Mar 22
Just finished reading a great article by my friend, Dr. John Barber, on the influence of African Traditional Religion (ATR) on African Christianity. As I read the article I was again and again reminded about Mongolian culture and its base of Shamanism.
If you love and pray for Mongolia then read John’s article. In it you will find a great deal to think about when it comes to ministering here.
Read: The Need for the Biblical World and Life View to Reform African Culture.
May 19
“This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.”
Amen. So say we all. Read the original here.
Jun 10
Over the years I’ve posted a number of blog entries about Animism and Buddhism on this site, comparing certain principles of the two systems to the historic faith of Christianity. Some of these posts address these subjects directly, while others deal with issues influenced by them.
Mongolia is a nation with a unique religious background that mixes Animism (shamanism), and Buddhism, with a strong flavor of Atheism left over from its days of 20th century communism. Understanding the differences between these religious ideologies and the nature of historic Christianity is important. No culture develops in a vacuum. No culture that embraces Christianity does so without adding elements of its pre-existing culture or beliefs to its expression of the Christian faith—often to the harm of legitimate Christian expression. These posts are provided to help Christians understand the differences between the non-historic faiths of Animism and Buddhism (see note, below), and the foundations of exclusive faith in Jesus Christ.
For all posts relative to Buddhism, click here.
Note: “Historic faith” is a religious system where the foundational principles of belief are predicated upon factual, historical events, with verifiable historic evidence(s) to corroborate the belief claim. “Non-historic” faiths have a basis in history in that though they are present as religious systems in history, the philosophies and claims of the belief system do not have verifiable, corroborating evidence(s) to substantiate them as factual in the real world. Faiths such as Judaism and Christianity are therefore defined as “Historic Faiths,” while Animism and Buddhism are classed as “Non-Historic Faiths.”
Oct 29
I spoke at a brunch yesterday at Valley View Baptist Church, at the morning service at First Southern in St. John’s, and the evening service at First Baptist in Overgaard. In addition to talking about the work of Eagle TV in Mongolia I taught on the subject of how Animism and Buddhism has influenced Mongolian culture, and the incredible openness of most Mongolians to discuss spiritual things. The Americans I speak with are fascinated by discussions about Mongolia and its Buddhist foundations. It comes as a great surprise for many to learn, through practical illustrations, how Animism and Buddhism have crafted the basic value system of Mongolia, which is very different from the value systems that most Americans subscribe too. In all of my talks I draw out the two most important differences between Buddhism, Islam (also in Mongolia), and Christianity—suffering and love.
The whole idea of suffering, desire, and detachment in Buddhism has had an effect on Buddhist societies that most Buddhists themselves do not recognize. Buddhism not only fears suffering, but actually contributes to suffering. By emphasizing detachment and the elimination of desire, Buddhism puts an unnatural barrier on relationships that stifles the fullest possible expressions of mercy and sacrificial love. Certainly there is love in Buddhism, but not the kind of love that we see in the demonstration of Christ on the cross. That is Buddhism’s greatest tragedy. The fullest possible expression of love cannot be experienced without suffering and sacrifice. Buddhism fails to understand this, and thus is a system that has an outward expression of love that is void of a truly impassioned heart.
Nothing expresses love in the way that Jesus’ sacrifice for us does. Buddhism and Islam deny this truth. Buddhists must work for their version of “salvation”—non-existence! Buddhism is a philosophy where the living hope for an eternal death. But Christianity presents the spiritually dead with the hope of a joy-filled, conscious eternity. There are no mediators in Buddhism or Islam to stand in for the sake of a person’s eternal destiny. But Christians have the joyful advantage of having salvation given to them freely by a God who took their punishment in their place. Buddhism and Islam leave man alone to his own fate. Compare this to Christ who suffered our fate on our behalf, and gave us his as our own. Buddhism’s fears and Islam’s hatreds cannot compare to this expression of love in Jesus Christ.
In II Corinthians 5:18 the Apostle Paul said God “reconciled us to himself through Christ.” In American terms we think of the word “reconcile” as a coming together of people from opposite sides, or perhaps even enemies, to join them together. We think of reconciling in terms of wiping away differences and making friends of people at odds. But the Greek word “reconcile” in this passage has nothing to do with this modern concept.
“Reconcile” in the above passage was a purely financial term used by accountants in the ancient world to describe “an exchange of equal value.” This means that God was not simply trying to make peace with us through Christ. Rather, we can understand II Corinthians 5:18 like this:
“In Christ, God exchanged himself for us as if we were of equal value to him.“
There is nothing in Animism, Buddhism, or Islam that begins to compare to this concept. The One Powerful Supreme Creator of the Universe exchanged himself for us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as if we were of equal value to the One Powerful Supreme Creator of the Universe. No passionless expression in Buddhism can touch the full-on, no holds barred, completely committed expression of love found in the person of the Lord Jesus. Neither do Islam or Animism have anything that can compare to Christ. The expression of God’s love in Jesus Christ is unmatched anywhere, everywhere, and forever.
It is this message that is transforming lives in Mongolia—including many Buddhists and Animists. As one former Mongolian Buddhist said to me about why he finally rejected Buddhism in favor of Christ, “In Buddhism there is no love.” Comparatively speaking, he is correct.
