Finding God Despite Religion

Finding the Real Jesus - Part 1: Everybody's Right Because Nobody's Right

2011-01-14T12:28:00.000-08:00

Preacher "A" says that Jesus (1) was a rebel, (2) hated religious people, and (3) accepted the rich cheats and the crooks.

Preacher "B" disagrees, preaching that Jesus (1) commands to turn the other cheek, (2) was a practicing Jew, and (3) said it's nearly impossible for rich people to go to heaven.

So who really knows who Jesus was?

   Since no one fully knows God right now, it is difficult to claim anyone from an opposing view is fully wrong. Still, everyone wants to be right about who God is and what he would say or do, but no one agrees. I have heard many people argue this point as a defense for agnosticism, or at least a reason to believe that "everyone is wrong." As obvious and frustrating as all this contradiction is, I can't see it being an indictment on God or reasonable proof that He can't be known. After all, two people who really know me would disagree about how I would react in certain circumstances. For example, one friend would say "Legalization of marijuana would outrage Jamin, and I know him!" and another would be sure "Jamin and I are best friends and I know would fully support legal pot!" ..and yet I usually would stay friends with both of them.

   This phenomenon can be seen in most families where a father, for example, has passed away. Even a few months later, feuding family members (perhaps mother and son) will both evoke his name in defense of their position. "Dad would turn over in his grave if he knew you were spending your inheritance on a trip to Vegas!" might be answered by "It's only a fraction of the inheritance, plus Dad is the one who taught me how to play Blackjack while we were in Vegas! This is what he'd want for me!"

   As another example, just watch one presidential debate. Ever. Two diametrically opposed enemies on the stage with exact opposite views are certain that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan would support their view. As soon as the debate turns to gun control, abortion, or separation of church and state, both sides are claiming the support of the same past American heroes. But here's the point: the former Presidents, the father who has passed, and myself are all very know-able people, who actually would take a side (or present a third perspective neither side offered). Our friends' disagreement about what we stand for in no way means we don't really have an opinion. The seems to me that the same would be true about God.

   It takes a very mature Christian to be able to distinguish between the real Jesus and the Jesus one creates in his/her own mind. Especially when raised in a Christian family, people get confused between what they've been told repeatedly about Jesus and what they actually know for themselves. When you've heard the same stories or read the same passages with the same moral every time, it's easy to get in a rut and not see what's actually there: "The Prodigal Son" is not the name of the story. It's the Prodigal Sons, if it's anything, and an objective reading of it puts "the other son" as the main character, or at least equal with the prodigal. Did you know that eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden came after the first sin? Once Eve touched the tree, it was already over. If she would have thrown the fruit on the ground, we'd likely still be in the same predicament today. Furthermore, Noah didn't take 2 of every kind of animal into the ark. Many of the animals came in groups as big as 14!

   So, as thankful as I am for a good up-bringing, I have to admit that those Sunday School lessons did a number on my ability to read what's on the page. It takes quite a bit of work to look at those stories freshly each time! Unfortunately, even what's on the page too often gets explained away by what we were planning on finding on the page. Instead of accepting who Jesus actually was, we feel responsible to make him make sense. Sometimes, he just doesn't. Anyone who hasn't come to that conclusion, hasn't read the Bible objectively.

   Another cause of the opposing views of Jesus comes when a Christian knows for sure they are not supposed to do something, and they assume the same applies to the whole world. An alcoholic, for example, won't be right in his spirit if he takes even one drink of alcohol. The same is obviously not true for many Christians, including...yep, Jesus. When a preacher (or an extroverted Christian) can't distinguish between what they are supposed to do and what's right for humanity, the Christian name gets wrecked for all of us. It may be true that the Bible has some bad things to say about people who are drunk, but using the Bible to eliminate alcohol from the church steps way outside the bounds of Jesus' teachings. Call it your personal choice, call it your organization's principle, but don't call it Christianity.

   Of course, alcohol is only one, polarizing example. The church divides on hundreds of such issues all the time. For more on this principle, see Romans 14.

   In conclusion, I have found that nearly the majority of things which are claimed about Jesus are sketchy, at best: debatable topics that don't have a definite answer in scripture or anywhere else. When I honestly look for the reality of Jesus, what I find is relatively shocking, so I won't ruin the surprises. Look for yourself. Be open to what you might find about him when you don't go into it assuming you already know the answers.

When Jesus Needs a Savior

2010-12-21T01:30:00.000-08:00

"Those whose heart is pure will have a clear perspective of God." -1st Century Theologian, Jesus the Christ

George: How did you happen to fall in?

Clarence:  I didn't fall in. I jumped in to save you.

George:  You what? To...to save me?

Clarence:  Well, I did, didn't I? You didn't go through with it, did you?

George: Go through with what?

Clarence:  Suicide.  I had to act quickly. That's why I jumped in.  I knew if I were drowning you'd try to save me.  And you see, you did, and that's how I saved you.

George:  Very funny.

Clarence:  Your lip's bleeding, George.

George:  Yeah, I got a bust in the jaw in answer to a prayer a little bit ago.

Clarence:  Oh, no, no, no, George, I'm the answer to your prayer.  That's why I was sent down here.

PROBLEM:
I am taking on some pretty significant challenges - the kind that affect the whole family. I don't want to fail. Yep. That pretty much sums it up. I really don't want to fail, but I don't want to get bailed out either. I don't want to accept help from someone who could make me successful. I want to succeed because I forced fate's hand - I made success happen. So far, I also think that God would want me to take on these new challenges, so I naturally assume that he wants me to succeed as well. So that has been my aim: success. I work toward that goal with the backing of my wife, my god, and my own iron will.

Every year around November 1st, screenshots from "It's a Wonderful Life" become increasingly prevalent, and this Christmas staple has me thinking about my own drowning angel. Clarence has the power and favor of all of Heaven, but he's a little naive. George has to jump into the river to save him, and we're never really sure if the angel would have made it out if George hadn't rescued him. It seems that the whole fake suicide plot worked out in the end because George needed Clarence to save him and vice versa.

I treat my savior the same way. He says, "Move here," or "Take on this situation," and I jump to it. When it looks like it may not work out like Jesus and I want it to, I make it happen. He says "Take on this challenge," but when it starts to fall apart, I scramble to put things back together for Him. I subconsciously praise myself: "It's a good thing He's got me on his team, because that plan almost didn't become a reality."

Perhaps this is common to humanity because I read about the disciples doing the same: "Is it now that you're going to take over the world, Jesus?" They only thought that was the plan because...Jesus said that was the plan. When the guards come to arrest Jesus, long-time devoted groupie, Peter, can see clearly that it's time for action. He swings his sword at the guard's head, slicing off his ear. That HAS to be a bold step in the right direction! I feel for Peter. Because if I had been Peter, and Jesus had responded by rebuking me and healing the soldier's ear, I would have been so frustrated! "How the heck was I supposed to know NOT to oppose the people who wanted to kill God? Really, Jesus? You have got a lot to learn about how to give clear instructions!"

Like me, Peter was compelled to save his savior. Several respected theologians have speculated that Judas had a similar motive in turning in Jesus. They think he may have plotted to put Jesus in a situation where the Jesus-versus-the-world conflict was brought to a head and his friend, Jesus, emerged the victor. Perhaps what we call "denying Jesus" was his way of setting Jesus up for success. If so, the following events would have been disappointing enough to make anyone suicidal!

Abraham did the same thing after God promised him a son by sleeping with a servant to have the child God had promised, and those consequences are still exploding daily in the Middle East. You may be able to recall plenty of other similar stories yourself.

So it's a bad assumption that I understand God's clearly-communicated plan. I think it was under Joshua that the Israelites went into a battle that seemed obviously endorsed by God without asking Him and were slaughtered. As it turns out, there is never a good time to take the next step - only this step. He may not want me to finish the things I've started. But it is almost for sure that even if He does want me to finish, finishing looks nothing like what I thought it was supposed to.

SOLUTION:
I would likely think God was cruel in keeping clarity from us if I were not married. Fortunately, I have the same trouble with my wife: we talk and agree and understand and unify and synergize and...and we refer to the conversation a day later only to realize we were hardly even talking about the same topic! I will digress here because if you have experienced it, we are now exactly on the same page, and if not, even a dissertation on the phenomenon won't do it justice. Suffice it to say that I have learned to accept that I cannot fully understand what my wife says because I don't have her perspective on life. The experiences, gender, genes and personality that make her up also make up her definitions of "universal" terms.

So it is with God. I trust that my lack of understanding God is not because of a lack of desire to communicate with me, but my inability to process what needs to be conveyed. As is the case with my wife, I don't think I will ever eradicate the uncertainty of "I think I understand, but I thought I understood last time too, so..." However, three things help with both Him and her:

1) I never assume I really understand this time. Instead of being frustrated by some new "change of plans", I try to be solution oriented. Giving up on what I thought I knew and just trying to understand again works so much better than the effort I used to spend trying to figure out whose fault the misunderstanding was or setting up a system to avoid all future miscommunications.

2) Try. The speed and quality of communication is always filtered through the trust in the relationship. Miscommunication is a hotbed for animosity. I always feel stabbed in the back when I act on what I thought I understood but end up embarrassing myself, wasting energy/time/resources, or harming myself and/or others. That's where the trying comes in. Communicating more often and with more effort doesn't help the communication to the degree I want, but it does create trust. The goal isn't better communication; the goal is a relationship that can sustain worse communication. (As a result of trust, the speed and quality of communication also increases, but never when that's the goal. I guess a watched pot never boils...?)

3) Clarifying every message. "I hear you saying that..." This exercise works great with my wife. Additionally, when I try it out loud with God, it helps me filter out craziness and focus on an agenda. While it's helpful to unload my problems, it's even more beneficial to recite what I know the ethical/moral/right actions in a situation are. Even when I don't know the specific steps, I can reiterate the characteristics I know are right. (Usually they're the ones that oppose my natural offenses and retaliations.)

