Re-Prioritizing Your Life

In our study of Haggai 1 we emphasized the following points:
- The fault of the returned exiles in Jerusalem was their neglect of their greatest priority (ie. the rebuilding of the temple) and their preoccupation with their most urgent priorities (ie. housing, food, clothing, etc.)
- God was not so much concerned with having his own physical home, but he was concerned for what the temple represented, namely his own glory manifested on earth.
- Note that God was actually the one frustrating their pursuits so that they would see the futility of pursuing their urgent needs without prioritizing God first.
- But when they prioritized God he blessed them, implying that he met the urgent needs they were so anxious about.

So what does this mean for us today? You don't have to feel guilty about pursing things on earth like good grades, good friends, godly entertainment, awards and recognitions. These things are not sinful in themselves, but they can become idols if we prioritize them over our pursuit of God. To live for God's glory does not mean you have to drop everything in your life that is not "God-related" (aka. religious, spiritual, churchy), but rather it means you relate everything in your life around God and his glory. So this does not mean you should love God only, but you ought to love him the most! You glorify and honor God when you attribute all your lesser loves to him and love them passionately for his sake. St. Augustine put it well when he once prayed to God, "He loves you less, who together with you, loves something which he does not love for your sake."

PS. When we prioritize God first, he is fully capable of satisfying our urgent needs, but this is not always his will. The Apostle Paul prioritized God, but his urgent need of safety was often not met as he faced much persecution and finally martyrdom. He may not meet all your urgent needs, but if you trust him, he will meet your greatest and most important need - that being a Savior to reconcile you to God and secure your inheritance in heaven.

Having Faith with Doubt

Tonight we talked about the relationship of doubt in the Christian life. The main thing we should take away with us is that doubt is a normal experience for a Christian. I would actually be concerned if a young Christian told me they never doubt or question their faith. The reason is because there is a good chance they have been spoon fed their faith by their parents or Sunday school teachers without really considering why they believe what they believe. We need to question and explore the things we are taught about God and Christianity so that we are not believing simply in our parent's faith or our pastor's faith but in our own faith.

I think doubts can actually draws us into a closer relationship with God - granted that we seek out the truth rather than sit back, content not knowing. If the questions push us to know God more, then that is "good" doubt. But if the questions come from a hardening heart of unbelief that prefers to live in sinful ignorance, then that is what we would call "bad" doubt. The difference can sometimes be a fine line so it takes a prayerful and contemplative heart to distinguish the two.

We also talked about the statements:
1) Faith does not equal Feelings. We were cautioned not to let our emotional ups and downs be the gauge of the level of our faith in God. A strong faith in God is not synonymous to a constant positive emotional feeling towards God. But we also warned that a negative (or neutral) emotional stance towards God is not the norm of the Christian experience, and we should never be content to remain in that state. Here is an article that gives some tips on what to do when the "ought to's" of the Christian life don't match up with our "want to's".
2) Faith does not equal Lack of Doubt. I wrote about this in a previous post so read it here.

Questions about Hell

In our last bible study, we talked about hell and its use as an objection against the Christian belief of a good, loving God. The tendency in our modern day is to avoid the topic of hell altogether, or if we do address it, we prefer to soften the concept by either 1) seeing hell only has a natural consequence of bad choices or 2) denying the eternal torment of hell.

In the first case, some people prefer to see hell as simply a result of a cause-effect scenario. If you chose to reject God in this life (cause), then the natural consequence is hell (effect). On one hand this is true. But on the other hand, it is not some impersonal force that oversees this cause-effect situation (ie. karma). According to the scriptures, it is a personal God who holds sinners accountable for their rejection of Him and who personally condemns them to hell. That is the picture we find in Rev 20:11-15 and in many of Jesus' parables where someone is cast out into utter darkness. People don't just naturally find themselves in the darkness. They are sent there by God. Now you may wonder why it is so important to stress the punishment aspect of hell (along with the consequence aspect). The reason is because if you neglect the punishment aspect of hell then you neglect the true nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He did not die simply to inspire us to live lives of selfless love and sacrifice. His death had an objective effect on our relationship with God. God's holy wrath was removed from sinners and absorbed by the body of Christ in death. Therefore, those who trust in Christ have a reconciled relationship with God where there is no more condemnation or threat of punishment. That aspect of the gospel is gone if we fail to see that hell is a punishment from God.