Apr 25
Here’s an interesting excerpt from an article pulled from LiveScience.com on the effects of religion on children, and by intimation, the home (all emphasis mine).
Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect.
John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.
The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.
The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.
But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. “Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family,” Bartkowski noted.
Why so good?
Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also “take more to heart the messages that they get in the home,” he said.
Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These “could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response,” he said.
Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.
Following the command to “Love the your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might,” comes this command in Deuteronomy 6:7, “You shall teach them (God’s commands) diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” In fact the whole picture in Deuteronomy 6 is one where expressing the love of and for God and his Word is paramount in every aspect of life. Look at the whole chapter carefully and you will find elements of expressing love for God to him directly, within the home (and especially to children), in the neighborhood, and workplace/community. Even expressing love for God through heritage and history is presented in the latter part of the chapter. When God’s love permeates every area of our lives, our lives are transformed.
Reinforcing at home the messages that kids hear outside the home is critical to understanding the mess that arisen in much of Western culture. When kids are bombarded with negative, sexual, criminal, and immoral messages through media and popular entertainment, when the values in 6-8 hours of daily schooling are “value-neutral” or worse, then what is to be expected when the parents of those same children leave their kids to their own devices to “find their own way” rather then intentionally instructing and encouraging them in a love for God and his Word?
Is it any wonder that when a love for God is absent, and the expression of God’s love is absent from the most important areas of life, that complications arise? This is not to say that people who know Christ don’t have problems – indeed they do. But a strong foundation in God’s love, expressed through and for Jesus Christ, is a strong foundation that remains even when the rafters sometimes shake loose.
Apr 12
This week’s offering is an excerpt the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions from its chapter on Buddhism. I’ve had this resource in my library for several years, but frankly forgot about it until a couple of weeks ago. Its third chapter is a lengthy look at Eastern Buddhism and some of the forms of Western Buddhism that have become popular in the U.S. in recent years.
There are some Christians (and Buddhists) who believe that Buddhism and Christianity have a lot in common. The authors rightly point out that any similarities are only “surface” in nature but that the heart of both faiths are actually quite contrary to one another. Attempting to embrace both at the same time ends up embracing neither.
Now, if you want to be a Buddhist, fine, be a Buddhist. Such a choice of faith is a matter of free will for every individual. If you want to be a Christian—far better! You also have the free choice to embrace Christ. But when you embrace either faith, or more specifically, Christianity, do not make the mistake of thinking that Buddhism is somehow similar too, or reconcilable with faith in Jesus Christ. For Mongolian believers who have trouble understanding the reasons why their former traditions of Buddhism cannot remotely be incorporated into Christianity, the following offering, though a bit long, will help with some all-important education. Think carefully through the core differences presented here and you will see that not only are Buddhism and Christianity irreconcilable as faith systems, Christianity is in fact far superior.
Enjoy.
The Christian Research Journal for Summer 1996 contained the following account: “A few months ago my mother sent me a monthly newsletter that the San Jose Buddhist [temple] distributes among its members. My mother thought the major article in the newspaper would prove what she had been saying for nearly 30 years – that the differences between Buddhism and Christianity are insignificant compared to what they have in common, and therefore any further discussions between us about these differences would be a waste of time.” That newsletter article by Buddhist Rev. Ronald Y. Naksone claimed that Jesus and Buddha taught basically the same things and that Jesus was “close to Buddhahood.” Like many other Buddhists, Nakasone based his rejection of the Christ of the New Testament on highly questionable findings of liberal theologians, in particular, Burton L. Mack of the so-called Jesus Seminar. Those who disagreed with his assessment of Jesus were said to be intolerant and narrow-minded. On page 47, the same issue critiqued the best-selling book, Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hahn. Hahn believes that Christians who teach that Jesus is the only Way are potential murders who foster “religious intolerance and discrimination.”
Yet one can only ask, aren’t Buddhists who argue this way being intolerant of Christianity? Aren’t they discriminating against Christianity when they distort it and make it teach things it does not? In order to support Buddhist doctrine, Christian distinctive are ignored and Christian doctrine is reinterpreted as Buddhist belief. How is that fair – or ethical? For example, even though the Buddhist concept of nirvana and the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God are contradictory, and worlds apart philosophically and theologically, Hahn sees them as equivalent: “Buddhists and Christians know that nirvana or the Kingdom of God is within our hearts.” Again, he is egregiously making Christianity teach Buddhist beliefs. Yet Hahn claims that it “would be cruel” to have Buddhists “abandon their own spiritual roots and embrace your [Christian] faith.” But this is exactly what he asks Christians to do with their own spiritual roots, to abandon Christianity and embrace Buddhism. Is this being tolerant of Christianity?
[Buddhists] must stop assuming that their own presuppositions about life and religion are absolute truth while Christian beliefs are as changeable as the seasons, based on nothing more than Buddhists’ personal preference. Christianity is held out as irrational and intolerant while Buddhism is declared to be supremely rational and open-minded. But what we actually find is that Buddhists are genuinely intolerant of Christianity and that their own doctrines are irrational. For example, the same CRI Journal review quotes Hahn as declaring, “For a Buddhist to be attached to any doctrine, even a Buddhist one, is to betray the Buddha,” because Buddhists believe it is impossible for a doctrine to adequately convey reality. Further, “nothing can be talked about, perceived, or described by representation.” Yet Hahn and other Buddhists are clearly attached to Buddhist doctrine; after all, they spend so much time writing books in defense of it, and trying to live it. And of course if nothing can be described by representation, the very words that Buddhists writers use to describe Buddhism are meaningless.
