The Chief End of Man

The first question and answer of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is this:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever

References:

To Glorify God

Psa 86:9  All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name.

Isa 60:21  Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I might be glorified.

Rom 11:36  For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

1Co 10:31  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Rev 4:11  “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

To Enjoy Him Forever

Psa 16:5-11  The LORD is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot. The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance. I bless the LORD who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me. I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Psa 144:15  Blessed are the people to whom such blessings fall! Blessed are the people whose God is the LORD! – Psa 16:5-11

Isa 12:2  “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.”

Luk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

Rev 21:3-4  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

When I observe the current evangelical environment in America these days, with all of it’s self-centeredness (even while you hear ‘It’s not about us!’), I often wonder if we haven’t got it rather backwards.

The Top 10 Rules for Polite ‘Christian’ Conversation in a Postmodern Culture

1. Always be ‘nice’. It’s absolutely essential to be perceived by the listeners in the room (real or virtual) that you are a really ‘nice’ person. Keep in mind that ‘nice’ to some people might be totally offensive to others. In a group of 10, 8 ‘nice’ votes to 2 ‘not nice’ votes is a really good score! 10 out of 10 ‘nice’ votes is a bonafide miracle.

2. Smile a lot. That’s hard to do sometimes, especially face-to-face, if your bunions are killing you or your acid reflux is kicking in. Smiling is always easy in ‘virtual’ conversations though, because you can use those little “Smiley Faces’ and fake everybody out. Smile even when you are talking about serious matters (like ‘sin’). Smiles always work and can even be very profitable (Ask Joel Osteen)!

3. Always talk about the soft spoken,’nice’ Jesus, and never talk about the ‘other’ Jesus, who mentioned hell a lot, called certain folks a few choice names, and turned over a table or two, and even had the nerve to tell people to ‘repent’ of their ‘sin’.

4. Speaking of repentance, don’t go there. If you do, remember it’s always connected to the “S” word, which is an even worse word to use and guaranteed to cost you ‘nice’ votes.

5. If the conversation absolutely requires using ‘uncomfortable’ words, water down the meaning. For instance, use ‘mistakes’ instead of sin. You can make them completely inoffensive by adding ‘spiritual’ sounding concepts. Example: “We all make’mistakes’, but that’s OK, God understands!”

6. Never ask hard questions, like “What IS the gospel?”, or “Does God hate anyone?” at least if you intend to answer them biblically. If the intent is to consider all answers equal and congratulate everybody in the room for their deep insight, go ahead and ask them.

7. Avoid at all costs ‘messy’ doctrinal topics. If someone else in the room brings one up, preempt any arguments with warnings against divisiveness, even if the topic goes to the character and nature of God. Example – predestination. Better yet, forget about doctrine altogether.

8. Have a variety of ‘caveats’ that can be used to precede anything you say or write that might possibly offend someone. Example: “I might be totally wrong here, but Romans 3:11 says NO ONE seeks God!” Have a lot of them handy, and never use the same one twice in a row.

9. Never suggest that a passage of scripture might not mean what it is always used for. Example: Everyone ‘knows’ Revelation 3:22 is about Jesus knocking on the door of a sinners heart even though Jesus is actually knocking on the door of a lukewarm church.

10. Above all, NEVER take a stand on anything even if it’s the exact text of a passage of scripture! It might be true, but actually taking a stand signals to all the postmodernists in the room (which might be everybody but you), that you are an intolerant, arrogant know-it-all who is forcing his ‘personal opinion’ on everyone else.

What’s the real issue here?

‘Here is a recent question asked of readers, posted on a blog I found while browsing the Internet recently recently:

“If you attend a church which suits your music style, teaching style, lifestyle and theology beliefs…. is that submission?” 

My first reaction to the question was “…submission to what?”, although I didn’t ask it in the comments to the blog. What I did do is read the few (thus far)comments, to see how responders interpreted the question.

Since the comments all revolved around being in submission to the pastor/leadership/teachings/theology/doctrine of the church in question, that was most likely the intent of the question. I am glad I did not comment at the blog. If I had asked my question in response to the original question, I would have been seen as confrontational, accusatory, not nice, whatever. It has happened before. Any assumptions of my motives would have been confirmed if I had taken my comments where I wanted to go in the conversation. The question again: 

“If you attend a church which suits your music style, teaching style, lifestyle and theology beliefs…. is that submission?” 

