The then current mindset was that if something bad happens to you it is either because you had done something bad or your parents had done something bad. Jesus statement (as in the title of the post) was “No, none of the above, but unless you repent (turn away from your sin), you are in for bad things to happen to you”.
When bad things happen to us in the here and now we more often than not cry out “Why me?” I have in the last few posts been talking about the consequences of our “poor choices”, and the mess we are in as a society. But the pain that we suffer is not all from our poor choices, it is not all from our sin. The saying of Jesus in the title confirms this.
I don't think I need to persuade you that life is not fair. If you are not there yet, just wait a while. This truth is of course in the Bible for “The rain falls on the just and the unjust.” We don't need to think too deeply to see that it is true. Is death sufficient punishment for the likes of one (Hitler) who was responsible for the murder of six million men women and children? I mean we all die, the good the bad and the ugly. The point is that if God is just (and He is) then there has to be a time of reckoning, there has to be a Heaven and a Hell. When we judge others (and who does not) we are at one level siding with God on this. Have you ever said “He deserves everything that is coming to him”. We need to be careful here, because “With the measure we measure, it will be measured to us”. If that does not scare the living daylights our of you, it should! Most of us judge all the time. But we cannot have justice for the other buddy, but mercy for ourselves. That is to want our cake and eat it too. God's not into that, He is into righteous judgments and Mercy. He prefers Mercy, and unless we repent, we will get judgement, for none of us is perfect (see 'Caught for speeding ..' June 2010) .
Why do bad things happen to good people? Some of it is our sin (for no one is truly good), some of it is other people's sin, and some of is it simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is a verse that means a lot to me, Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose". This verse is not saying that evil is good. It is rather a promise that for those who turn to Christ, God is actively at work to bring good out of the bad. We don't always see it, well it is not always immediate. But that is where faith (trust comes in). We do know that when we turn to Him in repentance, He covers our sins, casts them into the sea and remembers them no more. We also know that in the end He will right every wrong, and wipe away every tear of those who belong to Him.
But if we do not love Him, if we refuse to turn to Him in repentance, the promise does not apply. When we do not turn to Him, we are truly victims of the schemes of the devil. His plan for you is eternal death and destruction. Hell was created for the Devil and his angels, not for you. But you have to choose sides. Its not a popular truth (see “Hell, are you trying to scare me into Heaven?), but if there is a God and He is Just (and there is a God and He is Just) then logically there has to be a Heaven and a Hell. And we don't get to Heaven by being good, we get to Heaven by repenting being forgiven and following Him. “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:17,18).
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
God's provision and protection II. Protection.
Last day I was sharing primarily about God's provision in the Judeo-Christian ideal of one man one woman in life long monogamous relationship. I do not believe that we have even begun to understand the potential for intimacy, closeness of union of body, mind, soul and spirit inherent in the Biblical model of human sexuality. It does not seem to be well know that the Bible, in the Song of Solomon, gives explicit, at times even raunchy instructions of how to get there and how to maintain this closeness. I said in an earlier post that our society can be described as being inflamed by its pseudo, hyper sexuality. Three times in Song of Solomon, we are told “not to stir up love” until the appropriate time. Our society, as a society, does the exact opposite of this, and in doing so is, I believe, playing with fire.
We are always playing with fire when we go against Scripture. The “no”s of scripture are there to protect and provide. Take sexuality. We are told “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (I Corinthians 6:18). We should understand “body” here, to mean the whole person, and “to sin against” as 'cause harm to'. The Devil came to kill steal and to destroy, and by and large, all he has to do is to stir us up and tempt us to throw out the rules God gives us for our provision and protection.
Research in the Social Sciences even from the earliest of studies, confirms that our first sexual experiences tend to cement themselves into our practices. More recent studies explain that sexual activity and even sexual fantasy, significantly alters brain chemistry, that is it opens up neural pathways in the brain. In the right context is has to do with bonding, with our ability to form and keep long term relationships. In the wrong context, it has to do with the formation of spiraling addictions.
