Pastor Joe's Blog

Style vs. Substance

2012-01-09T14:23:00.000-08:00

When I first started using a screen and power point in worship, I was criticized for more about style than substance. Since I am more inclined towards both and vs. either or, I do not like pitting one against the other especially as it relates to worship. I would like to think that in a worship service, style and substance would work hand in hand in order to empower worshipers to encounter the fullness of God. However, after being in the ministry for over 33 years, the word pipe dream is more of a reality. It seems to me that worship is more about style than substance. We categorize worship services according to style or styles. There are the traditional vs. contemporary, the complex liturgy vs. simple liturgy, the choir and organ driven style vs. the band driven style, not to mention those who attempt to combine various styles into at least a style for a particular service. Add all of this to different time slots and the market now drives service attendance, according to of course the style being offered in a particular time slot. It all sounds more like efforts to increase network TV ratings rather than doing or being church.

Style trumps substance. If you do not believe me, change or mix various styles in a worship service and see what happens. If the word appreciation comes to mind, think again. People with long histories of service and sacrifice in a congregation will walk out the door if the so called style changes. Suddenly they feel out of place, or ignored, or even abused as one person told me. I can think of a lot more significant, painful, and life altering ways abuse can happen at church. Perhaps the church needs to have support groups for members who have been abused by hymn singing and organ playing or those who have been abused by praise and worship songs and guitars and drums.

I would like to think that worship is about more than notes on a page, and what instrument is used to accompany those notes. Once more I am mistaken. Worship is all about personal style or preferences. Do not attempt to bring what God may want or where scripture speaks into the discussion. Ultimately it all comes down to what I like, or what I do not like to hear or say or do, what makes me comfortable, and reinforces my preconceptions of God and the church. It is a shame that 1Corinthians still falls on so many deaf ears. The segmentation of the church into stylistic categories or camps complete with subcategories seems so normative that no one questions it. All of this of course is done in the exalted name of targeting population segments, and style preferences for evangelistic or missional or church growth efforts.

Jesus once promised that where ever two or more are gathered in his name that he would be there. If all who are gathered together prefer the same style of worship,(usually musically based upon age considerations) doesn't that mean that only one aspect of Jesus shows up, the one that fits in our preferences, our age group, and our musical taste? I would like to think that encountering Jesus in the diversity of people and styles would be the healthiest for me, but I hear they have a really great worship band at the church down the street. I think I'll go there and check'em out.

Enough

2011-06-09T10:21:00.000-07:00

Enough, what an interesting word. An online dictionary defines enough as sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; as well as adequate. So when we attach a noun in front like old as in old enough, I guess we are saying that there is a sufficient or adequate amount of time or age passed or experience gained so that something else might take place; such as driving a car, or getting married, or vote, or consume alcohol. The fundamental flaw in this thinking is equating age and experience with maturity. We hope that we mature with age, and with age we get wiser and make better and smarter decisions. We also hope that we do grow wiser as we grow older, but I am not convinced that is the case. Psychologists will tell us that from a developmental standpoint, we do have the capacity to grow wiser with age. However I believe maturity is not automatic. The Bible does not talk about spiritual maturity being automatic-Paul talks about in all things growing up into him who is the head..Ephesians 4:15 and Peter talks about "growing up in your salvation." 1Peter 2:2

We often speak of life events particularly those which are dramatic or critical as real growth experiences. The death of a significant other can be such an event. The loss of a job, may be another. The birth of children still another. The collapse of a long marriage, still another. Any major event in our life can be a life changing growth moment. I was painfully reminded of the Israelites in the desert. They had gone through some very significant life changing events and yet they remained fundamentally flawed, unchanged, and continued making some very poor choices when they, "should have known better by now."

It seems old habits, old lifestyles, and old values are hard to break. A move towards maturity is a decision. It is a refusal to put our life on autopilot during those critical moments, and choosing to take a different path, and head in a new direction. This entails at least knowing there is an alternative, and that the alternative is a better path than the current road. Fortunately for us as followers of Jesus we aren't left without some resources. Here is where the scripture is helpful. Jesus casts a vision of the Kingdom of God and the ways of the kingdom for his followers. The Apostle Paul in Galatians list the fruit of the spirit- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. The good news is that at any life point we can choose how we will respond that will either foster the growth of a particular fruit of the Spirit, or exhibit some way of the kingdom, or not.

The good news is that God will help us grow up into Him who is the head and God will help us grow up into our salvation. If we decide to...

