Like most of you, I have read the array of opinions about the shocking massacre in Newtown, CT, last Friday. People blaming mental illness, people blaming gun laws, people chalking it up to free will, people saying its because we've taken God out of the schools (which is impossible to do!), even a certain religious group blaming the sexual morals of the country. While writing this article, I received an email suggesting that if we just put prayer back in the schools, we can avoid future tragedies.
We want answers - we want to know why. We can accept it just a little bit more if there's some sense to it. But this particular incident is more senseless, more disconcerting than previous tragedies. This one seems to have gotten under our skin more, grieved us more, and worried us more than just about every other.
An acquaintance of mine posted the idea that those who say "everything happens for a reason" are cruel, simplistic liars, and that some things happen for no reason at all. It certainly does feel that way. How can something like this make sense? How can this have happened for a reason under the auspices of a sovereign Being?
Others have posted words of comfort. On top of wanting reasons, we want comfort. We don't want to walk around scared, constantly worried about the welfare of our children going to school every day. We want some assurance that this could never happen to us, and yet we know that the surviving parents in Newtown thought the exact same thing less than a week ago.
I don't know about you, but out of all of this, nothing I've read has been satisfying. (This article won't be satisfying, either.) Most articles oversimplify the problem - but to be honest, the simplicity is appealing. Wouldn't it be nice and manageable if the problem were actually that simple?
My question, though, is not "How could this happen?", but "Why hasn't this happened more?" All the probable culprits, from mental illness to secularization of society to saturating ourselves with first-person-shooter video games, are traceable back to the fallenness of man. This is not to oversimplify the problem - it is complex journey back to the Fall. But since fallenness is the root cause, and all are fallen, why hasn't this happened more?
The answer is Grace. By God's grace, the destructive ferocity of our fallenness has not been allowed to rage unchecked. That is what Hell is - a completely grace-free zone where man’s fallenness is left unrestrained. Although this world is not Heaven (which is a completely grace-filled zone with no fallenness at all to restrain), this world has some measure of God's grace, and that grace protects us from ourselves.
This grace allows us the chance to know and receive Christ. It is the same grace that expelled Adam and Eve from the garden and prevented them from returning to seal their fallen state forever. Without this grace, we would not have the opportunity to repent. When that grace is removed, there will remain no chance at all to repent. This kind of horrible incident is not more frequent precisely because God's grace presently protects us from the depths of how far we've fallen.
I don't know why this happened or how to prevent it from happening again. I can't say the words to ease our fears. But I am grateful for the grace that prevents our fallenness from wreaking the havoc it is capable of.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
"Can I join your secret club?"
"Can I join your secret men's club?"
I have heard this question a few times in the last month or so. On the one hand, I love the question, because it means that men are interested in a quiet experiment that we've been conducting. On the other had, I reel back at the question, because our quiet experiment was never intended to be a "secret club" that makes men feel left out.
In the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."
The speaker at the 2011 men's retreat, Ron Bennett, has co-authored a series of studies geared for men called HighQuest (http://www.highquest.info/overview.html). The idea intrigued us, primarily because the format of this series is unlike any men's study we've seen before.
The series is designed for men to disciple one another. The studies are not fill-in-the-blank workbooks, but guides that slowly introduce spiritual disciplines, and keep men in the same passage, but gives them enough freedom to focus on different parts of that passage. So, when the men come together, they have individually wrestled with God's Word without anyone guiding their answers to a foregone conclusion. But, since the men are all in the same passage, they can compare thoughts and learn from one another.
We decided that instead of having a big, church-wide big splash launch of Yet Another Program that Will Revolutionize Your Church But Will Last Only 6 Weeks Before the Enthusiasm Wanes, we decided to start small and without fanfare.
Four of us asked up to three other men to consider forming a HighQuest group. Then we just started meeting, each group at their own pace. In my group, we are four men who didn't really know each other that well coming into it. We have different church backgrounds, different experiences and habits, but the same desire to grow as men in Christ. I get every impression that all the groups are similar.
The feedback has been very positive across the board! I could list dozens of positive comments, but I think the most powerful statement is that after finishing book 1, we had a 100% return rate from all the groups for men wanting to do book 2. (There are 9 books total, about 10 to 12 weeks each.)
Starting in January, we are going to explain more about HighQuest and then invite more men to start more groups. Not a big program, not a big splash, and not the only good way to do men's groups. Just a lot of good experiences with a "quiet experiment."
My thanks to Chad Krizan for being our coordinator - he will be the one to organize the groups and get people started. But once the groups are started, they pretty much run at their own pace, take care of ordering their own books, and so on. This is one part of our continuing drive to realize our vision, which includes intentionally cultivating relationships in order to disciple our world for God's glory.
So, it's not a secret men's group. But we're about to go from "Beta testing" to production for those men who want to join in. And I have both personally experienced and observed in others real spiritual growth and an improving set of spiritual disciplines.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
We don't like normal killers
Have you ever noticed how the bad guys in movies are often portrayed to have particularly abnormal attributes? They are scarred or have been through some horrible, traumatic event or were abused. They look different, they talk differently, and their thinking is radically different than "normal." They've got to be psychopaths. Being albino is a repeated excuse - apparently that affects your moral compass somehow. In movies, we make the bad guys really abnormal. The truth is: we don't like normal killers.
We like killers who are scary because they are different than we are - we don't like killers who are scary because they are the same as we are. We want them removed from us. We want to think that we are very different from people who would do such things. We don't want to entertain the possibility that someone like me could do such a thing given the same moral make up that I have ... or that I could do such a thing given the moral make up that I have. We're better than that, aren't we? So, we make killers in movies categorically worse than we are so that we can be better than they are.
In my opinion, the scariest killers in movies are the ones who are more like us.
Consider the tragic events of last weekend with Jovan Belcher killing Kasandra Perkins, the mother of his daughter, and then taking his own life. I'm not commenting on Belcher - I'm commenting on society and its reaction to Belcher. There has been a lot of talk about what kind of person he was - heated debate, in some cases. In some of those discussions, people want him to be monstrous so that we can demonize him, distance ourselves from him, and not face the scarier kind of killer - someone who is like us.
No one is all good or all bad. We all have redeeming qualities, and we all have horrid ugliness in our hearts (that may or may not be on display for others to see). Without passing judgment on what kind of person Belcher was overall, we are more like him than we want to admit. We get angry. We have arguments. We sometimes feel like hurting someone, or hurting ourselves. We share the heart sin that was manifested in his life as action sin.
I don't have a $1.9 million contract, I'm not a public figure, and I didn't claw my way into pro sports through the unlikely path of going undrafted. And yet, I am more like Belcher than makes me comfortable. I don't need to demonize Belcher in order to feel better about myself. What I need is Jesus, pure and simple ... and only. I need Jesus, but not to make me different than Belcher - I need Jesus to make me different than me.
We like killers who are scary because they are different than we are - we don't like killers who are scary because they are the same as we are. We want them removed from us. We want to think that we are very different from people who would do such things. We don't want to entertain the possibility that someone like me could do such a thing given the same moral make up that I have ... or that I could do such a thing given the moral make up that I have. We're better than that, aren't we? So, we make killers in movies categorically worse than we are so that we can be better than they are.
In my opinion, the scariest killers in movies are the ones who are more like us.
Consider the tragic events of last weekend with Jovan Belcher killing Kasandra Perkins, the mother of his daughter, and then taking his own life. I'm not commenting on Belcher - I'm commenting on society and its reaction to Belcher. There has been a lot of talk about what kind of person he was - heated debate, in some cases. In some of those discussions, people want him to be monstrous so that we can demonize him, distance ourselves from him, and not face the scarier kind of killer - someone who is like us.
No one is all good or all bad. We all have redeeming qualities, and we all have horrid ugliness in our hearts (that may or may not be on display for others to see). Without passing judgment on what kind of person Belcher was overall, we are more like him than we want to admit. We get angry. We have arguments. We sometimes feel like hurting someone, or hurting ourselves. We share the heart sin that was manifested in his life as action sin.
I don't have a $1.9 million contract, I'm not a public figure, and I didn't claw my way into pro sports through the unlikely path of going undrafted. And yet, I am more like Belcher than makes me comfortable. I don't need to demonize Belcher in order to feel better about myself. What I need is Jesus, pure and simple ... and only. I need Jesus, but not to make me different than Belcher - I need Jesus to make me different than me.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Getting the Point
On a few occasions, we have discussed in this column various methods of effective Bible study. We've talked about the value of reading in the literary context, understanding the cultural context, reading a passage multiple times, online study tools, marking up your Bible, looking for structure, and even creating the right environment in which to do your studying. There's one more that I find highly valuable. It's remarkably simple, but amazingly challenging.
