“I’M ONLY HUMAN”

The phrase, “I’m only human,” is used far too often as an excuse for unrepentant and unconfessed sin. The phrase is a lie, for it relies on a misunderstanding of human nature. It assumes the sin nature is essential to human nature. This is assumption is incorrect.

The biblical assessment of human nature bears this out. In Genesis 1:26-28, God creates humanity—male and female—in his image and shares his authority with them, commanding them to have dominion on the earth. In Genesis 1:31, God looks at everything he has made—including humanity—and declares it all “very good.” In Psalm 8:5-6, the psalmist declares that though humanity is dwarfed by the universe, we have glory, honor, and dominion from God. This same psalm is quoted in Hebrews 2:6-8, where it also speaks to humanity. In Hebrews, humanity (not yet having all in subjection) is contrasted with Christ (as already crowned and enthroned).

To call oneself “only human” is to disrespect God as Creator and Redeemer, for to be human is not to be an “only.” The term simply does not apply. Humanity is glorious and majestic because it carries the image of its glorious and majestic Creator. The sin nature is not essential to human nature. The sin nature is brokenness; it is a corruption of true humanity. True humanity is seen in Jesus, [1] for he is the only human to have lived his entire earthly life as truly human, trusting the Father and living by the Spirit. Therefore, to be truly human is to be like Jesus. This is most certainly not an “only.”

So, what of sin? Sin is humanity’s rebellious attempt to make itself like God (Gen 3:5). Sin was and is a willful choice (Gen 3:6-7; James 1:13-15). As such, sin cannot be excused, but it can be explained.

Those who have yet to trust Jesus are in slavery to sin (Rom 6). They choose to sin and continue to place themselves in slavery to sin. Those who have trusted Jesus are free. Believers sin because, on some level—intentional or unintentional—the habits of sin remain.

The habits of sin are strong. On our own, it is impossible to replace them with habits of trust. God has graciously given us everything we need to learn habits of trust. He has given us spiritual disciplines. Silence, study, service, corporate worship, and other disciplines provide opportunities to work alongside the Spirit as he retrains the habits of our souls. He has given us one another. The community of Jesus-followers provides feedback and support, as together we become more like Jesus. Finally, he has given us himself. The Spirit lives in our hearts, working with our hearts to make us more like Jesus.

We must stop making excuses for sin and we must begin acknowledging the reasons for sin. We must confess and repent of our sinful habits. We must choose to be the human persons God has created and redeemed us to be, by choosing to trust the Father, Son, and Spirit. We must choose to walk in that trust each day.

----------

[1] Jesus’ full humanity in no way diminishes nor detracts from his full divinity. The reverse is also true. Jesus’ full divinity in no way diminishes nor detracts from his full humanity.

Tag(s): THEOLOGY soteriology

See CC License


“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/

Doing Theology Together

Posted over at the TFB Academy, thoughts on doing theology, flowing from 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, especially "for now we see in a mirror dimly."

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Discussion is open there.

NOTE: Robert Campbell is discussing a Trinitarian Theological Method on his blog. It's worth a read.

Tag(s): theological reflection theological conversation

See CC License


“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/

The Big Deal About Theology

When may hear the word “theology,” they instantly think of something lofty and academic, something about as interesting as watching the lawn grow on a Saturday night, or both. Unfortunately, as often presented, these assessments may well apply. This is unfortunate because theology that is true and good is neither lofty nor boring...

Read the rest: The Big Deal About Theology

Tag(s): theological reflection theological method

See CC License


“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/

RETHINKING LEARNING

A little over a week ago, I wrote a post offering a learning model consisting of cognitive, affective, and volitive knowledge. A visit to the dentist helped me realize that something was missing from my model. While waiting for my lovely new crown to finish, he poked through my “Weekly Essays” journal (with my permission, of course). Coming across the essay on learning, he asked me where physical learning comes in. The following post is a rethinking of my learning model in light of his question.

Learning is a self-adjusting, continuous process of inputs, processing, and response. Each movement in the process takes place across one or more knowledge categories. Four such categories are cognitive, somatic, affective, and volitive. Cognitive knowledge consists of ideas communicated via symbol/language. Ideas enter the soul/mind and cause some level of cognitive dissonance. The learner creates and/or adjusts patterns of thought, and then implements and evaluates those patterns. The results of evaluation are fed back in to the process as new inputs (in one or more knowledge categories). The learning process continues.

This basic process occurs across each category of knowledge. Somatic inputs consist of physical skills and abilities, resulting in new patterns of movement and perception. Affective inputs consist of challenges to emotions and values, resulting in new patterns of feeling and valuing. Volitive inputs consist of challenges to decided ways of thinking and acting, resulting in new patterns of thinking and acting.

Of course, this process is not linear and the categories are not limited to nor delineated by these four. The edges are fuzzy. While educational theorists wade through the mass of details and interactions, we need not join them. We need only remember that learning is a self-adjusting, continuous process. Each individual is responsible for his or her learning. Each community is responsible for its learning. Learning is an internal process. Teachers and facilitators can only create environments in which learning is more or less likely to happen and which provide inputs and encouragements necessary to the process.


