My recent devotional reading has been from the book, The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World. Admittably this is not a devotional book in terms of its style. But its text sparks greater devotion the more it is consumed. (Consumed. I like that word when it comes to Bible study and reading.)

Today’s chapter is by Mark Driscoll, reflecting on the divisions between emergent and reformed theologies. It’s a great read, and it got greater when I read the following, which I’ll leave with you today.

Perhaps my favorite picture of the glorious exaltation of our great God Jesus Christ is what we like to refer to as Ultimate Fighter Jesus. In revelation 19:11-16, Jesus rides into town on a white horse, with his steely eyes blazing red like fire and a tatoo down his leg that says, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” He is wearing white like a gunslinger from an old western and carrying a sword, looking for some bad guys as the blood of already-fallen enemies drips to the ground below. Simply, Jesus was, is, and forever will be fully God; he is not someone anyone would want to mess with.

What happens to you when you read the scriptures or go through a Bible study? Many people take their time with the word in stride like it was any other function of their day. I do that sometimes. Some people avoid time in the word, not wanting to be confronted with some transformational truth they know they will be accountable to. I’ve done that more times than I want to admit.

I think one of the difficulties for many Christians when it comes to spending time in the scriptures is not that they don’t understand what they are reading, or don’t want to learn, it’s that the scriptures do more than unfold principles about Christian living. The scriptures unavoidably and unmistakably point us, in all things, to the person of Jesus Christ.

In my own spiritual journey I’m beginning a recognize a new development. As I go into the word or go through a study or book that emphasizes scripture strongly, I feel a compelling, absolute need to share it with others, write about it, teach it—specifically how it relates to the person of Jesus. I’ve felt such strong feelings before, but not approaching this level. Has that ever happened to you?

Recently I took some friends from the States on a church visit. We settled in for the service as the auditorium began filling up. We noticed how people entered the church with joy, even expectation. The worship was exuberant and thankful. When the pastor arose to speak I noticed he had his notes prepared and laid out before him. He spoke passionately and with conviction. He told Bible stories. I’d say that at least half of his message was stories from the Bible. It was impressive. I can’t think of a sermon I’ve ever heard in the States that had so many stories. But there was one thing missing.

The Bible.

The pastor, obviously familiar with the scriptures, did not bring the Bible to the pulpit. He told stories from the Bible, but only abbreviated or summarized in his own words. There was no reading from the scripture, almost no referencing to the scripture itself, and no leading the congregants through the text of the living word of God. It was heartbreaking for me to watch because nearly half of the people I observed in the congregation were furiously scribbling notes of everything the pastor said. The hunger for spiritual truth in the room was prolific! I’ve never before seen so many people hanging so tightly onto every word out of a preacher’s mouth. Imagine the level of transformation that could come if the Bible wasn’t missing.

In thinking about this recent experience I was reminded of a passage from the book, God is the Gospel, by John Piper. In it Piper asks:

“The critical question for our generation—and for every generation is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?”

He then provides what should be the answer for us:

“Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there. The gospel is not a way to get people to heaven; it is a way to get people to God. If we don’t want God above all things we have not been converted by the gospel.”

This is not to say that anyone who does not have Christ as his or her supreme affection, at this moment, will not go to heaven. Rather, the transformation wrought by the Gospel through our spiritual growth should have the affect of making Christ our supreme affection. And can we be on such a path if the scriptures do not become to us as breath and blood?

Too often, way too often, the scripture has been missing from my life. I remember it, remind myself of its commands and stories and attempt to live by its precepts. But that’s not the same as giving myself over to the living word of God. Because when I open the pages and consume what is before me it is incredibly different than the occasional mental reminder. It is much deeper than that. It becomes absolutely compelling and the desire to let it transform me and come out of me becomes overwhelming.

It’s like the admonition of James 1:22, “Prove yourselves to be doers of the word.” That little Greek word for “doers,” is powerful. In virtually all other Greek literature of the period it was used to mean, “maker” or “producer,” as in someone who produces a stage play, or someone who creates something with inborn talent. Let that sink in. “Prove yourselves to be makers and producers of the word.” That only happens when the word of God populates our being so fully we cannot help but naturally and normally live lives with the intention of being the living, walking embodiment of what that word says.

For Christ to become our supreme affection we must have “Christ formed in [us]” (Galatians 4:19). That happens when we give God’s word primacy in our lives, because, “The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edge sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

If there is group of people that might be described as “seekers,” then Buddhists must be high on the list. Buddhism, as a system, requires its adherent to be devoted to exploring a set of principles that will earn him or her an enlightened state that they hope will lead to the end of suffering—a noble and worthwhile goal. Those who explore the Buddhist path are taught concepts such as: The Middle Way, Samsara, The Four Noble Truths, and others.

Yet on a practical, day-to-day level, many Buddhists inwardly struggle. They feel spiritually empty, as if the practices they engage in provide some temporary satisfaction or guidance, but when over, the emptiness or futility remains. While they pursue the path they are taught the Buddha has lain out, they secretly wonder about the reality of the Buddha’s teachings. Being taught that they will experience many rebirths until finally reaching their objective, they cannot help but wonder, “Will this truly end my suffering? How can I know that what I am doing really works?”

For the next few weeks I want to explore together some key ideas in Buddhism. I attempt to compare Buddhist principles to the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ in hopes of helping the Buddhist seeker, discover a different kind of enlightenment—one that can be fully experienced and realized in this life, right now, without the need for what may seem like a tumultuous cycle of rebirth.

