Category: General Christian Teachings

There are three types of language that we use when speaking about God. By language, I don’t mean English, Spanish, French, etc. I mean rather the way we use the words that we say no matter what language they’re in. All of these were discussed in the Medieval period by Dons Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.

The first is univocal. Let us take the word love as an example. If I were to be seeing my family again at Christmas and I see my Mom and say “I love you Mom” and were then to see my Dad and say “I love you Dad”, it is not likely anyone would think that I mean something different by the word love in each case. I love my Mom and my Dad the same way.

On the other hand, in English, we know love can take on a number of other meanings which is really a deficit in the English language. I cannot say I love my friends the same way that I love my parents. I definitely cannot say I love my friends or parents the way I’d love a significant other of the opposite sex. I finally cannot say I love any of these the way I am to love God. When the same word is used and the meaning is differnt, then we have what is called equivocal language.

There is a third type and that is analogical language. There is a similarity but a difference. Scotus and Aquinas went back and forth on this, though not literally as they didn’t live at the same time exactly, but their writings show a discussion over the ideas. Scotus was worried that if our words don’t mean the same thing when describing God, then all God-language is meaningless, but Aquinas knew that there had to be some difference between us and God.

The answer is that the concepts that we speak of are univocal, but the application of them is analogical. We can speak of the wisdom of God for instance. Wisdom is meant univocally. It’s not something completely different for God than it is for us. However, when it comes to application, it’s analogical. We are wise finitely and God is infinite wisdom.

What does this have to do with the approach to God?

My prayer time for me is the last thing before I turn out the lights at night. I am finding it a more and more exciting time. I find this quite odd and some of you I’m sure can relate. Why is it that I enjoy that time so much, but I find it hard to come and do that which I enjoy so much? One would think it second nature. One would also think it easy to fall back to sleep when I wake up in the middle of the night just by coming to that place of joy again. Both times there seems to be a disconnect and I’m skeptical to it being a disconnect of the same nature each time.

Yet as I pray, I find the words of my prayer being totally inadequate and realize that the God I am addressing is far greater than I thought. We must realize this with Scripture also. It speaks in this language as well that if we took it literally many times, we would be in trouble. It would leave us with some false notions of God. The metaphor is there though to paint a symbol for us of a far more beautiful picture.

Take the passage about boldly approaching the throne of grace. We are told to do that. Consider this though. Do you literally come to a throne? Is God literally sitting on a throne? Is there a place where you go and then you are with God and in another place, God is not there? While I believe God’s presence can be made manifest in a certain area, I also hold to the omnipresence of God and believe that he is in all places.

Instead, I try to realize now that I am not so much coming to him as I am realizing where I already am. Reality clicks in and I realize that God is present and he has always been present. If only I would see him present more often. It would make struggles I have with sin be far more easier and would increase my dedication through long work hours or other forms of suffering.

The throne is to remind me of who he is. He is the king of the universe. He is the originator of the cosmos. He is the creator and sustainer of all life. He is the sovereign master who oversees it all. He is omnipotent. He reigns. I am told to approach the throne, but may I never lose sight of what is meant by that throne.

It could be frankly that sometimes, we have a hard time believing in and trusting God because we haven’t taken a good idea of who he is. We’ve made God so small today that we don’t really consider how awesome it is that such a being exists and what an impact that makes. If God can be taken away from one’s life and there is little or no change ultimately in the worldview, one has to wonder how much impact God was making before. Nietzsche got this right. Take away God and there are consequences and he made sure we knew what those were. 

Now many of us might not be at that point, but are we much better? Do we have the knowledge of who God is as a vibrant reality in our lives that shapes all we do, or does God just occupy one small little portion of our worldview? If you’re wondering if this blogger thinks he’s there yet, rest assured, he’s not. I speak to myself as much as I speak to all of you.

As an intellectual, I also realize a great danger that I face. When doing theology, while I should be intellectual, it is very easy to come to God as if I am a great master of knowledge approaching a subject for study. It is just the reverse. I should come to God realizing that I am a subject and I am approaching the great master. Humility needs to be a huge part of the approach to God.

Consider another case. What if I say I am now approaching him? I am now for me, but God has always been there. My ideas of time and space bind me so much that I cannot help but see them as I approach God. I find it so difficult to fathom a God who lives in an eternal now and is doing all things that he is doing at one moment and holds all knowledge about me at this time, past, present, and future.