Example of my unloading: "I fought with co-worker X yesterday and it was completely his fault! He didn't try to understand, he was rude, and most importantly, he was dead wrong. We've got a staff meeting today on that topic and I can't wait for the rest of the staff to show him how wrong he was and how right I was."

Now the restatement of what I hear Him saying back to me: "I know I should be humble today - not just quiet; humble. If I was wrong, I should accept it and try to learn from it instead of forcing my point. If he is shown to be wrong, he is going to need support since he went so far out of his way to slam each of my points. I should also apologize before the meeting for telling him that he is always so difficult. It is at least partially true, but I said it out of anger to hurt instead of trying to help him."

I find it nearly impossible to keep myself in such a frame of mind. I keep wanting to succeed. I want to push toward a goal I understand and keep pushing until I get there. While I'm sure many people struggle to be motivated, I assume there are also many people out there like me whose primary struggle is to focus on learning through the journey instead of obsessing about the prize, because my Savior doesn't need to be saved.

7 Reasons to Leave Religion

2010-12-17T23:31:00.000-08:00

Recently it has become “hip” for a Christian to say, “I hate religion – I just have a relationship with Jesus.” Any reasonable person looking at their life finds this ridiculous, because the “non-religious” person often attends church, reads her Bible, prays, and feels bad when she doesn’t. That’s a religion. This person is extremely religious, she just wishes she was “cool-er” than the other christians…which happens to be another strike against her. She seems to be subconsciously trying to climb the religious heap by claiming to hate people who climb the religious heap, much the way a Presidential candidate will make a campaign out of their distaste for politics and politicians. Both the politician and the “non-religious” person cause thinking people to be disgusted and put off by their whole clique: politicians/politics and christians/Christianity, respectively.

Admittedly, “religion” is not the popular group to be a part of, but one can hardly call himself a Christian without it! There is no Christian mentor to be found who isn’t highly religious: Jesus – highly religious, Paul – highly religious, Mother Theresa – highly religious, Abraham – highly religious, John – highly religious, all the disciples and early church leaders – highly religious, Martin Luther – highly religious, Augustine – highly religious. These people may have fought against others who were highly religious, but the fact still stands that they were highly religious themselves.

If both groups (the Christian examples and the religious detractors) were highly religious, religion is neither the cause of a healthy spiritual life nor the cause of an impotent one. Simply being opposed to religion, therefore, does not advance a person’s spiritual potential - instead, it may greatly hinder it. In fact, when Jesus corrected the religious people of his time, He says, "You think you're so good because of your religion, but your hearts are wicked, you're unjust, and you don't take care of the poor. You should be doing all those things AND keep your religion." (Luke 11:42) Although hating religion does not make a person more spiritual, being aware that religion does not cause a healthy spiritual life may inspire a person look elsewhere for their spiritual validation.

So where does religion hurt and where does it help? To explore the former, here are some of the reasons I have been put off by the religion in church:

1) the church has once again replaced people’s conscience
2) church vocabulary is suspiciously hard to understand
3) christians are boring
4) requirements for salvation are too strict and often ridiculous
5) the church often tries to control and rank its customers
6) the church’s message is irrelevant
7) religious people often act as if they are superior to non-religious people

1) Church has replaced people’s conscience: people feel a conviction to live the christian life they hear about in church instead of finding out what kind of life God wants them to live.

Examples flood the life of anyone trying to attend a church regularly. Three of them easily come to mind:
- “I used to drink before I got saved.” As a drug and alcohol counselor, I understand that freedom from an addiction is a major advantage to submitting to a higher power. However, equating consumption of alcohol with qualification for salvation is ludicrous.
- The “F” word versus the “G” word: the Bible explicitly and repeatedly commands us not to use God's name when we're not using it to address Him or show Him honor. Still, most Christians freely use the phrase "Oh my God!" but will ground their kids for two weeks without hesitation if the "F word" comes out of their mouths. I'm not trying to endorse either of these phrases, just point out that Christians are listening more to their Christian culture than their Bibles to decide their actions.

- Someone in church will say, “We’re praying for him to get saved, but he’s been a heavy smoker all his life.” Hopefully my frustration on this one is obvious, but the occurrence of similar statements is frustratingly common.

Both the church and the people benefit from a church-led religious rule set. The people don’t have to bother with the time-consuming task of hearing from God, and the church gains God’s position. The Jews did this in the desert, as Moses was leading them. God wanted to speak to the people, and they told Moses, “How about you talk to God and then tell us what he said.” Fortunately, Moses, unlike many church leaders, hated leadership and did not want more friends. Those two qualities allowed him to play such a role perfectly, but leaders who don’t want to lead and are not looking for people to praise them rarely become leaders unless a burning, speaking bush threatens their lives. Good pastors would agree: Christians need to hear from God, not just their pastors.

2) Church vocabulary is suspiciously hard to understand. Christians, like any other social sector, find much of their belonging in their ability to use the vocabulary of their clique. It's what separates them from "the others". Using words like grace, mercy, the Word of God, and faith make the christian feel like one of the family. However, unlike other cliques, these words constantly get redefined in churches. If you ask 10 different christians what "grace" is, I can guarantee you will get at least 8 different answers.

Conveniently, a church’s mission often something like: “You must have faith in the saving grace from the mercy of the Word of God.” The pastor then tries to define each term for the congregation, perhaps with a sermon series on any of the above poorly-defined terms. The people are desperate enough to do good in the eyes of the church (therefore, God) and/or they are uneducated enough that they will accept what flows from the pulpit as if it were the very utterance of God Himself. Meanwhile, Christians who are studying their Bibles, reading, and hearing from other Christian leaders find that definitions for many of these words often conflict with each other, rendering someone wrong. (Admittedly, it must be difficult to have to come up with a new sermon each week that provides an "aha" moment for the patrons. If fighting for the attention of people who mostly want to sit there and get attendance credit must be mind-fraying, how much more the task of inspiring them to action!)

3) Christians are boring. Many Christians seem to slowly devolve from being excited, motivated Christians to being religious people with the religious vocabulary and the religious answers, having memorized the religious verses, with a Stepford religious outlook: I’m happy about life because that’s the way my religion says I should feel. They may be going through a divorce, feel lonely or suicidal, but when you ask them how they are when you see them at church, they’ll say, “I’m blessed.” I want to avoid whatever it is that makes a person like that.

4) Requirements for salvation are too strict and often ridiculous. None of the disciples said the sinner’s prayer. Jesus does not give a list of things to do in order to be saved like the church does. Jesus forgives the sins of the people who believe He is better than them. They come to Him for healing, and at the point that they believe that He is the kind of person who can heal them, He says “Your sins are forgiven.” He does not give them a list of tasks to accomplish. He usually does not even define their sin. He says to a woman, “Go and sin no more.” He and she have an unspoken understanding, so he gives no definition of what that means at all. Without a single doubt, had ANY of the religious leaders (or the religious leaders of today, for that matter) followed that woman home, they would have found her in violation of Jesus’ command. After all, she may have stopped hooking, but she still drank; or she stopped stealing, but she still didn’t tithe. The problem for the religious leaders is that Jesus said, in essence, “Don’t violate your conscience,” instead of, “Don’t violate the church.”

5) The church often tries to control and rank its customers. There is no Biblical pre-requisite for evangelism. At what point did the disciples attend their seminary or get their theological training? Jesus did not send the church founders to a formal training or require ANY certification before he commissioned them with great responsibilities. Jesus did not ensure the disciples would not fail before He sent them out. The only prerequisite for ministering seems to be the commitment to His sovereignty.

6) The church’s message is irrelevant. It can’t decide who the target audience is. The gospel is only useful for the desperate, the hurting, and the confused. That's the target audience. There is no use in trying to appease the rest. Part of the reason Jesus was free to turn away the rest (the rich and others who were 'considering' following Him) was that He could afford to turn away their money. He didn’t need to use the right words to keep the people who would help him pay the electrical bill. Churches often do. Thus, the church becomes double-minded: it must preach a gospel which is only good for the desperate in such a way that it does not offend the non-desperate, who make the preaching of the gospel possible in the first place.

7) Religious people often act as if they are superior to non-religious people. (While this is not a great reason to reject religion, it makes the whole idea very distasteful.) This idea is more greatly supported in the post "Christians are the Worst".

In spite of all of these great reasons to toss religion aside, Christians are still without a non-religious leader. I think this is because the religion is necessary. The rituals, the works, the habits, the duties – they cannot be separated from a Christian life even though the people who do them most professionally are usually revolting. I find this to be equally true in love: I cannot keep a love relationship without keeping the appointments, the celebrations, the acts, the gifts, and the rituals; but the people who do those things with the most flare and the most expertise are often the players, the hustlers and the pimps who make the whole thing disgusting. They mimic the effects of love, creating a counterfeit relationship to gain a position of power over the recipient. This is the same thing Jesus accuses the Pharisees of doing to God: completing all the good works they can to force God into accepting them despite their cold hearts.

Thus, the answer and the real challenge for a religious person is to stop looking at their religion as a way to please God, and use it as an indicator about the really important things. For example, if I'm not praying, the solution is usually not to just spend more time in prayer - the Pharisees prayed constantly. The real problem is that I don't have a desire to pray. I know there's a problem when my religion fails, but I shouldn't look to fix the religion. I seek to change from a works-based method to a works-based evaluation.