For the next few weeks we will very consider the Buddhist and Christian teachings on:

• The World Around Us
• The Seen and the Unseen
• The Middle Way and The High Way, and
• Experiencing Truth

Then I will present a short presentation called: Four Higher Truths, which will contrast the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths with a meaningful presentation of the Gospel. So let’s begin with our first installment.

The World Around Us

What is the nature of reality? How can we tell that what we experience is primarily an experience that comes from our own perceptions or is a part of true existence? If our reality is defined by our perceptions, how can we know when our perceptions give us accurate information about the world around us or even our own existence? If our perceptions of reality are problematic, then how do we address the even more important issues involving eternity?

To its credit, Buddhism tries to address the questions of reality and perception. Many Buddhists have found meaning and solace in Buddhist teachings (or debate) about the nature of the world around us. At first a person who is unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts may struggle. In fact, many Buddhists themselves struggle with these ideas. Whole schools of competing Buddhist thought have arisen to address the nature of reality.

For our purposes together, let us address the core of Buddhist ideas about the world around us:

• The evidence of reality presented to us by our senses is faulty. Human perception of the world is mistaken,(1)
• “Everything is part of an ultimate, impersonal ground of existence which is neither good nor evil,”(2)
• Good, evil, truth, and falsehood are mistaken perceptions (or conventions), which have no absolute meaning.

These ideas about reality are foundational to Buddhism’s attempt to address humanity’s ultimate problems. Let’s address these issues together and also discover how Jesus Christ addressed these issues in His teaching. First, let’s apply some common sense—and science—to the Buddhist teachings about reality and perception.

Sense & Senses

As I type these words I see them on my computer screen. By doing this I am making the assumption that you who are reading it are also seeing the same words that I typed. In fact I’m also assuming you have access to a computer, the Internet, can input a website address, find this page, and read this article. You are doing the same thing that thousands of people have done before you, and will after you. All of us share a common set of perceptions that allows us to have a certain degree of unity in our experience of writing and reading—or any other experience. Let’s call this our unity of perception.

Sight in an important part of our perceptive abilities. What we see can be pleasurable or frightening. It can foster longing or fear. What we see is also an important part of our learning process and contributes heavily to the assumptions we make together. And—together—is the point I’d like to make. If you sit in a group with a printed version and all read together from the page, you will all read the same thing. Your perception about what words are written, are the same. It is this unity of perception that encourages us that what we are reading really exists, and that by implication, it has a writer who also exists. The same may be said of the world. We have a unity of perception about the world around us. We do not all experience different realities generated by our minds like hallucinations—”self generated sensory experiences.”(3) Nor are our perceptions, illusions. “Cognitive illusions come about because the brain is full of prejudices: habits of thought, knee-jerk emotional reactions and automatic orders of perception.(4)

“Ah, but wait,” you might say. “Isn’t that part of what Buddhism refers to, cognitive prejudices, etc.?” In some ways, yes. But the idea that our perceptions create an illusion of what the nature of the world is like, must disregard the unity of perception that we all share. This leaves us with one of two choices: Humanity’s unity of perception is itself, illusionary, or our unity of perception provides evidence that our experiences and the world around us are real. Which is the case?

Saying that our perception of the shared unity of perception is illusionary is the same as saying our illusion is illusionary—i.e. our we do not experience illusion. It is self-defeating and leaves us only with our second option. Our perceptions are real. In fact, our perceptions are not only real, but our brains naturally anticipate the reality around us allowing us to experience it according to reality. Our brains know that what our senses deliver to it is real. “An act of perception is a lot more than capturing an act of incoming stimulus. It requires a form of expectation, of knowing what is about to confront us, and preparing for it. Without expectations, or constructs through which we perceive our world, our surroundings would be…confusion. Each experience would truly be a new one, rapidly overwhelming us.”(5) Where do those “constructs” come from? From the previous real-world experiences we have had!

This does not mean that we do not sometimes have faulty perceptions about the world around us, or our nature. In fact, the very thrust of the argument presented here is that Buddhism is a perceptive filter that presents an illusion about the nature of existence.

The Nature of Existence

If our perceptions about the world around us are faulty, and there is another truth underneath what we perceive, then, our perceptions about how to live in the world are also colored by our misperceptions. Could this be true? Let’s turn again to our unity of perception.

Everyone has some kind of concept of right and wrong, good and evil. We all share common perceptions, that there are certain things that are good, and certain things that are evil. Personal preference and culture permit varying degrees in our agreement over what is right and wrong. But the fact stands that there still remains the concept of good and evil, right and wrong.

According to Buddhist thought the issue of what is right and wrong is nothing more than a convention without absolute authority or substance. This teaching, in point of fact, leaves the adherent with the idea that what is good and evil cannot be ultimately defined since good and evil are illisionary. Let’s present it this way:

Is a belief in absolute good and evil, a right belief or a wrong belief?

If you are under the Buddhist way of thinking that last sentence is a trap in both its construct and its implication. For the Buddhist the question is unanswerable without causing a new set of philosophical problems. If you declare it a “wrong belief,” you are left with a moral dilemma. Under Buddhism, wrong beliefs or perceptions lead to suffering. If this wrong belief leads to suffering, then is not the belief itself evil (morally wrong and not just factually wrong)? Could it not be argued that Siddhartha perceptually recognized the existence of evil when he saw the sick man, poor man, beggar, and the corpse? He lamented the suffering of humanity because he recognized the evil of what he saw.