In the second case, some people think the concept of eternal punishment is too harsh and unfitting in the character of a good, loving God. But if we understood the true nature of sin then the true nature of hell is understandable. If sin is simply an immoral act or a crime against society or another person, then an eternal punishment may not "fit the crime". But if sin is ultimately an insult, a rebellion, and slap-in-the-face to God's worth, sufficiency, goodness, holiness, glory, etc...then an eternal punishment fits. The greatness of the person you sin against determines the greatness of the punishment. No one argues that to slap a king deserves a greater punishment than to slap your sibling. So if we truly see and savor the infinite value and worth of God our King, then the concept of an infinite punishment in hell seems only fitting. This does not mean we cannot still struggle emotionally with the thought of eternal punishment for loved ones, but it does mean we cannot claim eternal punishment as illogical or unjust.

Christianity and Tolerance

Here are some additional thoughts from Monday's lesson from The Case for Faith:

1) How would you respond to claims that Christianity is intolerant because it claims Jesus is the only way to God?
It is important to remember that Christianity is not the only religion to make exclusive truth claims. Islam would say you are wrong if you deny that the Koran as God's word. Hinduism would say you are wrong if you deny karma or reincarnation. Even atheists make exclusive truth claims by claiming that all religions are wrong. So any person or religion that makes any truth claim of any kind is being exclusive because they are implicitly saying that the contrary is wrong. If A is true, then not-A is implicitly false.

2) How is it fair that a pious non-Christian like Gandhi does not go to heaven because he does not believe in Jesus?
Think of it this way, if going to heaven is simply dependent on piety and being a good person, then how is it fair that some people are born into peaceful, stable societies (ie. Canada, USA) that are conducive for living peaceful, stable lives (ie. they wont have to steal to eat or fight to survive) BUT others are born into hostile, impoverished societies (ie. Baghdad or Darfur) where death, violence, and pain are the norms of life? Those growing up in the latter are presented with daily temptations we in the comfortable West cannot even fathom. So even if salvation depended on simply living "good" lives, God could still be accused of unfairness for not starting everyone off on equal grounds with equal opportunities. That is why the Gospel of Jesus Christ says that piety and good works will save no one. All are equally sinners and equally undeserving of salvation BUT God in his grace offers it to those who stop trusting their own piety and start trusting his Son, Jesus Christ.

Here are some more questions to think about:
- What is unique about the Christian faith compared to other world religions?
- Why does secular society have no problem with a scientist being adamant about the 2nd law of thermodynamics but get offended when a Christian is adamant about Jesus being the only way to the Father? Is there a difference in the two claims?

To Die is Gain

Here is a sobering account of martyrdom that recently took place. Just to warn you, parts of the article are a bit graphic.

Phil 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Evolution: a step of faith?

Here is an overview of Monday's lesson:

We started by testing ourselves in our memory verse challenge and books of the bible challenge. Everyone did a good job with the verses (keep trying your best to memorize it word-for-word), but some of us struggled with the books challenge. Keep at it and we'll try again next week. Remember the acronym I came up with for the first 7 minor prophets:
Hosea-Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jonah-Micah-Nahum
(H)osea (J)ust (A)dores (O)range (J)uice (M)orning & (N)ight

The last five just need to be memorized but notice that there is a slight pattern:
Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi
Hab-Zeph, Hag-Zech, Malachi

Here are some highlights from our discussion:
- It was significant to note that there is currently no agreement among the scientific community concerning life's origin. It is still an open issue for debate and discussion. Evolution may explain differentiation within species but does not explain life's origin.

- When Darwin was developing his theories, scientists did not realize how complex even a single-celled organism can be. So they assumed the jump from inanimate chemicals to a living organism was not very big. But now we realize that one single cell is far more advanced and stores more information than our most advanced computers.

- The Miller experiment which supposedly re-created the elemental environment of primitive earth and created life (amino acids) from non-life by an electrical charge was successful but had a huge scientific flaw. The elements used in the experiment were not present in primitive earth in any significant amount, but rather the actual elements (inert gases) in primitive earth would not have reacted to form life.

- Some scientists have finally acknowledged that no natural explanation can be given to explain the origin of life on earth, so they have suggested that life spores must have come from outer space - either riding on a meteorite or another civilization actually "seeded" our earth by intentionally sending life here. Okay - if you are willing to turn to little green men to explain life's origin, then why would you not consider the possibility of the supernatural, ie. a Creator God? This goes to show that being a secular, naturalistic scientist can require more faith than being a believer of God.

