GenXYZ@Charisma Life Church

What Does The Bible Say About Our Careers or Professions?

A Biblical Theology of Work

A biblical theology of work is an extrapolation of biblical passages that aims at the creation of a perspective about work. It tells us how should we, as Bible believers, view our work, profession, or vocation.

1) From a biblical perspective, work must be viewed as sacred. (See Exodus 20: 11; Genesis 1: 28, 2: 15; Colossians 3: 17)

What do we mean when we say that work is sacred?

Work, as the act of purposively or creatively fulfilling a task, is a divine and a human activity (see Exodus 20: 11). Complex conscious beings, such as God, angels, and humans, purposively or creatively fulfill tasks beyond the demands of their natural instincts. Animals, unlike humans, perform tasks based on the demands of their natural instincts. Work, then, must be one of the grounds that made the meaningful communion between God and humans possible, since work is an activity that we share in common with God.

Work is a God-given responsibility (see Genesis 1: 28, 2: 15). It creates the condition for human partnership with God in improving God’s creation. Work is supposed to be satisfying, since in it humans are supposed to find the fulfillment of one of the God-given purposes for humanity. Was God’s creation perfect before the fall of Adam and Eve? If it was perfect, why did God ask Adam and Eve to be fruitful or to work and take care of the garden (before the fall of Adam and Eve)? Something that exists in perfection is in no need of improvement or care. God did not create a perfect world. Rather, God creates a world, where humans are supposed to serve as God’s partners in bringing about improvements in God’s creation. Through that partnership, we establish a relationship with God. God’s creation in its original state had the perfect conditions for the flourishing of all created things. Animals cannot be God’s partners in bringing about improvements in God’s creation, since their capabilities are not complex enough for such tasks. However, human capabilities are complex enough for such tasks. So, irrespective of our careers or professions, we ought to view our works as opportunities to partner with God in bringing about improvements in God’s creation.

Work ought to be an act of worship (see Colossians 3: 17). Do all things in the name of the Lord, i.e. as if you are doing them for the Lord. Do them with thankful hearts to the God who saved us through Jesus. Work must be a response to God with gratitude in our hearts. Remember those times when a person shows you favor by doing something very important for you. You respond to that person with gratitude.

2) From a biblical perspective, humans were alienated from the works of their hands due to sin (see Genesis 3: 17 – 19).

Due to sin, work became a chore, a source of dissatisfaction, a source of stress, a burden, a source of unhappiness, an opportunity to oppress others, an opportunity to destroy the sources of income of other people, an opportunity to compete with others, etc. So, one who is redeemed or delivered from the curse of sin must find fulfillment in his or her God-given purpose. Work, profession, or vocation becomes an opportunity to fulfill God-given tasks. Finding the right profession or ministry for you is finding God’s calling for your life. It must be a satisfying profession or a profession that makes you happy or makes your life meaningful.

3) From a biblical perspective, work is a social responsibility (2 Thessalonians 3: 10).

You need to work in order to sustain yourself and your dependents.

Filed under: Sermon Study, Bible Study on November 6th, 2007 | No Comments »

Recently, the popular media frenzied, due to the popularity of newly published books by the “brights”. A “bright” is an intellectual who promotes the advancement of the sciences and brings to light the unintelligibility of religion. ABC News even featured a low quality debate between two popular TV evangelists and two atheists on God’s existence. Rick Warren, a popular American pastor, even had a debate with Sam Harris, a popular “bright”, which was featured in Newsweek. Harris appeared to be the bastion of reason, while Warren appeared to be a laughingstock for Freud. The Colbert Report even featured an Oxford don, Richard Dawkins, the most popular among the “brights”, who claimed that belief in God is delusional. So, unsurprisingly, highly educated Americans of the 21st century are probably wondering whether it is still reasonable to believe in God.