Don’t Forgive and Forget

2010-12-08T21:36:00.000-08:00

"If you don't forgive others, God won't forgive you." -God

"Forgive and forget," they say, "that's the right thing to do." But it is a repulsive message that in order to be forgiven by God, I must forgive everyone else, writing off the sins of those who have done terrible things, treating them as if those things never happened! That doesn't sit right. It's just not a holy thing to let the malicious people run free in my life without the anger and suppression they've earned!

Instead: don't forgive and forget. Do not "separate the sin from the sinner" (as christians love to say with a air of wisdom). No one believes that they should place their loved ones (elderly, children, spouse, etc.) in the care of a dangerous person who has not apologized. So how does the utterance of two words together, even if the two words are “I’m sorry”, change the wisdom of that decision? Yet some christians believe that God requires us to wipe a person’s past clear when they say that they’re sorry.

Those christians are either heartless or idiots, or both. In the opinion of such people, if Jesus were running a country, all people who uttered "I'm sorry" would be released from prison, back into society in the name of "grace". After all, "sins have to be separated from the sinner." It must have been the sin's fault that someone was murdered - the sinner gets to go free. Jesus' country would be the most run-down, impoverished, group of hateful and oppressed misfits the world has ever seen! Instead of heaven, Jesus would literally be the leader of hell, where the most heartless have the most power. Justice would only be served in the cases where it was most irrelevant.

People who have such a view of grace are dangerous. They claim that such a view is Biblical. However, most cases of christian Biblical insanity can be resolved by subtracting the christian.

"If you don't forgive others, God won't forgive you." -God

Jesus tells us to ask God to forgive us in the same way we forgive others. That seems to mean that He will takes His cues from me, but it would seem wise to first place Him as the example instead. We should learn to forgive the way He does.

1) Scripture says that Christ loved us while we were sinners - He knew we were. He didn't forgive because He was forgetful. On the contrary, the less Jesus knows the extent of our sins, the less the need there is for His crucifixion, and the cheaper His death becomes.

2) Even in the face of sin, God never stops loving. Some of us dads will say "this is something I never really understood until I became a father." While parenthood accentuates the understanding, anyone can understand it because it's obvious - He doesn't hate me. He always wants good for me. At every point of my existence, He is excited about me choosing to have a life free of pain, anxiety, dysfunction, and anger.

Therefore, my forgiveness must include wanting good for others despite the fact that I still know and remember the bad they did toward me. This is still a huge challenge even considering the fact that I have no obligation to allow their behavior to keep invading my life or my family's life.

If God is perfectly forgiving and perfectly wise, He never chooses one over the other. A choice between forgiveness and wisdom indicates that one or both is poorly defined. Having God's heart does not require acting without wisdom, but without malice. When I forgive an enemy, I want good things for him. I pray for him and hope he does good. I don't get excited when bad things happen to him, but instead it breaks my heart. The further he chooses to dive into selfish, destructive behavior, the more it hurts me...for HIS sake. I take pity on him and would pay a great personal price to see him do good and be successful!

However, it would be evil for me to put a helpless person in his path if he still seemed to be willing to do harm. Furthermore, it would be ignorant for me to do so even he had a short track record of reformed actions. (For more information, Google "co-dependence".) But modeling our mercy on what Jesus has done does not mean trusting those people. We still do everything we can to avoid being sinned against - for the sake of the one doing the sinning. We avoid getting hurt or ripped off for their sakes. Their offenses hurt us because of the damage that such actions indicate about their own lives (just as our offenses can’t hurt an all-mighty God, except that He wants to see us experience good). We still protect ourselves and innocent people from their insanity.

One of the great challenges for me has been to truly pity my offenders. A true desire for the health and healing of my enemy (despite my distrust of their actions) seems to turn into a holier-than-thou disgust the moment it hits the air. This is particularly difficult to detect since both emotions bring about similar choices: the continued resistance of their drama and influence on my life. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that only the attitude behind my actions really determines my spiritual health.

Like finding a cockroach in the night, it seems I must constantly bring immediate, harsh light to the dark parts of my heart to discover the disgusting parts of me that I wouldn’t otherwise believe are there. Here’s how I examine forgiveness:

1) Harsh light to my prayers: I have noticed that I pray about the people I hate, and I pray for the people I pity.
2) Harsh light to my conversation: last time I mentioned that person, did I emphasize my empathy or disgust?
3) Harsh light to my heart: last time I heard about that person, was I excited to hear things were going poorly? Was I resentful to hear things were going well?

4) Harsh light to my mind: Does thinking about that person bring me anxiety?

Here’s what I do:
1) Remember that all things will be put right in the end
2) Pray for my heart
3) Pray for their health
4) Try to make things right (if doing so will not injure more people)
5) Protect myself/my family, if possible (those people enrage me a lot more when I fear they will strike again)
6) Re-evaluate (if restoration cannot be achieved, my heart often relapses into hate or disgust multiple times. Even after restoration, I still try to lord the past offense over them. Being in a "good place" is a thing that expires, until I am able to form a habit for a particular enemy)

What do you do?

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Reality

2010-11-18T19:55:00.000-08:00

Jesus should have had major insecurities: his closest followers couldn’t be trusted, and His hometown laughed him out of the city. As the “Son of God”, he went 30 years without a supernatural display. (I’m 29 – I couldn’t have kept up the tale that I was God without at least levitating a little or something by now. By now my first miracle wouldn’t have been water-to-wine, it would have been smart-aleck-to-dust!) He was born in a poor town, to a supposed “virgin” (not a tale they told proudly and often, I would guess). His mommy believed in Him the whole time – hardly the confidence-builder a man needs to walk tall. It is true that the whole rising-from-the-dead thing has had a great impact on His longevity as a history-changing powerhouse (request references for dispute of this point), but even before that, He walked around with the boldness of a god or a lunatic. He boldly walked into lepers dens and other gatherings of terminal illnesses, he personally revolted against the leading religious establishment AND the leading military power of the time, plus He never seem fazed by the fact that he had no idea where his next meal or his next campsite was. Fearless. Most Sunday Schools will teach that it was because he humbly trusted God…hmmm. If that’s the path to boldness, it’s sure not very practical for me. “Just trust God” is a product, not a method, unless the message is “ignore reality and hope nothing bad happens.” No thanks. I’m smarter than that, and the method is unscriptural anyway. Here’s what I’ve done recently that has helped:

I recently started the helpful practice of making a list each month of all my real problems and all my real fears. I find that most of my fears are about others. This did not surprise me terribly, but the effect of making the list did!

Examples of fears about others:

I’m afraid my in-laws will…

I’m afraid my wife feels that I…

I’m afraid my boss thinks I am…

Direct communication is the answer to this type of fear for the people who (1) want to become better people or (2) don’t mind people thinking poorly of them, or some balance of the two. (The third category of people who neither want to become good people nor want others to think poorly of them surely stopped reading at the second paragraph and are back to work, putting up a convincing front, developing a false persona, for which they will soon need to be medicated. I don’t want to be that person.)

In most cases, I can directly address the fear by asking that person how they feel or what they think or what their plans are. If they deny that my fear is legitimate (and are people worthy of trust), I give them the trust of which they are worthy. At that point, the conflict is between me and myself – I am my own prisoner until I have faith in reality instead of letting my insecurities dictate my quality of life.

If, however, they confirm my fears, I no longer have a fear; I have a situation to process – a problem to solve…which is far better to me than the uncertainty of fearing that it might be a problem. I can dismiss it if the situation is not worth fixing (for example, with a co-worker who thinks I’m not nice because I don’t say “hi” enough…I may choose to write that off if I determine that I am unwilling to spend the time it would take to appease her) or I can set out steps to solve the problem (for example, if my mentor thinks I am unreliable, I tell him I want to change and ask him to partner with me to become the person I want to be, setting up goals, rewards, and consequences).

The only times I won’t address the person are when (1) I know I’m not going to trust what they say anyway or (2) when they have already addressed the issue fully with me, to the satisfaction and assurance of clarity for all who are involved. In the second case, I simply review what they said as if they were saying it again and process that information. In the first case, I try to weed untrustworthy people out of my fears and out of my responsibilities. While I am willing to give to them, my life is ever a wreck when those types of people can affect whether or not I am successful with my responsibilities. In relating to them, I will keep the focus on their success and my investment in them rather than allowing them to play key roles in my own success.

After addressing the types of fear about others (usually by direct communication), my fear list helps me focus on fears about myself:

I’m afraid I will fail at my business.

I’m afraid I won’t be able to pay my bills.

I’m afraid I won’t know how to help my boy become a man.

I used to wait until these things were monstrous, then process them with my wife. She would tell me I had nothing to fear. I wouldn’t believe her. I would still fear them. They would become monstrous…wash, rinse, repeat.

Now I let my pessimist have a say: “So, what will happen if I can’t pay my bills?” Without fail, my instant reaction is not an actual answer; it’s usually something like “That would be so terrible!” or “That would hurt so much!” …neither addresses the question “What would happen?” When I can finally drill down on what would happen, I find that in the end, I would still be living and still have things for which I could be thankful (and usually have less stress). Example: If I can’t pay my bills, I may have to sell a lot of stuff, downgrade to one car, lose the house, go bankrupt and live in an apartment. In other words, I’d be forced to live within my means. No more worries about a house payment or upkeep on multiple vehicles and other stuff I don’t need. My credit would be wrecked so that no one would give me a loan, which would probably have prevented the financial trouble in the first place! If I fail at my business, the same things could happen, but I will definitely learn some lessons along the way and I won’t wonder forever, “I wonder if I could have…”

And here’s the key for me: I persist in pushing away the emotion so I can focus on the facts. I can potentially stick “…and that would be so terrible,” at the end of any of the possible endings, but I don’t. I don’t know how terrible it could be, so I focus on what might happen, not how I think it might make me feel. While I don’t want it to happen, I won’t die, and I would probably find some new growth potential there. My outlook in the situation will usually dictate how I feel about it. When I assume I will hate some feared situation, I am assuming I will have a bad attitude about it when I get there.