These arguments would seem to indicate the existence of evil, which would be a right belief, meaning that there is something more significantly wrong with humanity than perceptions, ignorance, and suffering.(6)

There is More Wrong with Us Than Our Ignorance

Buddhism has gotten something right about our existence. We do have a problem with perception. But according to Jesus Christ, our problem is not ignorance about the human condition. Our problem is denial.
Earlier I wrote about our “cognitive prejudices” that color our perceptions of the world around us, and our own nature. The earlier quote would seem to support the ideas of Buddhism, that our perceptions are a problem. If in fact we interpret everything around us through perceptual filters like greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and so on, then we should ask the question: Where do these come from?

Jesus taught that such things come from within the human heart.

“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”(7)

But who is an evil man? What constitutes a person who is evil?

During a conversation with a devoutly religious man, Jesus made a surprising statement. While asking about how to attain eternal life, a man called out to Jesus, calling him, “Good teacher.” Jesus responded:

“‘No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’
‘And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
‘When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”(8)

Jesus had two criteria for evil. First, a person who is evil is a person who obeys evil. He or she is a person who engages in morally wrong thoughts, feelings, and actions. The commandments Jesus referred to were Laws given to Israel by God. Engaging in these behaviors, like all behaviors, starts from the heart or mind, and ends with the actual doing of the evil. A person who obeys evil is evil.

Second, Jesus provided a criteria for evil that was highly personal and surprising to the man who heard it.

“…and come, follow Me.”

Jesus regarded the person who willfully rejected him as evil. Why would He do this? Why did Jesus’ criteria for right and wrong have to be so relational?

Unlike Buddhism, which presents everything as an “impersonal ground of existence, which is neither good nor evil,” Jesus Christ presented himself as the ultimate standard of personal existence that is, inherently, good. He recognized that in order for man to deal with suffering, he had to deal with his relationships. Notice the commandments that Jesus mentioned. All are committed in relationship with, or to, another person. In fact, all evil is committed within the context of relationship. The same is true about good. There can be no good and no evil without relationship.

Under Buddhism the adherent attempts to either remove himself from the world through monasticism, or minimize his attachments. In other words, the devout Buddhist must minimize relationships. Yet doing so will not mitigate evil, because love is only expressed in relationships and only love can conqueror evil. Suffering is therefore, not the real problem for Buddhism, denial is.

Because Buddhism is a philosophy of the impersonal, it is only natural that it would deny concepts of good and evil beyond their use as mere conventions. Yet Jesus Christ defined good and evil only in terms of relationship—relationship to others and relationship to Himself. In Buddhism one does not have a relationship with the reality around him since his reality is considered to be an illusion of mistaken perceptions. In comparison, the Bible teaches us that we have not only a relationship with the world around us, but also the people in it, and the God who created it.

Our perceptions are real, and given to us by God so that we might “seek him with all our heart.”(9) If God has enabled us to seek Him, then surely He has given us the perceptive ability to recognize His reality.

1. Dalai Lama XIV, The Dalai Lama at Harvard, page 36.
2. M. Tsering, Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, page 153.
3. Rita Carter & Professor Christoper Frith, Mapping the Mind, page 127.
4. Ibid, page 131.
5. John J. Ratey, M.D., A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the Brain, page 56.
6. What if you argue that the belief itself is not right or wrong? Doing so would imply the nonexistence of the belief, and perhaps even the question. For an argument against such a point, read two paragraphs above. If in doubt, read it with a friend using unity of perception.
7. Matthew 12:35.
8. Luke 18:19-22.
9. Psalm 119:2.

It was with disappointment that I read this article from Thaindian News: Indianised Version of the Bible Hit Among Christians.

The new Catholic translation of the Bible, which apparently went on sale in India this month, has sold like hotcakes, with 15,000 grabbed up in just 10 days. Those are big numbers.

It’s also a big problem.

Apparently the new translation draws “references to other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.” This means that the terms from these religions are used in the Bible’s text to explain Christianity. Actually, this is not an unusual concept. The same is done in Mongolia with one of two Bible translations called, in English, The Blue Bible. While the translation is popular here, for many it is also controversial.

But back to India…

According to one Indian believer, who is apparently a fan of the new translation, the translators “have also drawn the Indian mythology into it. It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

This is not good news for Indian Christianity. But it does provide an interesting insight into the application of Christianity in Asia. Syncretism is a common problem in Christianity, but especially in Asia. The blending of words, concepts, and even practices of one faith into—what is supposed to be—Orthodox or Evangelical Christianity usually ends up corrupting the expression of Christianity so much that that expression of Christ becomes unrecognizable for what it was intended to be in the first place.

According to one poster on the Indian forum site iVarta, “It portrays Jesus as Hindu.” Another remarked, “It would be funny if this version of the Bible slowly converts these Catholics back to Hindu practices.”

Holy cow, what are the Indian Catholics thinking?

Adapting presentations or emphasizing certain stories or passages is one thing, but altering the text by melding anti-Christian concepts into the scriptures is a violation of every principle of valid ministry I can think of. It distorts the message of the cross and puts it on par with the myths of Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other nonChristian “ism.”

The contextualization of Christianity in a culture is a controversial work. How much of the presentation of the Gospel must be adapted to a culture, and honor the culture? When must culture be ignored in favor of the supreme truth of Christ? I’m not going to answer that question here, except to say while these are difficlut issues that every missionary and indigenous Christian must wrestle with, there is one thing that must be clear.

You must not change the text of Scripture, or introduce within its text, concepts which are foreign to its original meaning.