Tag(s): learning theory

See CC License

BIOLA--BIBLE IN OUR BLOOD

The foundations of Biola University were laid in 1908, when Lyman Stewart and T. C. Horton started the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. By 1912, the institute was large enough for its first dean, R. A. Torrey. The institute expanded under Louis T. Talbot and in 1949, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles became Biola College. The college moved La Mirada in 1959 under Sam Sutherland and became Biola University in 1981 under Richard Chase. Under the leadership of Clyde Cook, Biola has grown to 6 schools and 5,752 students.

Much has changed since 1906, but at least one important thing has remained the same: the direction set in 1908--to teach the truths of Scripture--remains the direction today. Biblical authority and learning permeate every program. Understanding the Bible is part of who we are.

Today, Biola University is on the verge of another transformation. President Cook is retiring after 25 years of faithful service. A candidate is in the wings. Many things will change. The commitment to the Word of God will stay the same.

Some are concerned that a presidential candidate with no formal theological training will be unable to stay the course. I am not concerned. First, Biola is replete with theological and biblical experts. In addition to the fine faculty of Talbot School of Theology, many employees (including staff (like me), faculty in other departments, and administrators) have formal theological training and are willing to stand and speak the truth. Second, thinking theologically does not require formal theological training. It requires cognitive, affective, and volitive submission to the Word of God. Third, a president with formal training in the processes of Christian higher education can lead the executive administration to lead Biola to become the exemplary Christian university and global center for Christian thought that it envisions.

We need a president with bible in his blood, educational excellence in his heart, and Jesus in his daily life.

Tag(s): biola university christian education higher education biola president

See CC License


“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/

THE DOODLERS’ DISCONTENT

Most committees are broken. Some are bogged down in conversation that talks around the edges of the topic at hand. Others rubber stamp everything and discount the few voices brave enough to speak out. I fear the souls who carry a glimmer of hope are left to slouch in their chairs, doodling on their notepad and wishing for something altogether different.

This essay pokes about one possible reason for the doodlers’ discontent: Committees are a broken creation of a culture of individualism awkwardly stumbling toward communal decision-making.

First, three stories.

1. The village crowds into the gathering space. The chief stands, tells the story, and sits to signal the beginning. Old men and old women speak fears and wisdom and memory. Young men and young women speak hope and passion. Children ask questions and speak obvious things that all must hear. Stories, tears, and raised voices fill the space for endless moments. The seeming chaos slowly fades and the chief stands to announce, “This is what we have decided…”
2. Three friends gather at a pub. Mugs of warm stout and a corner table signal the beginning. One by one, they speak their lives and cares and dreams. They listen and cry and laugh. With the last gulp, one among them says, “So, we agree then…”
3. The committee members gather around a rectangular table. Last month’s minutes and copies of the budget make their way around the table. The meeting starts, as they always, with a short prayer followed by old business, new business, and reports. The apparent structure disguises a cacophony of disconnected monologues. Votes punctuate. Finally, the meeting stops; they pick up their belongings and their separate ways.

True, these stories are dreams—or nightmares, as the case may be. Stories one and two seem unlikely, if not impossible. Yet they are comfortable, like a pair of slippers, just right after a long day. The third story wears like ill-fitting shoes. The terrain requires footwear, but these are not what feet desire.

Committees are the broken creation of a culture that has forgotten how to tell stories together, to cry together, to yell together, and to whisper together. They are the broken creation of a culture that spends too much time together alone. They are the broken creation of a culture that places inordinate value on individual needs and too little value on the needs of the community. They are the broken creation of a church culture that has forgotten the Spirit binds us as a people and does the work of God through the gathered people.

In the best of all worlds, we would realize that the committee structure rarely accomplishes its task. We would realize that to continue using the same ineffective means is insane. We would realize that deciding together (in Christ, through the Spirit, and for the sake of the mission of God) is more important than whether or not any one particular point is heard. It is more important than whether or not we can keep the meeting to an hour.

For now, we are stuck in the system, left to doodle on our notepads or to exit the system, gather at the pub (or its teetotaler alternative: Starbucks).

Related Post: WHY NO SCOT-FRIENDLY COMMITTEES?

Tag(s): ecclesiology

See CC License

WHY NO SCOT-FRIENDLY COMMITTEES?

For a more complete essay on the committee issue: The Doodler's Discontent
=========================
Here begins a small experiment. I've decided to brush up on my essay writing skills by writing a weekly essay/essay outline in response to someone's blog post. This is the first outing, complete with tiny training wheels :-) We'll see how long the stamina will last...
=========================
Essay Fodder: Committees Re-visited at Jesus Creed


Thesis: A culture of individualism hinders proper committee functioning, and proper committee functioning requires communal decision-making.

Point One: A culture of individualism inhibits the development of communal decisions-making skills.

• Sub-point A: Such a culture provides few opportunities to develop these skills.
• Sub-point B: Such a culture has few who are able to teach communal decisions-making skills.

Point Two: A culture of individualism assigns low value to communal decisions-making skills.

• Sub-point A: Communal decision-making skills are of little practical use in such a culture.
• Sub-point B: Communal decision-making skills add little to the bottom line in such a culture.

Tag(s): ecclesiology

See CC License


“Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” http://www.esv.org/