Thus, in an era pregnant with tolerance for everything, some Christians have embraced Buddhism and numerous attempts have been made to unify Buddhism and Christianity by ecumenically minded members of both faiths. They may maintain an odd mixture of both religions, one that is ultimately unfaithful to both. As we have indicated, Buddhists who “accept” Christianity merely do so to transform it into Buddhism.
Contrasts Between Buddhism and Christianity
The truth is that similarities between Buddhism and Christianity are only on the surface. For example, many have claimed a similarity between Jesus Christ’ saving role in Christianity and the Bodhisattva’s savior role in later Buddhism. But these roles are entirely contradictory. In Christianity, “Christ died for our sins” (I Corinthians 15:5). This means He saves us from the penalty of our sins by taking God’s judgment of sin in His own person. Jesus paid the penalty of sin (death) for sinners by dying in their place. Thus, He offers a free gift of salvation to anyone who believes and accepts what He has done on their behalf (John 3:16). The central ideas involved in Christ’s saving role – God’s holiness, propitiatory atonement, forgiveness of sin, salvation as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Christ and so on – are all foreign to Buddhism. The Bodhisattva’s role of savior is entirely different than that of Jesus Christ’s. The Bodhisattva has no concern with sin in an ultimate sense, only with the end of suffering. He has no concept of God’s wrath against sin or the need for a propitiatory atonement. He has no belief in an infinite personal God who created men and women in His image. He has no belief in a loving God who freely forgives sinners. His only sacrifice is his postponement of entering nirvana to that he can help others find Buddhist enlightenment.
Anyone who argues that there is an essential similarity between the Buddhist and Christian concepts of a savior is quite mistaken. In fact, at their core Buddhism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Indeed, virtually every major Christian doctrine is denied in Buddhism and vice versa. Many Buddhists, however, have long recognized the differences between the two faiths. The knowledgeable Buddhist is aware that the doctrines and teachings of biblical Christianity hold to and proclaim openly those things which Buddhist reject; further, Christianity openly opposes those things which Buddhism endorses as essential for genuine enlightenment.
For example, Christianity is interwoven with the monotheistic grandeur of an infinite, personal, triune God (Matthew 28:19, John 17:3, Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6); Buddhism is agnostic and, practically speaking, atheistic (or in later form, polytheistic). Christianity involves the absolute necessity for belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior from sin (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, I Timothy 2:5-6); Buddhism has no savior from sin, and even in the Mahayana tradition, as we have seen, the savior concepts are quite dissimilar. Christianity stresses salvation by grace through faith alone (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9); Buddhism stresses enlightenment by works through meditative practices that seek the alleviation of “ignorance” and desire. Christianity promises forgiveness from all sin now (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 2:13) and eventual elimination of sin and suffering for all eternity (Revelation 21:3-4), Buddhism, since it holds there is no God, promises not the forgiveness and eradication of sin, but the elimination of suffering (eventually) and the ultimate eradication of the individual (Tom: Emphasis mine. This ultimately makes Buddhism a religion that embraces death, whereas Christianity embraces life, as the authors demonstrate below).
Christianity stresses salvation from sin, not from life itself (I John 2:2). Christianity exalts personal existence as innately good, since man was created in God’s image, and thus Christianity promises eternal life and fellowship with a personal God (Genesis 1:26, 31, Revelation 21:3-4). Christianity has a distinctly defined teaching about the afterlife (Heaven or Hell), e.g., Matthew 25:36, Revelation 20:10-15). It promises eternal immortality for man as man, but perfected in every way (Revelation 21:3-4).
On the other hand, Buddhism teaches rebirth and has only a mercurial nirvana, wherein man no longer remains man or, where, in Mahayana, there exist temporary heavens or hells and the final “deification” of man through a merging with the ultimate pantheistic-cosmic Buddha nature. But Christianity denies that reincarnation is a valid belief, a denial based upon the fact of Christ’s propitiatory atonement for sin. In other words, if Christ died to forgive all sin, there is no reason for a person to pay the penalty for their own sin (“karma”) over many lifetimes (Colossians 2:13, Hebrews 9:27-28, 10:10, 14).
In Christianity life itself is good and given honor and meaning; in Buddhism one finds it difficult to affirm that life is ultimately worth living, for life and suffering are always inseparable. In Christianity, Jesus came that people, “might have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10); but in Buddhism, Buddha came that people might rid themselves of personal existence. In Christianity, the world is the loving creation of God; in Buddhism it is only the temporary illusion of a deluded mind. In Christianity, God will either glorify or punish the spirit of man (John 5:28-29); in Buddhism no spirit exists to be glorified or punished. In Christianity absolute morality is the central theme (Ephesians 1:4); in Buddhism absolute morality is nonexistent. Christianity is essentially theistic, stressing God’s self-revelation and gracious initiative on behalf of man’s helpless moral and spiritual condition. Buddhism is essentially humanistic, stressing man’s self-achievement. Thus, in Buddhism man alone is the author of salvation; Christianity sees this as absolutely impossible because innately man has no power to save himself (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5).