Of course, it is still reasonable to believe in God. But, just a reminder, the reasonability of a belief in God should not be considered as a sufficient factor for forming a belief in the biblical God. A belief in the biblical God must be a product of our encounter with God through the biblical story that is inspired by God’s own Spirit, who bears witness to the truth that was ultimately revealed in and through Jesus. At least based on my understanding, a belief is at least reasonable, when it does not obviously conflict with the basic demands of reasonability. For example, when a belief is consistent with widely accepted and highly attested scientific theories, consistent with our personal observations, or considered plausible by some contemporary and sophisticated intellectuals, it can at least be considered as reasonable. The fact that the belief in God’s existence is reconcilable with widely accepted and highly attested scientific theories and considered as plausible by some contemporary and sophisticated intellectuals makes it a reasonable belief. There is nothing obviously unreasonable in the assumption that God designed the complex laws or regularities that govern the operations of the natural world. There are contemporary and sophisticated intellectuals who believe in the existence of God: John Polkinghorne (formerly a Cambridge mathematical physicist), Arthur Peacocke (formerly an Oxford biochemist), Russell Stannard (a British physicist), Owen Gingerich (a Harvard astronomer), Joan Roughgarden (a Stanford biologist), Francis Collins (a well-known researcher for the Human Genome Project), Michael Behe (a Lehigh biochemist), etc.

Of course, the belief that God exists is probably not a serious scientific hypothesis yet, but it is at least a reasonable philosophical hypothesis. A reasonable philosophical hypothesis must at least be considered as a legitimate object of intellectual inquiries. If it is a legitimate object of intellectual inquiries, then intellectuals must responsibly consider, analyze, or assess it with care.

The “brights” have no good reasons to claim that a belief in God’s existence is obviously unreasonable or unintelligible. So, do not be easily intimidated by the criticisms from the “brights”, even though such criticisms will eventually be popularized by the popular media.

Filed under: Bible Study on September 22nd, 2007 | No Comments »

Pastor Fred delivered an excellent sermon on worldliness last Sunday (09/16/07). Here are my thoughts on worldliness. When we observe people around us, we readily notice that people are naturally predisposed to oppose the moral demands of God, as revealed in the stories and teachings of the Bible. There seems to be a conflict between the “ideal” and the “real”. For example, ideally, we are demanded to love others. However, in reality, we are naturally predisposed to hate. So, the goal of Christian living is to transform the “ideal” into the “real”. The war against the world is actually a war against our sinful predispositions. But, here’s the problem: our sinful predispositions are beyond our control. Christianity teaches us that one can overcome such predispositions through a Spirit-empowered or Spirit-renewed life. Such a life is a byproduct of a supernatural act of empowering or renewing the mind. In such a life, the mind is inclined to desire the things of God, while the body is naturally predisposed to desire the things of the world.

Paul clearly teaches in Romans 12: 2 that there are two different perspectives: worldly perspective and godly perspective. The one who has the worldly perspective is incapable of perceiving the will of God. He or she lacks the sensitivity to the revelation, leading, and works of God. On the other hand, the one who has the godly perspective is enabled to perceive the will of God. He or she has sensitivity to the revelation, leading, and works of God. In repentance, a changing of one’s mind takes place. The godly perspective replaces the worldly perspective. So, worldliness can also be defined as living with a worldly perspective. A worldly perspective causes one to seek the satisfaction of the sinful desires of the flesh, without any kind of inner struggles. In 1 John 2: 15 – 17 and James 4: 1 – 4, worldliness is also defined as loving everything that satisfies the sinful desires of the flesh. So, the problem of worldliness is the inherent battles with our sinful predispositions.

Pastor Fred, in his sermon, suggested that, in order to win against worldliness, one needed to combine right tenet with right temper. In short, correct beliefs must be combined with good behaviors. Here, good behaviors refer to intentions and actions that appropriately correspond to the demands of the correct beliefs. I think that many people are already aware of what can be considered as correct beliefs and the good behaviors that correspond to such beliefs. The problem is that many people do not really believe what they claim to believe. This problem creates a big gap between what one believes and how one behaves. Let me briefly explain my point here. A claim becomes an object of one’s belief, when one exhibits a behavior that corresponds to the belief. Suppose, for example, a small boy on top of the table tells his father that he [i.e. the small boy] believes that his father will and can catch him, if he [i.e. the small boy] decides to jump from the top of the table. Let us say that the father replied by asking his son to jump from the top of the table and that the father assured him that the father will and can catch him. If the son is very hesitant to jump from the top of the table, then the son does not really believe that his father will and can catch him. On the other hand, if the son willingly jumps with no hesitation, then he really believes that his father will and can catch him. Here is another example. If I truly believe that God owns everything in the universe, then I will use everything I appear to possess for building God’s kingdom. I think that the reason why many of us cannot overcome worldliness is the fact that we don’t truly believe what we claim to believe.