There seems to be an underlying assumption that we attend a particular church based on our preferences/likes/dislikes, etc., which I think is an accurate assumption of how we who calla ourselves Christian/Christ followers. We choose a church to attend like we shop for shoes, clothes, cars, houses, whatever.

So with that thought in mind, that we more often than not, choose a church to attend based on personal reasons, whatever they might be, is that an indicator of ‘submission’ of some sort? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t.

Asked another way, what should be the driving force/need/requirement for selecting a local church to attend in the first place?

So. . .a couple of questions based on a question asked by someone else, somewhere else. It was a good question, if it causes us to think.

On My Mind: The Skinny God – By David Wells

Many years ago, J. B. Phillips wrote a book called Your God is Too Small. It was quite popular at the time, in 1952, although it now seems rather quaint. The juvenile understanding of God Phillips was attacking then is, by contemporary standards, rather innocent. This, however, is a book which I believe should be written afresh every decade. For is it not the case that our internal bias (cf. Rom. 1:21-5) constantly tilts us away from God’s centrality and toward our own? And does this not lead us to focus more on ourselves and less on him? Even worse, don’t we then substitute our importance for his greatness?

This inward bias is now being mightily encouraged by our experience of the modern world, the upshot of which is our fascination with our self. Those who are well fed seldom think about food but for the hungry this becomes a consuming preoccupation. And for modern people, the self has likewise become an obsession. We are the starved. How else can we explain the fact that America has half the world’s clinical psychologists and one third of the world’s psychiatrists? Over approximately the last thirty years, the number of clinical psychologists has increased 350%, clinical social workers 320%, and family counselors 680%, so that today we have two psychotherapists for every dentist and there are more counselors than librarians. The plagues of the modern self are providing sustenance for an extraordinary number of professionals, as well as driving a burgeoning publishing industry.

At the root of these statistics are two related developments. On the one hand, it is undeniable that life in our contemporary world is extraordinarily difficult, that the toll it extracts is high, and that the wounds it inflicts are deep. We, today, live with more stress, with higher levels of anxiety, than any prior generation. We have more people passing through our lives on a daily basis than ever before because of telephone, fax, e-mail, and even television and yet we are often lonely because so few ever matter to us personally. We often are not rooted in any place but wander around our society like perpetual migrants and we may not even have families to which we are connected in any meaningful way. The constant change, the terrible speed of it, the escalating number of choices we have to make, all extract their cost. And we must also live in a society that is fragmenting in fundamental ways. Between 1960 and 1993, violent crime increased 560%, single parent households 300%, births to unmarried mothers 400%, and teen suicide 200%. So, it is no wonder that we feel alarmed and insecure and that we also become preoccupied with the wounds and pains within.

On the other hand, many (even in the Christian world) have drunk deeply at the trough of popularized psychology and appear to accept its two basic assumptions. First, we believe that we can find release from these pains through the right technique. If we are anxious, guilty, insecure, lost, unmotivated, unappreciated, ineffective, or friendless, we need worry no more about it. There is an answer, though we will have to pay to get it. Second, we have come to believe that our top priority should be that we seek our own authenticity before all else and that others, such as spouses or friends, may have to be treated as a threat to our own growth. Hence, where these assumptions have intruded upon the Church, our spirituality has become extremely privatized, highly individualistic, inimical to commitments, and quite ethically indifferent. Because this is so, we lose our appetite for God, our taste for his Word, and our sense of dependence on Christ. Our God, too, has become too small and is now often lost amidst our inner preoccupations.

There are, of course, those who genuinely need professional psychological care but the overwhelming proportion of those who have cast their faith in psychological terms do not. Their appetite for the therapeutic has come about for other reasons. In part, it reflects their own inner emptiness and the pain which this creates; in part, it rests on our growing cultural sufficiency, that what God’s grace, power, and regeneration once did, we can now do for ourselves; in part, it reflects a greatly diminished sense of sin and our refusal, quite often, to bear the pain of any self-reproach at all; and in part, it seems to reflect our lost ability to see any purpose in life outside of the self, an inability that both fuels our self-indulgence and stokes our need for more distraction.

What seems so obvious to anxious, pained, bewildered moderns is what is so wrong. We are having to learn again, even in the Church, that Christ’s paradox is always true: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:39). Losing one’s life flies in the face of all of the counsel we are receiving today that it is by finding the self, cultivating the self, expanding the self, and actualizing the self, that we will find life. Today, self-restraint and the self-abnegation‹which faith requires‹have become obscenities. And we miss the point entirely if we think that this is simply a quarrel between two competing views of therapy.