Note what one person who bought the new Indianised version remarked, “It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

Christianity is a foreign religion. There’s no sense denying it. But being foreign to a culture doesn’t automatically invalidate its truth. The indigineous desire to “culturalize” Christianity, or in this case, the Scriptures, very often places the expression of culture over the expression of biblical truth. Certainly there are many aspects of many cultures that are compatible with Christianity. But where traditional beliefs conflict with the Scriptures the Christian is left with no choice. He must abandon that which is contrary to Christ.

In the July 2007 issue of Christianity Today, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Professor Emeritus of Mission Trinity Evangelical Divinity School noted:

“Hindu and Buddhist concepts such as bodhisattva, karma, dharma, samsara, and nirvana can be understood only in the context of the religious worldview of which they are part. Jesus is the Son of God, the only Savior and mediator between God and man. He is no one’s bodhisattva. He died for our sin, not our karma. Hindus and Buddhists have re-made Jesus into an avatar and bodhisattva in order to make their false religions more appealing. When Christians do the same they sacrifice true religion and contribute to Christ’s diminishment.

Contextualization is necessary but it has boundaries.”

Doing what the Indian Catholic church has done reads to me like an abandoning of the exclusive truth of Christ in favor of myth and superstition. If the Indianised translation becomes the Bible of choice of India’s catholics, then I predict it won’t be long before Indian Catholism becomes unrecognizable as Catholism, much less as Christianity.

Had a great time at church this afternoon. In addition to looking at a large number of verses about God’s sovereignty over all creation, and the supremacy of Christ, we had an early dinner together of chilidogs and beans. My poor daughter is keeping her distance from me for the rest of night since I had THREE helpings of beans and two chilidogs. I make chili all the time, though I’m not a hot dog fan. The exception of course: chilidogs.

But that’s not why I’m writing tonight.

Our service time was spent looking through scriptures and discussing how people often perceive the Gospel. We went through so many passages this afternoon that I lost count, but the one in particular stuck out to me: The Parable of the Sower.

Luke 8:4-15 records Jesus’ parable and its meaning so that what he intends us to get from the parable can be clear and unmistaken.

In the past whenever I’ve read this passage I tended to focus on the hearers whom Jesus describes as being good soil. More than anything I want to be good soil, that is, one who hears the word of God and bears the kind of fruit that God intends his word to bring about. Though Jesus does not explain in this passage what “fruit” means, his meaning is actually pretty clear since throughout the Gospels and the New Testament “fruit” is either used to represent the souls won to Christ by Christians, or (and most often) it is a reference to personal character brought about in the Christian through obedience to Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s heart (in John fruit refers to both, but in Matthew, Mark, and Luke fruit refers to character). More importantly for my purposes today I was drawn to Jesus’ use of the description of “thorns” that grew up with the seed (word of God) and choked it. It brings to mind another passage where Jesus referred to “tares” or in the common vernacular, “weeds” in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43.

In each case Jesus applied a different meaning for the “seed.” In the first passage the seed was the word of God. In the second the “good seed” are believers in Christ. In the first passage the word of God grows in the person, but the thorns of life choke it out. In other words, the normal everyday desires of life prevent the seed from taking firm root. In the second passage Jesus describes something different: people who look like Christians as they begin their experience, but who turn out later to have been imposters all along. In both cases Jesus intimates that the normal experiences in life either prevent people from growing in their faith, or are people who never had faith in the first place.

As I listened to the passage this afternoon I thought of people who hear God’s word but instead of giving supremacy in their lives to Jesus Christ, they look upon the Bible and Jesus as solutions to their personal problems or a way to get their desires fulfilled. In other words, they give preference to the thorns rather than the word of God which can produce something greater. They treat the word of God as if its purpose to is to grow up and make the thorns less thorny. They want to keep the thorns and keep what Jesus has also planted. The word of God and the sovereignty of Jesus Christ take a back seat to personal ambitions or desires. Consider also that in the second passage something similar is going on, though more drastic. In the first passage the people who receive the word are those who honestly receive it. They want it. But they still care more about the thorns of life. But in the second parable the people recorded there are deceivers from the very beginning.

The Greek word for “tares” is only used once in the Bible, and it’s in this passage in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. It’s not a simple weed, but a reference to a very particular plant (zizanion,) known in modern times as a bearded darnel. Darnels are nasty things. They look like wheat as they are beginning to grow. Only later as the plant begins to head is the difference more obvious. Most importantly, darnel seeds are poisonous, causing dizziness and in some cases even death.

It’s no mistake that Jesus used the darnel in his Parable of the Weeds, and the thorns in his Parable of the Sower. For a person with thorns the normal issues of life take precedence over Christ. The object of faith becomes that which faith is thought to deliver: materials blessings, emotional wholeness, and end of suffering, etc. In fact the Bible never promises such things to the Christian (it usually promises the opposite). In the second passage there are those who appear to be children of God, but in fact are mere imitations. They also do not give Christ supremacy; in fact they deny it altogether. They walk the walk for a while, and talk the talk, but in the end they expose themselves for that they truly are: poison at the core. They are designed to perform the same function as thorns—choke out fruit which God intends to raise.

The supremacy of Jesus Christ and the view of the scriptures as our authority for life and practice is critical for a Christian to be a Christian. Christianity is not designed as a solution to our personal problems. The heart of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. When we cede supremacy to Christ the thorns cannot choke out what God intends because we are removing them, and pushing them back that God’s will might be done in us. When we cede supremacy to Christ the poisonous weeds may grow up with us in our midst, but in the end Christ will separate us to himself and the weeds will be left only for burning, much like the land that gave itself for thorns.

