Changing your perspective can be an expensive lesson.
God has a funny way of teaching lessons and building our character by simply tweaking our circumstances. For those of us who are stubborn, sometimes it seems that we aren’t truly grateful about our situation until our circumstances change.
We aren’t gratified by our jobs until we are laid off.
We aren’t thankful for our relationships until they are broken.
We aren’t grateful for our wealth until we lose it.
We aren’t appreciative of our homes until foreclosure is imminent.
We don’t praise God for our parents until one suddenly passes away.
We forget to thank God for his sacrifice on the cross, until we truly understand that there are real people that decide not to accept that gift.
We neglect to express thanks to God for our most basic gift, our lives, until the doctor returns with the lab results.
While the turn of events often results in immediate negativity, God uses these to change our outlook to his outlook; our perspective to God’s point of view. God wants us to depend on him for his provision and support. It’s no wonder that it’s so easy to “Trust in the Lord” when things are going so well; but the real test is to “lean not on your own understanding” when things look depressing.
For instance, while many of the trunks of our Christmas trees may be less choked out by gifts and presents this year, this may help us change our perspective. Not only may this cause us to be more appreciative of Christmases past, but hopefully about all of God’s gifts that we often neglect. G.K. Chesterton put it so cleverly, “If my children wake up on Christmas morning and have someone to thank for putting candy in their stocking, have I no one to thank for putting two feet in mine?”
This year, why not let Thanksgiving boil over into Christmas, or better yet, even into 2010. Let our humble thankfulness be witnessed by others, in whatever the circumstance. Our thankfulness can be a bold testimony concerning the faith and trust we have in our Lord Jesus. Paul reminds us, “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.” (Col 2:6-7)
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Religion vs. Philosophy: Defining our terms.
Is seems like many of America's quarrels could have been avoided if a simple delineation between the terms 'religion and philosophy' were established. It's quite obvious that the constitution renders the government inept in the establishing of a "national religion." It clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The fact of the matter is that no true Christian would even want the constitution to be changed. We don't want a forced religion any more than we believe that an individual could be forced to love. The constitution stands, and we like that.
The problem arises when one claims that a general belief or even just a public statement (by a government official or school teacher for instance) concerning God, a creator, 'intelligent designer', or moral lawgiver somehow contradicts our constitution. The idea of God should be discussed in our schools and used in moral discussion in congress. Maybe philosophy isn't used in the science classrooms, but it should be discussed somewhere. (for my full idea on this see http://www.youthapologetics.com/philosophy.php ) Why isn't it? Because the ACLU, among others, thinks that coming from a theistic philosophy is somehow infusing religion into our governmental institutions. But is it?
The fact of the matter is that this just doesn't logically follow. The idea that "If you believe in God, then you are religious" is a non-sequitur. Here's the crux: part of your philosophy is how you answer the question "Is there a God?" and your religion is the worship of that before-mentioned God. But one doesn't cause the other. A belief in a being and worship of that being are completely separate. In a ridiculous example, I can believe that A-rod exists, but that doesn't mean I worship him.
Some may argue that this post is simply another attempt at getting Christianity taught in schools but I think that objection misses the point. First, I don't think the tenets of Christianity should be taught in public schools, but I do think the question of God, morals, and origins should be openly considered (even if an atheist teaches the class). Secondly, if we look through history, there have been a multitude of philosophers who have believed in a god, but never worshiped this being. There have been deists that believe in a creator, but think that worshipping this being is fruitless. The fact of the matter is that your philosophy does not automatically conclude in religion and philosophy need not be religious. I mean- atheism is not a religion, but it is a philosophy.
What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens? Maybe nothing. The point is that one doesn't necessitate the other. A religious believer should use philosophy, and a philosopher may indeed be religious; but philosophy doesn't necessarily lead to the worship of any divine being.
The problem arises when one claims that a general belief or even just a public statement (by a government official or school teacher for instance) concerning God, a creator, 'intelligent designer', or moral lawgiver somehow contradicts our constitution. The idea of God should be discussed in our schools and used in moral discussion in congress. Maybe philosophy isn't used in the science classrooms, but it should be discussed somewhere. (for my full idea on this see http://www.youthapologetics.com/philosophy.php ) Why isn't it? Because the ACLU, among others, thinks that coming from a theistic philosophy is somehow infusing religion into our governmental institutions. But is it?
The fact of the matter is that this just doesn't logically follow. The idea that "If you believe in God, then you are religious" is a non-sequitur. Here's the crux: part of your philosophy is how you answer the question "Is there a God?" and your religion is the worship of that before-mentioned God. But one doesn't cause the other. A belief in a being and worship of that being are completely separate. In a ridiculous example, I can believe that A-rod exists, but that doesn't mean I worship him.
Some may argue that this post is simply another attempt at getting Christianity taught in schools but I think that objection misses the point. First, I don't think the tenets of Christianity should be taught in public schools, but I do think the question of God, morals, and origins should be openly considered (even if an atheist teaches the class). Secondly, if we look through history, there have been a multitude of philosophers who have believed in a god, but never worshiped this being. There have been deists that believe in a creator, but think that worshipping this being is fruitless. The fact of the matter is that your philosophy does not automatically conclude in religion and philosophy need not be religious. I mean- atheism is not a religion, but it is a philosophy.
What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens? Maybe nothing. The point is that one doesn't necessitate the other. A religious believer should use philosophy, and a philosopher may indeed be religious; but philosophy doesn't necessarily lead to the worship of any divine being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