Have you stopped to think lately how awesome he is?

If our prayers are nonchalant, maybe it could be because we don’t realize who we’re praying to. If our Christian life is not one that we are growing in grace and truth, maybe we don’t realize who our teacher is. If our Bibles aren’t teaching us truths, maybe we don’t realize who it is that is really the mind behind them.

And yes, I speak to myself as much as you. I need to improve as well.

I don’t know when your time is for prayer, but I hope you have one. Next time you go, consider to whom you are going.

Once again, I remind my readers that this is something to get your feet wet on the topic. I am allowing you to sample the truths of the faith in the hopes that you will go buy a full-course meal. The last time, I talked about the What of God and tonight, I would like to focus on the Who in Christian thought since I believe only Christian theism can explain all the facets of our world.

A number of readers might know already where I’m going specifically who are astute in theology. For one, there is a characteristic of God in Christian thought that I left out of the list yesterday as it is the focus today. I’m hoping some of you caught that as it is one of my favorite doctrines to discuss. The other clue I left was in the doctrine of the love of God.

For those wondering, I am referring to the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe if we want to know who God is, the answer is “Trinity.” This is something unlike the other religions of the world. Let us be clear at this point. This is a deep doctrine and one very hard for us to fathom and if you tell me that you can comprehend it, then the obvious truth is that you don’t have a clue.

The doctrine is that there is one God who exists in three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son or Spirit. The Son is not the Father or Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father or Son. All three are distinct persons that eternally exist in a relationship outside of space and time. This explains the doctrine of love for God is love within himself in the relationship of the Trinity and humanity is created so they can be invited to join into that love.

In understanding the Father, we look to the Son. We are told that to see the Son is to see the Father. (John 14:9) This isn’t about modalism though. This is about showing Jesus as the image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15.) If you want to know what the nature of deity is like, look at Jesus, and if you have an idea that contradicts Jesus, then it is wrong. What is so beautiful is that our idea of what humanity is meant to be is in Jesus also. Jesus gives us the best of both worlds.

John 1:18 tells us that the Son has revealed the Father. The word used is interesting. It’s the very word that we get the word exegesis from. Exegesis is the process of studying a text and showing the meaning that is in that text. Jesus is, in essence, the one who exegetes the Father. We know the Father as he has spoken through his Word in Christ. (John 1:1.)

All of this though refers to Jesus in his deity. In his humanity, it is known that he had limitations. Philippians 2 indicates he took on some kind of limitation. I am not espousing a kenotic theory of course. I would say it is most likely that Jesus forsook the divine prerogative use of his deity. In essence, he played the game from a weaker position. 

Christ is the king who bends down to lift us all up high. As Peter Kreeft has said, “He stoops to conquer.” He comes down to man so he can bring us all up to God. In his becoming fully human, he enables us to become fully human. In taking on our death, he enables us to take on life. In assuming our sin, he enables us to assume his righteousness.

The Holy Spirit is one that is often hard to understand for us. Many of us not of a charismatic bent in fact can get defensive when the Holy Spirit is named. It has been said one message Pentecostals have taught all other denominations well is “Don’t forget the Holy Spirit!” I am not a charismatic, but I do believe that the rest of us do need to work on a doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does a lot more than giving gifts to us. He is the comforter, the one who comes alongside us, and the one who intercedes on our behalf in prayer. (Romans 8:26-27) Jesus said that he would have the Holy Spirit here for us in his physical absence from Earth, and in fact said it would be better. We should be delighting in this person of the Trinity and seeking to know all that we can about him. 

Yet for many of us, the view is hazy, and I will confess I am one such. We can picture Christ easily. Even with the Father, though we are not to image him, we seem to do so. We can picture someone as an Ancient of Days ruling the cosmos. When it comes to the Holy Spirit, we don’t usally know where to begin. It is often a cloud or a vapor of some sort.

One image I do think of is the Shekinah glory that filled the temple in 1 Kings. Of course, this does lead to the vapor or cloud image to an extent, but at least I can form some idea in my mind. The idea shows the great holiness of the Spirit as not even the priests could enter because of the sheer holiness. I also think this Shekinah was present in the person of Christ as he walked this Earth.

Do I have a full doctrine of the Holy Spirit yet? No. Sadly, I don’t think many of us Protestants do. Gordon Fee has written on the doctrine from a charismatic perspective in “God’s Enabling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.” It is an excellent work, but I would also like to see the doctrine gather interest in non-Pentecostal circles. Surely those of us from other denominations have our own insights as well and we must thank the Pentecostals for waking us up to the fact that there is a Holy Spirit. 