The method is to write out one summary sentence that encapsulates the passage I'm studying. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Yeah.
The idea is to get one full, grammatically correct sentence that says what the passage says. It focuses on what the passage says, and covers the idea adequately. The sentence is not more broad than the passage, nor is it more narrow. The sentence cannot list all the details, but it does cover them in some way. Here's the hard part - the sentence is not to be a long, complex, regurgitation of the passage, with a dozen subclauses, hyphens, and semicolons. Rather, it is a straightforward, hopefully even elegant, encapsulation of the passage.
The passage being studied could be just a phrase, a paragraph, and entire chapter, or even an entire book. The method works no matter the size of the passage.
If you can do this adequately, then you understand the passage! If your sentence misses the mark, is too broad or too narrow, or has the wrong focus, then you don't fully understand the passage, yet. What a great study tool! The process of developing this one sentence forces you to really analyze what is being said until you "get it."
The best way to do this is to identify the subject and the complement. Uh oh, Middle School grammar terms! Very simply, the subject is what the passage is about. What is the thing that the passage is talking about? But, be as specific as the passage. For example, "God" is usually too broad - the passage is rarely talking about all of God. Usually it's talking about His love or His compassion or His faithfulness, etc.
For an example, let's look at James 2:14-17:
James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
What is the subject? Some might say "works." Others might say "faith," or even "faith and works." If you look carefully, you see that it is more about "faith" than "works," but even "faith" is too broad. It's not about the entire topic of faith. This passage is about "what kind of faith is a saving faith?" That's the subject being discussed. If we say this paragraph is about "works," then we won't understand what it's saying. If we say it's about "faith," then we're not specific enough, and won't fully understand the passage.
After you find the subject, find the complement. The complement is what is said about the subject. What does the passage have to say about the specific subject we identified? So, what does James 2:14-17 say about the kind of faith that is a saving faith? In this case, it's a little bit odd - what is said about the subject is what is not true about the subject.
The complement here is, "not a faith that is without works." That is what is said about the subject, "What kind of faith is a saving faith?" Answer? "Not a faith without works!" (The next paragraph answers the question in positive terms, but we learn in this paragraph something important that is not true about our subject, which is just as important to know!)
So, a summary sentence might look like this, The kind of faith that is a saving faith (subject) is not a faith that is without works (complement). That is what this paragraph is about - whatever kind of faith is a saving faith, we know here what kind of faith is not a saving faith. The sentence encapsulates all that the passage says, and nothing more. If you can create a summary sentence like that, you get what the passage is about (and what it is not about!).
Some people read James 2 and think it's about works, and then they get confused because it sounds like we can be saved by works. But ... they got they wrong subject to begin with, so of course they will draw confusing conclusions. The subject is about a type of faith that saves, and the what is said about it here says that faith without works is not a saving faith. Then, if we did the same exercise for the following paragraph, we would learn what kind of faith is a saving faith (a faith that has works). We are still saved by faith, but not every kind of faith is a saving faith. The faith that results in works is the kind of faith that saves.
Creating a summary sentence helps us to see this important truth, and to avoid the common error of thinking James teaches salvation by works.
The method is to write out one summary sentence that encapsulates the passage I'm studying. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Yeah.
The idea is to get one full, grammatically correct sentence that says what the passage says. It focuses on what the passage says, and covers the idea adequately. The sentence is not more broad than the passage, nor is it more narrow. The sentence cannot list all the details, but it does cover them in some way. Here's the hard part - the sentence is not to be a long, complex, regurgitation of the passage, with a dozen subclauses, hyphens, and semicolons. Rather, it is a straightforward, hopefully even elegant, encapsulation of the passage.
The passage being studied could be just a phrase, a paragraph, and entire chapter, or even an entire book. The method works no matter the size of the passage.
If you can do this adequately, then you understand the passage! If your sentence misses the mark, is too broad or too narrow, or has the wrong focus, then you don't fully understand the passage, yet. What a great study tool! The process of developing this one sentence forces you to really analyze what is being said until you "get it."
The best way to do this is to identify the subject and the complement. Uh oh, Middle School grammar terms! Very simply, the subject is what the passage is about. What is the thing that the passage is talking about? But, be as specific as the passage. For example, "God" is usually too broad - the passage is rarely talking about all of God. Usually it's talking about His love or His compassion or His faithfulness, etc.
For an example, let's look at James 2:14-17:
James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
What is the subject? Some might say "works." Others might say "faith," or even "faith and works." If you look carefully, you see that it is more about "faith" than "works," but even "faith" is too broad. It's not about the entire topic of faith. This passage is about "what kind of faith is a saving faith?" That's the subject being discussed. If we say this paragraph is about "works," then we won't understand what it's saying. If we say it's about "faith," then we're not specific enough, and won't fully understand the passage.
After you find the subject, find the complement. The complement is what is said about the subject. What does the passage have to say about the specific subject we identified? So, what does James 2:14-17 say about the kind of faith that is a saving faith? In this case, it's a little bit odd - what is said about the subject is what is not true about the subject.
The complement here is, "not a faith that is without works." That is what is said about the subject, "What kind of faith is a saving faith?" Answer? "Not a faith without works!" (The next paragraph answers the question in positive terms, but we learn in this paragraph something important that is not true about our subject, which is just as important to know!)
So, a summary sentence might look like this, The kind of faith that is a saving faith (subject) is not a faith that is without works (complement). That is what this paragraph is about - whatever kind of faith is a saving faith, we know here what kind of faith is not a saving faith. The sentence encapsulates all that the passage says, and nothing more. If you can create a summary sentence like that, you get what the passage is about (and what it is not about!).
Some people read James 2 and think it's about works, and then they get confused because it sounds like we can be saved by works. But ... they got they wrong subject to begin with, so of course they will draw confusing conclusions. The subject is about a type of faith that saves, and the what is said about it here says that faith without works is not a saving faith. Then, if we did the same exercise for the following paragraph, we would learn what kind of faith is a saving faith (a faith that has works). We are still saved by faith, but not every kind of faith is a saving faith. The faith that results in works is the kind of faith that saves.
Creating a summary sentence helps us to see this important truth, and to avoid the common error of thinking James teaches salvation by works.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Thank You for the Toys
This week, I got to speak for a few minutes about Thanksgiving with the students in our preschool, Grace Garden, and they taught me a thing or two about Thanksgiving right back.
I asked them, "What are some gifts that God has given us?" - fishing, of course, for things like family, food, homes, and so on. I knew one of the answers would be "toys!" And sure enough on both days, that was the very first answer. And on both occasions, I said, "What else besides toys?", and the response was "Toys!" After another "what else?" I got a list of specific toys. My fishing expedition was not yielding the species of fish I intended.
But later, after thinking about their answer and brewing on why kids are "so materialistic," I realized that they were exactly right. God is ultimately responsible for us having toys. He gives us the resources to be able to afford them. He gives us the families and friends who are kind enough to give them. He gave us safety to be able to enjoy them. And ... He gives us the toys.
If toys are a good thing, and they certainly can be, then they come from God, who is the giver of all good things (James 1:17), and we can be thankful to Him for them. In all my desire to be "spiritual" about the lesson, I overlooked the simple truth - so simple that children see it plainly.
Certainly, toys (kids' toys or grown-up toys like electronics) can become idols, of course. But for the good that they can be, it is not materialistic or non-spiritual to thank God for these things, also. In fact, being thankful for them can help us keep them in perspective, so that they don't become idols.
During my last trip to Kenya, we spent an evening visiting the same family we visit every time we go - Reverend Kute Wellington and his wife Margaret. They live in a hut with no running water or electricity, so every time we go, as the evening wears on, we have trouble seeing one another in the enveloping darkness. Except this last time. The evening progressed, the darkness came, but we could still see one another! And then I realized - the Wellingtons had electricity, for the first time in their lives.
I mentioned how great it was to be able to see them, and "Momma Margaret" proceeded to thank God for electricity. She repeated that praise several times throughout the night. I've had electricity all my life, and I had never in all my years thanked God for it. I had never thanked God for running water. I had never thanked Him for hot water, until my first trip and having to shower daily without it!
My Kenyan hostess and the kids of Grace Garden have much to teach me (the "pastor" and the "missionary"!) about Thanksgiving. And I'm thankful for them for teaching me.
I asked them, "What are some gifts that God has given us?" - fishing, of course, for things like family, food, homes, and so on. I knew one of the answers would be "toys!" And sure enough on both days, that was the very first answer. And on both occasions, I said, "What else besides toys?", and the response was "Toys!" After another "what else?" I got a list of specific toys. My fishing expedition was not yielding the species of fish I intended.
But later, after thinking about their answer and brewing on why kids are "so materialistic," I realized that they were exactly right. God is ultimately responsible for us having toys. He gives us the resources to be able to afford them. He gives us the families and friends who are kind enough to give them. He gave us safety to be able to enjoy them. And ... He gives us the toys.