No, what is at stake is whether or not we will be able to see the greatness of God, and whether what we see will enter into the innermost fibers of our being, for this is where our true spiritual health resides. The greatness of his power, wisdom, and goodness, and his greatness in creating, sustaining, and ruling over all of life, are not simply doctrines to be talked about but truths to be appropriated. His greatness in giving and judging his Son in our place, as well as his greatness for what he has yet to do one day in putting truth forever on the throne and error forever on the scaffold, should be matters of great weight to us and great joy for us. The psalmist spoke of longing, of fainting for God, of being enraptured with his beauty (Ps. 84:1-2), of having a compelling thirst for him (Ps. 42:1). How out of place this would be in many of our churches today! The truth is that our diminished “god” simply lacks the power to summon up such longing, such hope, such pleasure, in those who have come to worship him. But if our God has become small and skinny, he has been diminished only in our understanding and experience. He has not really been diminished. So why can we not hope that the Church will yet be surprised to discover his greatness afresh? Why can we not hope that those who long for God, who are enraptured by his beauty, who thirst deeply for him, will become the norm rather than the exception? I know of no reason.

This article first appeared in the July/August 1997 issue of Modern Reformation.


Dr. David F. Wells is the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts

PERMISSIONS: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided.

Children of a Lesser God?

No, I am not referring to the 1986 film that earned several prestigious awards from the film industry. The film’s title had no question mark. I am actually just asking a question:

“Are many of today’s professing believers, for all practical purposes, children of a lesser God?”

First of all, let me calm any fears that I have become a heretic and somehow think that God could ever become ‘less’ than he always has been, is now, and ever will be. Again, this is a question; one that I cannot get out of my head. I ask it for several reasons based on a combination of study of evangelicalism, examining the depth of doctrine and theology taught in the church over the last century, and into this one, as well as personal observation.

Evangelicalism. Today’s brand seems to have taken on much of the character of the ‘social gospel’  that placed social action/concerns on a higher level of importance than the gospel of Christ. That tendency seemed to have taken hold around the turn of the twentieth century and gave birth to the National Association of Evangelicals, in order to combat creeping liberalism in the church.

Theology and Doctrine. They are both disappearing from not only the substance of what is taught and preached in churches throughout the land, but from many seminaries that are called (by God) to prepare men for ministry!

Observations. Of the churches I have visited and in which I have had the privilege of serving in some capacity, as well as those I have studied via other means, both of the above comments ring true. And while there does seem to be a ‘remnant’ of older believers that still clings to “The Old Rugged Cross”, as well as a growing number of younger believers who are returning to the doctrines of the Reformation and the Five Solas.

Secondly, let me assure you that I am in no way passing any sort of judgment on anyone. This post is not about any specific individual(s), except for yours truly. I can look backward in time with the 20/20 hindsight we all seem to have and see more than a couple of years of worshipping a ‘lesser’ God, not the mighty and awesome God of Scripture.

Everyone is in many ways a product of his/her upbringing, including Christians. Unless they are in the habit of applying the gold standard of Scripture to what they listen to from pulpits, are taught in their small groups, read in books ‘about’ Scripture, and/or are fed from the world of televangelism, they will become to large measure what they feed upon.

At the core of the matter, I believe,  is a man-centered Christianity that has replaced the God-centric faith of years gone by. It is not something that one morning just ‘happened’ to the church, but it took years to develop. Perhaps a significant milestone in the development of self-centered, humanistic Christianity was the entrance of all of the ‘self-esteem’ driven popular psychology that seemed to take root in the mid-fifties. However, the ‘why/how’ are not what we need to be dwelling upon as of first importance.

This old soldier is convinced that we have a generation or so of Christ followers who have been exposed to, and taught, a ‘lesser God’ than the God of Holy Scripture, and they don’t even know it!

The best way to discover if we are sailing along in that boat is to read The Book. That is my encouragement to everyone who reads these ramblings of an old soldier, including this one.

Mo and PoMo

Modernism and Post-Modernism – John MacArthur

I. Modernism
Consider the record of the past century, for example. A hundred years ago, the church was beset by modernism. Modernism was a world-view based on the notion that only science could explain reality. The modernist in effect began with the presupposition that nothing supernatural is real.