If you think I’m getting overly optimistic or sappy, try it. When I accept the situation as if it were happening, almost 100% of the circumstances I could fear are bearable. The truth is that no matter what, I am going to have pain, so the question is, “Where do I want to have the pain – in experiencing life or in trying to avoid experiencing life?”

That’s it: Speak candidly. Imagine the worst. Don’t take from untrustworthy people. When truth is evident and the worst possible scenario is a bearable situation, risk decreases, confidence increases. Fear is eliminated and success is a possibility. Make a list and tell me how it goes.

NOTE: Eliminating fear and eliminating stress have been two entirely different struggles for me. Now, instead of eating to comfort myself and calm my fears, I frequently forget to eat because I’m so busy working on things I am excited about. It might not be a whole lot healthier, but it’s so much more fun!

Useless American Missionaries

2010-11-07T01:34:00.000-07:00

On the coast of West Africa, in the country of Guinea, Tom and Sherry Moor e work to reduce poverty, sickness, and injustice. They are Christian American missionaries, and it is one of their highest goals to be relevant to the culture they have entered. They must speak the language, observe the styles, eat the food, and provide for the needs of the community.

I do not wish to discuss here whether or not Christian missionaries are good or right, but only to observe the method: missionaries work to fit in. They base the church service time and length on what fits the culture. They sing songs in the style of the culture. They find the needs of the community and request American support to meet those needs. They phrase their message in the context of the culture and create relevant analogies from the culture. They participate in secular events that cause them to look, sound, smell, and feel like members of the community. They do everything they can to abolish the “us-and-them” distinctions.

Nearly 7,000 miles away in Sacramento, California, our churches tire of the American culture that is so entitlement driven! Everyone in America wants it quick and free! They’re not willing to work for anything. They don’t show up to church regularly; they don’t tithe; they don’t sign up to work in the nursery; they don’t take it seriously. And they want to sing rock songs and be entertained in church. They won’t sit through an hour-long sermon and they won’t show up for Wednesday night prayer meeting. For all these reasons and so many more, most American Christians are fine with being a sub-culture. In fact, we’re proud of it! We have even made up a phrase that nearly every Christian falsely believes is scriptural: “We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world.” It is supposed to mean that we are willing to associate with the culture to some extent, but we’re not LIKE them. We’re Christians. We know it because we like hymns, long sermons, and several meetings per week. We’re hardcore, dedicated followers. We meet the right number of times for the right length.

Perception problem #1: The right way. I have a friend who moved to Sacramento from Russia just a few years ago. He recalls the nightly church services he attended while in Russia. They were each several hours long: show up after work, and go home whenever people stop preaching. He also recalls the massive, psychological change his family went through when they moved to the States. How could they be considered dedicated Christians if they only went to church on Sundays and Wednesdays, and how could they get anything out of church if it only lasted two hours?!?! After all, in Russia, they met the right number of times for the right length, right? How can American Christians look in disgust at people who attend church 2 times instead of 4 times in a month when the American Christians attend church only a fraction of the Russian Christian times? After all, the Bible doesn’t specify any of the afore mentioned church preferences. Maybe our way is just our way, and not the right way to be Christian.

Perception problem #2: Class distinction. In the description of the American Christian attitude above, “they” shows up six times. We make that distinction consciously and subconsciously. The American ‘christian’ is uncomfortable calling himself “one of them.” We spend so much time putting down the culture that when we’re done, we can’t with a right conscience associate ourselves with them. This happens less when each person looks to correct the defects in himself rather than list the defects in his community.

But perhaps even more concerning is the fact that the “they” we are referring to above are the people who have actually come to church. “They” won’t sit through sermons, or “they” expect to be entertained. Well, at least “they” showed up! How much more is there an “us-and-them” mentality for those who have never been to church!

Perception problem #3: Class ranking. We define ourselves as normal and ‘them’ as the outsiders. Additionally, they are usually defined by what they are not: UN-believers, NON-christians, UN-spiritual… Why aren’t we the UN-atheists or the NON-naturalists? Perhaps for some, this is simply semantics, but there is a definite feeling that ‘we’ don’t have anything in common with ‘them’ because they don’t…[insert religious action here].

Ironically, the common Christian theology says that everyone is born UN-believers, NON-christians, and UN-spiritual. This means that ‘they’ are the normal ones. We are the ones who have made a drastic alteration to our human condition. If this theology is correct, we have been one of them; they have never been one of us. If anyone is going to be able to find a common ground, it is going to be us. We can relate to them; they can’t relate to us. We can reach out; they can’t.

Analysis: Pot and Kettle. I think the reason ‘christians’ are so frustrated by the entitlement mentality of “the world” is that we feel so entitled. After all, it’s a Christian nation, right? Those people who don’t do church right are messing up “our” country. We have no need to bring the country to Christ, they need to return to Christ. It’s their fault they’re not Christians: they have walked away from what we once were. And here’s the entitlement: we believe we have the right to enjoy our Christian nation without ‘them’ messing it up.

However, when it comes to the Christian responsibility, it is irrelevant whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation since the founders are long gone. We want the nation to be founded as a Christian nation because that allows us to be lazy, but this generation has not rebelled against a God they once knew. The modern American has never been Christian and is understandably irritated by a church that demands he return to a place he never was.

In fact, if an American 'christian' is going to be irritated with someone in the nation for rebelling against God, it could only be an irritation with the very American heroes they revere, who apparently did a less than satisfactory job of passing down their incredible Christian heritage or insuring it would endure. And thank God they didn’t, because wherever Christianity is institutionalized, it is perverted. No one is entitled to a really Christian nation. No one ever could be. It will always take work.

The American Missionary: Imagine the Moores coming back from Africa with the proud report:

"We're IN the culture, but thank God, we're not LIKE those people! THEY are really lost. We meet at times they can’t attend and for longer than they are willing to stay. We sing songs they hate and hardly anyone shows up. But they know we’re there. As soon as they are desperate enough for Christ, they know where to find us. After all, some of their ancestors two hundred years ago believed in Christ, so they definitely know that how they’re living is wrong. Please support us financially as we continue to do God’s work in Guinea."

I don’t think they would have much support. When we treat America like a nation that needs the gospel instead of a disobedient child who MUST do things our way, our church will mirror our culture and will be more relevant. We will see pagans turned to Christians and ‘christians’ shown to be law-abiding pagans.

Why God Doesn't Want You to Have More Faith

2010-10-31T23:12:00.000-07:00

The Bible never praises the “heroes of the faith” for having more faith than any other Christian. In fact, neither the phrase “more faith” nor “enough faith” ever shows up in the Bible. Jesus only ever praised two people for the amount of faith they had, (see chart below), and their reward for being the greatest possessors of faith: healing. Just like everyone else received that day…in fact, worse than some: they received nothing for themselves and only a healing for someone else. Other people got healings for themselves or family members raised from the dead.

Parable: Susan is in need of brain surgery. She is very excited to finally be free from the pain she’s been experiencing. The day of the surgery arrives and her world-class surgeon is flown in to complete the procedure. In twenty years of experience, he has performed exactly 1,256 surgeries with minimal complications, none of them ever serious or lasting. This will be the first of two brain surgeries for him today. Susan couldn’t trust him more.

Yet, as she drives to the hospital, she finds herself increasingly nervous. As she enters the hospital and is ushered into a changing room, she feels shaky and finds that her hands are trembling. “I don’t know what’s wrong,” she tells the nurse. “I guess I’m just excited.” As they wheel her down the hallway, she can’t shake thoughts about “what if…?” What if the doctor was out late last night and was tired today? What if the nurse had marked the chart incorrectly? What if the anesthesia wore off and she could feel the whole surgery?

She tries to tell herself that the doctor is the best there is, but the thoughts won’t go away. What if she’s about to be the first death in this doctor’s pristine record? There’s got to be a first, right? “Just in case,” she tells herself, “I want to be sure my husband and my kids know I love them. I have to get that message to them.” She’s increasingly and uncontrollably anxious.

"Faith is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods." –C.S. Lewis

If a person does not find compelling reasons to follow Jesus, it is not a respectable thing for them to place their faith in Him. I offer no compelling reasons here, only the observation that a tiny faith in God places a person on a journey where the direction and the momentum are pre-determined. For example, I find it impossible to always give 10% to the church just a little bit; or always forgive sometimes; or read the Bible everyday most days (not that this is the definitive list). Once a person decides to trust that the Bible is from God, they’ve committed to many life changes!*

Sadly, few ‘christians’ know what these changes look like because we neither trust Him nor act like we trust Him. To find out what faith would look like in your life, ask yourself, “What would I act like if I believed that God really was God?” This question will cause most honest or new Christians to imagine themselves acting in a way they do not currently act: “I would pray practically all day.” “I would tithe.” “I would err on the side of sharing Christ too frequently instead of putting it off.” …or some other thing they know Jesus commanded, but for which they have rationalized themselves out of responsibility. (For the more religiously entrenched, the above question will not provoke a response at all. They respond, “I DO believe that He really is God. I would act pretty much like I do.” Few things will help this person recover from their religion.)

This is the Christian faith: that God is 100% sovereign. 100% powerful. 100% right. No exceptions. Ever. Therefore, it is an oxy-moron to say, “Yeah, I kind of have faith in God,” because one cannot believe that God is a little bit 100% sovereign/holy. What that person might be trying to say is, “I am undecided about whether or not I believe in God,” or “I am afraid (emotionally) that He is not God,” but the game we play is to believe that He is God a little bit. That is not a real option. That is not a rational option. It is up to us to trust or not to trust.