What place does Christ occupy in your life? If he is the means to your ends, then chances are he is not occupying the place in your life you thought he was. But if your life is surrendered to Christ (surrender is a military term, as in “unconditional surrender”) then and only then can you find yourself bearing the fruit that he has intended for you to have.

While beginning a study on the biblical definitions of love, I ran across an interesting list by Professor Wayne Grudem from his book, Systematic Theology, on the “Signs of a More-Pure Church.” In this highly esteemed volume, Professor Grudem defines a pure church as, “[The] degree of freedom from wrong doctrine and conduct, and its degree of conformity to God’s revealed will for the church” (Chapter 45, page 873). Two things about this definition and Grudem’s list of church attributes caught my attention.

First, Grudem places doctrine and behavior hand-in-hand. Improper doctrine does not naturally or organically work itself out to become proper biblical behavior in a Christian’s life. Jesus remarked about this is Matthew 7:17-20 when He said:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (ESV).

Second, Grudem’s list (presented below) can be used to not only help determine if a particular church is near biblical standards, but also if individual believers are near those standards as well. Before I comment on this it behooves me to point out that not all Christians are mature (no matter how old they are or what their position is – that goes for pastors and missionaries too). Christians are all over the scale when it comes to spiritual understanding, insight, biblical knowledge, practical application, and the Fruit of the Spirit. However, a Christian as well as a church body should be growing toward the attributes listed below.

I’m going to take a liberty and rename this list from Grudem’s “Signs of a More-Pure Church” to:

Attributes of a Spiritually Mature Church

1. Biblical Doctrine (or right preaching of the Word)
2. Proper use of the sacraments (or ordinances)
3. Right use of church discipline
4. Genuine worship
5. Effective prayer
6. Effective witness
7. Effective fellowship
8. Biblical church government
9. Spiritual power in ministry
10. Personal holiness of life among members
11. Care for the poor
12. Love for Christ

That’s a whopper of a list and its certainly true that not many churches that I am aware of are at the top of their game when it comes to meeting all of these standards. Every church has a mixture of believers who are following Christ, believers who struggle with sin or live defiantly in sin, people who think they are believers or are pretending to be believers, and unbelievers. All of these affect what a church body looks like from the outside in. But a genuine church that is seeking to know God and live obediently to Christ is a church that is pursuing these attributes.

I won’t spend an entire article on each attribute, that’s something you can do on your own. However, I want to point out what Grudem mentions is the one thing that can corrupt these attributes and lead to the spiritual downfall of a church: A focus on the ideas and concerns of man rather than the ideas and concerns of God. This comes (in part) when we define our Christianity and service to God first by our culture or national heritage rather than approaching the Bible for what it instructs regardless of, or transcendent of what our culture or heritage teaches us. God is transcendent of culture and above it. Sometimes He calls believers to embrace certain cultures and norms, and other times he calls us to transform culture in keeping with His attributes of holiness. Grudem wisely asserts:

“When a church begins to stray from faithfulness to Christ, this will be evident not only in the shift to impure doctrine but also in the daily life of the church: its activities, its preaching, its counseling, and even casual conversations among members will tend to become more and more man-centered and less and less God-centered…The conversation and activities of the church will have very little genuine spiritual content [prayer, scripture, forgiveness of sin, trusting Christ]. Where there are admonitions to moral reforms, these will often be viewed as human deficiencies that people can correct by their own discipline and effort, and perhaps encouragement from others, but these moral aspects of life will not primarily be viewed as sin against a Holy God, sin which can only be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit working within” (emphasis mine).

Grudem then goes on to drop this nuclear bomb: “When such humanistic emphases become dominant in a church…it is moving in the direction of becoming a false church” (Chapter 45, page 876).

Boom.

As Christians, even as corporate church bodies, we can be mistaken in our doctrine, exhibit a few bad behaviors from time-to-time, screw up church discipline and our witness. We can get all of the attributes wrong. We are human, sinful, prone to going our own way rather than God’s. But when we keep our attention upon Christ and obedience to the scriptures, even if we get it wrong we will still be in a process of maturing to become like Him. But when our focus is on ourselves, our culture, our ideas, we will always go astray. Always.

We may take as an example the lives of kings Saul and David. If you read carefully about Saul’s life you discover that he really wasn’t that bad a guy, in fact, he was a pretty good guy. He kept his zipper shut (unlike David), he raised his kids to be loyal and trustworthy (unlike David), he didn’t use his political power to amass wealth to himself (unlike David), he wasn’t known for cruelty to his friends or enemies (unlike David), he was not given to bouts of misjudgment that resulted in injustice (unlike David). Yet God said of Saul, “You have rejected the Word of the Lord” (I Samuel 15:23), and called David a “Man after my own heart” (I Samuel 16:7, 13:14). Of course it is true that Saul had many serious faults, however, considering the violence, immorality, and chaos of David’s life, what was the difference that set him apart as a man of God instead of Saul who seemed to have so many of the right behaviors? A hint is found in Saul’s confession in I Samuel 15:24:

“I feared the people and listened to their voice.”

Saul was a people pleaser instead of having a life focused on pleasing God. For all of the good that Saul did to establish his nation (read: church), his primary attention was his service to his people to benefit his people rather than his service to God, which would have brought greater benefit.