If toys are a good thing, and they certainly can be, then they come from God, who is the giver of all good things (James 1:17), and we can be thankful to Him for them. In all my desire to be "spiritual" about the lesson, I overlooked the simple truth - so simple that children see it plainly.
Certainly, toys (kids' toys or grown-up toys like electronics) can become idols, of course. But for the good that they can be, it is not materialistic or non-spiritual to thank God for these things, also. In fact, being thankful for them can help us keep them in perspective, so that they don't become idols.
During my last trip to Kenya, we spent an evening visiting the same family we visit every time we go - Reverend Kute Wellington and his wife Margaret. They live in a hut with no running water or electricity, so every time we go, as the evening wears on, we have trouble seeing one another in the enveloping darkness. Except this last time. The evening progressed, the darkness came, but we could still see one another! And then I realized - the Wellingtons had electricity, for the first time in their lives.
I mentioned how great it was to be able to see them, and "Momma Margaret" proceeded to thank God for electricity. She repeated that praise several times throughout the night. I've had electricity all my life, and I had never in all my years thanked God for it. I had never thanked God for running water. I had never thanked Him for hot water, until my first trip and having to shower daily without it!
My Kenyan hostess and the kids of Grace Garden have much to teach me (the "pastor" and the "missionary"!) about Thanksgiving. And I'm thankful for them for teaching me.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
No Matter How You Voted (or Abstained)...
As I read the social media of my friends and acquaintances across the political spectrum, I see just about the full gamut of emotions about the elections this week. Some are elated (a few are even giddy) while others are angry, some are disappointed while others are pleased, some say, "I told you so!" and others say, "Mark my words!" I won't comment on which set of emotions people should have, but my observation is about the intensity with which they experience them - positive or negative.
The question I wrestled with was why am I experiencing these emotions with such intensity? What is it that's going on deep down inside of me that results in that intensity? What are the basic needs of my soul that are being met or unmet, which then manifests itself at the surface as a set of emotions? All our emotions are expressions of deep matters of the soul that bubble up to the outside. For example, a man may become very angry when insulted because deep in his soul, he is unsure of why he matters in this world, and the insult puts a hot poker on that sore spot. So, what is going on deep in my soul that eventually finds its way up as an emotion?
Whether our emotions are joyous or dejected, what is going on in the soul?
The intensity of the emotions either way tells me that we are expecting government to satisfy something our souls need. If someone is happy with the results, they think that one political way will meet that deep need. If someone is unhappy with the results, they thought that the other political way would have met that need. This is an oversimplification of a very complex human machine, but in my observation, this is a significant reality. I doubt there are few political purists out there whose response is merely relative to a political theory - I think most people are operating from the felt needs of their souls, even though we couch it in terms of political theory.
The only problem is that no human institution, no government, no business, no civic club, no school can satisfy what our souls need. To look to the government, or a political system, or a politician to bring us the real peace that we want, the real sense of "rightness," the sense that things are actually under control, is to look for something only God can give, but to look for it in a source other than God.
Our peace, our joy, our security will not be met, or dashed, by the election this week. Perhaps the intensity of our responses comes from a false expectation of the opposite, whether we responded with hope or despair.
No matter what kind of government, what kind of leadership, what kind of economy, or what kind of job market we have, our task is the same: Be absolutely committed to advancing the Kingdom of God in every situation. If the government is as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. If the government is not as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. God's Kingdom is not confined to a particular kind of government, and His Kingdom workers have their responsibilities already defined for them in every circumstance.
If you are experiencing strong emotions either way, examine your heart for what is really going on in your soul. What are the God-given needs you have that are to be filled only with God-provided means? Furthermore, take a breath and remember your calling - God's Kingdom.
The question I wrestled with was why am I experiencing these emotions with such intensity? What is it that's going on deep down inside of me that results in that intensity? What are the basic needs of my soul that are being met or unmet, which then manifests itself at the surface as a set of emotions? All our emotions are expressions of deep matters of the soul that bubble up to the outside. For example, a man may become very angry when insulted because deep in his soul, he is unsure of why he matters in this world, and the insult puts a hot poker on that sore spot. So, what is going on deep in my soul that eventually finds its way up as an emotion?
Whether our emotions are joyous or dejected, what is going on in the soul?
The intensity of the emotions either way tells me that we are expecting government to satisfy something our souls need. If someone is happy with the results, they think that one political way will meet that deep need. If someone is unhappy with the results, they thought that the other political way would have met that need. This is an oversimplification of a very complex human machine, but in my observation, this is a significant reality. I doubt there are few political purists out there whose response is merely relative to a political theory - I think most people are operating from the felt needs of their souls, even though we couch it in terms of political theory.
The only problem is that no human institution, no government, no business, no civic club, no school can satisfy what our souls need. To look to the government, or a political system, or a politician to bring us the real peace that we want, the real sense of "rightness," the sense that things are actually under control, is to look for something only God can give, but to look for it in a source other than God.
Our peace, our joy, our security will not be met, or dashed, by the election this week. Perhaps the intensity of our responses comes from a false expectation of the opposite, whether we responded with hope or despair.
No matter what kind of government, what kind of leadership, what kind of economy, or what kind of job market we have, our task is the same: Be absolutely committed to advancing the Kingdom of God in every situation. If the government is as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. If the government is not as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. God's Kingdom is not confined to a particular kind of government, and His Kingdom workers have their responsibilities already defined for them in every circumstance.
If you are experiencing strong emotions either way, examine your heart for what is really going on in your soul. What are the God-given needs you have that are to be filled only with God-provided means? Furthermore, take a breath and remember your calling - God's Kingdom.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Are you broken?
Are you broken?
Sallie has a relative who she cares about a great deal. She's known this relative since she was a little girl, and saw her on holidays, birthdays, and even just casual family gatherings. She loves her relative, but her relative will, on rare occasion, bark at Sallie some of the harshest, most hateful things - especially when Sallie says anything about Jesus or the church. At times, Sallie lashes back - only to deeply regret it. Now, before every holiday, Sallie begins to have gut-knotting anxiety about talking with her relative. In this relationship, Sallie is broken. Are you broken?
Sam has been told all his life two contradictory things: "You're going a good job!" and "You're not doing a good enough job!" Compliments from his parents were always followed by a comment about what mistakes were made. Try as he might, he could never get a perfect score at school - and when tests came, he would tense up and get a full letter grade worse than his own average. At work, he can't seem to finish a full project without some major mistake. Now, when Sam hears both "You're doing a good job" and "You're not doing a good enough job," he's the one saying it. In his self-image, Sam is broken. Are you broken?
David's got a sin habit that he thinks no one else knows about. At least, that's what he keeps telling himself. He's tried to stop - and has. Many times. For about a week. His record is just over two months. And then failure again and again. He's a Christian, and criticizes himself that a Christian shouldn't feel this powerless against sin. He's read everything, prayed constantly, and tried to change the situation. But there he is - a repeat offender. In righteousness, David is broken. Are you broken?
Mary has had to make decisions beyond her years ever since her father died when she was 6. Mom wasn't really much parental help after that - she had her own problems, some in bottle form. But Mary did a good job looking out for herself. She got herself ready for school every day, caught the bus, worked a part-time job, got a few scholarships to work her way through community college, then a good job, and even a Master's degree. She's in middle management at a bank, running her own life, taking care of her own house, relying on herself for her own relationships. But the relationships usually end up in disaster, her job is unfulfilling and her efforts often go unnoticed. Her house has lost so much value that she can't afford to move, but the prices in the neighborhood keep dropping. Mom is bitter at her, and she's just flat out tired of the rat race. In running her own life, Mary is broken. Are you broken?
Jesus says in Matthew 11: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Sallie has a relative who she cares about a great deal. She's known this relative since she was a little girl, and saw her on holidays, birthdays, and even just casual family gatherings. She loves her relative, but her relative will, on rare occasion, bark at Sallie some of the harshest, most hateful things - especially when Sallie says anything about Jesus or the church. At times, Sallie lashes back - only to deeply regret it. Now, before every holiday, Sallie begins to have gut-knotting anxiety about talking with her relative. In this relationship, Sallie is broken. Are you broken?
Sam has been told all his life two contradictory things: "You're going a good job!" and "You're not doing a good enough job!" Compliments from his parents were always followed by a comment about what mistakes were made. Try as he might, he could never get a perfect score at school - and when tests came, he would tense up and get a full letter grade worse than his own average. At work, he can't seem to finish a full project without some major mistake. Now, when Sam hears both "You're doing a good job" and "You're not doing a good enough job," he's the one saying it. In his self-image, Sam is broken. Are you broken?