- The next time you study for a science test, specifically a biology test remember...as you see the detail and beauty inherent in all animals, plants, water, rocks, amebas, viruses, biological processes, and even evolution itself...allow it to lift your heart in worship of our Infinitely Wise and Creative Creator God.


Some interesting questions and links:
- Adrian brought up the huge question about homosexuality and a genetic link. If we found a link how would it impact our theology of God's fairness, of sin, of moral accountability? Here is a response to those question by Dr. Al Mohler.

- Jessica also asked about cloning and its moral implications. Is human cloning and genetic engineering - for the purpose of creating "healthy" babies - a morally or theologically right thing to do? Are we playing God? Mohler strikes again...and again.

Trusting Your Bible

Here is a recap of Monday's lesson:

What is the Bible?
The Word of God. God's special revelation to humanity recorded in words (in contrast to general revelation, ie. nature, providential acts in history, moral consciences)

What is so unique about the Bible?
Compared to the holy books of other religions usually written by one person in the span of one lifetime, the Bible stands in a class of its own. It was written over a span of 1600 years by over 40 authors spanning over 60 generations. The authors came from different social backgrounds and wrote in different settings under different circumstances and in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). One would expect to find chaos and contradictions when you compile all the 66 books together, but instead we find continuity and an overarching narrative weaved throughout all the books.

Where did the Bible come from?
The Bible is a divinely inspired book given to us through human authors (1 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21). We believe that all (plenary/full) the words (verbal) of Scripture and not just the ideas are from God, and that what is written is without error (inerrant). Hence the label: verbal, plenary, inerrant inspiration. According to 2 Tim 3:16, God breathed out his words through the human authors using their perspectives and personalities. The divine-human nature of the Bible is often compared to the divine-human nature of Christ. Jesus is both God and man united in a single person. In the same way, Scripture is one book with both a divine and human element.

Does the Bible really have no errors?
If God is true (1 Jn 5:20) then anything he breathes must also be true. When we say the Bible is inerrant we mean that the Bible does not communicate falsehood/lies but truthful statements without error. Every word down to the last letter in the Bible (in the original writings) can be trusted as coming from God. This was Jesus' view of the OT (Jn 10:34 - every word; Mt 5:18 - every letter; Mt 22:32 - every tense).

Now when we say "without error" that cannot be interpreted in a purely scientific or strictly literal way. Inerrancy simply means that - b/c the Holy Spirit carried them along - the human authors made no mistakes in communicating what it was they meant to say. Remember that our claim of the Bible inerrancy must be qualified. We can allow for...
1) Different literary genres (ie. dont read poetry as literally as you would history),
2) Ordinary language of everyday speech (ie. figures of speech, approximations, imprecision)
3) Loose or free quotations from the OT (authors usually quoted ideas and not exact words)
4) Grammatical mistakes ("Jason be an man from America" is still a true statement)
5) Limited or general accounts of a story (explains why one Gospel mentions 2 blind men while another only mentions one man in the same story)
6) Transmissions error as the books were copied down

If inerrancy is limited to the original writings, then how can I trust my Bible?
We can trust our Bibles because we have very reliable copies to compare against. For example, before 1947 the earliest OT manuscript we possessed was dated back to 895 AD called the Masoretic text. Unfortunately that is a long time since the last book of the OT was written (Malachi ~ 5th century BC). But when we found the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we now possess copies of all the OT books (expect Esther) that date back to the 2nd to 1st century BC. And after comparing, we discovered that the Masoretic text (that all our OTs are based off of) is high accurate and reliable.

As for the NT, there is more evidence supporting its reliably than all the other ancient literature in its day (books that most people just take for granted as reliable!). There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the NT in existence today, ranking first in manuscript evidence among books of antiquity. The Iliad by Homer comes in second with a measly 643 surviving manuscripts.

WORK	WHEN WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	TIME SPAN	# COPIES
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 years	643
New Testament	40-100 A.D.	125 A.D.*	25 years	24,000+

Note that the time span from "when written" to "earliest copy" is only 25 years for the earliest surviving copy of the NT compared to 500 years for the earliest surviving copy of Iliad. What that chart is saying is that if you buy a copy of The Iliad from Chapters and read it trusting that what is written in your book accurately reflects what Homer wrote and communicated, then how much more should we trust that the Bible is God's word communicated to you as you read it?