Look carefully at the lives of Saul and David and you will see one attribute of David too often missing from Saul – repentance. David was always screwing up – big time – so his life reads like a movement from one moment of repentance to another, signifying that his focus was always on his Lord. As a result God used David to far outclass the work and reputation of Saul. He built a mature nation, but under Saul the spiritual life of Israel was withering away until even Saul himself consulted a spiritist medium to learn his fate – a fate that God had declared to him long ago.

When our focus is on obedience to Christ through the scriptures, we can rest in the understanding that though we make mistakes and sin, God can redeem each moment for His glory and purposes. Then we will know that we are growing into the attributes of maturity, whether as an individual believer, or a community of believers. When our faces are bowed in repentance, God always gives us a look from Heaven.

Jesus Christ is superior to all religious founders, teachers, philosophers, and ideologies. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Superior as, “Higher than another in rank, station, or authority, or a higher nature or kind, of great value, excellence, extraordinary.”

Beginning with this common and well accepted definition, examining the world’s most significant religious and philosophical figures, and comparing them to Jesus Christ, we see that Christ is eminently superior in every category.

Jesus’ Personhood

• His Birth
• His Life
• His Death
• His Resurrection

Jesus’ Character

• His Morality
• His Behavior/Expressions
• His Knowledge

Jesus’ Identity

• His Humanity
• His Servanthood
• His Kingship
• His Deity

In every way, Jesus Christ is superior to Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, Karl Marx, and all other religious and philosophical teachers. In every category Jesus Christ surpasses each of these significant but much less important figures of history.

His Personhood
Jesus birth is superior because unlike others, it was prophesied hundreds of years in advance (Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:2). His birth is superior because it was miraculous – Jesus was virgin-born (Luke 1:30-38). His life was superior because it was lived without sin (John 8:46, II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, I Peter 2:22). His death was superior because it was done on our behalf – to wash away sin (John 1:29, Romans 5:6-8). Jesus’ resurrection is not only unique, but also superior because it was permanent and it saves the person who trusts in Him (Romans 5:10, I Corinthians 15:3-4, Hebrews 7:25).

None of these things are true for any other religious leader or philosopher. The births of Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and Marx, along with all other such leaders, were ordinary births, without foretelling. But Jesus’ prophetic virgin birth pointed to a unique quality of character and identity not shared with any other person.

Jesus’ Character
Jesus Christ was sinless in nature, thought, and behavior (John 8:46, II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15). Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines sin as, Lawlessness or transgression of God’s will, either by omitting to do what God’s law requires, or doing what it forbids.”

The founder of Islam, Mohammad, confessed that he was a sinner who transgressed God’s laws and needed forgiveness (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, #335, #379, #407, #408). Buddha and Karl Marx rejected the concept of sin or a sin nature, as we are familiar with it in the Bible – but both accepted the idea of wrongful deeds, which is another way to refer to sin. Moses confessed his sin before God, acknowledging his need for a Savior.

Unlike all of these, Jesus needed no forgiveness and needed no Savior because He was sinless. He declared his own sinlessness to the religious leaders of His day. His morality was perfect, without failure. While Buddha taught a form of enlightenment that he himself had to attain, Jesus was different. Jesus needed no enlightenment. The Bible declares Jesus to be the one who gives enlightenment (John 1:5,9, I John 1:6-10). Jesus even warned against so-called enlightenment that does not take sin into account: “Beware that the light that is within you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35).

As a sinless person all of Jesus’ thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and behaviors were without moral failing. No religious leader or philosopher can claim this other than Jesus Christ. In fact, none of the leaders mentioned here ever made such a claim, except for Jesus. Jesus was perfect in these things because His knowledge was perfect. Unlike Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and Marx, Jesus was pre-existent (John 1:15, 8:42, 56-58). His teachings about morality and right living came from His perfect character, His perfect experience, and His foreknowledge (John 5:19).

Jesus’ Identity
Compared to other religious leaders Jesus’ identity is unique and superior. As already mentioned, His humanity was sinless. But there are three other traits that make Jesus superior to all others – His servanthood, His kingship, and His Deity.

While Buddha taught religious principles to others, he first sought enlightenment for himself, for his own benefit. Mohammad founded Islam on a principle that the prophet of Allah was to be served by those he taught. A prophet could even receive benefits from his religious service that ordinary people could not receive – like multiple wives. Karl Marx taught service to the State. Jesus was different from all of these.

Jesus Christ is above all rulers, authorities, and nations (Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 2:9-10). Though He was already God, He emptied Himself to become a servant (Philippians 2:5-8). Jesus said He came to serve (Matthew 20:28). While all other religious leaders sought to raise their spiritual standing, to achieve a higher plane of spirituality or consciousness, only Jesus Christ sought to lower and humble himself. Prior to His birth He was omniscient. Yet He sought in becoming a man to limit Himself – including His consciousness, to that of a man. Only Jesus sought to humble Himself from that position which was already His by Divine right.

Though Jesus was the ultimate servant (Mark 10:45), He is also a king. He is the King of Israel (Jeremiah 2:3-5, Ezekiel 37:21-28, John 1:49, 12:13). He is the King of the Earth (Psalm 42:2,7, Zechariah 14:9, John 18:37). Jesus is of higher authority than all earthly rulers (Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 1:9-10). He is king because of His kingly decent (II Samuel 7:12-13). He is king because He has moral authority to reign. He is king because of His Divine right as Deity (Colossians 1:13-17).