The Trinity is the foundation for all we believe and to know who God is, you need to know Trinity. The more you dive into the Trinity, the deeper I believe you enter into the rich life of God and appreciate his truth now. At this time, I am working on a research paper on a philosophical defense of the Trinity and reading St. Augustine’s “The Trinity.” I am finding it quite fascinating on many points.

For others wanting to go further, I recommend books such as “The Forgotten Trinity” by James White, “Knowing the Name of God” by Roderick Leupp, and of course, Augustine and other church fathers.

Once again for this blog, I want to have the disclaimer be clear. What I say is not meant to be extensive. If anything, I am wanting to tickle your appetite. I want you to get your feet wet and go swimming deeper into the ocean yourself. I suspect many of you could be like me and you like something you hold in your hand and what you read online is a supplement as it were to that. At this point, I have no books published that I can point to for your further consideration. That could change in the future, and I have been encouraged to go that way and it is something I think about, 

Yesterday, I discussed the “That” of God, and today, I’d like to discuss the “What”. Some of you might be wondering what the difference is between what and who. Let us suppose you described me in “what” terminology only. What would that include? It would include male, weight, height, body type, age, race, and other physical characteristics. What can tell you what someone can see if they see me walking down the street generally. 

If we get to the who, it is clear that the who does not change the what of my existence, but it gives you something deeper into my existence. The who will include things like “Loves philosophy and apologetics, tries to watch a Smallville every night, particularly shy around many people and not a socialite, loves the intellectual domain, willing to challenge someone at a game of Super Smash Brothers Brawl, etc.” 

Nothing changed with the what of my existence. Notice there are also better potentials for relationship if you know more about me. Let us suppose you are reading this blog and your only contact with me is through the internet. You could know me well. Suppose you talked with me there. You will know me better. Suppose though that you saw me in person. You’ll see sides of me that you can’t see through a computer. My parents know me in one way and they know me well. We all know though that our relationship with our parents is also different than that with our friends and so I could say my roommate, who is my closest friend as I’ve said, could very well know me better in some ways than they do.

Tonight though, we’re going to go into the what and this will include ideas that come from the doctrine of God. Largely, I’m wanting to jump off from Aquinas’s first argument with God as a being of pure actuality. What do I mean by that? Actuality is what something is. Potentially is what something could be. I am, in actuality, sitting. I have the potential to stand. I have just stood up, and now, I am sitting down again. (When you have a steel rod on your spine and your keyboard isn’t even waist high, typing hunched down is not pleasant.) Thus, I actualized a potential to become standing and then actualized potential again to sit. At this point, I again have the potential to stand, though I certainly choose not to at this point.

God is a being of pure actuality. He cannot change in any way. He cannot make progress or degress. If he had potential, then he would need an explanation just as much as the universe does. While Anselm may not have been right on the Ontological Argument, I believe he was accurate in that God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived.

Note also that each of these doctrines of God could be a blog post in itself.

Aquinas started with simplicity. A lot of people are really stunned when I tell them that I believe God is simple. “But God is so hard to understand and he’s so awesome! How can you say he’s simple?” Please note when I say simple, I am not speaking of simple in relation to the human understanding of him. None of us can say we comprehend the nature of God. As has been said, we are fleas sitting on the back of an elephant. 

Simplicity means simply that God and his attributes are not separate things. God is what he has. He does not have truth but is truth. These are attributes that do not exist external to him. They are him. There is not this thing called goodness and this thing called goodness is conjoined to God. Instead, the case is that God is goodness. 

If God is pure actuality, then that would mean also that what he is, he is infinitely and/or completely. He cannot be more good. He cannot be more powerful. He cannot be more knowledgable or wise or loving, etc. Also important is to consider that with the nature of God, God is the only being whose very nature is to exist necessarily. If the Christian God is, and I believe he is of course, he is necessarily. (And there is a fine difference between that and the Ontological Argument.)

Let us also consider power. By power, it is meant that God can do all that can be done by power. I am not going to dare assert that God can make a square circle. A lot of you might be wondering about the classic question “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” The best answer I have ever heard on this came from Dr. Gary Habermas.

“No.”

It’s that simple. The question is involving a logical contradiction. 