Glorifying God is unimportant and irrelevant to Buddhists. But biblically, to the extent that God is ignored or opposed, people must correspondingly suffer. Here we see the ultimate irony of Buddhism: in ignoring God, Buddhists believe they can escape suffering, but this will only perpetuate it forever. This is the real tragedy of Buddhism, especially of so-called Christian-Buddhism. The very means to escape suffering (true faith in the biblical Christ) is rejected in favor of a self-salvation, which can only result in eternal suffering (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 20:10-15).
No one who enjoys life and understands what Christianity offers can logically think Buddhism offers more. Christianity promises abundant life not just now, but forever. It offers a personal immortality in a perfected state of existence where all suffering and sin are forever vanquished and the redeemed exist forever with a loving God who has promised they will inherit all that is His. By contrast, Buddhism promises only an arduous, lengthy road toward personal non-existence in a nebulous nirvana.
Since the goal of Buddhism is to destroy the individual person, who is merely an illusion, everything precious to the individual is also “denied and destroyed.” Buddhist teaching denies and destroys all that is meaningful to human existence, but Buddhism has no answers as to the implications. It merely retreats into its particular worldview. As former Buddhist J.I. Yamamoto observed, “My hunger and my thirst cannot be satisfied in Buddhism because I know that the Buddha neither created me nor offers for me to live forever with him…Beyond the Buddha is the void, and the void does not answer the needs of my humanity.” As another Buddhist convert to Christianity remarked, “I did not want nirvana. I wanted eternal life.”
Apr 7
People who believe they have lived past lives are more likely to make certain types of memory errors, according to a new study. The propensity to make these mistakes could, in part, explain why people cling to implausible reincarnation claims in the first place (“Implausible” is an interesting descriptive term for reincarnation, for which there is ZERO evidence).
The researchers found that, compared to control subjects who dismissed the idea of reincarnation, past-life believers were almost twice as likely to misidentify names. This kind of error, called a source-monitoring error, indicates that a person has difficulty recognizing where a memory came from (Wait, could this be evidence of reincarnation? Uh, no, keep reading).
People who are likely to make these kinds of errors might end up convincing themselves of things that aren’t true, said lead researcher Maarten Peters of Maastricht University in The Netherlands (Like reincarnation, or rebirth, so go ahead and swat that fly, then go enjoy a burger).
As for what might make people more prone to committing such errors to begin with, McNally says that it could be the byproduct of especially vivid imagery skills (Insert laugh here. This reminds me of a show on Discovery Channel where two different people were profiled to be the same reincarnated Buddhist monk, or the multiple people who claim to have been Joan of Arc or Abe Lincoln, or Cleopatra. I remember an old Red Foxx joke from the 70s, “In my former life I was a cockroach.” How come no one claims stuff like that? Must be that vivid imagination).
And once people make this kind of mistake, they might be inclined to stick to their guns for spiritual reasons, McNally said. “It may be a variant expression of certain religious impulses,” he said. “We suspect that this might be kind of a psychological buffering mechanism against the fear of death.”
Resurrection, on the other hand, offers a true and final hope—but also a deadline.
“For it is given to man ONCE to die, then the judgment” – Hebrews 9:27.
Yes, we may still fear death—especially those who deny the hope freely offered—but our final natural death can also be embraced knowing the joy we immediately enter into with Christ, and the soon to come resurrection of our bodies to be like his. Resurrection offers hope of an eternal joyful experience without end since we only need to experience this life ONCE and then enter an eternal reward in Christ. This is far superior to enduring the futile and imaginary cycles of rebirth leading to nothingness.
Joy is far superior to nothingness.
Have a great Easter.
Mar 9
This week’s offering contrasts a few of the basic ideas between Animism and Christianity. The idea of what Animism is, is hard for some westerners to wrap their minds around. It seems to many western observers that Animism is similar in many ways to Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, and even many Native American religions. The answer of course is yes, it has many similarities, but it is also different. The ideas of Animism are often mixed with other philosophies and religious beliefs, changing their fundamentals or turning them into something like magic formulas for the benefit of the adherent. Animism is not exclusive to non-Christian religions. The concepts of Animism can be found, most notably, in what is commonly referred to as the Word of Faith or Prosperity Gospel movement.
Very simply, Animism in all its various forms is based upon a simple idea: That the physical world is influenced, guided, or manipulated by the spiritual world. Spirits, or spiritual reasons underlie all circumstances in the real world. This may sound like Christianity, which ascribes to a spiritual realm having influence with the physical, but it is actually much different. In Animism certain actions must be taken to appease the spirits (both good and bad) and even take power over the spiritual realm through trinkets, charms, idols, rituals, prayers, and declarations.
The purpose of participating in Animistic practices is so the adherent can gain control of his or her life to receive blessings such as wealth, a job, health, love, etc. The most important trait of Animism is that is turns the principles and practices of a religion on its head so that the practice of certain rituals or sacraments is done for the express purpose of bringing benefit to the adherent, instead of enjoying sacrificial service to God. This is equally true in the Animistic-like practices of the Word of Faith movement within Christianity where intercessory prayer, “taking spiritual authority,” and speaking to demons are in essence a form of Animistic Christianity, thus robbing the Christian faith of its true nature and intent. If you are a Christian and involved in such practices, beware! Such practices treat the God of the Bible as profanely identical to the spirits of Animism, which God’s word has already declared unholy.