When a person makes the choice to trust in a particular religion, questions will arise along the way. (There are some things about my theology that are still very troubling to me!) But Christians are so afraid to say “I don’t know,” or to even slightly agree with a doubter. This is the source of so much of the defamation of the Christian name. Such Christians usually have one of two responses to troubling questions:

1: Delusion. The vast majority of ‘christians’ are thoroughly unprepared for troubling questions about their beliefs. Most will gladly adopt pure idiocy before they reconsider the validity of any part of their proposition. If the questions are private, the ‘christian’ represses them; if the questions are public, the ‘christian’ tries to rationalize, and usually not very well! (Examples of this can be seen in Bill Maher’s “Religulous”, any Christian portrayal on a major network, or scattered throughout a local church.) For these people, the fall back answers to difficult questions are “We don’t get to question God,” or “God’s ways are mysterious,” or just plain nonsense.

2: Retreat. Problems in trying to understand God cause many people to approach their religious obligations tentatively, hoping for the best of both worlds: a little autonomy and a little spirituality. But to reduce my tithe check, to attend church less, to pray infrequently, is to experience the worst of both worlds, not the best. Surely I will find the experience unfulfilling, and surely I will blame the religion. I will end up leaving it without a full commitment, without a true test of its validity.

I have seen a depressingly large number of these people “fizzle out” of Christianity: they experienced some setback or embarrassment and, instead of digging in to see if God has anything to offer in such a situation, they slowly shrink back into the “God knows I’m a Christian” corner, with no works that would come from a real faith. They say they trust the surgeon, but they keep rescheduling the surgery. As is the case with Susan, some faith equals no faith.

As another example, fear of a particular medication’s side effects may lead a person to not take the full amount prescribed. When the sickness returns, incurable, it is not because of a lack of faith. The patient could have had very little faith and followed the directions in fear. And this is the point of it all: when it comes to faith, it matters not “how much?” but “in what?” Susan had a choice to make about the doctor. How much she trusted one over the other did not matter, only that she chose to trust the right one. I think this was the point Jesus was trying to make when He said, “If your faith in me is the size of a mustard seed, moving mountains will be no big deal.” Our immediate reaction is, “Wow! If that’s what I can do with a mustard seed of faith, I bet I can do really awesome things with a lot of faith!” We get stuck on what we can do with the faith when He’s telling us where to place our faith. The message isn’t “trust more” it’s “trust right”.

Instead, I would like to have the deal, “God, I’ll obey you more as you prove yourself to me.” After all, that works with rickety bridges and lawn furniture, but it doesn’t work with something that is to be feared, (like the exposed wire for my 220 volt dryer). I don’t mess with it before I decide. I either resolve that it is live or it isn’t. Mind you, I research it. I check the breaker, use the voltmeter, change the batteries and use the voltmeter again. I may even try to arc it with another wire, but there is a decision I make and a moment of truth when I am either willing to grab the wire or treat it like it’s live. There is no “kind of” grabbing the wire. Likewise, there is no ‘kind of’ Christianity recognized by God. God is a thing to be feared. If yours is not, he’s not really God at all, and your Jesus’ crucifixion is just your play thing – a mental retardation you’ve adopted to justify acting contrary to your own conscience.

Fear of an awesome, Holy God will cause us to act as if we believe even when we forget why. Susan forgot. She had good reason to trust the doctor. Emotionally, she couldn’t. Her faith caused her to go through with the surgery in spite of her doubts. It was not that her faith no longer made sense. In fact, her faith was the only thing that did make sense. But emotions can cloud a good rationale and circumstances can cloud a good memory. Susan’s what-if’s filled her thoughts until she was unable to recall all the statistics she knew about the reliability of her surgeon. C.S. Lewis puts it like this: “Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable…Unless you teach your moods "where they get off" you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist.”

"Never doubt in the darkness what God has shown you in the light." – Corrie Ten Boom, Holocaust survivor

*This makes becoming a Christian far more impactful than most any other choice. I honestly do not recommend it without at least very serious consideration. Neither does Jesus. (Luke 14:25-33) For a list of changes you will need to make, do not ask a religious person. Read Matthew or Mark or Luke or John for yourself. Jesus repeatedly gives these guidelines because the religious people were always asking him for this exact list.

** In defense of having more faith, it does allow the believer to be more creative, since the evidence of the strength of faith is the confidence with which one acts on the belief. I have to smirk when I think about the centurion soldier who was praised for his amount of faith: everyone else COMES to Jesus to be healed. This man says to himself, “Why lug this sick, full-grown adult with me all the way out to Jesus?” Genius! Essentially, everyone else is in line at the packed-out convention center hoping to be touched by Jesus, and this guy sends Jesus a text: “pls heal srvnt. thx =)” …then he’s off to run his other errands.

All of Jesus’ Mentions of Faith in Matthew
Commended for faith (notice: none religious)	Chastised for doubt (notice: all religious)
· Centurion, praised for “great faith” – Matthew 8:10 · Shunamite woman, praised for “great faith” – Matthew 15:28 · Friends of a paralytic – Matthew 9:2 · Woman touching cloak – Matthew 9:22 · Blind men – Matthew 9:29	· Disciples worrying about things: Matthew 6:30 · Disciples worrying about the storm: Matthew 8:26 · People in synagogue – Matthew 15:38 · Peter on the water – Matthew 14:31 · Disciples worrying about food – Matthew 16:8 · Disciples unable to cast out demons – Matthew 17:20

Perfect Isn't Good Enough

2010-10-24T03:05:00.000-07:00

What Sunday School got wrong:

1. The reason we can’t get into heaven is because we’re not perfect

2. The reason we must accept Jesus is to makes us look perfect to God so we can slip past Him into heaven

Christianity is the only theistic religion that doesn't require moral conformity. In fact, the greatest moral conformists have usually been least respected by God, according to Jesus. Remember the “Rich, Young Ruler” (Matthew 19:16-26): he asked Jesus what he needed to do to get to heaven. Jesus said, “Follow all the rules.” The guy said, “Great. I’ve done that.” Now this next part has always bothered me. As much as religious people may hate it, assuming the above Sunday School indoctrination, Jesus only had two options: (1) “You’re lying. You’ve broken rules and you know it,” or (2) “Great job. You’re in.” For Jesus to say, “Okay, you’ve followed all the rules, but I’m going to add more rules right now” would be unfair, unjust, and generally sleazy. What if you get to the end of those rules? What’s to keep Him from adding more? How can you win with a God like that? How can you like a God like that? So how does Jesus get off the hook? Before we get to the rest of this story, let’s draw from a parallel example:

John is married to Jenny, but he also wants to date Sally because Sally has lifetime court-side tickets to his favorite sports team. John read Sally’s eHarmony ad, and is prepared to sweep her off her feet. He memorized her favorite poems, delivered her favorite flowers; he has collected many of her favorite books and DVDs, and he presents them to her as he asks to take her to her favorite restaurant. She says no.

He demands, “Don’t you know how much time I’ve spent working on making this relationship work!? You owe me at least one date! What else do I have to do to make you love me?!?” Ridiculous, right? It doesn’t matter that he matched himself up perfectly with her online profile. A perfect match wasn’t good enough. Even though he’s done everything she would want a man to do to fall in love, there’s not a chance they’re getting together. In fact, a man could do so much less and win her heart. She’s not nearly as cornered by his question as he wishes she was. She doesn’t owe him an answer. In fact, we would all be quite proud of her if she responded, “You’re disgusting! You know what? If you really love me, try divorcing Jenny and swear off sports forever. Then come back to me and I might consider letting you start all over again…you [insert expletive here]!”

John doesn’t love Sally; he is only hoping to use her standard to force her into owing him. She wasn’t lying when she wrote all those things on her profile. Those were really the things she liked and wanted, but in the end, doing those things only counted if they were symptoms of a relationship. They could never be the cause of the relationship. There is almost no difference in action between John and Sally’s true love. There is almost no similarity in heart between John and Sally’s true love.

Now back to Jesus: in response to the rich man asking “what do I have to do to earn heaven?” Jesus responds, “If you can show me that there’s nothing more important than me, you can move in with me. Otherwise, your perfect moral conformity just isn’t good enough.”

On my best Christian days, when I am most like Christ, I am almost as good as a Pharisee. They tithed, went to church, they were nice, they never missed devotions, they worked hard. Their school teachers had it made! Their neighborhoods were safe, and they were some of the cleanest people alive. By the age of 15, they all had more scripture memorized than I do. And yet, Jesus says to them, “The cheats and the whores are entering heaven before you!” (Matthew 21:31) Jesus does not say “The cheats and the whores MIGHT enter heaven before you if they clean themselves up.” The perfect moral conformists are not getting into heaven, and the rule breakers are. And it angers the moral conformist every time!

This is precisely why the church can’t win a debate with an atheist about salvation. The American ‘christian’ may have the license plate frame that says, “Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just forgiven”, but we look down our noses at people who are doing wrong. When the alcoholic walks into church, we all know we’re all better than he. He says, “Well I’m a Christian too,” but we look at each other knowingly, right? We know we’re better because we’re sober. That’s what sets us apart.

But Americans are not good enough to really bank on it – and we know it. For example, atheism is condemned by the Bible, but atheists are often very good people, and it’s frustrating. We like to ignore the good atheists, and we teach the children to be afraid of them. Homosexuality is also condemned by the Bible, but homosexuals are often very good people, so we strain to point out the perverts (as if the heteros had no perverts among themselves). In these cases, when pressed in a reasonable debate, we end up falling back on our “forgiven” status to set us apart.