What about omniscience? I take this to mean that God knows all true propositions. For my open theist friends, this also includes future propositions. God knows, for instance, who is going to win the election on November 4th. He knows it just as well as I know the fact that I am typing on my keyboard at this moment. He knows it all from an eternal now.

This brings us to God’s eternity. It means that God can act in time, but God is by nature outside of time. He does not grow old. He does not change. What God is doing, he is eternally doing. He is at this moment creating the world, bringing about the flood, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, judging the world, and blessing the saints in their after-death. We experience these things temporally, but God is doing them all at once. Were he not, he would be temporal.

I also brought up his immutability, meaning that he cannot change. This follows since he has no potential. What God is, he always is. Personally, this is one of my favorite concepts I think of when I think of God. It makes me realize that with all the hectic nonsense I often have going on in my life, at the end of the day when I pray, which becomes a more exciting time as things go along, I realize that there is a foundation of all things that I can always rely on.

Of course, I would have to speak of the love of God in that God is eternally loving. When we get to the who of God, this will be explained in a far more in-depth way. Some of you are probably already thinking ahead and realizing just how that is going to be and what makes Christian theism unique in that. For now, it will simply suffice to say that God loves all that corresponds to his moral nature. I theorize, and again this is just theorizing at this point, that something is able to experience the love of God to the degree that they correspond to him morally. 

While it’s not often mentioned, I would like to mention the beauty of God. For many believers, and I should think it would be the case for all, one of the great desires of the after-death is to look into the face of Christ, to see him who is the image of the invisible God, and behold the great beauty that is inherent in his person. Beauty captivates many of us today and I sometimes find myself amazed when I think that with all the beauty I see here, it all is practically hideous in comparison to the source of its beauty.

God is also a God of justice, which is something that is not liked to hear by many of our skeptical friends today. We often want a God who will come and heal us when we are sick and take care of the problems in our life, but we don’t like it when God comes and judges the sin that we have in our lives. A lot of people don’t really like a God who acts like one. God is just though and just as much as he loves that which corresponds to his nature, he must judge that which directly contradicts his moral nature as well.

With all of this, we have a good idea of what God is. Who is God though? What is he like? For that, we will have to look at how he has revealed himself and especially in the person of Christ. That is for our next installment.

Last night, I said that we’d be discussing various topics on the doctrine of God. Note of course that nothing I say here will be exhaustive. If you want something in-depth on the topic, I recommend getting a good Systematic Theology. I have read both Geisler’s and Erickson’s and I can recommend both of them. What I plan to do is just touch on the surface. 

I was pondering this last night though and trying to decide of the distinctions in the doctrine of God. I have this in mind also because I am in constant debates online and one of them right now is on God’s revelation. The question of “Why hasn’t he made himself clear?” I find this to be an odd question though as some people will say that they can doubt his existence.

This might sound like a shock to you, but I think you can doubt the obvious.

We owe a lot to Rene Descartes. Unfortunately, it’s not good. There’s a reason his work, “A Discourse of Method,” is included as one of the books that screwed up the world. (The list comes from Benjamin Wiker’s book “10 Books that Screwed Up The World And Five Others That Didn’t Help.” My roommate gave me that book for my birthday and I consider it a very important book everyone should read.)

Descartes gave us the idea of doubting everything to find what was true and if it could be doubted, then it wouldn’t be clung to. His end was that he couldn’t doubt he was doubting so he based everything on “I think, therefore I am.” (What happens when you’re asleep or unconscious and not thinking?) Great. Now the idea of what we can rely on is based all on our subjective experience starting with us. 

Descartes even had doubt of the existence of the material world. Now I would say the existence of the material world is obvious and I think most of you would also. There are people who will say they doubt it. What do you say? This is the kind of place where one of my professors says “Well if they doubt reality, it’s best to just go out for pizza then because if reality won’t convince them, what will?”

To me, the existence of God is obvious. In fact, this is the way it is for most of the world. Most people now and throughout history have believed that this world isn’t all that there is. They have been theists of some sort. Now someone might say “They haven’t been Christians though have they?” To this, I must answer, “No, they haven’t.”

As if that was ever the point….

No one is saying by the idea that God’s existence is obvious that that means everyone has always known that the Triune God has or will reveal himself in Jesus Christ. (Will for those B.C. people) What is being said is that people have believed that there is something more than what they see with their own eyes.