Here is a simple comparison of basic ideas found in Animism compared to Christianity. This chart is compiled from three separate charts taken from The Illustrated Guide to World Religions, edited by Dean Halverson.
Differences Between Animism and Christianity
| The Personal Spirit-Beings of AnimismLimited to one geographic location. | The God of the BibleNot limited geographically; God of all the earth and the universe (Acts 17:24). |
| Has power over the various aspects of nature. | Has power over all things (Acts 17:24). |
| Depends upon our sacrifices. | Doesn’t depend upon our sacrifices because He has created all things (Acts 17:25), and because He has provided on our behalf the “once for all” sacrifice (Hebrews 9:24 – 10:14). |
Animism believes that a person using divination, rituals, prayers, charms, and other practices can manipulate spiritual forces; but the Bible declares that such things do not move God. God is rather moved by a humble and repentant heart. God cannot be manipulated or commanded, or made to obey our will through any means (Psalm 51:16-17, Proverbs 21:3). For example, Animist, Animist-Buddhists, and Animist-Christians (if such a phrase can be used) may repeat prayers or chants that will bring healing to a person. The Animist or Animist-Buddhist believes that the words of the chant or prayer have power in themselves. The Animist-Christian (Word of Faith) believes that God “must” respond to certain prayers when prayed a certain way, “in faith.” In essence, these concepts are identical, ascribing power to the words or practice instead of the one and only sovereign God (thus the reference to “Animist-Christians”). The Bible speaks clearly to such practices: “The Lord commanded them that they should not do like them” (II Kings 17:15).
The Animistic and Biblical Worldviews Contrasted
| IDEAGOD | ANIMISMGod exists, but He is beyond our abilities to know Him or to communicate with Him. | CHRISTIANITYGod exists, and although He is beyond our comprehension, He is nevertheless knowable; and He has made Himself known to us through Jesus Christ and the Bible (Hebrews 1:1-2). |
| ULTIMATE/IMMEDIATE ISSUES | Formal religions are concerned only with the ultimate issues of sin and salvation; but Animism offers the power to cope with the immediate, everyday needs. | The God of Christianity is concerned both with the ultimate and immediate issues. God desires to provide not only for our eternal needs but also for our daily needs (I Peter 5:7). |
| THE SPIRITS | The spirits are seen as being other intermediaries between us and God or as representatives of God. | The spirits are deceptive; they seek to take the pace of God in our lives. |
| THE POWER OF THE SPIRITS | The spirits and the instruments of magic have the power either to do harm to others or to bring benefit to us. | The spirits do have power, but our utilizing such power leads of bondage. God has demonstrated through Jesus Christ that He is greater than the spirits and magic, for “the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (I John 4:4, see also Exodus 8:18) and He has “disarmed the powers and authorities (Colossians 2:15). Submitting to God brings freedom (John 8:32-36) not bondage. |
Animism is probably the most dangerous worldview to Christianity because its ideas are so easily incorporated into a person’s faith that it is often not recognized for what it truly is. But even a simple examination of your faith practices can help you discover if you have been caught by the deceptions of Animism – even as a Christian. Asking a few simple questions about your faith in Christ will help you determine your spiritual condition:
Remember that Animism is always “me” focused while Christianity is always “Jesus” and “others” focused.
Feb 8
Denial is a concept found in virtually every major religion. Various ideas on the practice of self-denial can be found in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and other religious and philosophical streams. In most religious practices, like Buddhism, self-denial is a means to achieve an end. Ironically, self-denial is a means of attaining something for oneself – selflessness. Some have thought that the Bible teaches something similar, noting as one example Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:39, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Are these concepts similar? Not in the slightest.
Unlike Buddhism and the other major religions of the world, self-denial in Christianity is not a means to an end, nor is it a religious practice. Self-denial is a loving expression of benefit for others, in obedience to God.
There are three great differences between most religions and Christianity regarding self-denial:
Buddhism & Other Religions
Christianity
Let’s take a look at the Bible’s teaching on self-denial, and how the biblical concept of self-denial is firmly rooted in the expression of love.
Self-denial is not an end unto itself. The scripture commands that we deny ourselves of sin, and sometimes of things that are not sin but fall under the realm of conscience. Self-denial as modeled in the Bible usually has three purposes, pointing to a much greater fourth purpose:
Biblical self-denial must cost us something. Giving from extra is good, but it is not denial. Biblical self-denial invokes personal loss, and may require suffering. Unlike many so-called faith preachers today, the Apostle Paul denied himself financial benefit from his preaching (I Corinthians 9:11-23) which sometimes put him in a difficult way. In order to fulfill God’s will, Moses denied himself food and drink for 40 days (Exodus 34:28). King David set the standard when he said he would not offer any sacrifice “that cost me nothing” (II Samuel 24:24).