Jesus and Handguns

2011-05-26T08:31:00.000-07:00

The other day I went to record some Bible verse readings at a local Christian Radio station. After I had read several passage from the psalms I had a good lunch with some other local pastors. One of the pastors who is now preaching on the radio, shared that he now Packs Heat. He also shared about other people in his congregation; former military personnel and even some older women who pack heat as well.

I asked a simple question, Why? To which he responded, that since he has been preaching on the radio he has received some threatening emails and phone calls. Another pastor chimed in that he must be preaching the Word because when you preach the Word it stirs up people.

Since I am not receiving death threats I began to wonder whether I was preaching the Word. On the other had I began to wonder what Word he was preaching since theologically he was nowhere near center and left is not the direction I had in mind. Coupled with the fact that this is a conservative radio station and I live in Idaho, I wondered who he could be offending enough to get death threats?

Well enough of that aside. I sat silently after hearing that, knowing I really did not have the time to get into this with him, and I was surrounded by like minded pastors, which was equally disturbing.

But it did cause me to reflect. Had I said something, I would have followed up with a question; "Being a Bible believing card carrying conservative Christian, what Scriptural evidence do you have to justify carrying Heat-(code word for handgun)? I know some Bible commandos who might name the sword or slingshot carrying heroes in the Old Testament. But I not sure we are to imitate all of the cultural aspects of Old Testament characters.

Being a follower of Jesus, I do think the pastor would be hard pressed to find any New Testament proof for packing heat. Jesus did say that those who live by the sword die by the sword, which was not an endorsement to carry and use a weapon, but just the opposite. In other words, put the weapons away. I don't think that his society then was any less violent than ours today.

I know a handgun salesman would say two things, first it is his right to carry a handgun, particularly if he has filled out all the paperwork, and second he needs it for protection. My first response is just because he has the right doesn't make it right as a follower of Jesus. As far as protection goes, if the man is truly preaching the Word and being Prophetic, then you suffer the consequences. Martin Luther King was shot on a balcony. The Book of Hebrews has a whole list of people who were martyred. I don't see Stephen whipping his handgun when confronted about his preaching.

But on another note, if I were sitting in his congregation listening to his sermon, knowing that under his sport coat he had a handgun, how would I feel? What if I didn't agree with what he was saying and dared to say so, or heaven forbid started to fall asleep? I think I would be equally terrified knowing others out in the pews were packing heat. What if they really didn't like the sermon. Shoot Out at First Christian Heat Packing Church, would make an interesting headline.

A Christian packing heat is in an untenable ethical dilemma. At what point do you do you un-holster the gun? How threatening is threatening? Do I shoot first and ask questions later? Do I aim to kill or aim to maim? How do I make that decision in a split second? Unlike policemen and women who are drilled over and over again on making those types of decisions under those circumstances, most people packing heat haven't been through that kind of intensive training. I know if I am reactive enough to carry a gun, I am probably reactive enough to use it almost without thinking. Like the man with the sword that Jesus spoke against.

Which brings me back to the Jesus and handgun issue. The best way through an ethical dilemma is not to put yourself in one if you can help it.

2011-04-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

When was in Seminary, I took 15 months off between my second and third year to serve an internship at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Highland Park was a big church- over 7,000 members at the time. Sanctuary was as large enough to hold several thousand people. As an intern they thought it would be helpful for me to attend their leadership team’s meeting- their session. Their session had about 60 members. They met in a room where they sat in rows- airline style. That night the chairman of the worship committee brought a motion to the session to help people meet and greet each other either during or after the service. They recommended a pad where people would sign it,pass it down the aisle, and when it reached the end; pass it back so that people could read the names of the people who were sitting next to them and perhaps speak to them after the service is over.

After hearing the worship chairman’s presentation, I thought this was a slam dunk- but one of the elders raised his hand to speak against it. First he said that when he came to church on Sunday morning and sat down in his pew, he did not want not be interrupted by some pad being passed, and he certainly didn’t want anyone to know his name before, after, or during the worship service, because " when I come to church all I want to do is to sit in my pew and worship God all by myself."

And then to really make his point with what he thought would sink the motion all together—He said,” It sounds too Baptist for me…”

I know I was there as an observer, and I wasn’t supposed to speak, but I raised my hand to speak in favor of the pad idea, and I said, that this isn’t too baptist because my home church- First Presbyterian in Florence S.C. had adopted the fellowship pad idea a few years earlier.

But what was that Elder really saying when he said, “All I want to do is sit in My Pew, and worship God all by myself?”

Basically he was saying that he didn’t need anyone, in any way, in order to worship God. He really believed that it is possible to give God all the honor and glory that God deserves without anyone else’s assistance… It is possible to serve God all by himself and it is possible to be a Christian all by himself and that he didn't need help from anybody.