So when we’re better than the competition, we’re better; when the competition is better than us, we’re forgiven. Either way, we win. I was on a high school basketball team like that once. When we won, we were proud; when we lost, we were better sports. (We were ‘better sports’ a lot.) When I close my eyes, I can still hear the echoes of protective team moms on the way back to our private school, “I’m so proud of you boys. They may have won, but it’s better to lose with dignity than to win and be like them.” That would be followed by a point-by-point character assassination, recalling all the ways in which our opponents had played dirty or how the referees had been just horribly biased.

None of us really believed it. We all just hoped everyone else did. Kind of like church. We’ve worked so hard to do good – we want it to make us better than someone else. What separates us from the Pharisees is that we also have our crutch of God’s grace. We want to be the best, but we’ll settle for being forgiven. Whichever one we are at the time, that’s the right one to be.

It’s frustrating to the religious person that God’s requirement for heaven is not that a person stops sinning. Repentance is not a requirement for salvation; it is an effect of salvation. The real requirement is the relationship. As soon as I catch myself trying to be good, there is a good chance I’m pursuing the wrong goal. I’m trying to fix the scale instead of fixing my diet. The scale is important, but even if I can fix it to say the right thing, I have only deceived myself. Judgment day will be devastating for such people, because “Perfect” is good, but it’s not good enough. Never forget that, as a disciplined and educated Jewish Rabbi, Jesus was never upset with the Pharisees for being religious. He was primarily angry that they were only religious.

Romans 2:14-15, paraphrased: When the non-religious (who do not know scriptures) get saved, they naturally obey the scriptures, because the requirements of the God are written on their hearts and in their consciences.

My wife has lived with at least 5 different men since we’ve been married...

2010-10-18T21:20:00.000-07:00

...and each of them was me.

Preparing for the birth of our second child, Wendy and I have been sorting through our unorganized odds and ends of potential scrap-book materials. Seeing pictures of us when we married just 6 years ago, I'm stunned. "Holy cow! We were like 12 years old!" We were 22. Same difference. Reading the letters we wrote to each other, I'm even more amazed. I not only looked like a different person, I thought and spoke like a different person. Very different. And so did she. While we admire the passion we had, we also recall the fights that so often provoked the necessary apologies and affirmations of love. We are both so relieved to be the people we are now, with so much of that fighting, anxiety and misunderstanding behind us! We have each gone through so many changes in character traits, deep beliefs, habits, and styles of communication, that I'm quite sure my wife has lived with at least 5 very different versions of me since we have been together. I am also pretty sure that, at this point, she wouldn't be inclined to marry the original me if they just met.

But we made it work. And here's the real point: there have been no guarantees; I may not have been the "right one", but we have made it work. "It" (our marriage) didn't want to work. It wanted to break apart so many times, and with such great force at times, that we surely would have divorced if it were not for a deep moral obligation to either make it work or kill each other trying. And the latter definitely would have been easier at times!

But we made it. Not everyone makes it, and it seems like sheer luck that she decided to be who she has become. I could very easily still be struggling to make it work, paired with a wife who had given up, stopped trusting, served only herself, or even left me. And me - I certainly would not bet on the me of six years ago. He was even more self-serving than the me of today! He was an unlikely candidate for change, humility or trust. But by some crazy twist of fate and a heavenly hedge of thorns guiding me on either side, forcing me down a path I would not travel of my own will, I have made some positive changes.

There were no guarantees that it would work out. There still aren't. Tomorrow I could discover she has a drug addiction or she could discover I have a gambling problem, and we would be instantly back in the battle again. Granted, our track record implies that this won't happen, but there is still no guard against mood-altering prescriptions we could soon need, diseases like as Alzheimer's (which would bring to nothing so much of the work we have done so far), or the unknown reaction to the tragic loss of one of our precious children. I don't fear these things or expect them, but my point is: there are no guarantees. It is possible to raise the statistical chances of success by marrying a person with the right demographics, but a good gamble is still a gamble, and this one will always cost two lives.

This lack of guarantee destroys the American/Christian/Romantic idea that there is a "right" person out there for everyone.

1) As I have shown, even if there were a "right" person and you could find them, there is no hope for guaranteeing that your "right" person will still be the "right" person tomorrow.

2) Even if you could find a person who perfectly met the description of your "right" person, and even if you could guarantee they would stay exactly the same, you would certainly find within a short time, that they were not who you thought they were. They either matched the "right-person" description by their description, your description, or someone else's description. Unfortunately, it's impossible for any of those three to be sure they're right.

Every growing person is under constant change, only knowing themselves truly in hindsight. How I see myself is not how others see myself, and my actions often surprise both of us. Who I am right now is unknown right now. As Will Smith said in the movie Hitch, "YOU...is a very fluid concept right now." In a Biblical example, King David prays, "Lord, search my heart and know me. Reveal myself to me."

An objective look at our predicament shows (A) No one at the altar fully knows who they are. (B) No person at the altar fully understands who the other person is. (C) Since deep identities are not well known at the beginning, all married people will feel defrauded at some point; as if the other person had misrepresented themselves. There is no way to marry the "right" person. Everyone marries the "wrong" person!

3) The "right" person will not make you happy. The "right" person will make you good. Marriage is a sign-up for character boot camp. You join for the signing bonus, but you don't really know what you're getting into. No one who knows what you're about to go through envies you. Everyone who gets married because the other person makes him/her happy is quickly and deeply disappointed!

4) The "right" person is the person who is going to be utterly dedicated to making it work. Unfortunately, even this quality is not guaranteed. You could marry a person like that today, only to have them change their mind tomorrow.

BUT...if you just can't/won't control yourself, when you believe the signing bonus outweighs whatever uncertainties the future may hold...get married. You're not going to be an effective individual with that level of distraction, so it would be advisable to put out the fire that's demanding your attention and preventing you from serving the world with passion. So jump in with your whole heart! Don't be single and let your let your mind long for a partner. Don't get a partner and let your mind long for being single. (1 Corinthians 7)

The only sure thing about a marriage is that it will be hard work. When all feelings and rationale direct a person to leave the relationship, there must be a backup system, a safety net, to push the person, against all other forces, back to the partner. This is the role of the marriage contract. The vows that say, "I like you so much" aren't really vows - they're observations, and fleeting ones. The strong wedding vow is some version of:

"I am excited about the potential I think I see in you. I will help you become a good person without demanding that you become the person I thought or wished you were. When I have done harm, I will change my actions regardless of how sure I was that I was right and regardless of how difficult it is for me to change. I realize that this commitment will change me more than it will change you, but I'm pretty much done with my own life and I'm ready to bet the rest of it on you. Even if this ends up being a terrible investment, I'll only ever invest more; I won't withdrawal."

My advice: Don't marry. But if you do, beware the mirage of the "right" person

"The great challenge of marriage is learning to know and love the stranger to whom you often find yourself married.” - Stanley Hauerwas

Christians Are the Worst

2010-10-17T22:56:00.000-07:00

Christians are the best.

Christianity is the only religion where its followers must believe that those who disagree with them are better than they are. That’s right: the “born again” Christian believes his adversaries are better than he is. The humility that goes with real conversion causes the believer to regard himself as at least as low as the worst of sinners. Not in the way that most "christians" do, though. When polled, most “christians” would deny considering themselves better than the rest of humanity, but they only accept the "sinners" when the sinners seem to be on the way to salvation.

In other words, if a dirt-covered addict starts attending church regularly and pronounces that the Christian way is right, the “christian” may give moderately to the addict, and be willing to associate with him increasingly as the addict becomes more like the “christian”. However, when the addict relapses or rejects the “christian”, the “christian” is lightning-quick in cutting him off. "After all," he reasons, "that sinner didn't appreciate all that I was willing to give him."

Now consider another scenario, where the “christian” becomes aware of a clean, prosperous, rich man in the community. In an obvious condemnation of the “christian”, the rich man does not even need to attend the church; the “christian” will seek him out and ‘witness’ to him, attempting to draw him into the church. Even if the rich man continues to stay away from the church, the “christian” will continue to golf with him, go to dinner with him, play tennis with him.

I want to purposely avoid evaluating which of these two is a better way to witness. I only mean to point out that there is a difference in the way this “christian” treats the poor and the rich. Even though the “christian” has stated that he considers himself on the same level as all people, he obviously still ranks himself: higher than the addict; lower than the rich. He feels noble when he is around the addict, and privileged around the rich.

Instead, the real Christian truly realizes that his sin places him as far from God as the worst of sinners. In fact, when you ask either the true Christian or the fake, “Are you the most righteous person on earth?”, they will inevitably answer a resounding “No!” No objective person can truly believe that he/she does the most righteous works of any human. Most are smart enough to not even rank themselves in the top five percent. There is always someone, if not many people, who does more righteous works. This brings the true Christian to the point of realizing that, on his own, he is just as bad as the worst of sinners and not as good as the best. Christians are the worst! …and they know it.

However, there is also a group of middle class “christians” who have escaped this condemning rant. They treat all people the same. The rich disgust them just as much as the poor. “Look at those rich people! So extravagant! Spending way too much on frivolous things! So caught up in earthly things! I hope I never have that much money…and if I did, I’d give it to the church!” If it were a 5 year old, you’d immediately detect the resentment and the jealousy, but because it’s a 35 year old and it’s in a church, we call it “Christ-like”.

Even if you still deny such an attitude is driven by jealousy, you can’t escape the fact that the money is the influential factor. This is a bad sign. Whether showing preference to the rich because of money or disliking them because of money, the “christian” ranks the worthiness based on money. Instead, the true Christian is emboldened by God’s love. For those who truly believe that a relationship with God is the only valuable pursuit in life, another person’s massive collection of money is no more intimidating than a massive collection of old cookie jars – totally irrelevant to ranking; no advantage, no disadvantage (unless, of course, the cookie jar collector is disadvantaged by believing the collection ranks him/her higher). In this way, Christians are the best. There is no person who could possibly rank higher.

