he/she also has similar abusive tendencies, the child should immediately leave that relationship. The danger is that, given that the child is raised in such a family culture, he/she may consider it normative (or “ok”) for abuse to take place or be prone to revictimization.

(According to IBCCES, one raised in an abusive relationship may continue to seek relationships that are emotionally abusive. Furthermore, a research study done in 2012 shows “a significant association” between physical abuse and revictimization.)

What this means is that, only through firstly identifying the cultural specifics that he/she was raised in—namely, an abusive and uncomfortable family culture—can this child grow and prevent such harm. (this should be purely logical…not even spiritual) Nonetheless, the same applies to the Christian faith in our spiritual growth and endeavors for the Gospel.

Biblical basis

The Kingdom of God is oftentimes known as an “upside-down Kingdom”, that is, it subverts many ways of the secular world. Thus, the notion of identifying cultural “differences” or practices that are unbiblical and anti-Gospel is a biblical notion throughout both testaments.

Without getting into the specifics of the Old Testament, consider Deuteronomy 18:9b (cf. Lev 18:3; 20:23; Jer 10:2), “…you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations,” such as the practice of divination, fortune telling, and child sacrifice (18:10-14). Clearly, the practice of child sacrifice was considered culturally acceptable among Canaanite tribes—but not in the eyes of God.  God’s people were living in the land of pagan culture and practices but firmly instructed to subvert the culture of the land.

Many passages can be used as examples in the New Testament, but let’s consider Paul’s address to the Athenians in Acts 17. The Greco-Roman world was highly superstitious, paganistic (17:22), and polytheistic, with people worshiping an “unknown god” (17:23). Idols were everywhere. Yet, Paul made an offensive and counter-cultural monotheistic claim, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth…” (17:24) Even though Paul would have been accustomed to the ancient pagan world, he did not accept pagan rituals nor compromise Christian truth with that culture.

Nonetheless, I believe Scripture is clear concerning a believer’s engagement with culture—that we should be aware of our culture and examine it carefully against God’s Word.

Concluding Thoughts

Culture is quite hard to define as it encompasses a ton of things that contribute to our noetic structure (all our beliefs) and epistemology. Yet, as Christ demands a holistic submission to Him as King and a holistic life filled and engaged with the Spirit, the Christian walk demands us to constantly re-examine ourselves—our thoughts, beliefs, and actions—as well as the roots that shape our identities (i.e.: beliefs and behavior).

Nonetheless, I believe that the more a believer engages with God in prayer, worship, and Scripture, the more the Spirit reveals our cultural tendencies and epistemological roots. I believe the Lord desires a holistic transformation and progression into holiness and that demands a deep internal search within ourselves. (this is perhaps similar to Augustine’s double knowledge)

With certainty, I’m still growing and realizing more previously hidden cultural beliefs and behaviors that may not necessarily be biblical—massive thanks to my wonderful wife; but at the end of the day, may we all continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 3:18) while growing in the knowledge of ourselves so that we may grow better in His likeness.

Reflection questions:

-       What is the culture I am raised with? Are any of these beliefs and practices potentially antithetical to what Scripture mandates?

-       Ask some close friends about some tendencies that they see in you (both good and bad). Where do those tendencies come from? How did they develop?

-       Think of a Christian brother or sister that you highly respect, or that is highly regarded in your Christian circles. Are there differences in lifestyle?

“Ministers, Read the Bible!” (One-Year plan included)

 “Ministers, Read the Bible!” (One-Year plan included)

At the bottom of this article is a link to a 1-year Bible Reading plan that I made (technically speaking, modified). I don't think it is God's mandate for believers to read Scripture once a year, but for those in full-time ministry or aspiring to be in full-time ministry or serving as elders/pastors/deacons (even though all believers are supposedly ministers of God…)—I encourage you to read Scripture once a year. Here's why:

 

1.    Knowing Scripture by Heart

It is written, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” (Ps 119:105) and that God’s word is “…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)

 

If we desire to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord” (2 Pet 3:18) and to develop any sort of intimacy with the Holy Spirit, we have to know Scripture. I think there can be a difference between knowing and understanding Scripture. Understanding and interpreting Scripture accurately can sometimes require a careful study of each passage in light of God’s Word as a whole and a careful understanding of how different words are used (especially in the original languages).