The question then is, what are they doing with this idea? Are they willing to follow the idea and seek for the truth instead of settling for worldviews they might hold and realize that they are false? Could it be that there are many people out there who haven’t yet got to hear the gospel but realize the worldview around them is false and are crying out for something real? I believe that those who are such will get the gospel be it by a missionary or some supernatural means. If not, it could be many will arrive in glory one day and look in the face of Christ and say “It was you I was seeking all along was it?”

Of course, I question how many of them that can be so I definitely fully endorse missionary action to bring the gospel to as many people as possible. 

This is the first question that must be answered though in our  discussions. THAT God is. I’m not even going into the nature of the God that is there. It could be Plato’s demiurge that was a finite god now for all I care. The only point to establish is that there is something out there beyond us. What that something is, as who will come later, is a question for another blog.

I think it was Aristotle who told us the three most important things to do in telling a story. You need to begin at the beginning, continue through the middle, and finish at the end. That works well for stories. It also works well for arguments. I mentioned in last night’s blog debating someone who was dealing with dbout and what I tried to do was to go to the beginning. 

What is that beginning? Who is God? It’s amazing that we leap into so many thorny issues in relation to moralityand how God relates to that without deciding who he is. Consider if we were discussing the Problem of Evil. If we have a finite godism concept, then the problem of evil makes sense. Of course, it also becomes a real problem then as we can’t really be sure if God will overcome it in the end. If we have the Christian God, it’s not so much a problem as it is a mystery. Let’s suppose we have good reason to believe God has revealed himself in Christ, which we do. If we grant that, then we have to say, “Why evil?” It doesn’t destroy our faith then, but just presents a mystery. (Naturally, for those who don’t believe God has revealed himself in Christ, it counts as a problem.)

Our concept of God changes everything. Take the issue I was discussing with someone, the doctrine of Hell. If we’re going to look at this doctrine, we have to realize that it will be looked at from a Christian framework. It’s saying “Even if I grant everything else in your system, can you really say that Hell is a proper doctrine to believe in?”

Please note how that is worded. When I talk about Hell, I want to be sure that I give no one the impression that I like the doctrine of Hell. I don’t. Dwight L. Moody once said that if anyone ever preaches on Hell, there’d better be tears in his eyes. I’m not sure if I am at that point yet, but I certainly hope I am someday.

I was on an internet chat program one day when a friend contacted me. Our troops had just slain the sons of Saddam Hussein. My friend was pleased that we’d finally eliminated those two evil men. I had to say “You know, I’m glad that they’re not going to be around to inflict pain on anyone else, but I’m also sorrowful because I know two more people have entered Hell and there’s no escape.”

I say that because it is true. Hell should never be a doctrine that brings us delight. Too many Christians give the impression that when the fires of Hell are burning some of their enemies, they want to be right over them roasting marshmallows. I believe we can delight in justice and truth, but the suffering of others, not really. I also don’t think we can say it brings delight to God that people are in Hell, but that’s their choice.

And yes, we will look more at this thorny issue at a later date.

However, if you’re going to discuss Hell, you have to start again with God which is what we too often don’t do. Our arguments usually begin in a rather silly way when you think about it. Consider the Problem of Evil. An atheist would say “Well, if I was God, I could find a much better way to do X.” Oh? Really? You mean there’s no chance that if you suddenly stepped outside of time and had omniscience that you might just think that God has the right idea?

“Well, I wouldn’t like to suffer like that, so surely God wouldn’t allow that.”

It is quite frankly tiring to hear such things. It has been said that many people do wish to serve God, but only as advisors. When I come to the Problem of Evil, I have to look and consider “God knows the end from the beginning. Who am I, this finite being of limited intelligence bound by time to tell him he’s doing it wrong?” That doesn’t mean I don’t think we can’t make our requests known to God or even our complaints, but I do think it means we shouldn’t expect the master of the universe to change everything around just to make us happy.

What’s our concept of God? Maybe it’s time we looked at that. It could make many of the other issues much more understandable.

Last night, I was up later than I should be discussing, or more like debating, with someone who was having some doubts about his Christian faith. It hinged around Calvinism. Now I am not a Calvinist, but I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who are. It brought to mind though something we must all remember when we approach God.

First off, none of us knows God entirely. We all have some wrong beliefs about God. We should seek to get rid of as many of them as we can, but in our finite capacities, it’s highly likely that any of us this side of eternity will have fully correct knowledge of God. Even though we are limited even, it’s doubtful that all the knowledge we have will be correct.