Favorite Heroes and Books

I enjoyed hearing about your heroes and favorite books. Jessica's mention of Eric Liddell was pretty cool since I can really see her following his footsteps. In case you dont know much about Eric Liddell here is a simple bio.

Here is a link to the book I mentioned that shaped my understanding of worship.
Let the Nations Be Glad
If you scroll down the page you will see a link to download the first chapter of the book. It was that first chapter on worship that blew me away.

I dont remember everyone's book so please leave a comment and remind us of the book (and provide a link to it if possible)

Miracles, Science, and the Nature of Doubt

Here is a recap of Monday's small group discussion:

First, we argued that the miracles in the Bible cannot be refuted by science because the very goal of science is to seek explanations to the causes of certain events within the natural realm, but miracles by definition lie outside that realm. They are supernatural events that transcend the limits of scientific explanation. But though miracles transcend the natural, they do not defy the natural - they neither violate natural law nor logic.

One helpful source for clarification is C.S. Lewis in the chapter on Miracles in God in the Dock. In the section he explains that miracles are not a violation of natural law but either a "reversal or suspension" or simply "a localized occurrence of a universal phenomenon." The latter is a bit confusing. He illustrates by saying,

"Some of the miracles [in the NT] do locally what God has already done universally...God created the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn that water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities. Thus every year, from Noah's time till ours, God turns water into wine. That men fail to see...they attribute real and ultimate causality to the chemical or other material phenomena which are all that our senses can discover in it. But when Christ at Cana makes water into wine, the mask if off." (John 2:1-11)

Second, some of us shared that we do not normally have doubts about the existence or historic reality of miracles but rather our doubts are usually over bigger things. If we think and ponder long enough, some creeping doubts begin to arise in our minds that have to do with God and the Bible.

A word of encouragement for you: doubt is not the direct opposite (the antithesis) of faith. Doubt and faith are not mutually exclusive things. It is possible to have a mature faith and still experience doubt (all Christians experience it to some degree). In actuality, doubt is the direct opposite of full knowledge If you have any trace of doubt about something, it is because you lack complete knowledge about it. But remember that our faith is ultimately not in a complete comprehension of facts but in a personal trust in an actual person, namely Jesus Christ.

For example, I have faith in my wife. That faith is not rooted in a complete 100% comprehension of everything about her (because I don't have that...or ever will) but simply in my trust of her as a person. So let's say I surprise her at work and discover her hugging another man that I do not know. Should I suddenly lose my faith in her because I don't know all the facts, specifically the identity of this man and the reason for their embrace? Such uncertainty could encourage doubt, but my personal trust in her overcomes all doubt. My faith in her is not based on knowing all the facts but based on her and everything I know about her backed by all the experience I’ve had with her, and all that evidence leads me to believe there must be another reason why she is hugging this guy. For all I know he could be a coworker whose wife just passed away from cancer and she was consoling him (this is all hypothetical by the way :)). The point is that a personal relationship with an individual always prevails over doubts concerning the details and facts we have yet to understand about the person. Faith is neither a blind leap in the dark (since it still involves evidence and experience) but nor is it a complete 100% knowledge in facts, void of doubt. Faith is an engagement of both heart and mind rooted in a real, growing relationship with another person.

But you might ask, "What if I doubt the existence of God altogether?" What if I sometimes think God is not even real or if all we've come to believe is just a delusion - nothing more than a fairy tale? How can you rely on a relationship with a person if you doubt their very existence?

First, I suggest you reread and meditate over that list of arguments for the existence of God in our book. Consider the weight of the evidence. Second, exercise whatever measure of faith you have (though it be small as a mustard seed) by asking God to reveal or confirm Himself to your heart and mind. Third, don't despair but also don't delay. Fall on your knees, open the Bible, encounter your Christ, consider the evidence, experience His presence, and lastly cry out to God with all the faith you have (along with the father of the boy with an unclean spirit who had his share of doubts), "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24).

Responding to the Virginia Tech Tragedy

Here is an article from John Piper on how to respond as Christians to the VTech shooting incident. It was written after Columbine but still very relevant.
21 ways to minister to those who are suffering

Here is another short article by Dr. Al Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Seminary.
Facing the Reality of Evil

Was the Fear Factor too much?

Since nobody actually made it to Fear Factor (except me), I thought I'd share a bit about it... so everybody knows exactly what fun they missed!!