David's got a sin habit that he thinks no one else knows about. At least, that's what he keeps telling himself. He's tried to stop - and has. Many times. For about a week. His record is just over two months. And then failure again and again. He's a Christian, and criticizes himself that a Christian shouldn't feel this powerless against sin. He's read everything, prayed constantly, and tried to change the situation. But there he is - a repeat offender. In righteousness, David is broken. Are you broken?
Mary has had to make decisions beyond her years ever since her father died when she was 6. Mom wasn't really much parental help after that - she had her own problems, some in bottle form. But Mary did a good job looking out for herself. She got herself ready for school every day, caught the bus, worked a part-time job, got a few scholarships to work her way through community college, then a good job, and even a Master's degree. She's in middle management at a bank, running her own life, taking care of her own house, relying on herself for her own relationships. But the relationships usually end up in disaster, her job is unfulfilling and her efforts often go unnoticed. Her house has lost so much value that she can't afford to move, but the prices in the neighborhood keep dropping. Mom is bitter at her, and she's just flat out tired of the rat race. In running her own life, Mary is broken. Are you broken?
Jesus specializes in broken people. In fact, He doesn't work with anyone else. If you're broken, come to Him. And let someone who knows Him know that you're broken. They are broken, too.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Mini-megalomaniac-based Acceptance
Many of us have heard of the phrase "performance-based acceptance." Set in contrast to "unconditional acceptance," performance-based acceptance is the requirement that someone perform to a certain standard before you are willing to accept him or her. For example, a dad who doesn't truly accept his daughter unless she gets all A's on her report card, or a woman who doesn't accept a another as a friend unless she wears a certain grade of clothing. Certainly, there are more subtle (and more destructive) forms than these rather simplistic examples - such as a husband who won't love a woman unless she compares well to some impossible, airbrushed image.
Most of us know what it's like to be a victim of this. Sometimes, we're guilty of it. But there is a form of performance-based acceptance that I find even more poisonous. To coin a phrase, I'm calling it "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance." A megalomaniac is a severe psychological disorder where someone has delusions of divinity in various forms. What I mean about "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance" is a refusal by Person A to accept Person B unless Person B thinks like Person A does. More than just expecting the person to meet a standard of behavior or performance, it is more narrow, and more like a megalomaniac. My way of thinking is divinely right, and all who think differently are less acceptable.
We see it in our toxic political environment. Some people cannot be friends with others who think differently about politics. Some can't even have a civil discussion. It's a severe form of performance-based acceptance: you must think like the mini-megalomaniac Me before I will accept you.
We see it in marriages. A wife thinks about life in a different way than the husband, and he can't see how she could possibly think that way. He begins to accept her less and less, until he just doesn't accept her. All because she dared think unlike how he thinks. He can't see how another way of thinking is valid (or acceptable), and his opinion of her diminishes (less accepting). He creates an impossible standard, because we are wired to think in certain ways, and that rarely ever changes for anyone.
Imagine if God required us to think like He does before He's willing to accept us. Given that we can't think like He does, we immediately see the impossibility. And yet, we can apply the same impossible standard to others.
Grace is the reality that while we were still rebellious sinners against God, Christ died for us out of God's love for us (Rom 5:8). He accepts us - not in the since that He just waved His hand and we can all enter into heaven, but that He does not require us to perform or to think like He does before He's willing to love us completely and offer us salvation. Not even God in His true divinity displays any hint of megalomaniac-based acceptance.
Others think differently than you do. Does that disqualify them from your love? It doesn't disqualify us from His love. That is grace.
Most of us know what it's like to be a victim of this. Sometimes, we're guilty of it. But there is a form of performance-based acceptance that I find even more poisonous. To coin a phrase, I'm calling it "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance." A megalomaniac is a severe psychological disorder where someone has delusions of divinity in various forms. What I mean about "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance" is a refusal by Person A to accept Person B unless Person B thinks like Person A does. More than just expecting the person to meet a standard of behavior or performance, it is more narrow, and more like a megalomaniac. My way of thinking is divinely right, and all who think differently are less acceptable.
We see it in our toxic political environment. Some people cannot be friends with others who think differently about politics. Some can't even have a civil discussion. It's a severe form of performance-based acceptance: you must think like the mini-megalomaniac Me before I will accept you.
We see it in marriages. A wife thinks about life in a different way than the husband, and he can't see how she could possibly think that way. He begins to accept her less and less, until he just doesn't accept her. All because she dared think unlike how he thinks. He can't see how another way of thinking is valid (or acceptable), and his opinion of her diminishes (less accepting). He creates an impossible standard, because we are wired to think in certain ways, and that rarely ever changes for anyone.
Imagine if God required us to think like He does before He's willing to accept us. Given that we can't think like He does, we immediately see the impossibility. And yet, we can apply the same impossible standard to others.
Grace is the reality that while we were still rebellious sinners against God, Christ died for us out of God's love for us (Rom 5:8). He accepts us - not in the since that He just waved His hand and we can all enter into heaven, but that He does not require us to perform or to think like He does before He's willing to love us completely and offer us salvation. Not even God in His true divinity displays any hint of megalomaniac-based acceptance.
Others think differently than you do. Does that disqualify them from your love? It doesn't disqualify us from His love. That is grace.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Retreating
This weekend is the annual Men's Retreat at Tall Oaks Conference Center. Our very special guest speaker is Pastor Bill Ross, who served as our interim pastor for almost two years (and serves as a personal mentor to me).
Years ago at a different church, my leaders and I instituted annual men's retreats (which they had not had for many years). We camped out, cooked on Coleman stoves, and had a great time discussing matters of faith and ministry. But it was at that retreat that I was able to encapsulate the value of men's retreats in just one sentence. It wasn't the material we studied. It wasn't that we had time away from the hustle and bustle. It wasn't the food (although the "Low Country Boil" and dutch oven Georgia peach cobbler were always a big hit). It was what one of the younger men said.
I asked him how he liked the retreat, and he said it was great! So, I asked him why (half-anticipating an answer that would boost my terrible ego). Rather, what he said was, "I didn't know the elders laughed." That was the most important takeaway for him. Of course, it was more than just learning the fact - it was getting to know the elders on a personal level.
I spent a lot of time with the elders, of course, and knew readily that they laughed a lot. But this very active member of the church did not. It was always business - church business - with the elders. It was never just about life and fun and joking around. All this man knew of the elders is that they were men who were serious about church business. At the retreat, he learned who they were as regular guys. That's the great value of men's retreats.
Not just that people get to know the elders in particular, but that they get to know each other outside of church business - just getting to know each other as men. That particular church, as well as Grace and many others, had lots of good fellowship ... in pockets, but not necessarily across the board. The men's retreat is about the best chance throughout the year to get to know the men of the church, especially those you don't get to spend much time with otherwise.
I'm looking forward to Bill's talks - we will learn a lot. I'm looking forward to the times of prayer, the activities, and peeling away from the hustle and bustle. But mainly, I'm looking forward to finding out each guy's individual laugh.
Years ago at a different church, my leaders and I instituted annual men's retreats (which they had not had for many years). We camped out, cooked on Coleman stoves, and had a great time discussing matters of faith and ministry. But it was at that retreat that I was able to encapsulate the value of men's retreats in just one sentence. It wasn't the material we studied. It wasn't that we had time away from the hustle and bustle. It wasn't the food (although the "Low Country Boil" and dutch oven Georgia peach cobbler were always a big hit). It was what one of the younger men said.
I asked him how he liked the retreat, and he said it was great! So, I asked him why (half-anticipating an answer that would boost my terrible ego). Rather, what he said was, "I didn't know the elders laughed." That was the most important takeaway for him. Of course, it was more than just learning the fact - it was getting to know the elders on a personal level.
I spent a lot of time with the elders, of course, and knew readily that they laughed a lot. But this very active member of the church did not. It was always business - church business - with the elders. It was never just about life and fun and joking around. All this man knew of the elders is that they were men who were serious about church business. At the retreat, he learned who they were as regular guys. That's the great value of men's retreats.
Not just that people get to know the elders in particular, but that they get to know each other outside of church business - just getting to know each other as men. That particular church, as well as Grace and many others, had lots of good fellowship ... in pockets, but not necessarily across the board. The men's retreat is about the best chance throughout the year to get to know the men of the church, especially those you don't get to spend much time with otherwise.
I'm looking forward to Bill's talks - we will learn a lot. I'm looking forward to the times of prayer, the activities, and peeling away from the hustle and bustle. But mainly, I'm looking forward to finding out each guy's individual laugh.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
A Simple Reading Guide
If you're reading this ... well ... you can read. You know how letters fit together, how punctuation generally works, and what English words mean. You can read. Which also means that you can read the Bible and comprehend much of what it says. Even though intense study of the Bible is rich enough to warrant a legion of men and women to dedicate their careers to the discipline, the plain truth of the Bible is easily understood by anyone who can read. The basic message of the Bible is obvious enough, not hidden behind cryptic clues that only the secret few can decipher.