There is a great danger though in saying “Well, if that’s the way God is, I could never worship him.” The danger is that that’s the only God you have! Is it really rational to say, “I don’t like the concept of God in Christianity, so I will become a naturalist instead.”? It’s hardly valid to say God doesn’t exist just because you don’t like something about him.

We have to get past this notion that truth is what we like. There are some things I don’t like about Christianity. In fact, it’s probably a good thing because Christianity is not an easy religion. When I see a beautiful lady, I don’t like the command of Christianity that says that sexual intercourse is to be reserved for marriage. It would be so nice to write that off.

When I realize that I have to go to work the next day, I may often have this great urge to call in sick and take sick pay. Unfortunately, there’s this command against lying. I don’t like the command. In fact, at the time, I like the idea of breaking the command. I do it though because I know that the command is the true path to happiness.

So what of God? One has to ask himself, and we should all ask ourselves indeed, “Am I really seeking for the God who is there or am I seeking for the God who I want to be there?” In our day and age, it’s liked to have a god who is there to take away all your troubles but then goes back to his own little corner of the world and lets you go out and have your fun. Many people today do not like the thought of a God who acts like one, which includes such minor details as judging evil. (Well, we don’t usually mind judging someone who’s done evil to us! Just leave us alone thanks!)

God is unlikely to change for you and frankly, why should he? It seems we are so self-centered today that we think it appropriate for God to meet our standards, but we don’t think anything about changing ourselves to meet his. As I told this person yesterday who was talking about Hell as well, it does not surprise me that some people go to Hell. What should be surprising to us is that not all people go to Hell. He could send us all there and who could say he was wrong to do so?

When we think about God, and I believe our highest good is to contemplate the nature of God, are we wanting to see him as he is. Are we willing to give up some of our beliefs about him if we find them to be inaccurate of our view of who he is? If you are a Calvinist, are you willing to forsake it if you find it to be false? If you are an Arminian, are you willing to forsake it if you find it to be false? I’m not saying to not have a position, but I’m saying to be open in your position always. 

We are warned against making images of God. Our danger today is not often physical images but mental ones that do not reflect him. Are you making sure you’re doing what you can to avoid false ideas of God so you can worship him as he is? He won’t change for you, but hopefully, you’ll be willing to change for him.

I recently spoke at my church on the topic of homosexuality in relation to the Supreme Court in Connecticut deciding last Friday to lift the ban on same sex marriages. (Please note that I do not consider them to be marriages in any way though.) Afterwards, someone came up to me and asked me the question of how to handle dealing with a homosexual co-worker.

This is a difficult topic for we Christians. On the one hand, we want to paint the reality of sin as it really is. On the other hand, we don’t want to come out with all barrels blazing and drive the sinner away. How is it that one can come to the homosexual and call homosexuality sin but yet reveal to the homosexual that he is a creation in the image of God?

In fact, this is something that we could say we have to do with everyone. We all deal with people who are dealing with various sins. In fact, the one that we deal with the most is ourselves. I don’t know about you, but I could easily identify a number of sins in my life that I struggle with and yet, I still have to realize that I am loved in the eyes of God.

I think homosexuality is different though. We could talk about someone who wants to give up alcohol for instance and can’t seem to do it. Alcohol is something more external to you though, though I don’t deny the reality of addiction. Sexuality is who you are. It is your very nature. It is what you live with every day of your life. Sex is not a function. It is an aspect of your nature.

Something that should be kept in mind is that this is a real Christian struggle also. Christian men and women can struggle with this issue and we need to have love for those who do and recommend good Christian counseling. I say Christian because modern secular counseling will try to convince someone that such activity is not a sin.

I was first asked though what the causes of homosexuality were in my opinion. I pointed to an absent father, an overbearing mother, and personal insecurity. Ultimately, it’s a self-image concept. It is in realizing that that we can begin to see where the healing should take place. Keep in mind as I say this that I am not a trained psychologist in any way. 

My first piece of advice to this guy was that in dealing with his friend, that he should not really talk about religious matters. The first thing needed is to be a friend. Let me be clear on this. I think men should minister to homosexual men and I think women should minister to homosexual women. Now that doesn’t mean a woman can’t share the gospel with a homosexual man, but if you have any control over the situation, let a man work with a man and a woman work with a woman.