As we would expect, Jesus exemplifies this beautifully. He's known for associating with two groups: the prostitutes and the tax collectors. Those were the poorest and the richest people in society – the addicts and the elite. He did not despise the rich for being rich or the poor for being poor. The only group He repeatedly scolded were the deeply religious, because they usually believed their righteous works ranked them higher than others. Anyone who insists on using their own ranking system instead of wholly accepting God’s is without a hope for pleasing Him.

“The gospel is: ‘You’re more sinful than you ever dared believe; you’re more loved than you ever dared hope.’ The more sinful keeps you from feeling more superior than people; the more loved keeps you from feeling inferior to people.” –Timothy Keller

If you're in Thursday's group, we'll be considering the following:

Why is it we are prone to think that our life has exceptions to the life rules given us in the Scriptures? What are some kinds of exceptions people make to the rule of submitting ourselves to one another?

“Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another.” How did Jesus do this toward us?

Would the people who know you best say you submit to them? What would be the best way to get an accurate answer to it?

Why Every Revolution is Racist and American Courts Will Never be "For the People"

2010-10-14T22:31:00.000-07:00

Can a people's court seek the truth...? According to Carl Sagan, truth is a thing of this world and every person who claims to have the truth is participating in a power play. When you set up a court and say, "We're going to be for the people," what you really mean is "We're going to be for the people who agree with us about what the people need. We're going to exclude everybody else." Every revolution is basically like that. You can't set up a people's court without getting power for yourself and excluding the people who disagree with you. -Timothy Keller

The best justice is still only a group of people who agree that they don't prefer the other group. Justice, at its best, is racism, sexism, or some other -ism: "We agree we don't like group X and won't tolerate them." This defines every American court that has ever existed. Outlawing murder and rape is only another way of saying, "We're powerful enough to discriminate against you." It's the rule by the majority. If there were enough murderers who can vote, "justice" would be to allow murder and discriminate against some other group.

There is a sturdy rebuttal for this pessimistic, downward spiral: we should have "good" laws, and the "good" laws are those which make the society work most smoothly. In other words, even if enough murderers voted to allow it, killing people is bad for our society because it hinders a smooth-running society, so we outlaw it. Stealing makes people mad and they fight. That is bad for society, so we outlaw it.

This is reasonable and seems to make things better, but only for a moment. Who says society working smoothly is the preferable condition? To say "the murderers are the ones who are making the less desirable condition" is pure arrogance. In fact, for every murder that has been committed, there has been an argument that would support the idea that the right kind of murders make society better: a man killing an intruder in the night feels it is right to protect his family, the soldier feels it is his duty to overthrow the oppressive, and Hitler was committed to the idea that killing off the weaker people would further the genetic progress of humanity. The opinion that the condition of unrestrained murder is worse than societal harmony has no objective value. It is purely a preference, however widely that preference is held.

Ultimately, every group must admit: "We agree we hate group X and refuse to tolerate them." Granted, many groups hate a very small group of people, but they are all "something-ist" because they all claim that justice exists and strive to adhere to it. It would appear that only the devout anarchist is truly without prejudice because he claims no leader and no formal justice. Unfortunately, as you may have already discovered, he falls to the same fallacy as the rest because he still claims that his proposal is better than the rest, lumping him, once again, with the rest.

At this point, and very far away from the logic of the whole topic, I find a remarkably curious rising-up deep within myself: I am frustrated, and perhaps offended at the insinuation that I am an "-ist" and I wish to find myself in a different, undiscovered group who discriminates against no one. But why do I desire to find myself in the group that hates no one? Why the underlying assumption that leading a non-discriminating group would make me inherently better than the rest, when there is no reason to believe that those groups who hate no one are more just or are better than those groups who don't!? In fact, the very desire to be in a non-discriminating group discriminates against those who DO discriminate. When I realize that traditional justice is only my group hating the other group, I can't even hate the haters. Stuck without a non-discriminatory group to join, I realize that ultimately, the most objectively just or tolerant thing to do is going to be to put myself to death and remove one more bigot from this earth.

But if I am unwilling go that far, I can at least work toward goodness with all my might. I can strive to actually achieve hating no one - not even the haters. I can show no discrimination between the different kinds of haters, claiming, "All hating is the same. To hate one person for being a Jew is equally acceptable as hating another for being a rapist. Neither hater should be prosecuted." It is then that I realized I have achieved nothing. It hits me: all the hating I've been avoiding is now acceptable. I should have acted on every evil and perverse impulse instead of this futile pursuit of tolerance. It would have been equally as "good" and would have felt a million times better!

My point is that every revolutionary who has claimed an injustice, every court that has ever sentenced any person to any punishment, any parent who has become indignant at the gross mistreatment of their child violates this elementary law that proves them wrong: no person has any right to the way they prefer, just because they prefer it. Why hero-worship a Buddha or a Gandhi or a Jesus? Why respect an Abraham Lincoln or a Winston Churchill or a Martin Luther King Jr. when there is no point to justice; no point to a revolution? These men only fought one kind of hating to create another. They overthrew one oppressive institution to fortify a more covert one, replacing the obvious bigots with the bigots in denial. Every new nation, every "good" group is built by people who only pretend to have a better way. Every revolution is racist and American courts can never be "for the people."

The only remedy for this would be an ultimate authority, setting out an objective standard.

I wish I were wrong and I gladly invite some truth to make this scenario more bearable.

Damned If I Do; Damned If I Don't

2010-10-10T22:37:00.000-07:00

"We either change our actions to match our beliefs or change our beliefs to match our actions." -Pastor Duane, LifePoints Church

My actions:

I find it difficult to read my Bible each day. I can listen to the Bible on CD on my way to work, but I sometimes get all the way to work and realize I wasn't listening past the first 30 seconds. ...But I put my time in. I "had my devotions." I should still get credit for the day's devotions.

Other mornings I get in the car; it's early. I'm tired. Nope - exhausted. Already. What I really need is my coffee and some upbeat music to prepare me for the day. The monotonous voice on my Bible CD, informing me of who begot who, is not going to help me spiritually or physically or emotionally. God won't be impressed if I listen to a recording of the Bible and don't get anything out of it. He would want me to get pumped up mentally so I can at least have a good attitude at work and represent Him well. That means I should listen to some rock, think positive thoughts and down my mocha. I'll have my devotions later...(even I know it won't happen. I almost hope I will forget later so I'll be off the hook.)

In order to act this way, I must believe it's going to be okay - meaning, "Jesus can't justify kicking me out of heaven for something this small."

What I say I believe:

Real Christianity is all about the 'why's. What pleases God is not just the devotion itself, but the reason I have my devotions. He is pleased by (1) the fact that I desire to know Him better and (2) the dedication to seeking after Him even when I don't feel like it. Either one by itself is useless: desiring Him without pursuing Him OR pursuing Him without desiring Him. I don't get credit for desiring to pursue God if I don't have my devotions. I also don't get credit for devotions if I am just doing it to get credit for it. In fact, in real Christianity, there are no credits - there is only relationship.

Each of the morning scenarios represent the me who does not have a real relationship with God. Skipping my devotions is wrong. There is no way to say that I desire to know God, then not make the time to hotly pursue Him. There's simply no excuse! Is He unavailable? Is there not enough time in the day? Are there other things more important? Perhaps if I were not speaking of the Maker of the Universe...if it were fitness or diet or friendships or personal development, I could understand procrastinating; but no thing could possibly edge out GOD.

However, the first scenario shows my inner Pharisee: he only does the right thing to manipulate God. The assumption is that an absence of bad actions demands rewards from God. A perfect life means He can't rightly punish me. My good actions protect me; they are a type of insurance on my heavenly inheritance. In this case, my good actions are keeping me from being a good Christian. My devotions are the very things I need to repent from...along with my tithing and my church attendance and my daily prayer and my respectful treatment of my wife. When they are done to force God's hand, they only serve to further blind me from the truth: that I'm slipping further and further from God. (In most cases, I can usually tell my motives by how proud I am of myself for doing them.)

So, if I don't have my devotions, I am disobedient and must repent. When I do have my devotions, I'm self-righteous and must repent.

The Dilemma:

If my beliefs and my actions are moving toward unity, those mornings show me that my beliefs are doomed unless I fight harder on this issue.

"We either change our actions to match our beliefs or change our beliefs to match our actions." -Pastor Duane, LifePoints Church

If you're attending the Thursday group, consider the following for discussion:

What can I write down in my journal or in the back of my Bible and date it as a lesson learned that will guide my actions in the future?

Are you living in close fellowship with strong Christians in the church?

Whom have you specifically asked to look after you if you appear to stray?

What is the difference between encouraging someone to do right and judging them?

Four words were used to describe part of the encouraging process: appeal, to beg, to urge, to exhort.

What are some of the excuses we give for not doing this with people we know who are headed in the wrong direction?

What are the risks of confronting a person about their behavior?

How does encouragement have both affirmative and confrontational aspects?

How do the risks involved in serving God affect His commands to us?

Whom have I been praying for that I need to also approach and encourage to do the right thing?

Look at Hebrews 3:4-15 How do the verses surrounding verses 12 and 13 of chapter 3 add strength to their urging?

Look up James 5:19-20. How does that relate?

Look up Jude 17-19. How does that relate?

Jealous Lover - 2 Kings 21

2009-08-05T12:35:00.000-07:00

Manasseh becomes king and consistently acts as if God does not exist.

God says, "I will...deliver them into the hand of their enemies...because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day."

I like this because it sounds so human(e). Israel did not disobey God ever since "their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day." They had their obedient times under good kings.

I desperately want my wife to love only me, care only about me, think only about me, respect and honor only me. When she does something that causes me hurt, my feeling is "you always do this!" ...especially if it seems like a pattern of behavior. "You always [frustrating action here]!" And I'm right - her unfaithfulness to my feelings is much more consistent than I would want. If it was a conscious choice, she was not dedicated more to me than she was to herself, and if she's not 100% dedicated to me, I still desire more.