If this is true, why then do we have so many controversies over what the Bible says?
A short weekly article is never going to be able to resolve this great dilemma, but there are two driving principles: First, if we so determine, we can manipulate the text to say whatever we want it to. Second, even though we know how to read, we don't necessarily know how to read the Bible well.
Let me provide a few helpful practices, even though a short article cannot do justice to a mature discipline. My hope is that we can at least see the kinds of things we need to consider when reading the Bible well.
Resources: There are plenty of good books on reading the Bible well, but two that I recommend are: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, and Playing with Fire. Click on the titles to see more information about each.
If this is true, why then do we have so many controversies over what the Bible says?
A short weekly article is never going to be able to resolve this great dilemma, but there are two driving principles: First, if we so determine, we can manipulate the text to say whatever we want it to. Second, even though we know how to read, we don't necessarily know how to read the Bible well.
Let me provide a few helpful practices, even though a short article cannot do justice to a mature discipline. My hope is that we can at least see the kinds of things we need to consider when reading the Bible well.
- There and Then. What did the author intend to say to the original readers of the book? What the text means is what the author intended it to mean, not "what I got out of it." So, what did the author intend? He was writing to a particular group of people in a particular context of life, living in a particular culture. Perhaps there was a specific occasion or reason for writing that particular book. Every passage of Scripture means one thing. Whether a small passage or a large passage, there is one intended meaning. Before we ever thing about how the Word applies to our lives in our contexts in our culture, we've got to spend a little time understanding what the author intended. Some of this we can do just by observing the text carefully, and some of it we can do just through our accumulation of biblical knowledge over the years. Sometimes, we need to consult other resources, such as Bible dictionaries and commentaries. As you can see, this discipline can be taken to far greater depths than most of us are prepared for, but don't despair - most of the time, we can get a pretty good feel for what the author intended without earning an advanced degree!
- Everywhere and Forever. The second discipline, which can only come after we've worked on the first, is to ask what the eternal truth is behind what the author meant. For example, when Moses writes about "gleaning the fields" in Leviticus, the first discipline tells us we need understand what this particular farming practice was to understand what Moses intended to say to his original readers. But, most people today don't farm for a living, so does that mean that this passage doesn't mean anything for us? Of course not! The eternal principle behind the gleaning practice was to sacrificially provide for the poor in a way that allows them to work (if they can) in order to labor for their food. That's an eternal truth! It's a very particular kind of compassion. The second discipline is to discover what eternal truths are being expressed by what the author intended to say to the original readers. Sometimes, the contextual meaning is the same as the eternal truth ("don't lie"). Sometimes, the eternal truth is bigger than the specific idea expressed by the author to his original readers.
- Here and Now. The third discipline is one we typically jump straight to, ignoring the first two. More often than not, if we skip the first two disciplines, we will be very inaccurate with the third. This discipline is to discover how the eternal truth applies to our context in our culture in our situations. For example, how can we who do not farm for a living specifically employ the gleaning principle today? (Or the bigger question, how does a modern Christian look at Old Testament laws in general?) Scripture means one thing, but it may have many different applications for our lives. The passage in Leviticus means one thing - exercise a particular kind of compassion. How we do that in our lives could take many different flavors, but still retain the eternal truth (that was originally expressed in a particular context). This is not "what it means to me," but "how this can be lived out in my life?"
There are far more disciplines and techniques that I advocate to help us understand what we read in the Bible (for example, reading a passage no fewer than three times). These three, however, work together to show a sequence of thought we should go through every time we read. Sometimes, we can go through all three pretty quickly, but other times, it may take a fair bit of effort.
Resources: There are plenty of good books on reading the Bible well, but two that I recommend are: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, and Playing with Fire. Click on the titles to see more information about each.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
I Don't Dance
I don't dance. Not a bit. Not only do I not attempt to dance, but when I have attempted to, I still didn't dance ... because I can't dance. No rhythm, no coordination, no desire, no ability. I don't have a religious objection to dancing, but people of all religions would object if they saw me try.
I don't like it, I'm not good at it, so I don't do it.
That's fine for dancing or hockey or scrapbooking. But what about something like prayer? There have been times in my life, and I hear others express the same, that we don't pray because we feel awkward at it, don't have "rhythm," or don't feel like we know how. So, we don't. Sometimes, we just don't pray out loud in front of others. Sometimes, we just don't pray. We avoid the things that we don't feel that we do well, because we don't like feeling inept.
Rather than combat this with a "how to" article on prayer, which would probably only make us feel even more inept, let's look at it differently. We feel inept because we don't feel we do something well. And we don't feel we do it well because we don't feel we meet the standard. Rather than a "how to" to set a more intimidating standard, I question the standard.
What makes dancing good is based on style, skill, flare, and coordination. But that's not what makes for good praying.
If you look at Jesus' prayers and His teaching on prayer, He never sets a standard of flair. He never clicks a clicker every time you say "um" (like I saw a speech making club do). The most basic lesson on how to pray well is to just PRAY! I don't dance because I don't dance. We don't pray because we don't pray. Jesus says pray honestly, frequently, persistently, and trustingly. Just pray.
Babies are really horrible at talking, aren't they? But if they never talk terribly, they will never learn to talk well. If you never pray terribly, you will never pray well. And "well" has nothing to do with style.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
I've said it before, and I'll say it again
I'm partisan. I have particular political preferences. And I'm a little too eager to engage others in political discussions, both with people I agree (politically) with and with people I disagree with. These conversations are with people inside the Church (from both sides of the political aisle) as well as those outside the Church (again, from both angles). So ... full disclosure ... I'm partisan.
But, I've concluded that partisanship is not the best scale for determining my vote. I don't need to abandon my political preferences, but for years, now, I've been gravitating away from deciding my vote based on who is the most partisan for my particular views. I still vote for people even if they have strong views, but I don't regard the strength of their partisanship as the most important factor in casting my vote.
My thinking is this: In the last generation, we've watched this litmus test (who is the most partisan for my view) create a crippled Congress session after session. Why? Because we voted the most partisan people we could find - using that as our criteria. So, of course, we're going to end up with gridlock! We chose the most bull-headed, unbending people as if unbending bull-headedness was going to fix up Washington (or Topeka, or wherever).
Perhaps finding the most belligerently partisan candidate is not the best way to choose. So then, how then should I vote?
I will not tell you who you should vote for in any of the elections. But I would offer this as a general voting consideration: Which candidates (in any election) are more likely to display the kind of wisdom we find in the Bible? There is a wealth of wisdom found in the Bible that is good for everyone to follow, regardless of where they are in their faith. I would rather vote for someone who displays that kind of wisdom than for someone who makes a bunch of noise about his faith but rarely ever displays that wisdom.
Ecclesiastes 10 declares woe to the city that has a fool for a leader. Not someone who fails a political litmus test, not someone who isn't overtly religious, but someone who is a fool. The implication is that there are blessings for the city that has wise leaders.
Think of it this way: Who we want in leadership: the most partisan people we can find or the wisest people we can find? And I can't think of many people who display both qualities.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
What's a "Cadenza?"
What's a "Cadenza"?
I've heard this question more than a few times about the name of this weekly column. (I've also heard, "What's a 'credenza'?" from a handful of people.) Perhaps it would be good to explain the term and the idea behind it.
First of all, a "credenza" is a piece of furniture, and is a more familiar term to us than "cadenza." It would make for a very odd column title indeed - what's a piece of furniture have to do with this column in a church newsletter? However, the term we're using here is a less familiar term "cadenza."
A "cadenza" is a musical term. Perhaps you've noticed a consistent theme in Grace Notes using musical terminology. "Grace Notes" itself is a musical term (a notation in printed music to describe "ornamented" notes). "New Notes" is the section for all the latest-breaking news. "Your Cue" lists opportunities for ministry and service. "Parent Beat" is the column for parenting issues. "A Tempo" (which means "back to the regular speed") is for listing events coming up. "Reprise" (which means to do something again) lists those items that have been in previous issues of Grace Notes.
So, the reason for using the word "cadenza" is thematic. And now to the meaning...
The word "cadenza" refers to a part of a song that is a solo, and usually a solo with a tempo set by the musician rather than a regular beat. So, you could call this column "off-beat stuff where the pastor is way out there by himself"!
I use the Cadenza column as a platform to play around with some ideas out loud. Sometimes it's a reflection on Scripture or a theological topic. Sometimes it's just having some fun. And still other times I want to draw attention to happenings within the church (locally and globally).