More than costing us something, or as a sacrifice, self-denial must benefit others, God, or both. In religious practices like Buddhism, self-denial is practiced as part of achieving enlightenment. In other words, a person denies self in order to gain something for himself. This is a spiritual oxymoron. The model from the Bible is radically different, and far nobler. We deny ourselves in order to benefit other people and God’s kingdom. Nor is self-denial a means to some spiritual end, rather, it is a signpost of what is already in the heart.
Ezekiel 18:5-9 describes a man who denies sin, denies excessive pleasures, makes sacrifices to benefit others, and obeys God. The Bible calls such a person “righteous” because his behavior signifies what is already in his heart. He does not practice these things to become righteous (i.e., “spiritual” or “enlightened”) rather, because he is already righteous he practices these things. “Love does not seek its own…” (I Corinthians 13:5).
There are certain times when the scriptures enjoin us to deny ourselves that at first glance seems to be for our personal benefit – a “trade” so to speak. But closer examination of the text reveals that which is deeper. Matthew 16:24-26, John 12:25-26, and Romans 6:12-14 encourage us to deny sin and ourselves, in order to attain salvation. But this form of self-denial is not a religious practice, rather it is an acknowledgement of our sinful condition and need for a Savior. We deny ourselves that we might give ourselves to Christ and become His instrument for the benefit of others.
We are required to deny ourselves “anything” which might cause a brother to stumble or violate his conscience (Romans 15:1-3, 14:13-17, 21, I Corinthians 8:9-12). Here again we see that self-denial is directed for the benefit of another as an expression of love.
We are required to deny ourselves “anything” (not just sin) which might hinder our walk with God (Hebrews 12:1). This expression is directed toward God.
Conclusion
Self-denial is engaged by some as a religious practice to attain enlightenment or some greater spiritual standing. In such cases it is nothing more than a form of “self”-expression. The Bible teaches something far nobler, and more practical. Jesus said that the one who “loses his life for my sake shall find it” (Mark 8:35). The key to understanding Jesus’ meaning is found in the words, “for my sake.” Immediately after saying this Jesus went on to declare, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).
The correct path of self-denial is not to deny oneself for ones own benefit; rather it is to deny oneself for Christ. Jesus Christ denied himself that we might have eternal life. How small a thing it is for Him to ask us to sacrifice ourselves for Him and for others considering all that He has already done for us.
Oct 8
Originally I was going to write a paper about truth with the idea of helping journalists understand how important truth is to the pursuit of their craft. Too much journalism in Mongolia is predicated upon rumor and even outright propaganda that is bought and paid for as opposed to investigating the truth behind certain events. However two things changed my direction. First, Mongolian journalists have a great deal of training and information already available to them to help them discern the difference between truth and error in reporting the news. The procedures, policies, and practices necessary to make Mongolian journalism “truthful” already exist. It is therefore redundant for me to repeat them here. Beyond this, my objectives are much larger than the smaller world of journalism, which leads me to the second reason my direction changed.
The more I examined the topic of “truth” the more I came away with that first truth I have known since I began my walk with Jesus Christ more than 23 years ago. There can be no complete understanding of truth – any truth – without first understanding the Bible’s perspective on the topic. This is because (as theology professor Wayne Grudem points out) God in His very being and character is the highest standard of truth that exists. The Bible, as the primary record of God’s communication and acts on earth, is the highest standard-bearer of truth available to man. The Bible reveals and defines truth, exposing its origin, nature, and effect.
In Buddhism truth is determined by experience. In atheism there is no truth, only subjective ideas that groups consent to accept – ideas which can change over time. In both systems, with only a few exceptions, truth is subjective. (Update Note: I’m not comparing Buddhism with atheism. They are simply the primary worldviews that have defined Mongolian culture in the last century.) Atheism’s one “truth” is that God does not exist. Buddhism does subscribe to a small number of truths revolving around suffering, right perceptions and right living. Truth, in this respect, is a system of belief or part of a system of belief. However, truth as declared in the Bible is not a system, or part of a system of belief – it is much, much more as we shall see.
Mongolia is a society primarily governed by the philosophies of Buddhism and atheism. Historically, Mongolia’s ideas of truth and error did not develop in the same way as in the West, which had the benefit of a developing a Christian worldview over a long period (though sadly most of the west has abandoned Christian truth). Therefore, to understand truth – apart from the ideas of Buddhism and atheism – it is important to understand the Bible’s teaching about truth and why it is not simply an alternative to these other worldviews, rather it is the highest authority on earth when it comes to understanding the nature of truth.
Truth, as we shall see in this paper, does not stand-alone. Truth is not simply an idea, or an ideal too which we aspire. Truth is closely related to faithfulness, goodness, and justice. None of these can exist without the others; and all of these are major problems in Mongolian society today. One of the chief complaints of Mongolians against their government, specifically the court system, is that there is no real justice. In everyday interactions people earn a reputation of being good or bad based upon whether they do bad things. Faithfulness, in family relationships and work is also a great problem. In fact when putting together these four character traits – truth, faithfulness, goodness, and justice – we are discussing more than simple truth, we addressing the concept of Integrity.
Let us therefore examine some basic issues about truth. These may be different from that which you learned growing up if you grew up in a Buddhist or atheistic society. While we respect the right of each person to choose the system of belief he or she will subscribe too, we also reserve the right to speak, act, and write that which comes from our understanding of these issues as presented in the Bible, and to present the Bible as that which is declares itself to be – the highest standard of truth on earth.