Mohammed ruled Arabia as a king – but only after slaughtering many opponents and shedding much innocent blood. Buddha was born into royalty, but he renounced it. Moses governed, but rejected kingship for himself. Karl Marx’s philosophies have reorganized many states, but like all others, he did not possess the moral authority to lead.

And finally, Jesus is superior because of His Deity. All others – Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, and Marx, and every other religious and philosophical figure were all mere men – but Jesus Christ is the unique Son of the Living God.

Conclusion
Even from our simple definition provided in the first paragraph we can see how unique and superior Jesus Christ is in comparison to all other religious teachers. He is higher in rank and station than Mohammed, of greater authority than Moses or Marx, of a higher nature, kind, value, and excellence than Buddha. Jesus Christ is more than extraordinary – and that doesn’t begin to explain Him.

Christmas is one of those holidays that I can take or leave. Perhaps it’s because of the way that we have trivialized what the holiday represents. We hang stockings, decorate trees, arrange manger scenes, and give gifts. Of course no one is fooled, it’s the gift giving and receiving that has become the real focus of Christmas. We love to get stuff. And we get joy, happiness, and a lot of squishy good feelings when our loved ones rip off the wrapping to expose our expressions of love. That’s a form of “getting” too. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself; but we are fooling ourselves if we think that benign gift giving and receiving is really representative of what God gave man in Jesus Christ. God’s great gift to man, in point of fact, didn’t happen on that first Christmas. It happened on Good Friday when Jesus was violently crucified for our sins. Had the crucifixion never happened, and the resurrection, then Christmas would be meaningless.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ – God becoming a man – was an event so powerful and significant that for 2,000 years man has counted his days and marked his history by the birth of the babe in the manger. While ancient kings the world over were positioning themselves to be worshipped like living deities to their populations and remembered like gods, the real Son of God busied himself with becoming an everyday man. And yet that humble event, regarded as a sweet treasured moment that gives hope to mankind was in fact something altogether more brutal and violent than our holiday pageants, Christmas TV specials, and even church services willingly remember. We focus our Christmas remembrances on the coming of “Immanuel,” the God with us from Isaiah 7:14 and the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace,” of Isaiah 9:6. But the Christmas tradition, that is, the belief that God would send a Savior, appears in the Bible long before Isaiah’s hopeful promises. And in these foundational promises of God, from which even Isaiah’s prophesies spring, the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David was planted in blood.

The first prophecy about the coming of Jesus was given, not to man, but to the Evil One, Satan. After persuading Adam and Eve to break God’s law and eat the forbidden fruit, “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle…I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heal” (Genesis 3:14-15).

That first promise of a coming Messiah to crush Satan marked the beginning of Satan’s attempt to do to Christ, and to man, what God declared would happen to him. At each stage of biblical history, when God’s promise to send a “seed” unfolded, the Enemy made moves to trample that seed underfoot. At each stage when God gave a promise of the seed of the Savior, separation and death soon followed.

Following God’s first promise to Abram of a seed to come after him (Genesis 12:1-3,7), Sari his wife was separated from him by Pharaoh of Egypt, immediately threatening the fulfillment of God’s promise.

Immediately after receiving the second promise of a coming seed (Genesis 15:1-5), Hagar the Egyptian was introduced to become Abram’s concubine. She, along with her son Ishmael were a cause of division in the family and Sarah recognized the potential threat to Abraham’s son Isaac – who was to carry the promise of the seed.

In Genesis 17:1-8 God made his third promise to Abraham of a coming seed. Shortly thereafter Abraham traveled to Gerar where its king, Abimelech, took Sarah as a concubine. The urgency of the text indicates Sarah was in imminent jeopardy, but God spoke to Abimelech and saved her and his promise, from danger.

Just as Abraham his father had a wife that could bare no children, so too Isaac, the child of promise, was given a barren wife. God’s promise of a coming seed seemed in danger again – until He intervened and Rebekah was able to conceive (Genesis 25:21).

Immediately after receiving the promise from God about the coming seed, Isaac was driven from his land and his family’s welfare put in jeopardy (Genesis 26).

After receiving his father’s blessing in the line of succession, Jacob’s life is threatened by his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41), causing him to flee. When Jacob returned years later with his family, Esau rode out with 400 men to slaughter him. But Jacob’s godly wisdom intervened to change Esau’s heart, and he spared Jacob and his family (Genesis 33:1-16).

In II Samuel 7:12-13 God promised to make David a great man and give him a seed to rule on his throne forever. After securing his kingdom and reputation (chapters 8-10), David became lax, took Bathsheba in adultery, and from that point his kingdom and his family endured in chaos, with his sons and servants murdering one another. If not for God’s promise for his lineage to endure, David would have lost all.

THE PROMISE OF REDEMPTION BROUGHT DEATH

Even from these few examples of God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah we can see a pattern. From Adam until Isaac there was a focus on destroying a single family or to separate a single family that possessed the promise of the seed – the coming Savior. The objective was to prevent the birth of a promise-holder, or destroy the lineage. Immediately after each promise was given there was either separation or the threat of death.

Beginning with Jacob, Satan attempted to destroy whole families or a nation of people. Inferred in the text is that when multiple children were born to the possessor of the promise, Satan could not learn which particular person was to carry the seed, so he targeted the entire group. We can see an example of this even during the Exodus period. God promised to Abraham that his seed would be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years before being freed (Genesis 15:13-16). 400 years later as the time of God’s promise was at hand, Pharaoh ordered all baby boys killed in hopes of killing the one child that would lead Israel to freedom. This event was mimicked in Palestine when Herod ordered all boys less than two years of age to die in hopes of killing the promised Messiah (Matthew 2:16).

Even during the period of Israel’s exile, in Esther 3:7-11, Haman tried to wipe out the Jewish nation – which would have destroyed the fulfillment of God’s promise of the coming Savior.

In virtually every case when God made a promise about the coming seed (Christ), that promise was followed by separation or the threat of death. And as the promise was accompanied by violence, so too was its fulfillment.

Jesus’ birth was preceded by the promises of salvation from sin (Matthew 1:20-23), and the mantle of David’s kingdom (Luke 1:26-38). Just as the promises held separation and death, so did they also hold the same during Jesus’ birth. His family was forced to separate from the their home and nation, fleeing to Egypt for safety from Herod’s murderous intent (Matthew 2:13-15). At news of Jesus’ birth, but unable to find him, Herod issued sweeping orders to murder all children around Bethlehem aged two and under (Matthew 2:16-18). Separation and death even accompanied the promised infant Jesus into the world.

IF IT’S NOT PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL, THEN WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

At Christmas we give gifts to celebrate the giving of the gift of eternal life in Christ. But when God made promises of a coming Savior, Satan worked separation and death – even at Jesus’ birth. But in God’s foreknowledge and sovereign plan, all of this foreshadowed the reason for Jesus’ coming – redemption from sin reconciling us to God (NON-separation), defeating spiritual death (LIFE in Christ). The birth of Jesus was only the beginning. Jesus’ incarnation culminated in the cross where all of the promises of God were fulfilled – including separation from the Father (Matthew 27:46), and Christ’s death for us.

• The promises of God in Christ were accompanied by separation. Satan’s separation is to separate us from God. But Christ’s separation from God at the cross brought us into a right relationship with Him (Romans 6:5-11).
• The promises of God, while bringing life, are sometimes accompanied by death, or fulfilled through death, such as Christ’s death on the cross – the reason for Christmas.
• All who will attain or live under the promises of God must share in the conditions of both the promises and the fulfillment: Separation from the world – II Corinthians 6:14-17, and death to sin – Romans 6:5-11, Colossians 3:1-3, II Timothy 2:11-13.

We can enjoy the holidays, family reunions, gift giving, and feasting on Christmas. But our joyful celebrations can never truly represent the brutality that accompanied the promises and the first Christmas. Nor can our celebrations contain the real substance of meaning behind the incarnation of Christ. That comes during the other 364 days of the year as we live out what Christ intended – putting to death the deeds of the sinful nature, and separating ourselves from an evil world system in total dedication to the One and Only True Living God.

One wonders why there are so many people in America who seem so offended at a simple greeting like, “Merry Christmas.” While talk show hosts rant about the “Attack on Christmas,” by big chain stores, school boards, and the ACLU, others wonder what in the world is so offensive about a seasonal greeting steeped in tradition like, “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” After all, we’ve been fed many lines over the decades that Christmas is about love, and family, and unity, and peace.

I suggest that our leftist friends have finally realized what Evangelicals have been saying all along – love and family and unity and peace are all well and good, but they have little to nothing to do with Christmas. I think it is for that reason that the anti-Christmas crowd has rushed in its anti-Christian fervor to suppress the holiday – because its real meaning is making a real difference in society the other 364 days out of the year.

The commercial-fed line on Christmas for many years has been “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” (Side thought: If the secularists are right and Christmas really is about “peace on earth and good will toward men,” yet they are trying to minimize or eliminate Christmas, then they have some explaining to do.)

The words “peace on earth” come from the story of Jesus Christ’s birth in Luke 2:14. The problem is that only half the verse is quoted. The full verse actually reads: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men with whom God is pleased.” The first implication, and later what becomes direct statements in the New Testament is that God is not pleased with most men. The second implication is that God came to earth in the form of a man to do something about it.

Let’s drive this home more directly. Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, is about three things:

1. The Incarnation: God became a man in Jesus Christ
2. The Humiliation: God experienced death as a man
3. The Exaltation: God experienced resurrection as a man

The fact is that there would be no Christmas without Easter. Easter gives Christmas it’s meaning. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, what would his birth matter to us? His claim to incarnation would be nothing more than unproven words. If Jesus really is God in human flesh, if he really did suffer a humiliating death He could have prevented through the exercise of his deity, and if he really did rise from the dead never to die again, then Christmas is a lot more than “Peace on earth,” and a year-end boost for the economy. It is about the reason for His incarnation in the first place.

Christmas is about our sin.

Christmas is offensive to some because:

1. The incarnation of Jesus Christ points to man’s need for a Savior
2. The humiliation of Jesus Christ proves man is sinful and in need of a Savior
3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ proves the incarnation and requires submission to that Savior

As long as Christmas was regulated to gift-giving and good feelings, saying “Merry Christmas” wasn’t really a big deal. But as Evangelicals have gained greater influence in the last 20 years, so has the more important historical meaning of the Christmas season. That meaning is written clearly in the text of the Bible (which the same crowd wants kept out of schools). As the meaning of Christmas, and its year long relevance has become clearer in American society, so has the need for some to regulate any reference to it. If its meaning can’t be obscured, then it must be absconded.

I leave you with a passage from the Bible about Christmas. It is not a traditional passage about the Christmas season, but it is the passage that gives us the meaning of Christmas in what may be the plainest language. This passage not only explains the meaning of Christmas, but what is expected of us when we understand that meaning.

”Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason God also highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 NASB)

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – which is also another celebration of Jesus’ birth.