There have been a few times where someone expressed some disagreement with what I wrote, and that's perfectly fine with me. A musician doesn't always perform every "solo" well, and I know in advance that I will make a few mistakes (and I try to correct the more serious ones). Or, perhaps we just have a difference of opinion, which is going to happen in a healthy church. But you have always been full of grace, which I appreciate and want to extend back to you in return.
Thanks for your feedback - I welcome it! I pray that at least some of the articles are helpful and interesting to you. Thanks to Christina (and Ashley during the summer) for putting Grace Notes together every week. It's not always an easy task, and I truly appreciate the effort. I hope you do, too.
One final note (to stick with the musical theme), I want to publicly thank Damon Jasperson for the fantastic series of "Parent Beat" articles recenly. Every one of them has been thought-provoking (and I am jealous of his writing style). We weren't sure we'd continue the quality of articles that Susan Harrison had been submitting, but Damon has allayed those concerns. Thanks, Damon. We'll take as many as you've got within you!
I've heard this question more than a few times about the name of this weekly column. (I've also heard, "What's a 'credenza'?" from a handful of people.) Perhaps it would be good to explain the term and the idea behind it.
First of all, a "credenza" is a piece of furniture, and is a more familiar term to us than "cadenza." It would make for a very odd column title indeed - what's a piece of furniture have to do with this column in a church newsletter? However, the term we're using here is a less familiar term "cadenza."
A "cadenza" is a musical term. Perhaps you've noticed a consistent theme in Grace Notes using musical terminology. "Grace Notes" itself is a musical term (a notation in printed music to describe "ornamented" notes). "New Notes" is the section for all the latest-breaking news. "Your Cue" lists opportunities for ministry and service. "Parent Beat" is the column for parenting issues. "A Tempo" (which means "back to the regular speed") is for listing events coming up. "Reprise" (which means to do something again) lists those items that have been in previous issues of Grace Notes.
So, the reason for using the word "cadenza" is thematic. And now to the meaning...
The word "cadenza" refers to a part of a song that is a solo, and usually a solo with a tempo set by the musician rather than a regular beat. So, you could call this column "off-beat stuff where the pastor is way out there by himself"!
I use the Cadenza column as a platform to play around with some ideas out loud. Sometimes it's a reflection on Scripture or a theological topic. Sometimes it's just having some fun. And still other times I want to draw attention to happenings within the church (locally and globally).
There have been a few times where someone expressed some disagreement with what I wrote, and that's perfectly fine with me. A musician doesn't always perform every "solo" well, and I know in advance that I will make a few mistakes (and I try to correct the more serious ones). Or, perhaps we just have a difference of opinion, which is going to happen in a healthy church. But you have always been full of grace, which I appreciate and want to extend back to you in return.
Thanks for your feedback - I welcome it! I pray that at least some of the articles are helpful and interesting to you. Thanks to Christina (and Ashley during the summer) for putting Grace Notes together every week. It's not always an easy task, and I truly appreciate the effort. I hope you do, too.
One final note (to stick with the musical theme), I want to publicly thank Damon Jasperson for the fantastic series of "Parent Beat" articles recenly. Every one of them has been thought-provoking (and I am jealous of his writing style). We weren't sure we'd continue the quality of articles that Susan Harrison had been submitting, but Damon has allayed those concerns. Thanks, Damon. We'll take as many as you've got within you!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
License, Legalism, Love
Last Sunday, I added a last-minute thought to the message which 1) was a much bigger thought than I gave it room for, 2) may have been distracting to the main message, 3) was not thought through fully, and 4) the one thing some people really latched onto. I still haven't decided if it was a good addition or not!
The idea was that in Christ, we have three possible paths to tread: License, Legalism, or Love. When we went through Galatians over a year ago, we talked about License, Legalism, and Liberty, which is a theologically accurate list, but I like the focus of Love more than that of Liberty.
License is the idea that because I have my sins forgiven by grace, I can live as I please, do whatever my flesh desires. Hey, it's all going to be forgiven, right? Sure, it might be disrespectful to the Cross, but if it's covered, it's covered. Paul repeated teaches against this view, especially in Galatians.
Legalism is the idea that our righteousness and our standing before God is dependent on how well we adhere to a certain moral code. There are plenty of non-Christian religions that are blatantly legalistic. Although it's relatively rare to find an evangelical church that teaches this outright (there are some!), this more often finds its way into church by stealth. A church can believe in grace and teach grace, but still end up with teachings and sermons that boil down to "try harder, do it right, it's all on your shoulders." We can inadvertently create an attitude of legalism while preaching grace.
Liberty is the idea that in Christ, we finally have the freedom and ability to obey Him. We have been set free from sin and death and set free for following Him from our heart. The bonds are gone, but we are also enabled for the first time to actually obey, which we choose to do freely.
But I prefer the third element to be labeled Love. Not because Liberty is inaccurate in any way, but because Love encompasses Liberty and so much more.
Love is more than an idea ... it's a relationship, it's a motive, it's a mode, it's an attachment, it's so many things. Rather than freely disobeying God (License) or obeying God in bondage (Legalism), it is freely obeying God drenched by love in every way. We obey Christ because we love, love is our attitude while following Him, we love Him by obeying Him, and we even love by obeying the command to love. We have been freed because of love, Christ's will has been revealed to us because of love, and His will is how He provides for us a way to love Him.
"Liberty" describes the freedom and enablement we have because of Christ. "Love" describes the what, the why, and the how to exercise that freedom and enablement.
It's easy to slip back into legalism, where we try to create a set of rules. It's even easier to slip into license - just do whatever we desire to do, whether or not it is Christ's will. Loving relationships are not the easiest routes, but they are clearly the best ones, because love is the only path of the three that reflects Christ's character.
The idea was that in Christ, we have three possible paths to tread: License, Legalism, or Love. When we went through Galatians over a year ago, we talked about License, Legalism, and Liberty, which is a theologically accurate list, but I like the focus of Love more than that of Liberty.
License is the idea that because I have my sins forgiven by grace, I can live as I please, do whatever my flesh desires. Hey, it's all going to be forgiven, right? Sure, it might be disrespectful to the Cross, but if it's covered, it's covered. Paul repeated teaches against this view, especially in Galatians.
Legalism is the idea that our righteousness and our standing before God is dependent on how well we adhere to a certain moral code. There are plenty of non-Christian religions that are blatantly legalistic. Although it's relatively rare to find an evangelical church that teaches this outright (there are some!), this more often finds its way into church by stealth. A church can believe in grace and teach grace, but still end up with teachings and sermons that boil down to "try harder, do it right, it's all on your shoulders." We can inadvertently create an attitude of legalism while preaching grace.
Liberty is the idea that in Christ, we finally have the freedom and ability to obey Him. We have been set free from sin and death and set free for following Him from our heart. The bonds are gone, but we are also enabled for the first time to actually obey, which we choose to do freely.
But I prefer the third element to be labeled Love. Not because Liberty is inaccurate in any way, but because Love encompasses Liberty and so much more.
Love is more than an idea ... it's a relationship, it's a motive, it's a mode, it's an attachment, it's so many things. Rather than freely disobeying God (License) or obeying God in bondage (Legalism), it is freely obeying God drenched by love in every way. We obey Christ because we love, love is our attitude while following Him, we love Him by obeying Him, and we even love by obeying the command to love. We have been freed because of love, Christ's will has been revealed to us because of love, and His will is how He provides for us a way to love Him.
"Liberty" describes the freedom and enablement we have because of Christ. "Love" describes the what, the why, and the how to exercise that freedom and enablement.
It's easy to slip back into legalism, where we try to create a set of rules. It's even easier to slip into license - just do whatever we desire to do, whether or not it is Christ's will. Loving relationships are not the easiest routes, but they are clearly the best ones, because love is the only path of the three that reflects Christ's character.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Anxiety Because We Forget
Psalm 139 is one of the church's favorite psalms of comfort. God's presence is everywhere, and even if we tried to escape it, we will never find a place where He is not. He knows everything about us, and He knew all of it before we were even born. He's the one who "knit" us together. In this psalm, we see God as sovereign, engaged, caring, and protective. It's no mystery why we love this psalm.
Just look at a sampling of the things God does in this psalm: examine, know, understand, observe, be aware, be thoroughly aware, squeeze, place His hand upon me, have knowledge, be present, be there, never too dark for Him to see, make, perform awesome and amazing deeds, know beforehand, see, and ordain. And after everything is said and done, we still have to contend with Him. Shew!
I am overwhelmed by the completeness of His attributes: to every extent and in every way, to any height or depth, far away and nearby, He is thoroughly God. Because He is our creator, He knows all these things, does all these things, exists in all these contexts and places. Even if we were to list, catalog, analyze, study, and write comprehensive theses about all this, still - there He is, with us, there for us to contend with. His existence is even beyond the sum of His attributes and actions.