TRUTH #1: TRUTH IS OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE
The concept of truth assumes that there are some things, some ideas, which are “untrue,” just as there are things, which are “true.” To declare that certain things are true is to also declare that things must then be false. This also implies that certain things are always true regardless of whether or not we perceive they are true, and certain things are false whether or not we perceive them to be false. Let’s look at an example.
Here is a true statement: “Man suffers.” What is not apparent in the statement is the degree of suffering some people endure. Nor is it apparent that what may be suffering for some is not suffering for others. Suffering more or less than another is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. So while it is a true statement that man suffers, it would be untrue to declare that all men suffer the same way.
Here is another true statement: “Man sins.” This means that all people, everywhere, at periods of time have committed acts, thought thoughts, and believed things that are morally offensive and wrong. Not everyone sins in the same way as every other person. Some people sin in areas of violence more than others. Some have greater trouble being truthful than others. Degrees of sin from person to person are SUBJECTIVE, but that all men sin is OBJECTIVE.
These statements (“Man suffers,” and “Man sins”) are OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE. That is, they do not depend upon the perceptions of the one observing the truth. They are true regardless of one’s perception. All people suffer and all people sin. However, the Bible goes further than this to declare that all men suffer because all men sin.
Let us look at an example from the Bible of this truth. The Bible presents an important truth regarding suffering and sin. The Bible declares that there are three reasons man suffers:
These declarations from the Bible reveal to us an important OBJECTIVE truth: While all men suffer, and all men sin, all men suffer because all men sin.
These truths from the Bible follow a pattern that is common to all truth. Since truth is OBJECTIVE and does not depend upon an observer for its existence as truth, then its observer or discover cannot alter truth, and truth does not change because of an observer’s perceptions or experience. Therefore,
TRUTH #2: TRUTH IS DECLARED OR DISCOVERED, TRUTH IS NOT DETERMINED BY EXPERIENCE
This is another way to saying that truth is not subjective, but the statement goes further. Truth is not determined by experience, rather truth is experienced; the experience simply reveals a truth that pre-exists our experience of it.
There are times when a person experiences the truth of something, but does not perceive it for what it really is. A person may have a relationship they perceive is a good one, but not realize that the truth is that the relationship has major problems and might be in jeopardy. This wrong perception may be a self-deception, or deception on the part of others. A person may perceive that his job is secure because he believes he is doing well. However that person may not be aware that his employer is dissatisfied with his performance. In these examples we see that the truth of the situation exists apart from the perception of the one who needs to know the truth. He may be experiencing the truth, but not have the capacity to perceive it for what it really is. Or he may not be experiencing it at all. His lack of experiencing the truth, or misperception of the truth does not make the truth any less real; only his personal knowledge or perception of it is incorrect. When he discovers the truth, or the truth is declared to him, then he will experience it for what it really is: truth.
Some people believe that there are truths, which are true for them but not true for others, or that there are truths, which are only true for them. These kinds of beliefs usually fall into the realm of philosophy or religion. As an example, some people believe they can perceive God in nature, or commune with God by communing with nature, while others believe that nature reveals there is no god. Certainly both beliefs cannot be true even though their adherent may believe them to be so. To carry this example further, we see from the Bible that in fact, both statements are untrue.
The Bible declares to those who perceive a creation without a Creator, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork…” (Psalms 19:1). It also reveals in Romans 1:19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Likewise these passages in the Bible declare another truth: that God is separate and distinct from His creation. We can perceive things about God, as the above passage reveals, but we cannot perceive God “in nature,” because He is separate from it. When we perceive that God is “in” or a part of nature, or that nature is god, then our perception is contrary to the truth that God has already declared. When we perceive that nature is its own creator, that it has no outside cause, then we again perceive contrary to that which is already declared by God. In each case the truth of God and nature exists regardless of our perception of it. The one who worships nature, or worships through nature has not discovered a “personal truth,” or something that is true only for them. That person has discovered a deception. The emotional or mental experience of something different from the already revealed truth does not make the truth any less true or binding upon that person who has experienced the deception. This leads us to our next point.
TRUTH #3: WHAT IS TRUE FOR ONE IS ALSO TRUE FOR ALL
When it comes to choosing a career, mate, and the outward trappings of lifestyle, these are things, which do not fall under the category of “truth.” These are things, which fall under the realm of conscience. One career path may be good for you, but not for your neighbor. These are choices of conscience, which vary for each person. But in the realm of truth – especially spiritual and moral truth, the same truth must be true for all.
Scientists studying the universe work from an important assumption: The laws of physics, which we observe in our own part of the universe, must be equally true in the entire universe. If this were not the case then we would see a universe around us that operates under completely different rules than what we see in our own solar system or galactic neighborhood. Instead scientists see a common set of rules that apply to the whole universe that helps explain its nature. The same rules of physics to which the universe is subjected are the same rules to which we are subject. The laws of physics are not only true for some, they are true for all.
