Conditional (Christian) Faith

 I was listening to a comic recently. It was an old video that I had never seen before. In it, the comedian made a bold declaration of his faith in Jesus. That's something you don't necessarily expect to hear from a comedian. However, there it was. Further, during his presentation, this comic made a profession that it wouldn't matter whether his circumstances were good or bad, he would completely and unequivocally trust the God that he was proclaiming.

This comedian told a very powerful story about his son being involved in a bad car accident. He told the listeners how he had been praying on his way to the crash scene, telling God that he wouldn't waver in his previous commitment but that he would trust the Lord completely, no matter his son's outcome. His son survived and thrived in the coming days but not before some difficult days of waiting. So, I guess his declaration that he would trust God even if the outcome wasn't a good one never really got tested (at least in that situation).

However, this isn't the first time that such a declaration has been made. I am reminded of the story in the Old Testament Book of Daniel where Daniel's three friends (three young Jewish boys) refused to obey an order from the king which order directly contradicted their faith in Jehovah God. This order was for everyone in the kingdom to bow down and worship the king (as god) for 30 days. It was a setup if there ever was one. Daniel would later be found in violation of the same despicable order.

The boys were every bit as devout as Daniel later proved to be. They were brought before the king and, since he liked them, he offered them an opportunity to comply and live. If they refused (and he truly hoped that they wouldn't), they would be burned alive. The young men continued to refuse to bow to the king, choosing to die a death by fire rather than to dishonor God. So, the king ordered that the furnace be heated up even hotter, so hot that the soldiers working the furnace died from the heat. Yet, when these three young men were thrown into the furnace, they walked around unharmed and unaffected by the fire. Also, there was a fourth man in the fire with them and he too was unaffected.

The commitment of these young men to follow their God even if it cost them their lives was no casual commitment. There were no conditions on their faith. They were determined to trust this God that they had never seen with their eyes regardless of whatever threats were made against them by those whom they could see right before them. And apparently their faith in God was rewarded by their miraculous deliverance THROUGH the fire rather than OUT of it.

Several years ago, I was introduced to a discipleship movement that has challenged me in ways that I had never dreamed of previously. The type of faith that these young men demonstrated in the Book of Daniel has been the model held up for us to consider, even though we don't actually study anything from the Book of Daniel in a year of studies. Near the very beginning of our study introduction, we are confronted with the concept of entering into a personal, dynamic, intimate relationship with Jesus. The way that this is framed states that such a relationship is only possible to those who are willing to enter into it by "Personal Abandonment and Absolute Trust." 

Either the personal abandonment or the trust would be a challenge all on its own. However, upon a certain amount of reflection, you realize that absolute trust isn't truly possible unless you actually do abandon yourself. As long as you fail to abandon self, you are still asserting your own ability and trusting your own ability. It seems that is where we get ourselves into trouble. It always has been. In fact, Adam & Eve were confronted with this same test in the Garden of Eden, and they failed the test. God said don't eat this one tree or you'll die. A serpent argued that they would actually become as God Himself. Which of us doesn't wish, at some point in our lives, to be as God Himself? To trust him absolutely means that we must abandon our own desires, our own wisdom, and our faith in ourselves. We must renounce our faith in Self in order to fully embrace our faith in the Creator.

I am a failure when it comes to righteousness (with the possible exception of self-righteousness). However, I wish to embrace the grace and mercy of Jesus and all that it entails. What a gracious Savior to accept me in all of my brokenness and failure and to transform me exclusively for His glory! So, I continue to fail... to disappoint. However, I have thrown down the gauntlet. I have entered the battle against self and in favor of the Savior. I am His. Period. He may do with me as He chooses and I remain His. Fully.

Whose are you and in whom do you trust?

Christianity: Religion or Relationship?

 There's a battle going on in the world over what distinguishes Christianity from all other belief systems and codes of behavior. It's been going on for ages now. As I was growing up, the basic line of reasoning was that Christianity is a relationship (with Jesus) and everything else, including atheism, is "just" religion. Jesus, being a real, historic human being (and God at the same time, see trinitarianism) is and was someone with whom humankind could enter into relationship. Since He both was and is living (He was raised from the dead three days after His execution), this was rationally possible. If Confucius were still living, the same possibility would then exist with him but he, the buddha, Joseph Smith and so many other philosophers and religious leaders of antiquity are dead. The last time I checked, it's impossible to have a relationship with anyone who is dead. So, there is a distinction after all.