My study of my Creator cannot be confined to an analysis of His effects. My creator is there for me to have a relationship with. He knows everything about me, He made me, He already exists in every place I will ever go. He’s there and he knows everything about the me who is there, too.
Many times when we are anxious, it is because we don't know what God knows, and we forget that what God know is ... everything.
Psalm 46:10 He says, “Stop your striving and recognize that I am God! I will be exalted over the nations! I will be exalted over the earth!”
Forgive me, Lord, for my whining, as if You didn’t know everything, as if You weren’t absolutely there in this specific space, as if Your hand was not upon me, as if You did not create me.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Does My Effort Matter?
God is sovereign. Completely. Everything is under His control, nothing happens unless He at least allows to happen, if not directly makes it happen. He has guaranteed the final score before the first pitch. The Bible says that it's not just that God knows what's going to happen, but that He's the one who will make it happen.
So, does my effort matter? I can't thwart God's plan. I can't change the outcome (can I?). I certainly can't alter God's eternal plan. The Bible seems to care a lot about whether or not I do certain things, but does it really matter, since I can't alter the final score that's been fixed from before the world began?
Among theologians, these questions are part of a much larger debate which (sadly) can cause division among brothers in Christ. But in real life for normal people, it really comes down to the very practical question: Does my effort matter? And if it does, how so? And if not, then why bother?
Does my effort matter? You probably anticipated this answer: yes and no.
In one sense, no, your effort doesn't matter. Sorry, but God's plan is not so fragile as to teeter on whether or not you do something. He's completely, totally, effectively, conclusively sovereign, and He will execute His eternal plan no matter what you do. His confidence for the outcome of His plan is not merely based on the fact that He knows how it all turns out - His confidence comes from the fact that He is God, and because He is God, there is no other possible outcome than His plan.
But in another sense, yes, your effort does matter. Consider:
Part of our problem with this question is that we have a very Western mindset, which is focused on results. Actions are meaningful only if they produce the desired results. We look at God's sovereignty and how He will get His results no matter what we do, and we conclude our actions don't matter. However, our Western way is not the only way to discover what's meaningful. Meaning is also found in being. By being a certain kind of people (who do certain things because of who we are), we have meaning in God's economy. In other words, God has value for us not only in what we accomplish, but in who we are. Being completely willing participants in His plan is valuable, no matter how it may affect the outcome.
So, does my effort matter? I can't thwart God's plan. I can't change the outcome (can I?). I certainly can't alter God's eternal plan. The Bible seems to care a lot about whether or not I do certain things, but does it really matter, since I can't alter the final score that's been fixed from before the world began?
Among theologians, these questions are part of a much larger debate which (sadly) can cause division among brothers in Christ. But in real life for normal people, it really comes down to the very practical question: Does my effort matter? And if it does, how so? And if not, then why bother?
Does my effort matter? You probably anticipated this answer: yes and no.
In one sense, no, your effort doesn't matter. Sorry, but God's plan is not so fragile as to teeter on whether or not you do something. He's completely, totally, effectively, conclusively sovereign, and He will execute His eternal plan no matter what you do. His confidence for the outcome of His plan is not merely based on the fact that He knows how it all turns out - His confidence comes from the fact that He is God, and because He is God, there is no other possible outcome than His plan.
But in another sense, yes, your effort does matter. Consider:
- We can participate in God's plan: Technically, everyone is always participating in God's plan, either for it or against, either wittingly or unwittingly, because no one is exempt from God's comprehensive plan. But we have the opportunity to be willing participants working for God's purpose rather than against it. That's a privilege! When the end comes, we will have either been active participants in what God accomplished, or non-participants, or even antagonists. Personally, I really like the first of those three options.
- We can be the kind of person God is making us to be. By participating actively in God's purpose, we are being what God wants. To be a believer in Jesus Christ, but inactive in God's plan, is to be a living contradiction. Even though I can't change the final score, I can either live consistently with His plan or live inconsistently with His plan. What kind of people does God want us to be - those who live in concert with His purpose and plan or those who clash with them?
- We can glorify God. By living a life that reflects what God is doing in the world, we bring Him glory. God is glorified by whatever reflects His character. Applying ourselves to His purpose reflects His character, and therefore glorifies Him. Don't tell me that doesn't matter.
- We can be how God executes His plan. Yes, God is completely sovereign and will accomplish His purpose, but God accomplishes a lot of His purpose through people. His sovereign plan that existed before the world began includes those through whom He will accomplish His plan. Our actions matter because our actions are part of what God sovereignly uses to execute His plan.
Part of our problem with this question is that we have a very Western mindset, which is focused on results. Actions are meaningful only if they produce the desired results. We look at God's sovereignty and how He will get His results no matter what we do, and we conclude our actions don't matter. However, our Western way is not the only way to discover what's meaningful. Meaning is also found in being. By being a certain kind of people (who do certain things because of who we are), we have meaning in God's economy. In other words, God has value for us not only in what we accomplish, but in who we are. Being completely willing participants in His plan is valuable, no matter how it may affect the outcome.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Boycotts, Agendas, and the Public Square
There's been an interesting reversal these last two weeks - rather than a group of Christians rallying to boycott something, a group of folks have called for a boycott of a fast food restaurant because the head of the company publicly shared his personal view on a moral issue.
I don't intend to say who's right or who's wrong on the myriad of related issues here - that's not my point, and I don't intend to stir up the debate. I don't intend to answer the question of whether or not we should boycott at all. My only goal is to offer some ideas for Christians to consider as they exercise their right to engage in the public arena.
Our model, of course, is Jesus. I also see other useful examples in Scripture.
As you engage with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and cyberfriends, please consider:
- Jesus affiliated with the sinners, loved them, and yet never pretended that sin wasn't sin. The only people who felt really uncomfortable with Him were the religious hypocrites and those who wanted to remain in sin. All others, including the "vilest offenders," felt welcome in His presence (even though He would say things like, "Go and sin no more"). Would a sinner have every reason to feel comfortable in my presence by the loving way I stand for God's ways?
- In Acts 4-5, the disciples were unfairly arrested, but did not raise a huge protest over being mistreated, misunderstood, or violated. They did not make their personal rights the main issue, even though they were treated illegally. They did, however, plainly and clearly state the core truth of the Gospel, and then extended an offer for others to believe. Am I speaking to truly advance the Gospel or to advance my personal feelings and agenda?
- Because these disciples were mistreated, they were able to explain the claims of Christ to people they otherwise would never have had a chance to. Do I see opposition to my views as opportunities to share Christ in a winsome way?
- Their deciding factor, it seems, was that they would do whatever they could to give the Gospel its best possible hearing. They let their own rights be denied, they displayed respect, they chose to shut up or speak boldly, everything for the apparent purpose of not interfering with the Gospel. If they had loudly (and legally) demanded their rights, adopted a combative attitude, or spoke out of turn, they would have damaged the appeal of the Gospel. Do I treat my own freedom, safety, and rights as secondary to the Gospel?
- Paul did assert his rights at times, such as appealing to Caesar - which, as a result, put him in the court system in Rome, where he spoke about the Gospel (more than about his own rights) to those in the Roman government. Do I understand the system well enough to negotiate it wisely?
- Joseph and Daniel are two Old Testament characters in captivity to two different pagan kings. They both had their rights and freedoms denied. They were both treated unfairly. And they both used the gifts and talents God gave them to make their immoral kings very successful. Both made a stronger argument for the God of Israel by doing so. Do I bring value to others, or merely arguments and demands, forcing them into a defensive position?
There is a time to make a stand and endure conflict. When justice is systemically denied, when the defenseless are oppressed, when the moneychangers turn a space dedicated to God into a den of thieves.
But always, always, always, our actions in the public square should be dictated by advancing the Gospel, not mere religiosity. And the manner of our engagement must also reflect the nature of the Gospel itself, or we cancel out our own message.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I'm sorry I'm in your way
We have just reached the halfway point in Ephesians. The first three chapters are primarily about what's true ("indicative"), and the last three chapters are more about what to do ("imperative"). We are presently right between the two halves, holding in our back pocket what we have learned about God's work while reaching forward to how those truths should find be expressed in how we walk day after day.
One thing that is abundantly clear from those first three chapters is that the real power that changes our lives is not our lone effort, but the very hand of God. He called us and provided salvation for us (chapter 1), He made us alive and brought us near (chapter 2), and He displays His manifold wisdom and can fill us beyond our own ability to imagine (chapter 3). The hand that truly changes lives is not mere flesh.
Therefore, the ideal in ministry is to cultivate God's work in the lives of people. Not to do the work, not to be the hero, not to implement the jazziest program, and not to have all the answers. Rather, the best we can do in ministry is provide the ripest environment for someone to receive the only real work that changes us in eternal ways. A farmer doesn't make plants grow - but he works hard to create the richest environment for that growth to occur.