Filed under: Bible Study on September 22nd, 2007 | No Comments »

One of the adult members in our church asked me to check a blog of a person who was worried about passages in Numbers (e.g. chapter 31) that seem to approve ethnic cleansing and slavery. Here’s my response.

The blog definitely raised legitimate worries about the coherence of the moral teachings in the Bible. I admit that these passages from Numbers can create problems for conservative evangelical Christianity. I also believe that conservative evangelicals ought to provide satisfactory explanations for such passages, since they use data from the Bible to formulate teachings about the nature of God. It is explicitly stated in the two chapters from Numbers that God approved the wiping out of an ethnic group and the social practice of owning slaves. I haven’t read any book that addresses this problem, but I will try to give you a provisionary solution or possible solution to the problems that these passages create. There is no easy way to respond to the worries that were raised. Let me present my opinion on this matter.

Before I describe a possible solution, I need to explain how the issue can be effectively addressed. First, the issue must be addressed theologically. The usual members of conservative evangelical churches today are suspicious of theology. But you cannot respond to this particular problem without using theological reflections, since there is no biblical passage that directly responds to it.  Christian theological reflections must be faithful to the apostolic teachings (i.e. the bearers of Christ’s teachings) that are preserved in the Bible and in Christian traditions, since such teachings make Christian theology possible. So, such kind of reflections must attempt to reconcile the image of God in Numbers with the image of the Christian God. Secondly, the issue must be addressed with a proper interpretive approach. People tend to read the Bible by imposing their own presupposed doctrines on biblical texts, without considering the fact that biblical characters were not even aware of such doctrines. It appears that, in the Bible, God revealed himself to humans progressively. For example, the concept of God during the Davidic kingdom was different from the concept of God during the time of Moses. Ancient Israelites during the time of Moses did not seem to have a well-developed understanding of God’s moral attributes. Their understanding of God seemed to exhibit vestiges of primitive / pagan religious culture. Jesus’ understanding of the nature of God seemed to be different from the God of primitive Israel.

Considering that the primitive nature of the understanding of God in ancient Israel, God could not fully reveal himself to the Israelites. Ancient Israelites did not have the conceptual framework that would have made it possible for them to grasp the depth of God’s moral attributes. It would have overwhelmed the ancient Israelites, if God revealed to them the value of the rights of all humans (including non-Israelites). You need to remember the primitive nature of their worldview (even the worldviews of the different groups of people in the ancient world). You need to remember that it took thousands of years for humans to have a well-developed understanding of human rights. As a matter of fact, in many nations today, people still have an undeveloped understanding of human rights. Our well-developed understanding of human rights is a product of the Holocaust. Because the western world witnessed one of the greatest crimes against humanity, the western world was forced to reevaluate its understanding of human rights. Of course, the framers of U.S. Constitution recognized that humans have inalienable or inherent rights (e.g. rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). In spite of such recognition of inherent rights, many people were still mistreated, since such rights were withheld from them (i.e. the rights that they supposedly possessed). Of course, after the Holocaust, we ended up with a renewed understanding of such rights. So, I think that one misreads Numbers 25 and 31, when he or she imposes his or her well-developed understanding of human rights into his or her interpretation of such texts.

The ancient Israelites in Numbers, just like the other groups of people in the ancient world, had a tribal understanding of God. For many of them, it seemed that Yahweh was simply a tribal god (i.e. the God of Israel). So, God dealt with them as a tribal god, since that was a way for God to communicate to them in a way that they can understand. Of course, some might still ask the following question: “why will God allow the Israelites to violate the inherent rights of non-Israelites.” Personally, I think that that question presupposes that God has an obligation to follow the demands of morality. So, people need to address the issue of whether God is actually obligated to follow the demands of morality. But I think that God is above the demands of morality. God does not need to submit himself under the authority of the moral law. The fact that we have inherent rights does not mean that we can obligate God to respect our rights. God is God. He is not obligated to do anything for humans, but he chooses to relate to humans because of his love for us. Our inherent rights are essential for the establishment of morality. Morality is essential for the establishment of human relationships. So, humans must submit to the demands of morality, but I do not think that God must submit to the demands of morality. God has higher concerns. For example, God is more concerned with the redemption of His creation than fulfilling the demands of morality.