The first challenge was Roll-and-Eat! You had to roll a big fuzzy dice and your role determined what you had to eat. On the menu were things like chicken hearts, 1000 year old eggs, fish egg sauce (or something like that), a clove of garlic, globs of horseradish, and, last but not least, random insect skin molts! Yuck...

The next part of the evening had 3 stations:
1) Shock Factor: Hold on as long as you can as they zap electric current through your hand!
2) Fall Factor: Fall to the ground without flinching as long as you can!
3) Ice Water Challenge: Hold your breath as long as you can. The catch? Your head is upside down in a bucket of ice water!

Eight semi-finalists were then chosen. The semi-final challenge? RATS!!! They put your head in a plexiglass container and threw in 4 or 5 rats to brush across your neck, nibble in your ear, try to get in your mouth, and pick your nose for you! Whoever could stand the nibbling and fear the longest made it the finals.....

The finals: (reader discretion advised...)
The finalists had to move LIVE MAGGOTS from a platter to their plate... using their MOUTH! Yuck!! Oh, and that's not even the worst of it! The first person to eat 4 whole live maggots was awarded the victory!! If you don't know what a maggot is, ask your parents. Then ask if you can eat one to see what they say...

Oh, and there was this guy that brought in his pet tarantulas, scorpions, and frogs and stuff! Some people had the scorpions crawl over their hand...(note: they are venemous if they sting you).

It was definately fun. Click here to see some videos I took!

DO NOT MISS THIS EVENT NEXT YEAR!!!
(unless, of course, you're a chicken...)

DON'T FORGET!

We meet tomorrow (Monday, April 16) at Jessica's place. We'll be discussing chapter 2 of the Case for Faith. See you at 6:30!

Hello Yoofies! Welcome to the new Yoof blog. This is Cheryl, Yoof leader and blogger extraordinaire! I've been working hard to set up this site, which I hope you find to be truly amazing and useful so that we can continue to grow together as a group. Allow me to share some hopes I have for this blog...

First, after going through the first chapter of The Case for Faith, I realized that the questions we'd be covering would need more than our allotted hour and a half to cover. So, I hope that we can post the summaries of each meeting on here (as we have with the first one) and then we can leave comments and continue our discussions. That way we can all participate and the discussions can go on as long as they need to. This will also hopefully become something you can tell your friends about if you ever end up discussing these questions with them.

You might have also noticed some cool links on the side. I would like to draw your attention to the events calendar and the email yoof links. If you click on the events link, it will take you to an online calendar that we have posted upcoming meetings, events and other random goings on. We have set up a yoof email account as well (mostly cause we needed to for this blog) but also because if any of you want to write a blog entry as opposed to a comment, you can email it to this address, and we'll post it for you!

So visit often and let me know what you think and what you'd like to see on here! Peace out!

Cheryl

Suffering, Evil and a Good God

This week we went through chapter one of Lee Strobel's The Case For Faith, called Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Good God Cannot. Here's a recap of our discussion:

- God is sovereignly in control over evil, both moral and natural evil
- God controls evil by withholding grace (goodness) and permitting sin to manifest itself in evil acts
- But humans are still responsible for their sin (James 1:13-15)
- The Cross of Christ is the best example of God willing evil to take place but still holding humans accountable for their sin (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28)
- The Cross is also an example of God's two-fold will --> He wills for us not to murder but also wills the murder of His Son
- God can see things from a wide-angle lens --> He sees the bigger picture of how evil is used for good, which one day He will share with His children
- Application: Luke 13:1-5 --> Jesus reminds us that the main point of every story of oppression or calamity or evil or suffering is to lead us to repentance. Those who suffer aren't suffering b/c they're worst sinners. We are all sinners just the same. So when we realize how Christ has spared us with his mercy, then we have to repent for having such a small view of God's mercy and repent for our tendency to blame God one day when we see suffering but fail to praise him for a thousand days free of suffering, disease, or calamity.

We closed with worship, listening to a wicked song by Andrew Peterson called After the Last Tear Falls. Click here for the lyrics.

John Piper's article on 9/11 and the topic of God and Suffering is also a good resource. Click here to read it!

Show me the Money! - Amplify #2

DREAM COME TRUE!

This is so absolutely cool.....thanks cheryl for setting this up! How do I add photos?

FEAR FACTOR!!!!!

Friday, April 13 at Collingwood Baptist Church.

More information to follow...

under construction

This blog is still in progress...I'm still playing around, but feel free to read about what we've been talking about...