This rule also applies to human nature. Human beings are part of the universe. Human nature operates in the universe. Human beings are creatures made from the same basic elements as the universe we live in. We are subject to the universe’s laws. The God who made the universe also made man, who occupies that universe. The God who provided the laws of physics that govern the universe also provides a law of spirits that governs those occupying the universe He created. We may not like some of the laws of physics, but our disfavor with them does not change them, or make them any less true; so too, we may not like certain moral and spiritual truths, but our disfavor with them does not immute them.
We know that there is one common moral and spiritual truth equally applicable for all people everywhere at every time, because there is only one eternal Creator God, who is ever present in all places at all times. God is the author of truth. Look at what the Bible declares about the one true God and His personal character as the source of truth:
It has been argued that even if there is only one God, that one God might present different truths for different people or cultures at different times. However, God Himself has declared that this belief is untrue. First, God created man “in His image, and in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27). The Bible only declares this about man, and no other creature. It is God’s desire that man’s character be a reflection of God’s character: “You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy…you shall not steal, you shall not deal falsely, you shall not lie to one another…” (Leviticus 19:2, 11). Consistently throughout history God has declared a unified message regarding His character and man’s character.
Second, whenever and wherever the good news about Jesus Christ was taken into the world, the message of truth was always the same for all peoples in all cultures. The Bible declares, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30). When Jesus Christ commissioned His disciples to take His truth to the world He stated that He was given, “All authority in heaven and on earth…” (Matthew 28:18), and under that authority He commanded that people of “all nations” be taught to “observe all that I have commanded…” (Matthew 28:20).
The Bible therefore affirms the important truth that what is true for one person is true for all. The things, which God declares are true for one are true for everyone. These truths about God’s nature and man’s nature lead us to more specific truth. Since all real truth originates with the one true God, and since what is true for one is true for all, therefore…
TRUTH #4: WHAT IS MORAL OR IMMORAL FOR ONE, IS MORAL OR IMMORAL FOR ALL
Truth originates in the character of the one true God. That God is always true and never false implies other attributes of God’s character:
Taken together we say that these character traits are traits of Integrity. This means that a person is true in their whole person; that their thought, speech, and behavior aligns with that which is morally true as a reflection of God’s character.
Moral truth (sometimes referred to as “The Law”) is a reflection of the moral character of a righteous and morally pure God. God, who existed before the world and its cultures had a morally perfect character before the creation. He then imparted that morality to His creation. As such, morality transcends culture because morality is acultural; that is, morality is not concerned with cultural practices or differences and in some cases must transform a culture for it to become morally true. But what is morality?
Morality is the verbal and behavioral reflection of the inward character of a person. A moral person demonstrates a moral character. An immoral person demonstrates and immoral character. So what thoughts and behaviors are moral or immoral?
God has provided two ways of looking at thoughts, speech, and behavior to help us know what is moral and immoral. The first, most obvious one is through a series of declarations regarding thoughts, speech, and behavior that are immoral (contrary to God’s character). The most famous is in Exodus 20:2-17 when God declares Ten Commandments His people were to follow. These commandments defined immoral or “bad” thoughts, speech, and behavior, and include but are not limited to prohibitions against murder, sex outside of marriage, stealing, lying, and coveting. The implication is that God does not partake in these behaviors. As a baseline of morality we see that these are the most basic behaviors to avoid if we want to avoid being an immoral person. However, avoiding these behaviors does not make us good or moral people. Morality is more than avoiding what is bad. Morality requires that a person intentionally pursue that which is good. This brings us to the second way the Bible helps us know what is moral from immoral, and it is something we have already touched upon: God’s character.
While God was giving the prophet Moses His declaration of the Ten Commandments; God’s people were involved in practices to break all of the commandments he was giving them (Exodus 32:1-6). Upon Moses’ request, God forgave His people and declared His name and character attributes to Moses, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…” (Exodus 34:6-7, partial list only). It is no coincidence that God declared His chief character attributes in the face of His people’s breaking of the law. While God required His people to avoid immorality, He was demonstrating that His own character traits are proactive toward that which is right. God is always seeking to proactively do the right thing, not just avoiding the wrong thing. In other words, morality is not simply the avoidance of that which is wrong; it is the proactive pursuit of that which is right. It is also no coincidence that God declared these moral truths to a people who were of a different religious persuasion. God declared to idol worshippers that which was wrong and right. His declaration of truth did not depend upon their religious persuasion or history or personal ideas. He simply declared their behavior to be immoral. The one moral law applied equally to all because the one moral law originated from the one moral Law Giver who created both the law and the lawbreaker.
CONCLUSION
Let us review the facts about truth:
The existence of real objective truth given by a real objective Truth Giver implies that we have a responsibility to that Truth Giver and the truth provided. Obedience to truth enables us to become people of truth. However, obedience to truth is not found in a system of applying certain principles, or denying certain desires. Because truth originates with a Truth Giver, becoming a person of truth requires a true and intimate knowledge of the One who gives truth.
Jesus Christ declared of Himself that which no other religious leader or philosopher could: “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6). Jesus did not declare that He knew the truth. Jesus did not declare that He offered truth. He did not only declare that He taught the truth. Jesus declared that He was truth. Jesus Christ, in His very person and character, is the living embodiment of truth. He IS truth.
This is a remarkable claim. Since God is the originator of truth, Jesus was declaring that He Himself was the one God in human flesh. Taking this further, we can apply what we know about truth to Jesus Christ:
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