What do you guys think?

Filed under: Bible Study on May 24th, 2007 | 2 Comments »

Major educational T.V. stations regularly present documentaries on the Bible (e.g. Banned from the Bible, Science of the Bible, etc.). These documentaries approach the biblical texts with purely academic concerns. So, many of the interviewees, who are renowned scholars, are not concerned with spiritual, practical, or revelatory messages from God through the Bible. They are actually concerned with the historical authenticity of the texts, philosophical worldviews that shaped the texts and that were expressed in the texts, sociological and political factors that shaped the development of Christianity as a religion, etc. Hence, at least during the interviews, they do not address the concerns of regular members of communities of faith. Members of communities of faith look for messages from the Bible that can be appropriately applied to their daily lives, such as guidelines for moral decision-making, words of encouragement, etc.

In spite of the attempts of these scholars to remain objective in making scholarly comments on issues about the biblical texts, they implicitly promote theologically liberal biases. These biases include beliefs about the nature of biblical texts, such as the belief that these texts were partly the products of power struggles among the leaders in early Christianity, the belief that these texts were heavily influenced by the mythological stories in the ancient world, etc. These beliefs seem to invalidate the authenticity of the truths that are contained in the Bible. So, some reflective parishioners of traditional churches, who watch these documentaries, are initiated into the process of bewilderment. Unbeknownst to uncritical church members, the media (including major magazines) have slowly shaped the views of intellectually sophisticated citizens of affluent nations about the nature of biblical texts.

In Banned from the Bible, a documentary series, scholars were interviewed about books or epistles that were not included in the New Testament canon. Many of them implicitly suggest a reconsideration of the value of such books or epistles as proofs for the theologically diverse world of the early church. So, they want to promote theological diversity and the rejection of any set of authoritative texts that conclusively determines Christian truths. However, good traditional scholars do not deny the existence of such diversity. The New Testament even recorded events that involved false teachers. As a matter of fact, the existence of “orthodox” teachings (e.g. Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc.) is a proof for the existence of “heterodox” teachings.

The fact that the early church was theologically diverse does not necessarily imply that such kind of diversity must be promoted. One of the main reasons for the formation of the canon is the establishment of a list of authoritative textual witnesses of apostolic teachings. If the teachings of the apostles, who were the immediate witnesses of Jesus, must be preserved, then the most reliable sources of information about such teachings must be included on the list. There are good reasons for including most of the 27 books / epistles in the New Testament canon. For example, many of them were already considered to be authoritative in the latter part of the first century and early part of the second century. There are no good reasons for including many of those that were banned from the Bible. For example, most of them were written between mid-second century and mid-fourth century. So, many of them were more likely written 20 - 250 years after the death of the last living apostle. Hence, they cannot be considered as authoritative textual witnesses.

Filed under: Bible Study on May 24th, 2007 | 1 Comment »

This is a question from Ronnie: “Who rules our world today, God or Satan?”

Here’s my response. The question partly deals with the nature of Satan’s dominion. In the Bible, Satan is considered to be the ruler of fallen angels. In addition, Satan is also known as the prince of this world in John 12:31 and 16:11, as the god of this age in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and as the one who controls the whole world in 1 John 5: 19. If you also look at the temptation of Jesus in Matthew, you will find that Satan offers the world to Jesus as long as Jesus worships him. Look at the response of Jesus. Jesus did not deny Satan’s ownership of this world. Jesus simply claims that only God deserves to be worshipped.

We also need to look at the meaning of the word “world”. “World” is a system that emerged after the fall of Adam and Eve. In the fall, Satan successfully deceived the world. In John 17: 14 and 1 John 2: 15 - 17, the world stands in opposition to believers. Since sin entered the world through Satan’s deceptive scheme, so in a sense, according to the biblical narrative, he established his reign. That is why God set up a plan to redeem humanity from the power of sin and death. God’s faithfulness to his promises is a testimony that God will redeem the world that was stolen by Satan, in order to claim what is ultimately God’s property.

So, God is establishing His kingdom through the nation of Israel and through the Church. That is why the establishment of God’s kingdom is a spiritual battle from the Christian perspective. Of course, in the end, God guarantees His victory in establishing His kingdom forever.

What do you guys think?