How much more would God want our complete dedication - He actually deserves it! Here He becomes just as upset and jealous as I would want the Pursuer of my soul to be if I was unfaithful, however inconvenient His anger may be to my selfish desires. In a sense, it's quite an honor that he's so ticked at Israel! ...and the part that really set Him apart and makes this beautiful instead of disfunctional is how willing He is to turn back to Israel and bless her and love her and delight in her when she repents from her unfaithfulness. In this way, I see Him as very gracious, even in the Old Testament. I would trust the evidence of Israel's unfaithful actions and distrust her repentant words.
Thank God I'm not.

Partial Holiness - 2 Kings 17

2009-07-28T11:25:00.000-07:00

"So while these nations feared the LORD, they also served their idols" -verse 41

I'm lost. Doesn't fearing the Lord mean obeying Him? I count 50 places in Psalms and Proverbs alone where "fear of the Lord" leads to some sort of holiness or better-ness. I wish verse 41 read "So while these nations seemed to fear the LORD..."

2 Corinthians 5:11 "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God..."

Acts 9:31 "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria...going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase"

Here are my only three options so far:
Option 1) They did fear God. God approved of them. They worshipped idols out of ignorance, but God didn't mind so much because their hearts were with Him. Application: my lack of ignorance does not make me a better Christian and my pushing my religious practices, however noble, good and right, on others is a waste of time and not helpful to anyone with respect to gaining God's approval.

Option 2) They were not on God's "A" list because they only followed Him partially. In fact, they were "lukewarm", as defined in the book of Revelation, and God was extremely displeased with them. However, as God inspired the Bible, it was completely accurate that they DID fear God, and He didn't leave that out. Fear of God alone just wasn't good enough. Application: Just because I recognize God and His power; just because I am constantly aware that He is Lord doesn't mean that I'm making decisions that are pleasing to Him. I have to evaluate my heart, but I should also check the gauge of my actions, because certainly Satan seems afraid of God and yet is anything but pleasing to Him.

In fact, as a tangent, the Bible says that eventually, "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..." (Phil 2) Certainly not all of those "on earth" or "under the earth" will be beings that are pleasing to God, right? An admission of Christ's Lordship by every single being does not mean the salvation of every single being, right? ...unless you don't believe in either Hell or the New Testament.

Option 3) The Bible is inconsistent. After evaluating this passage, I don't believe that there is any way that God could be consistent and still have written this. Application: give up my Christian pursuit and be a committed atheist forever or until I find a different God who is consistent. (I'm not ready to make this jump, but I will admit that I'm surprised to find verse 41 in the Bible.)

God's Irrational Relationships - 2 Kings 14

2009-07-20T08:50:00.000-07:00

"Jeroboam...became king in Samaria... He did evil in the sight of the LORD... He restored the border of Israel...according to the word of the LORD... For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, which was very bitter; for there was neither bond nor free, nor was there any helper for Israel. The LORD did not...blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash."
I've seen this a couple times very distinctly. People are spitting in God's face, ignoring His very existence, but it seems His heart is broken for...I don't know what. The nation is worshipping other gods -not a big deal, it would seem to me: God should take that as a sign that they don't want His help, and they should have to get through life without His blessing. But if He really is a big supernatural power and they are worshipping other gods, He should at least be put off, upset or offended. But He is able to look at this group of people who are in the act of ignoring Him despite His great power and see "the affliction of Israel, which was very bitter; for there was neither bond nor free, nor was there any helper for Israel."
Now either God is a really powerful guy, who is still very needy for friends, or His view of humanity is irrational, or some other third option I haven't thought of. As I think about why He has spared Israel and why He plays favorites with them, I remember Abraham. He must be remembering Abraham when He repeatedly spares them - that's commitment to a promise! I suppose as He is looking at a rebellious Israel, He sees a faithful Abraham and desires that his descendants not live in misery. Two other times I've clearly seen this: First, my parents' inability to not want good and pleasant things for me even against their better judgment and even though I'm in the act of disrespecting them...it's crazy and almost not respectable. Secondly, I believe in Jesus' expiation of my sins. While in the court room, the Judge prepares to give me my sentence and Jesus steps in front of me. Though I've already admitted to guilt, Jesus promises that he'll take me in and clean me up; make me perfect. Since Jesus has a perfect record of doing that with millions, the Judge looks at me, but doesn't see just me. He sees Jesus and believes in Him. While the Judge detests what I've created of myself and is revolted by the testimony against me, He lets me go on the condition that I stick with Jesus.
Admittedly, the second story is one I created through study, feelings, and good wholesome indoctrination. I don't know if all or any of it is the way things actually work. I do believe it will be much like that, minus the gavel, the robes, and the rich mahogany furniture. What I do know is that I've done some bad, bad stuff in my life. Stuff I haven't been beat for yet! I've put out more bad than good and I've taken far more than I've given. If there is an afterlife, and if things are anywhere close to fair and right and good and just; if there is a day where the wrong things from this world will be set right, I'm gonna need a Jesus!

Faith and Healing - 2 Kings 13

2009-07-14T09:55:00.000-07:00

Elisha is sick - verse 14: "Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died."

...and dies - verse 20: "Elisha died and was buried"

...yet even his bones contain resurrecting power - verse 21: "When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet"

To explain this power - 2 Kings 1:9: "Elijah said to Elisha, 'Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?' 'Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit,' Elisha replied. 'You have asked a difficult thing,' Elijah said, 'yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours—otherwise not.' As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Elisha saw this..."

Only three men in the Bible just get taken to heaven. Most Christians consider that's a sign of approval from God. Elijah gets this sign of approval, Elisha gets "a double portion of your spirit." Elisha should have approval from God.

James 5:14: "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up"

So Elijah knows how to offer a prayer in faith and double-portion Elisha doesn't? If only Elisha had been a part of a church with elders to pray for him! Abraham died of a sickness too.

What's your answer?

I think it has to do with the context of James 5. He spends five verses telling the church to be patient during suffering. "Take the old prophets as your mentors. They put up with anything, went through everything, and never once quit, all the time honoring God" James points to Job and begs the church to trust that God cares and does see their struggles, but that He is able to refine them during trials.

Since I am un-trusting of human beings' nature, I think if I were writing that passage, I would follow it up with a warning to not swing too far in that direction. I'd say something like, "But don't stop asking God for good things just because you think you're trusting Him! Ask Him! Ask your friends to ask Him! If you're in pain, express it to Him; even beg Him to remove it. Only be careful not to get impatient with Him if He doesn't. Though I don't know how or why it works, prayer is powerful! He is your Father and enjoys seeing you enjoy even if immediate enjoyment isn't the greatest goal of a good father."

However, this still lacks in fully explaining the part about "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up." I don't know.

Talent Is Never Enough - John Maxwell

2009-07-13T11:30:00.000-07:00

Before reading the book, I read the following summary and was disappointed with the triteness of the statements, but decided to read it anyway since I already had it and I loved the title: Talent is Never Enough. There was almost nothing life-changing in any of the words...a couple good example stories.
However, I noticed a life-changing difference between the list and the book: when I read the list, they were individual truths, unrelated to my life. When I was reading the book I actually thought about my specific talents. I believed the truth of the statement and then asked, "Am I applying this to my talent?"
Most of my recent efforts have been to develop new talents. Maxwell wrote, "Develop the talent you have, not the one you want." I have been setting aside some great talents in order to diversify my talent portfolio, when those things are not a part of my brand. Talents should be disciplined, diversity should be the hobbies and not the other way around.
Read it slowly and apply it and save $25.99 and the hours it takes to read it.

1. Belief lifts my talent
2. Passion energizes my talent
3. Initiative activates my talent
4. Focus directs my talent
5. Preparation positions my talent
6. Practice sharpens my talent
7. Perseverance sustains my talent
8. Courage tests my talent
9. Teachability expands my talent
10. Character protects my talent
11. Relationships influence my talent
12. Responsibility strengthens my talent
13. Teamwork multiplies my talent
Talent is Never Enough - John C. Maxwell

Bible - 2 Kings 10

2009-07-10T11:39:00.001-07:00

Jehu is the man! Why did I not recognize this before? "But [the surrounding kings] were terrified and said, 'If two kings could not resist him, how can we?'"
The nations shudder at the sound of his name. Just last chapter he yelled up to the servants in the tower to throw down their reigning queen and the servants did! After he rested for a while, he sent men back out to pick up her body, but she'd been devoured by dogs already. Oh well, he tried.
So now, when the surrounding officers want to join his team, he requires each of them to murder their masters and bring the heads in baskets to show their loyalty. Seventy heads later, he continues his rampage against the nation that had committed themselves to God and turned away.
The slaughtering in this chapter is not against just any group of people God didn't like. Israel and God had been intimate, and she cheated on Him, and "you wouldn't like Him when He's angry." Wayward kings are removed and idols are torn down. Not all of the death in the Bible makes a lot of sense to me, but I can get behind this particular mission.
Here's the fun part: Jehu declares his commitment to Baal, the major idol in Israel. "Ahab served Baal a little; Jehu will serve him much. Now summon all the prophets of Baal, all his ministers and all his priests...Anyone who fails to come will no longer live." He gathers with the prophets of Baal, and completes the sacrifice. He walks out of the temple and tells his surrounding S.W.A.T. team of 80 men, "If anyone escapes the temple behind me alive, I'll kill you."
Sad ending though, Jehu didn't do the same for all the idols, so God half-blessed him for what he had done, but was heart-broken that Israel wouldn't be totally dedicated to Him. "In those days the Lord began to reduce the size of Israel."