However, sometimes in our efforts, we get in the way. More to the point, sometimes I get in the way. Just recently, as I was mowing the lawn (so, you know it wasn't all that recent), I was tumbling through my head several ways that I have gotten in the way. In just about every area of responsibility, I can name ways that I have occasionally gotten in the way instead of making the way straight. Teaching, administrating, communicating, preaching, praying, counseling, coaching - you name an area, I can point to ways that I get between God's power and the people I'm supposed to be assisting.
For that, I apologize. And I admit that I have not yet figured out how to keep out of the way, so I will get in the way again. But I'm interested in far more than issuing an apology for past and future shortcomings. My main purpose here is to encourage all of us, including me, to be ongoing students of what it really means that only God's power transforms.
Whether we are teaching or sharing our faith or being involved in ministry activities, how can we get out of the way? How are we tempted to get in the way, and then how can we step aside? How can we prepare the soil for God's power to be most effective in others (and in ourselves)? For example, do I teach in a way that adds the burden of lone human effort, or do I connect people with God's potent eagerness to be at work in us?
I'm prompted to write not because of some particular incident, and I'm not beating myself up. But I did have one of those too-infrequent moments of clarity in seeing some specific ways where my efforts occlude rather than reveal. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. With our continued partnership, we have everything we need in order to have a greater impact by learning better how to just get out of the way.
Of course, that only makes sense if God's power is in fact reliable. It comes down to whether or not we really believe this to be true.
One thing that is abundantly clear from those first three chapters is that the real power that changes our lives is not our lone effort, but the very hand of God. He called us and provided salvation for us (chapter 1), He made us alive and brought us near (chapter 2), and He displays His manifold wisdom and can fill us beyond our own ability to imagine (chapter 3). The hand that truly changes lives is not mere flesh.
Therefore, the ideal in ministry is to cultivate God's work in the lives of people. Not to do the work, not to be the hero, not to implement the jazziest program, and not to have all the answers. Rather, the best we can do in ministry is provide the ripest environment for someone to receive the only real work that changes us in eternal ways. A farmer doesn't make plants grow - but he works hard to create the richest environment for that growth to occur.
However, sometimes in our efforts, we get in the way. More to the point, sometimes I get in the way. Just recently, as I was mowing the lawn (so, you know it wasn't all that recent), I was tumbling through my head several ways that I have gotten in the way. In just about every area of responsibility, I can name ways that I have occasionally gotten in the way instead of making the way straight. Teaching, administrating, communicating, preaching, praying, counseling, coaching - you name an area, I can point to ways that I get between God's power and the people I'm supposed to be assisting.
For that, I apologize. And I admit that I have not yet figured out how to keep out of the way, so I will get in the way again. But I'm interested in far more than issuing an apology for past and future shortcomings. My main purpose here is to encourage all of us, including me, to be ongoing students of what it really means that only God's power transforms.
Whether we are teaching or sharing our faith or being involved in ministry activities, how can we get out of the way? How are we tempted to get in the way, and then how can we step aside? How can we prepare the soil for God's power to be most effective in others (and in ourselves)? For example, do I teach in a way that adds the burden of lone human effort, or do I connect people with God's potent eagerness to be at work in us?
I'm prompted to write not because of some particular incident, and I'm not beating myself up. But I did have one of those too-infrequent moments of clarity in seeing some specific ways where my efforts occlude rather than reveal. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. With our continued partnership, we have everything we need in order to have a greater impact by learning better how to just get out of the way.
Of course, that only makes sense if God's power is in fact reliable. It comes down to whether or not we really believe this to be true.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Rom 8.12-17
Psg: Rom 8.12-17 (http://biblia.com/bible/leb/Ro8.12-17)
Date: 7/10/12
Date: 7/10/12
Read
12 So then, brothers, we are obligated not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba!cFather!” 16 The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer together with him so that we may also be glorified together with him.Record
For if you live according to … the Spirit / if indeed we suffer together with him...Reflect
- Walking by the Spirit in this world will lead to suffering, because we will be walking at odds with this world.
- Of course, living according to the flesh leads to death. It will be slavery and then a death that are not at odds with this world, as if that were some consolation.
- The direction that the Spirit will lead us will necessarily be at odds with this world. They are two forces of momentum going in different directions.
- Otherwise, we wouldn’t need the leading of the Spirit.
- Therefore, there will be clashes, collisions, forces being applied in the same place at the same time, but not in the same direction.
- And therefore there will be suffering with Christ.
- We should not be surprised or discouraged at the suffering, the collisions, the feelings of going against the grain, or the bumps and bruises it causes.
- This is part of what it means to be sons/children of God.
- It’s not just being in the group, but it’s being in the stream that moves contrary to flow of this world and the suffering that comes with that.
- Being children of God also means being heirs (17) and therefore sharing in his glory (17).
Respond
- Forgive me, Father, for my desire to avoid the necessary suffering that comes with walking by the Spirit in a world that walks by the flesh. Correct me for the ways that I turn to walk by the flesh rather than take the bruises of walking against the grain, against the flow of the dead. Living up to the name of an heir and sharing in Christ’s glory is far superior to the discomfort of sharing in Christ’s suffering.
- CR: When facing the temptation to follow the bruiseless flow, picture being in a crowded area with two flows of people - the larger flow walking toward death and the smaller flow walking toward life. Be willing to take the knocks of the living.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Ps 103.8-18
Psg: Psa 103.8-18 (http://biblia.com/bible/leb/Ps103.8-18)
Date: 7/9/12
Date: 7/9/12
Read
8 Yahweh is compassionate and gracious,
9 He does not dispute continually,
nor keep his anger forever.
10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins,
nor repaid us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heavens are high above the earth,
so his loyal love prevails over those who fear him.
12 As far as east is from west,
so he has removed far from us the guilt of our transgressions.
He remembers that we are dust.
15 As for man, his days are like the grass.
As the flower of the field, so he blossoms.
16 When the wind passes over it, it is no more,
and its place knows it no longer.
17 But the loyal love of Yahweh
is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him,
and his righteousness to their children’s children,
18 to those who keep his covenant
and remember to do his precepts.
Record
(14) For he knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.Reflect
- As we consider our guilt, our sin, our responsibilities before God, his justice, his wrath, his hesed, we should also remember this statement. He knows what we’re made of. He knows our incapacities. He knows our parts that just don’t work.
- This does not mean that we are excused.
- This is more than God looking down and saying, “At least you tried hard.”
- This is a reality that God is fully aware of: he demands perfection, we are structurally and systemically incapable of it, and he is fully aware of that.
- This is why Jesus is necessary, and God knows it (of course). Jesus is God’s only avenue because of what he knows to be true about our capacity.
- This informs everything he instructs us to do, everything he expects from us, everything he equips us for, and everything that he expects the Holy Spirit to empower.
- Our sins do not surprise him or shock him. He knows what we’re made of.
- cf. Jn 2:24 But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people,i 25 and because he did not⌊need⌋j anyone ⌊to testify⌋k about man, for he himself knew what was in man.*
- His love for us is all the more amazing.
Respond
- Thank you for your “despite all that” love.
- Teach me to see myself as you see me, and then to rely on the Holy Spirit even more.
Friday, June 29, 2012
2 Th 2.13-17
Psg: 2 Th 2.13-17 (http://biblia.com/bible/leb/2Th2.13-17)
Date: 6/29/12
Date: 6/29/12
Read
13 But we ought to give thanks to God always concerning you, brothers dearly loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you as first fruits for salvation by the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth, 14 for which purpose he calledcyou through our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by spoken word or by letter from us. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope by grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word.Record
God has chosen you … for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ … so, stand firm and hold fast … may our Lord Jesus Christ encourage and strengthen you.Reflect
- This is a nutshell version of compatibilism. God chose in order to glorify and can empower us to walk, and yet we have a responsibility to act in faith.
- We are not choiceless automatons and we are not the determiners of salvation history.
- This was done by both the sanctifying work of the Spirit and faith in the truth.
- We are chosen by God for the purpose of the glory of Christ.
- Therefore, our ultimate goal of the Christian endeavor should be his glory. Our spiritual formation, our pursuit of the Great Commission, our life in Christian community, everything.
Respond
- Because the purpose is the glory of Christ, I can stand firm and I can hold fast. If the purpose is my own benefit, then my knees will eventually buckle and my grip will eventually loosen. But because the purpose is the glory of Christ, I can endure anything, stand forever, and hold on without fail. Your glory strengthens my grip.
- CR: When the grip starts to feel weak, first check what purpose I’m hanging on for, then read this passage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)