Hey, Cobblestone,
I have good news, bad news, and bad-der news. The good news:
God, in perfect genius, provided one and only one creator and sustainer of all
things – himself – so we don’t have to waste time and energy looking for
another. The bad news: we’re still looking. The bad-der news: the one we find
is most often ourselves.
Welcome to the next series of Hey Church letters, in which we
will investigate the propensity of human beings to make “better” choices than
God in the very matters in which we had no choice to begin with. I hope to
demonstrate how the Church has an essential role in calling people (ourselves
included) out of this futile exercise and into the peace and satisfaction of
cooperating with God in creation and humanity.
Make a quick list of some of the things about yourself that
you didn’t choose. Caught you off guard, didn’t I? Here’s a sampling: place of
birth, time of birth, family of origin, physiology, name. There are plenty more
– I bring up these few to emphasize the fact that all of us have essential
aspects of identity that somebody else chose for us. Now, of the several
essential aspects of your identity you didn’t choose for yourself, how many would
you like to tune up? How many would you radically change, given the chance?
I’ve yet to meet the person who was satisfied with the full set of
non-negotiables.
Atheism is not a new concept – denying God’s existence.
Neither is agnosticism – deciding that there are better things to think about
than whether God exists. And as harmful as both of these concepts are, neither
of them is the worst idea currently afloat. The atheist says, “There is no
God.” The agnostic says, “I don’t care either way.” The practitioner of this
third thing says, “Sure, there’s a God – and I can do better than he can.” This
also is not a totally new concept, having been known at times as humanism. It
comes in waves, like the inhabitants of Babel saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in
the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves…” (Genesis 4:11); or the
oppressor in Isaiah 14 having said in his heart, “I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne
on high…” (verse 13). Modern examples are not difficult to find, and over
the next several weeks I hope to call some of them out individually, along with
biblical antidotes for the harm they cause.
The letters of the series will be anchored in the Bible book
of Colossians, with frequent excursions elsewhere in Scripture. Yes, we just
moved out of Colossians in our reading plan; for those who are tracking, it’ll
be as fresh as it gets; for others, this is a chance to catch up or leap
forward. Either way, Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae will be base camp
for us. Why? Because the church at Colossae had the classically organic and
evangelical beginning: Epaphras, a resident of Colossae, traveled somewhere
(maybe Ephesus) and heard the gospel of Jesus from someone (maybe Paul) and
took it home, where he shared what he heard and believed. Church plants don’t
get any more organic than that. And we must not forget: when Epaphras came home
with the Good News, there was already stuff going on in Colossae – ideas and
beliefs, and the actions caused by those ideas and beliefs, were already in
play. Likewise, when the gospel first came to our neck of the woods, there were
humans present already; therefore, humanism was being practiced to some degree,
wittingly or otherwise. How has the gospel fared since its arrival? Observing
the Colossian Christians will give us some answers about ourselves.
If you’ll forgive me for jumping the gun, I’ll call us back
to the observance of scientific method – since science and faith should, by no
means, be enemies. Even though I’ve named the series “Replacing God” already,
I’ll try to rewind a bit. If we’re going to be good scientists, we’ll observe
the situation first, and begin to define a question. The hard part will be
holding it to one question!
Within the timeline of one big building project, God debunked
the humanism of Babel. Within the space of a few lifetimes, God upended the
humanism of the throne in Babylon, the oppressor mentioned in Isaiah 14. If I
could highlight an observation for your perusal, dear Church, it would be this,
for starters: Seems to me, the current wave of humanism dates back to at least
the middle of the nineteenth century AD, and a solid argument could be made for
its beginnings in the Enlightenment, or even the Renaissance. In other words,
this one seems bigger, longer, and more coordinated than past efforts. Since
I’m the instigator here, I suppose I’ll have to pose the question:
Is the current wave of humanism the latest – or last – big
push to replace God?
As we gather evidence, I’ll remind us of the very first topic
Paul brought up with the Colossians:
(The) Father… has
qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in
light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and
transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son… He is the image
of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For
by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all
things were created through him and for him (Colossians 1:12-16).
The antidote for the bad-der news – the God-replacement we
most often find is none other than ourselves – is this: we, God’s saints, have
been qualified to share in light. As we make observations, no corner of our
vision need be darkened. And the good-est news is knowing who qualified us.
Put on your lab coats… hypotheses are forthcoming.
Grace and Peace (for when we encounter the First Commandment
all over again),
John
No comments:
Post a Comment