I am going to be writing for men here, but I think the same could apply to women and they need to adjust accordingly. I once worked with a man who is a homosexual still as far as I know before I moved. I simply was a friend to him and let him borrow some of my video games for instance that he was interested in. We never talked about religion, but I do not doubt my religion was known. It was common knowledge around the workplace. He and I even went out to a local pizzeria once on our lunch break.

Did I think some people could make jokes behind my back? Sure. Let them though. I was being a friend and trying to make a point clear. You are accepted as a man. Not just as a person but as a man. This is one reason a good lady is so important to a man. When a man realizes that his lady sees him as a man, then stand back. This guy can do anything!

Then, I would say to let him bring it up. Let him ask what makes you so different from all the others, and especially hope he says “All the other Christians.” It’s at that point that you can go into communicative evangelism. I would begin first by talking about Christ. Talk about who he is and what he did. Eventually, you’re going to have to get into sin though.

This is also where we need to recognize the difference between the person and the actions they are committing. People are sinners, but it is not a necessary trait to being a human that one be a sinner also. There is the possibility of change not into something that is less than human but something fully human. God enables each person to become what they were meant to be. Soren Kierkegaard once prayed that with God’s help, he would become himself.

Of course, all of this should be done with prayer. The best thing still is to treat him as a man. Make sure that he is seen as one of the guys and before too long, he might begin to think that he is and one aspect of being one of the guys, is noticing all of those lovely women that we are blessed to live amongst on Earth.

I was at a concert at our Seminary tonight where a group performed that plays the classic rock oldies from the 50’s and 60’s. Our Seminary president asked me if I was familiar with that music. I told him that my Dad raised me on it. When he and I went driving anywhere, he always had that music on and I have come to know it better than modern music. (Though I hesitate to use the term. I think much that is labelled as music today disgraces the muses.)

I recalled later on how I used to watch the Super Mario Brothers Super Show everyday. My Dad would record it and I’d watch it when I got home. In each episode, they’d also play an old song from that period normally and I’d ask my Dad what it was every day when he got home and much of those songs still remain with me. When I hear the music, I can often recall the episode that the song was played in.

I love this kind of concert also because it connects me with the past. It reminds me of something. Those old songs are still good. We have a lot of new stuff today and while I’m hard on much today, there is a degree of modern stuff I do like. I like to listen to Evanescence. I’m a huge RPG fan and Final Fantasy music drives me wild. As a Smallville fan, I love listening to Remy Zero sing “Save Me.” My crazy side also likes Weird Al Yankovic.

All modern musicians though are in debt to the musicians of the past. It was through trial and error that much of music was improved and the introduction of new ideas. Consider harmony. It was considered a scandal when it first came and today, most of us can’t even imagine the thought of music without harmony. While much has improved, there are still great old classics. How many of us in the Christian community love the great old hymns still?

But surely there’s more to this than music. Right?

We need to connect with our past. Christianity did not just pop up in the 20th century. Science did not just suddenly show up one day. Philosophy did not begin with Descartes. Many studies have been going on for a long time. While we may not have had some of the advances we have today, particularly in science, let us not lose sight of the fact that science was going on.

My roommate was once shown about someone who apostasized who is a young man who apparently also reads a lot and asked if my library could compare to his. He said it did and noted something very important about this young man’s library. There were no works in it by the ancients. Plato and Plutarch were nowhere to be found. 

I was talking to a good friend of mine today and was thinking about a lot of things he’s going through. As I was at that event of our Seminary’s tonight, I was thinking about this connection and it occurred to me that it seems my friend could have a good dose of modernism. Modern thinking is good in many ways, but it needs to be tempered by ancient thinking.

The ancients thought in ways that we didn’t. A lot of the questions that they raised have yet to be answered by us. When one reads Plato and/or Aristotle, one sees a totally different style of thinking than in our modern and contemporary philosophers. I’m not saying that all Plato and Aristotle said was right. It wasn’t. It was a different way of thinking though and they did get a lot of things right.

So, if you want to study philosophy, you need to go back and read the ancients. If you want to study science, you need to read Aristotle also with works like “Physics” and “De Caelo” as well as scientists like Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc. If you want to study history, read Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus. If you want to study theology, read Aquinas, Augustine, the Reformers, and the church fathers. I could go on.

In doing so, you develop new categories and allow not just one time period to tilt your perspective. Each of us to a degree is also a product of our times and the way to cure that is to go outside our times. Read the giants that came before us. They have much to say to us and we only hurt ourselves if we refuse to listen.