It ought to have been instantly obvious that modernism and Christianity were incompatible at the most fundamental level. If nothing supernatural is real, then much of the Bible is untrue and has no authority; the incarnation of Christ is a myth (nullifying Christ’s authority as well); and all the supernatural elements of Christianity -including God Himself -must be utterly redefined in naturalistic terms. Modernism was anti-Christian at its core.

Nonetheless, the visible church at the beginning of the twentieth century was filled with people who were convinced modernism and Christianity could and should be reconciled. They insisted that if the church did not keep in step with the times by embracing modernism, Christianity would not survive the twentieth century. The church would become increasingly irrelevant to modern people, they said, and soon it would die. So they devised a “social gospel” void of the true gospel of salvation.

Of course, biblical Christianity survived the twentieth century just fine. Wherever Christians remained committed to the truthfulness and authority of Scripture, the church flourished. But ironically, those churches and denominations that embraced modernism were the ones that became increasingly irrelevant and all but died out before the century was over. Many grandiose but nearly empty stone buildings offer mute testimony to the deadliness of compromise with modernism.

II. Post-Modernism

Modernism is now regarded as yesterday’s way of thinking. The dominant world-view in secular and academic circles today is called post-modernism.
Post-modernists have repudiated modernism’s absolute confidence in science as the only pathway to the truth. In fact, post-modernism has completely lost interest in “the truth,” insisting that there is no such thing as absolute, objective, or universal truth.

Modernism was indeed folly and needed to be abandoned. But post-modernism is a tragic step in the wrong direction. Unlike modernism, which was still concerned with whether basic convictions, beliefs, and ideologies are objectively true or false, post-modernism simply denies that any truth can be objectively known.

To the post-modernist, reality is whatever the individual imagines it to be. That means what is “true” is determined subjectively by each person, and there is no such thing as objective, authoritative truth that governs or applies to all humanity universally. The post-modernist naturally believes it is pointless to argue whether opinion A is superior to opinion B. After all, if reality is merely a construct of the human mind, one person’s perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another’s.

Having given up on knowing objective truth, the post-modernist occupies himself instead with the quest for “understanding” the other person’s point of view. So the words truth and understanding take on radical new meanings. Ironically, “understanding” requires that we first of all disavow the possibility of knowing any truth at all. And “truth” becomes nothing more than a personal opinion, usually best kept to oneself.

That is the one essential, non-negotiable demand post-modernism makes of everyone: we are not supposed to think we know any objective truth. Post-modernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect. And therefore on the surface, post-modernism seems driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the post-modernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every world-view that makes any universal truth-claims — particularly biblical Christianity.

In other words, post-modernism begins with a presupposition that is irreconcilable with the objective, divinely-revealed truth of Scripture. Like modernism, post-modernism is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

III. Post-Modernism and the Church

The church today is filled with people who are advocating post-modern ideas. Some of them do it self-consciously and deliberately, but most do it unwittingly. (Having imbibed too much of the spirit of the age, they are simply regurgitating worldly opinion.) The evangelical movement as a whole, still recovering from its long battle with modernism, is not prepared for a new and different adversary. Many Christians have therefore not yet recognized the extreme danger posed by post-modernist thought.

Post-modernism’s influence has clearly infected the church already. Evangelicals are toning down their message so that the gospel’s stark truth-claims don’t sound so jarring to the post-modern ear. Many shy away from stating unequivocally that the Bible is true and all other religious systems and world-views are false. Some who call themselves Christians have gone even further, purposefully denying the exclusivity of Christ and openly questioning His claim that He is the only way to God.

The biblical message is clear. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The apostle John wrote, “He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11-12).

Those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of post-modernism. They make exclusive, universal truth-claims declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate post-modern sensitivities.

Instead, many Christians simply pass over the exclusive claims of Christ in embarrassed silence. Even worse, some in the church — including a few of evangelicalism’s best-known leaders — have begin to suggest that perhaps people can be saved apart from knowing Christ.

Christians cannot capitulate to post-modernism without sacrificing the very essence of our faith. The Bible’s claim that Christ is the only way of salvation is certainly out of harmony with the post-modern notion of “tolerance.” But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. And the Bible — not post-modern opinion — is the supreme authority for the Christian. The Bible alone should determine what we believe and proclaim to the world. We cannot waver on this, no matter how much this post-modern world complains that our beliefs make us “intolerant.”

___________

Copyright 2007, Grace to You