 

However, I also firmly believe that one who has the skills to understand Scripture may not necessarily know Scripture well—that he/she has not kept God’s Word as the lamp to one’s feet and as the light to one’s path. Ultimately, one’s engagement with Scripture enables one to engage the Word of God—Jesus Christ—through Scripture. Thus, knowing Scripture is more than understanding the authorial intent of God’s Word, though that is important, but a means to know who God is—as that is revealed in His Word.

 

And the only way (and best way?) to know God’s Word is to spend time in His Word! It takes steady, dedicated time and memory to know Scripture by heart. This is why I propose my plan so that one may read Scripture once a year as it provides a structure and rhythm of steady engagement with Scripture every day.

 

 

2.   Setting an Example

As ministers of God, we are representatives of God (though our eyes should be ultimately set on Christ, the Head of the church). As Paul says in 1 Cor 11:1, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ,” or “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us,” (Phil 3:17) we should be living examples demonstrating the character and faithfulness of Christ. By the way, Jesus knew Scripture really well as a man (yes, He’s God…but as a man) through His answers and understanding (cf. Lk 2:47). Though inspired by the Holy Spirit, He engaged with Scripture (LXX) prior to His ministry. We should imitate Christ as our brothers and sisters imitate us.

 

On the flip side, if we don’t regularly and fruitfully engage with Scripture, how then can we instruct others to engage in God’s Word?

 

3.   Revisiting All of Scripture (whole counsel of God?)

I can’t believe I’ve met pastors who’ve said, “the last time I read that book (in the Bible…I think it was Lamentations or Zephaniah) was years ago.” I thought: “I can’t believe you’re a pastor.”

 

When Paul mentions the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), I don’t think that refers to all of Scripture, as in, the entire Bible. But as ministers, (supposedly) being “able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2), I struggle to comprehend how we do not engage with the entire Bible regularly. Yes, the Bible is a tome, but shouldn’t we try our best to know ALL of God’s Word to the best of our abilities—even the likes of Zephaniah or Esther or Onesimus (Philemon) and the “elect lady” in 2 John 1?

 

4.   A Sign of Commitment

Allow me to raise my hands (feel free to picture that) and admit that Scripture  (written by the end of the First Century) has no direct exhortation for Christians to read all of God’s Word once a year—because God’s Word was not available for the believers in the early church! Some of the early church may have only had a few epistles! But what do we have now? We have Scripture in all kinds of forms (such as journals, online versions and so on?), just listening to it for half an hour a day gets will get us through the whole of Scripture in a year. 

I think devoting ourselves to Scripture, whether once a year or something, can serve a sign of our commitment and treasuring of God’s Word! And honestly, how can one commit to anything if one can’t commit to the simple task (physically simple…though spiritually challenging at times) of reading Scripture regularly and engaging with Him—the One whom we claim to love?

Let me present a passage that is not contextually connected with this article's topic: Hebrews 12:4, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." The author of Hebrews (Barnabas maybe? jk, it's probably Apollos) is stating that their quest of sanctification hasn't been that bad—it's not like they're dying in their struggle against sin. With a similar logic, I'd like to say: "your daily reading of Scripture and engagement with God has not come to the point of shedding blood as well" so why not engage with Him more?

 

From my experience with believers in countries where Scripture is illegal, I can testify to how they have truly dedicated themselves to God’s Word! Some read Scripture a few times a year because that is truly the most important thing in their lives! God’s word is truly more precious than gold to them (cf. Ps 19:10). One of my favorite Bible scholars, Craig Keener, was noted to have read 40 chapters a day when he first encountered God.

 

 

Ministers, may we truly pursue God and His Word to the best of our abilities. And if this is reading His Word once a year, so be it. I do not want to sound legalistic, or perhaps this is my own bias, but I think reading Scripture once a year only produces fruit without harm. I know churches that mandate their pastors and staff to read Scripture once a year, and I think that's great. 

 

Click HERE for the link to my 1-year Bible Reading plan: