Skip to main content

My Recent Time in Holland

My recent trip to Holland was roughly what I expected. People were warm and kind. I must say that I was not expecting the great beauty of the conference center where we met for the meeting of academics from the Free University of Amsterdam (below is a little pic of a Dutch home in Doorn where the conference center is located).



Another thing I expected was a good dose of liberal views regarding Scripture. Exposure to this view came not only during the actual meetings I was attending but also during breaks and meals in which I had the opportunity to talk with different people.

One such conversation happened during my first lunch at the center, called Hydepark. I was sitting with a group of ministers who were there to attend sessions on counseling. A woman said to me, "I'm a minister." Without my asking more, she continued, "And we don't treat the Bible as history, but as a source to inspire our search for meaning in our inner being." She said, "And I don't like evangelicals." Wasn't sure if I should have gotten up and moved to another seat at that point. Undaunted, I just said, "Really?" She said, "You look surprised." "Not really," I replied, "Just curious." She asked, "What would I be called in America?" My silent thought was, "Heretic." But instead, I responded, "Likely Unitarian or Unity church." "Oh, are there a lot of those in America?" she asked. "Not really, but enough," I said.

That evening at dinner I ate with a minister and PhD in theology who was leading a group of ministerial students in Holland. He told me of how the topic had come up earlier that day among the students regarding whether or not Jesus really walked on water. He said, "Many don't believe it happened. But some do and others think maybe it happened." I said, "Well what do you think? Did it happen, not happen, or maybe happen?" He said, "Maybe. But fundamentally it doesn't matter if it really happened. All that matters is the message the text is trying to convey: that Jesus is great." [In liberal circles there is a difference between historical truth and "religious" truth. As long as one thinks the take away value of a bible passage has religious significance, why bother with history?]  He went to say, "I'm not going to start a fight in my church over whether or not the stories in the Bible really happened."

Let me share just one reason why it is important that we see the Bible for what it is: real history. Our sins are real. The consequences of our sins are real. And Jesus taught hell as a real place. Esoteric ideas about God are fine just as long as sin, guilt, and damnation are esoteric. Such is not the case. So how can one think one is dealing with concrete problems with abstract solutions? Real problems demand real solutions. Historical problems demand historical solutions. This is why God came in a real body, lived a real and perfect life, died a real death for our sins, and rose from the dead in real time and space. History for history. Reality for reality.

I feel badly for those who think less of God but more of themselves. And I pray that those whom God has as his remnant in European countries will continue to proclaim the truth of the gospel in fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spurgeon Doesn't Help Us With Trump

Of two evils, choose neither." Spurgeon's quote has been posted numerous times on social media by Christians who find themselves in a moral conundrum at the very thought of voting for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Here’s the problem with Spurgeon’s idea. Biblically there is no such thing as a choice between two evils. Let me explain.
Moral philosophers and theologians have long spoken of the problem of "tragic moral choice", also known as the “incommensurability in values.” The man on the street simply calls it “choosing between the lesser of two evils.”  
The best known example of tragic moral choice is the one about the Nazis during WW II. Do you handover the Jews knowing that your choice makes you complicit in their deaths? Or do you lie and violate the Ninth Commandment? The Lutheran scholar, John Warwick Montgomery, has argued that such choices are unavoidable and of necessity cause us to sin.
The Bible, however, takes a dim view of the so-called less…

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.
Thom…

Fighting Abortion is Not the Fourth Sign of the Church

Some Christians are what I call, “single-issue.” I recall one family that left a church because everything did not revolve around Evangelism Explosion. But that's just one issue.
The issue I'm thinking about is abortion on demand. Some concerned Christians expect their pastor to thunder away almost each week on this topic, or at least mention it. He must make it is his central motif. He must protest outside the abortion clinic. If he doesn’t, he can say he’s against abortion all he likes, but it’s not enough.
Motivating the single-issue congregant is a deeper judgment. He thinks that the ultimate reason abortion on demand still happens is because pastors let it. Churches let it.
As one who has taken a virulent stand against abortion, both in the pulpit and with pen, I can say without qualification, “I hate it.”  Period. I pray the day that Roe is overturned. Nonetheless, as a former pastor, an as one who may return to the pulpit someday, here’s the bottom line.
We are called to …