I am not sure where he got this view of the church and the Christian life. Even the Lone Ranger had Tonto.

The Apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 12 said, "14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. …. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"

For the Apostle Paul the human body is a great metaphor for the church. In the human body, no one part can exist all by itself. Every part is dependent upon every other part for its health and well being. So it is with the church as the Body of Christ. That makes everyone important in the life of the church. All people matter, because everyone brings something the church needs to the table; some gift, some talent, some perspective, or some passion. If a church is grow deep and wide,less is not more.

The C- Word

2011-04-04T10:14:00.000-07:00

I attended a wedding once… The church was packed, lots of Christian music was played, People sang praise songs, scripture was read, parents got up gave words of advice, and prayed for the couple, the Pastor preached a sermon… It was a little long but then who am to say anything. Vows were exchanged with tons of Bible verses quoted, same with the rings. The Wedding service was dripping with Christianity. When the service was just about over, the couple slowly walked to a little tent parked up on the stage. In that tent was a table, and on the table were a pitcher, a chalice, and loaf of bread. The groom took the bread and broke it, said a few words, which I couldn’t hear, and gave a piece to his bride, then she took the loaf and broke a piece off and give it to her husband- they did the same with the cup. And then they went back to the Pastor who said a benediction and pronounced them husband and wife. They kissed and they left rapidly down the aisle. I was stunned. “Wasn’t this supposed to a Christian wedding? Then I thought, if this Christian couple isn’t going to take the Bible seriously, so that the Lord’s supper is the Lord’s supper, then maybe I should give them a copy of Emily Post. Emily would never have prepared and eaten a meal in front of everyone, without offering something to all her guests.

My son Chris when he was about 4 or 5 used to call Communion Sunday,"Left Out Sunday," because as diligent parents we would not let Chris eat the sacrament until we determined he knew enough so that he could eat it in a worthy manner- as the Apostle Paul recommends in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

We as parents fenced the table from Chris... but how much do you need to know before you can eat, and who draws that line? Clearly what is enough for one set of parents or one congregation or denomination, isn't enough for another. But it isn't just knowledge that fences the table, water may do it- in the form of Baptism, and how much water is needed? A sense of sin and confession may be the fence. There are all kinds of fences we construct around the table to make sure those who eat it, do so in a worthy manner and not be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Christ. It seems to me that Chris and Emily Post got it right. Whenever we fence the table so that someone is left out, we are guilty of celebrating the Lord's Table in a manner unworthy of Jesus, who are supposed to be remembering when we celebrate the table. Wasn't the whole ministry of Jesus built on destroying the fences between people? I wonder what Jesus thinks when we start erecting them in his honor?

The G Word

2011-03-28T09:28:00.000-07:00

Depending where you sit, gender and dealing with gender issues regarding church leadership and even membership expectations can be a touchy issue. When a potential new member of a congregation inquired about the role of women in leadership in that particular church, the pastor responded with a statement about how the Bible is being attacked by radical feminists. Needless to say his loss was Trinity's gain. I am always amazed that the Apostle Paul is regularly called a male chauvinist pig, when it is the Apostle Paul who gets quoted by those so called radical feminists. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If anything this is the great leveling passage and highlights the egalitarian nature of the church. A position Paul fights to maintain throughout all of his letters as he tries to express the faith in a variety of cultures.

At times it seems he elevates men and places them in the positions of authority, at other times he takes it away by either redefining authority or headship as servanthood. In Corinthians 11:2-17, Paul spends a great deal of time on who came from whom, who was created for whom and then at the end reminds everyone that even though woman was made from man and for man- man now originates from a a woman. Paul giveth and Paul taketh away.

What I do think is important is that Paul does not want to see gender distinctiveness disappear. He is not looking at Pat the androgynous character from Saturday Night Live, as the goal or role model for Christians. Ultimately Paul sees gender as a gift, and the perspectives gender brings to the church as necessary for the church to be the church.

The best thing a man and a woman can be is a man and a woman- however way they want to understand their gender.In a nut shell the best thing any of us can be to help the church grow deep and wide, is ourselves.

The T Word

2011-03-23T09:26:00.000-07:00

I know it looks like I am working my way through the alphabet, but no. I am simply lacking the creativity to come up with exciting titles. The T word- is Temptation. Paul says in 1Corinthians 10:13 "No Temptation has seized you except what is common to man." NIV I guess it is healthy to know that everyone pagan and Christian, is tempted and none of the temptations I have are that strange or unique to me.

However, this passage also confirms that not only are we all tempted, but we have one temptation in common: Idolatry. And at least from the examples Paul gives in Corinthians, regardless of how spiritual we are- or how many miraculous signs and wonders we have confirming the presence of God around us,(think Israel in the desert, and the Charismatic nature of the Corinthian Church)we are still tempted to make a god, and to worship the god we make. Not a comforting thought.

Bob Goudzwaard in his book, Idols of our Time, says there are three new idols we all face, Scientism, Economism, and Technicism. He calls them the unholy trinity because they seem to work in concert with one another. It is easy to see how we are tempted to have one or all of these become our savior- to define our life, give us identity and purpose as well as direction.

He says something else- Bob says that "ideology is the conduit of idolatry." Which is an interesting twist. The thought that our ideology works to reinforce our idolatry in very confrontational. How many of us evalutate how our ideology promotes idolatry, for example, the ideology say of the American Dream. How does the idology of the American dream promote the Idol of Economism? Where or how is technology and science used to reinforce the American Dream? How are science, technology or economics used to deal with threats to the American dream. (Think high tech weaponry at the expense of say health care)Without sounding too political here, I do think Goudzwaard is on to something.

It might be helpful to realize that our ideology- what ever it is, is humanly constructed. Ideologies did not fall from heaven, nor were they particularly derived from the Bible, though I am sure there will be those who try to make them so.
I seems to me that our Ideology(whatever it is) might not only be a conduit for Idolatry, it might become an idol itself. If Paul is right-if our ideology isn't an idol yet, we are all tempted to make it one.

To which I concur with Paul,"Therefore , my dear friends, flee from idolatry." 1Corinthians 10:14

The E Word

2011-03-14T11:27:00.000-07:00

When it comes to evangelism I have that distinct feeling that I have been there, done that, bought the T shirt. From The Four Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, Lifestyle Evangelism, Servant Evangelism, Evangelism that Works(as opposed to Evangelism that doesn't), to now the latest, Nudge Evangelism from one of my favorite people, Len Sweet I think I've read and implemented all or parts of the latest evangelism materials into my life and ministry.

Why?

Because someone Good Newsed me, and it turned my life around or more importantly turned it towards the right direction. I am doing what I am doing because of someone's love and concern that I needed to follow Jesus. To which I say, "Amen," everyday.

So in an effort to Good News someone else, I've read books, gone to seminars, and actually confronted people, accosted people, sweated in service, said way too much or way too little in an attempt to invite people to turn their life around and follow Jesus. Sometimes those loving invitations to follow Jesus came laced with hidden threats of what would happen if he or she said",No."

Then I re-read about Jesus good newsing people. Not a lot of hidden threats here. unfortunately, flames and hell are mentioned in conjunction with Jesus criticizing religious people and the religious professionals, who are not my primary evangelism mission field.

His good news had to do with the advent of the Kingdom of God, which embraced God's current redeeming and reconciling activity in this world, and of a way of life that goes with it.

When reading Paul, it is easy to read back into him the evangelistic message of an individualize, personalized faith in Jesus as being the goal of goodnewsing. However, Jesus' invitation to come and follow was an invitation to come and be a part of the New Nation of Israel, a reconstituted people of God, whose lifestyle embraced the a way of life vastly different from around at the time (think turn the other cheek). When Paul adopts a strategy to become all things to all men so that he might save some...He is not talking about rescuing some souls from the flames of hell, but actually redirecting someone's life into a new community- to be part of a new family that does live life together differently.

One of my favorite evangelistic verses is 2Corinthian 5:17 "if anyone is in Christ he is new creature, the old is gone and the new has come." I always tagged this with the born again statement of Jesus in John 3. However in reading Paul I the phrase In Christ, usually means in the community of faith. And yes it is God's intention that the community of faith be a New Creature, a new expression of humanity, that lives its life according to the new rules Jesus lays down as defined by the kingdom of God.

The old is gone and the new has come. What does this have to do with evangelism.

What turned my life around was the offer to live for a new purpose, and to live that way in a community that loved me for me before I decided to follow Jesus, and continued to love me for me after I decided. In reading more and more about evangelism and evangelistic techniques, I realize that it was being loved by a community and the promise of a living in a loving community that was good news, and the reason I said yes when invited to follow Jesus. Hell by the way was not a threat to me, since I was living in my own self constructed hell at the time. Following Jesus was a very welcomed and challenging alternative, and still is.

Thinking and Doing

2011-03-07T09:23:00.002-08:00

When reading materials about the unchurched, dechurched, never been churched, one of the things they all seem to have in common is the word hypocrisy, not theirs, but the hypocrisy they see in the church. I don't know how many times since I've been a follower of Jesus that I have heard the phrase,"The church is full of hypocrites," as a reason for someone to quit attending a church or or never even going. To be honest hypocrisy does run deep in the church. We don't always practice what we preach. Our words and our actions are often out of sync.

In 1Corinthians 8, it seems that some people's behavior, was wounding the consciences of the so called weaker brother and sisters, and even destroying the faith of others. However hypocrisy was not the culprit. In fact some people were practicing what they preached. Idols are not real gods so food connected with idol worship doesn't matter. Food is even according to the apostle Paul morally, ethically, and theologically neutral. He writes," food does not brings us near to God-we are not worse if we do not eat, nor better if we do…" So it doesn’t matter theologically, ethically, morally, what we eat, even where that food came from, or even where we eat, food is food is food, and food is made for the body and body for food…

However; Paul also reminds them that though everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial- everything is permissible but not everything is constructive, not everything builds up or strengthens, or encourages growth. Doing some permissible things can wound consciences, destroy faith, and even stunt personal spiritual growth. Eating food offered to idols was right for some of the Christians in Corinth, but evidently not for others.

Knowing that some brothers and sisters in the faith could not handle eating food offered to idols and they still engaged in that activity, even flaunting it as a mark of spiritual maturity, was not hypocrisy. It was thoughtless and selfish.

The faith community is an interdependent community. How we live our lives in front of other Christians can impact their personal spiritual growth. Hypocrisy may still dog the church, but if Christians were a little more thoughtful and less selfish about what they do and how they do it, the faith community may quit shooting some of our own, and we can grow this faith community deeper in terms of interpersonal relationships, and wider in terms including more people under the sphere of influence of the kingdom of God.

The S - word

2011-02-28T12:34:00.000-08:00

They say there are two things that Presbyterians never talk about; evangelism and sex. I have discovered that the Apostle Paul must have been Presbyterian because in 1Corinthians 8:1-8 he uses the phrases: "to touch a woman," and "have his own wife and have her own husband" to mean sexual relations. So even though he is talking about sex, he is not using the S-word. Paul is talking about sex within the confines of marriage.He is pro-sex because he is pro-marriage and a healthy sex life is essential for a healthy marriage. In all three of his descriptions - or prescriptions regarding sex in a marriage, Paul is very particular to make sure that what applies to a husband, equally applies to the wife. A healthy marriage and for that matter a healthy sex life according to Paul is both equitable and mutual. In describing marriage and sex within marriage this way, Paul radically redefined marriage as it was known to the Greek and Roman culture at the time. Marriage to both Greek and Roman culture was hierarchical in nature. The husband had the seat of power and authority. However, at its center, a Christian marriage was a microcosm of the church as a web of complimentary relationships working collaboratively together. Whatever power and authority there was in a marriage, according to Paul, it was to be a shared power and a shared authority. What Paul is talking about is marriage as an equal partnership between a husband and a wife.

I don't think Paul invented this radical notion of marriage as an equal partnership. I think he went back to Genesis chapter one where God creates humanity- male and female and charges humanity to rule over the garden and all of creation.It was a shared throne, with men and women to function as king and queen ultimately accountable to God. Of course we remember that God says a husband would rule over his wife in Genesis 3:16b. Unfortunately over the years we have taken this to mean that God established patriarchy as the preferred norm. I think the writer of Genesis was describing patriarchy as a consequence of the fall. What Paul is describing in Corinthians, is equality in marriage as the redeemed reality. For Christians to support patriarchy in any form is to reinforce the curse as opposed to the original blessing restored by the work of Christ.

Glorifying God with our Bodies

2011-02-23T12:48:00.000-08:00

Our bodies matter to God.

It is a rather simple statement but one Paul in Corinthians 6 wants to hammer home particularly since a number of people in Corinth were raised with the understanding that our bodies did not matter and what we did with them didn't matter in terms of our spirituality. Paul in typical Jewish fashion saw humanity holistically.You could not with the sharpest knife divide body and soul/spirit. Paul says we are honor God with our bodies or another person said, "Turn your body into a living robust rousing round of doxology."

If the Corinthians did not think enough about their bodies, we other other hand might think too much about our bodies. Diet and exercise programs are touted from every side. I cannot tell you how many infomercials I have watched on late night Television; from a plethora of Ab machines to total gyms. Whether we pay attention to our diet and exercise is a different matter but we all agree we do need to pay attention. Some of us a obsessed with our bodies. We have become gym rats or over exercise buffs. Would anyone in their right mind want to run a double marathon? We eat only organic, high fiber, low carb; foods.

There is a difference between worshiping your body and worshiping God with your body. Our culture sees the body as an end in and of itself. Paul sees God and God's kingdom as the end for the body. It is not our body that is ultimately important to God, but what we do with our body... how we use it for the kingdom's sake, that counts.

We take care of our bodies for a purpose- the whole reason we take vitamins, and try to eat right and get plenty of exercise- the whole reason we try to stay fit and trim, is so that we can physically and mentally do what God wants done- If we do not take care of our bodies we will not have the strength and the stamina to be about the work of God’s kingdom. To build the church deep and wide involves using our bodies for what God designed them for;service to God and to others. When we do that,God is glorified,and doxology breaks out.

Why Is Forgiveness So Hard?

2009-10-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

For some reason we think it is easier for God to forgive than it is for us. God can forgive so easily because after all God is God and we are not. We don't forgive because we don't think we have the power to forgive, after all we're not God. To watch your son dragged through a kangaroo court, beaten, whipped, and finally nailed to a cross, wasn't easy for anyone let alone a Father known as Abba to Jesus. After all of this, for God to grant forgiveness when requested by Jesus, is mind blowing. I know too many earthly fathers who would override their son's request and take out all the perpetrators. However, since no fire from heaven reigned down upon them, you have to assume that God did forgive and the executioner's Ax was stayed mid swing.

But what about Jesus? Was it really easier for him to forgive those who had nailed him to the cross, than it is for either you or me to forgive something not quite as brutal as the cross. Yet Jesus did forgive them and they didn't even ask for it.

Part of the reason I think forgiveness is so hard is that we are mistaken about what it means to forgive. We need to know what forgiveness is not. Forgiveness is not pretending that the painful event didn't happened. When Jesus forgave those who had crucified them from the cross, it doesn't mean that Jesus was pretending that he wasn't on the cross. He is fully aware of the nails and the crown of thorns, with the warm drops of blood tracking down his face. Pretending would take one ounce of pain away. Part of the point of forgiveness is that we commit to working to behave towards this person as if it hadn't happened. It is a conscious choice we make not to let their actions against us control our response to them or towards anyone else.

Forgiveness presupposes that what happened to us- happened- to us. It was evil and cannot be set aside as if it didn't matter. It did matter. It did hurt. But in choosing to forgive we are choosing to act as if it did not happen as we consciously try to rebuild a severed relationship.In forgiving, we are always full aware of what we are trying to forgive, and yet living in relationship with them as if it didn't take place, not only for our good but also for theirs.

To Forgive or not to Forgive?

2009-10-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

Which is harder to forgive ourselves or to forgive others?

When questioned about how many times we are to forgive someone, seven times? Jesus answered not seven times but seventy times seven. In other words there are not limits to the amount of forgiveness we are to offer. Which is all well and good unless you're the one being asked to forgive, then rubber really hits the road. What's that saying about getting burned... So Jesus challenges us to forgive all things all the time... no limitations on what or who receives our forgiveness. Since Jesus pulled it off at the cross we have at least one example, and don't give me the of course he could do it because he is Jesus stuff. If the writer to Hebrews talks about Jesus being tempted in every just as we are yet was without sin, Heb.4:15 Jesus' saying no to temptation was not due to his divine nature, but within his human ability. His forgiveness is powered by his humanity and not his divinity.

Jesus expects us to follow his example when it comes to forgiveness.

We are to forgive others and forgive ourselves... which means that we are also to forgive ourselves seventy times seven times.If there are no limits regarding the number of times we are to forgive others, then there are no limits as to the number of times we are to give ourselves. However, if we were to forgive others the way we forgive ourselves, there is a strong possibility that others may never be forgiven.

We just seem to be able to forgive others more readily than we forgive ourselves. Some how it seems easier to let the other guy off the hook while keeping ourselves firmly impaled. I am not quite sure why. Lack of self forgiveness clearly leads to self loathing, and self incrimination, not mention sabotaging our self worth. Why someone likes to point at a personal failure, whether it is faith related or moral, and beat themselves up with it repeatedly makes no sense. Yet from the people I talk to, lack of self forgiveness is the norm not the exception. From their perspective it is easier to forgive others than it is to forgive ourselves.

Could it be that we hang on to these past failures as a fall back position in case things take a turn for the worse. We become our own scapegoat, and who wouldn't expect otherwise... It validates the worst we think of ourselves, and cancels out whatever goodness might have crept in.