But how does the PRACTICE of Christianity differ from the practice of (other) religions? Is it just the indication and application of a different set of values or a different code of conduct? Is it just the names with which these distinctions are associated? Is it the governing documents themselves (the Bible for Christianity, for instance) that really makes the difference? Is it just a matter of "getting it right?" Are heaven and hell just a risk v reward analysis motivating us to choose the right set of rules to follow and then following them sufficiently? Is that all there is?

That might be all there is separating one religion from another. Just a different set of values and a different code of conduct. These, having been established and promulgated by different people (prophets, philosophers, teachers, etc.), are certainly a way of knowing about and identifying any one of a variety of religions and religious activities. Buddhists may have some ideas in common with Hindus but there are identifiable differences that allow us to separate the two belief systems. Either of these can be contrasted with other religions of the world and the comparison will yield a rather lengthy list of religions or religious systems around the world. The crux of this discussion is not whether there are differences between religions but rather whether there is anything distinctive about Christianity that pulls it apart from and out of competition with the religions of the world. Is Christianity just one more religion to weighed in the balance and considered on an equal plane with all of the other religions of the world.

Christian churches of all denominations carry different lists of rules for acceptable behavior. Individual congregations within a single denomination may place a greater emphasis on the acceptance or restriction of certain very specific behaviors. However, those who are outside of Christianity are very unlikely to look at an individual or a family and conclude that they are Christians simply on the basis of whether or not they subscribe to a particular rule about the use of alcohol, the practice of dancing or the use of profanity or curse words. Since most of the world's religions base the faithfulness of their followers or adherents on how well they observe their particular list of dos and don'ts, such a list of prescribed and proscribed behaviors for Christians would merely render those Christians one more in a long list of religions. So what actually is there about Christianity that makes it different from all of the rest?

Going back to the first paragraph, it's Jesus. Just Him. Well mostly just Him. He stated publicly that He did nothing of His own accord but only with the prompting of Jehovah God, His Father. And, he promised when He left that He would send the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) to ensure the survival and eventual victory of His people. Trinitarian doctrine once again.

The Biblical message about Jesus is certainly a unique one. He was born of a virgin (that's not just unique). He lived a sinless life (even as a teenager). He ministered to the people around him in truly miraculous ways (defying all earthly explanation). He died a death of a criminal (in spite of the fact that He never even entertained thoughts of a crime much less committed one). After three days in the grave, He walked out under His own power and later was observed as He rose up into the clouds with an announcement from Heaven itself that He would return one day. Wow! What a story. And that's just the highlights. Just at a glance, Jesus was no "great teacher" like some other earthly leaders may have been.

But even the nature of who Jesus is doesn't change Christianity without something else. That something else is the distinction. It's the very essence of Christianity the relationship. In fact, without this one thing, even Christianity actually is just one more of many religions of the world. That one thing is this: How do we relate (the root of relationship) to anyone of whom the things above can be said? Answer: Faith. Not A faith. Faith. Not a system of belief or a code of conduct but a living, breathing relationship with Jesus as evidenced by the intimate, daily interactions one has with Him and the confidence that is built as a result of this type of intimate relationship.

Let's go back momentarily to our childhood.  Most of us were born into a family unit and were raised by at least one of our parents. There are exceptions to this rule but the vast majority of people worldwide are raised in this way. Because of the relationship that we develop (from birth) with our parents and throughout our lives with other family members and friends, we learn to have various degrees of trust in each of these family members and friends. Those that we are closest to get the greatest degree of our trust. We have all seen this dynamic in action but somehow we don't tend to translate that basic principle of relationship into our interactions with God. Or, maybe we do and that is exactly the reason that we don't particularly trust Him: We don't really KNOW Him.

Several years ago I met some men who challenged me to look at this relationship through the lens of John 15. Jesus makes a rather strange analogy (by today's standards) of His relationship with people as compared to the relationship that a fruit-bearing branch has to a grape vine. He uses the word "abide" to describe how this works. The clear implication of His teaching is that one who actually engages in this fruit-bearing relationship with Him will become completely dependent upon Him, moment by moment, day after day. Dependent for everything. But the result is the abundant production of fruit in and through our lives. (The type of fruit produced is for another discussion at a later time.)

So, if your Christianity is a description of the moral code or behavioral limitations you put on your life, when and where you attend church (or not), the type of music you listen to and the style of haircut you get, your Christianity is definitely a religion, regardless of whether you claim it. However, if your Christianity is a moment by moment complete and utter dependence on the grace and mercy of Jesus to guide and direct you, provide all your needs and produce spiritual fruit in and through you, your Christianity is definitely a relationship. Which do you have: Religion or relationship?