Perhaps the inability to forgive ourselves is one more outworking of the story in Genesis when we chose to know for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, of who to forgive and who not to forgive- including ourselves.

Lest we be without hope- Jesus has an app for this too.

Is God a Micro-manager?

2009-09-28T11:18:00.000-07:00

Is God a micro-manager? As I engage the so-called new wave of Calvinists, or the New Calvinists, the question might be, Is God a micro-manipulator, planning and controlling things since before time and eternity? Does God really plot before time and eternity the suffering of innocent children? Does God yank an arm off here, a leg there, or infect an organ with cancer, just to see how we can handle it, or for people to be amazed at our adaptability, our faith, and moral courage?

In that classic text, "You meant it for evil but God meant it for good,"Genesis 50:20
Joseph sees the providential hand of God behind the evil done to him by his brothers and others along the way. The text has the look and feel of God being the micro-manipulator. In the end,his brothers did bow before him as the original dream predicted, and the vision was fulfilled in ways and means no one would have ever dreamed possible. However, in light of the entire story, had not Joseph maintained his faithfulness, it could have ended quite differently. The false accusation by Potiphar's wife landed him in jail where he could have been angry at God, and allowed a relational distance to increase. However, Joseph chose to engage God deeper, and his spiritual gifts;dreams and the interpretation of dreams continued and were developed for further future use.

It seems to me that there is a quantum difference between orchestrating evil for good ends, and being able to bring goods ends out of undesired, unplanned, and unintended evil circumstances. The theological word for this is not providence or sovereignty, but redemption. In my personal life it goes by another name, hope.

Freedom to Choose

2009-09-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

H. Kushner attributes bad things happening to good people as an implication of being made in the image of God, where choice is found in the character of God. Choice is also at the heart of Wm. Paul Young's The Shack as the explanation for the presence of pain and evil. Young's approach differs from Kushner's because choice is essential to a loving relationship. God by creating beings to enter into a reciprocal love relationship created the possibility that the relationship might not be reciprocal. God took the risk of loving us knowing we might choose not love to God in return. For God to create us to only love God and others without the possibility of not loving would have us more robotic than human. Consequently it is not choice that makes us more human and better image bearers, but choice in the context of love. Anyone out on the dating circuit knows the dangers of loving someone and the possibility of not being loved or even liked in return. It is easy to see why creating humanity in God's image was a high risk move.

Having said that, having our independence and insisting on having that independence from God, we get truly angry at God for loving us enough to give us what we wanted.

What we really want God to do is not to intervene when we do the things we want to do, and love whom and the way we want to, but to jump in there and either correct our poor choices, or protect us from the consequences of someone else not loving, or their painful and evil actions. The down side of this is where does accountability lie? When things go well and we love well and are well loved, we get the credit, and when things go south relationally and other ways, God gets blamed. If God is good, and really loves us then God will or should intervene. God's failure to intervene is frequently taken as a sign of God not being good or loving.

The irony is that the possibility of pain and evil, of not loving responses is a direct consequence of God's goodness and love. It is also clear that God has more in mind than sitting back as some jilted lover, but wishes to open and deepen that relationship and correct the destructive outcomes centered in ou r unloving choices to God and to others.

Did God Really Need Him?

2008-09-08T11:56:00.000-07:00

"Boise Mom, I Guess God Needed Him Back." Those were the headlines on the front page of Sunday's paper. What followed was an extremely tragic story of a three year old developmentally delayed toddler who was quick on his feet, fascinated with doors, and bright lights. All three attributes contributed to him opening an unlocked door in the morning twilight, racing towards a busy street and tragically darting into the path of an unsuspecting car.

The police ruled the toddler's death an accident. The emotional damage to his mom and the driver of the car is immeasurable. I often tell people at the time of death that we get through it, but we never get over it. Acceptance of death, is a season of living with the loss without it continually destroying us.

In the mean time coping with the loss is extremely tough and sometimes so tough we that seek to console ourselves with some type of God reference. People may try to comfort us by saying something about God's purpose or plan in the tragedy. They may quote Romans 8:28,"That all things work together for the good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose," or as the Boise Mom said, "I guess God needed him back."

That a young child whose life tragically taken by an automobile, may be spending eternity with a loving God, is a comforting. The eternal destiny question is huge at times like these and it is equally important to stress the love and mercy and grace of God over some concept of sin judgment.

However I find little or no comfort in the thought that "God needed him back." My first response to that line is "For What?" What purpose or divine activity of God could not be completed without the presence of this toddler's soul? To even think that God orchestrated this tragic accident in order to gain the resources of this child, would make me want to have nothing to do with God. If the resources of this child were truly needed, if I were God I think I could have found a better way to tap them than this. I am also bothered by the concept of a needy God, but that may be the subject of another blog.

I also know during times like these that the assumption is that God should have done something. God should have intervened, but God stood by motionless, and let the convergence of a toddler's tendencies, the morning's twilight light, and a commuter going the speed limit take place. An angelic hand restraining the child till his frantic mother arrived, or a little bit faster response time with the driver swerving a split second faster, would have done it. Why didn't God do something rather than nothing? Divine interventions are extremely rare. Since we come across them in the Bible we almost assume they are to be expected. The cross still stands as the supreme symbol of God's non-intervention, a fact acknowledged by the one hung on it when he said," My God my God what have You forsaken me?"

If Jesus could still find enough strength to commend his spirit into the hands of a non-intervening God at his moment death, and given the fact that Jesus had every reason to abandon the God he felt had abandoned him but didn't, is comforting. To also know that God the Father also witnessed the convergence of forces which lead to the death of His Son is also comforting. In Jesus God both knew what it was like to be innocent and suffer under the forces of this world, and what it is like to stand and watch the innocent suffer. I too find that comforting. We may never know why God doesn't intervene more to relieve the suffering and death of innocents. We do know that it did not diminish the trust Jesus had in this God.

God did resurrect the life of Jesus,and the good news for us is that God can resurrect our life too after a tragedy. It may take longer than three days, but we can trust God to give us life back again as well.

Angel Wings

2008-07-17T10:38:00.000-07:00

"You had angel wings." I had never heard that expression used before, but I knew what she meant. While cycling downhill at a fairly high speed, I lost control of my bike, and crashed. The bike struck a metal reflector pole, while my body grazed it as I flipped and landed on my helmet covered head. For a fall of such magnitude I escaped with relatively few scrapes and bruises. The bike is another matter. When I told this story to a friend who works at a bike shop, she said, "You had angel wings."

In my gut I knew it could have ended quite differently. In actuality this was a near death experience, and for some reason God had preserved my life. I know a statement like that might be troubling to some, and I make it with a great deal of hesitation. I know that it sounds like God singled me out to have my life preserved, while there are others who may not have experienced the hand of God that way. I know of fellow cyclists whose lives were lost in crashes and car accidents. The whole question of why me and not others raises its head. Why I was spared the consequences of a broken imperfect world while others are not is a mystery. It is tempting to think that God has something great or special yet for me to do. I have spoken with some people who have interpreted their near death experiences that way. There are some who have used their near death experiences as a second chance at life. Tragically, I knew one person who was still wondering what great thing God had spared him for, while he died of cancer.

Whether God has something great for me yet to do, is up to God. I am still trying do what God has asked of me at this moment, and I am not egotistical enough to think that there is something far greater than what I am currently doing. Impacting lives for eternity is huge regardless of where one does it. Which brings us back to the reason God preserved my life.

It has been said that the problem with atheism is that you don't have anyone to thank. Thankfully I do.

Faith in the Wilderness

2008-07-16T15:25:00.000-07:00

On a recent backpacking trip with my son, Chris, I discovered that fishing is never the same in the same spot, even using the same lures. We had fished this incredible high mountain lake in the Soldier mountain area of the Frank Church Wilderness. I was using a Panther Martin lure- bright yellow with black dots and a red feather skirt at the base near the hooks. Within a span of an hour I must have landed close to twenty fish. I took so many (and threw them back) that we jokingly said I Pantherized them. After fishing for several hours we packed up and hiked to another lake where we spent the night. The next day after bushwacking to another lake, we returned to this same lake. The water was crystal clear. You could see the trout swimming around nabbing a fly here or there. However try as I might, they would not even acknowledge the panther. Cast after cast after cast and no takers. I began using a variety of lures. I think I tried just about everything in my arsenal. The end result is that we caught only a few fish, and none of them on that yellow panther martin.

I was reminded just how fast things change. Same lake, same fish, same lure, different results. What I needed was a new lure. Something fresh, perhaps a different color scheme.

I used to write and color in my Bible a lot. I have several Bibles filled with sermon notes, Bible study insights, and quiet time reflections. I don't write or color in my Bible anymore. Things change, and change rapidly, and when they do, a note or color or an insight a year or so old may not be of any assistance. By focusing my attention towards what I had read and understood previously, it may actually hinder the word from God I need to hear from getting through to me. If every minute of every day is truly a fresh page, I found I need a fresh page of scripture, to be able to hear a fresh word.