In a faithful first time union, the created neural pathways act like strong “glue” in a relationship, helping the couple to bond, and to stay bonded. This first time physical union was never meant to be severed, and its severing opens up (and in some cases adds to echos of previous) issues such as rejection, abandonment and feelings of betrayal, along with their associated mental and emotional pain. In the presence of multiple partners, where relationships have been severed over and over, the bonding process itself becomes damaged, or else expresses itself as a need to constantly seek new partners. From a behavioural point of view this latter scenario, can be described in terms of our developing appetites that later demand to be satisfied, even long after we have ceased to want them. To put it another way, in the wrong context, sexual activity opens up neural pathways in the brain that reinforce addictions in a very powerful way. That sexual activity and sexual fantasies opens up such neural pathways, helps to explain how one can become addicted to pornography, and such irrational practices as cross dressing. The strength of sexual addictions have lead some Psychologists to proclaim, for example, that pedophilia is incurable. No one caught in the grip of sexual addictions, be pornography or promiscuity in any of its forms, can doubt the truth about the difficulty of bringing these things under control.
All of this, and we have not even started to get into the health issues that surround our frantic obsession with sex. Did you ever stop to ponder the fact that STD's (sexually transmitted diseases) would be stamped out in a single generation that practiced Biblical morality. There were enough STD's around in my own rebellious youth, but with today's resistant strains in ever increasing pandemic proportions, you can die. That was never a fear in my day.
One has to wonder, how far will we go in rationalizing our behaviour, how far down the proverbial slippery slope are we willing to go before we become willing to re-examine our views on what is right and wrong? I was disturbed to learn of the decriminalization of incest in certain European countries, and to read, in journals endorsed by the American Psychological Society, that “research has started to show that pedophilia can be positive for the child”, and even that “parents should welcome pedophiles into their home”. Suppose, just suppose, as it is being argued in this latter scenario, that in certain instances these 'man loves boy experiences', are looked on as positive by the child. Let me ask, in the light of bonding inherent in early sexual experiences, what happens when the pedophile wants to move on? The above research is of course, being contested.
Would it not make sense, in the light of all of this, to be willing to re-examine our sexual values and practices? Should we not consider what the tearing of sexual bonds does to our Psychological, mental, emotional and even physical health? God calls is sin. It has been said that sin takes us further than we want to go, keeps us longer than we want to stay and costs us more than we want to pay. As I have said before, Jesus puts it this way “He who sins is the slave of sin”. I have been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. Fortunately, there is a way out, a way back. As I said last day, He is into the rescue and restoration business. He came to restore ruined lives, to bring hope, joy, peace, love, to bring us into healing within the community of the rescued, and to lift us out of the dung heap! “I am come”, He tells us, “that you might have life, and life in all its fullness” (John 10:10). Truly He is the way the truth and the life!
We are always playing with fire when we go against Scripture. The “no”s of scripture are there to protect and provide. Take sexuality. We are told “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (I Corinthians 6:18). We should understand “body” here, to mean the whole person, and “to sin against” as 'cause harm to'. The Devil came to kill steal and to destroy, and by and large, all he has to do is to stir us up and tempt us to throw out the rules God gives us for our provision and protection.
Research in the Social Sciences even from the earliest of studies, confirms that our first sexual experiences tend to cement themselves into our practices. More recent studies explain that sexual activity and even sexual fantasy, significantly alters brain chemistry, that is it opens up neural pathways in the brain. In the right context is has to do with bonding, with our ability to form and keep long term relationships. In the wrong context, it has to do with the formation of spiraling addictions.
In a faithful first time union, the created neural pathways act like strong “glue” in a relationship, helping the couple to bond, and to stay bonded. This first time physical union was never meant to be severed, and its severing opens up (and in some cases adds to echos of previous) issues such as rejection, abandonment and feelings of betrayal, along with their associated mental and emotional pain. In the presence of multiple partners, where relationships have been severed over and over, the bonding process itself becomes damaged, or else expresses itself as a need to constantly seek new partners. From a behavioural point of view this latter scenario, can be described in terms of our developing appetites that later demand to be satisfied, even long after we have ceased to want them. To put it another way, in the wrong context, sexual activity opens up neural pathways in the brain that reinforce addictions in a very powerful way. That sexual activity and sexual fantasies opens up such neural pathways, helps to explain how one can become addicted to pornography, and such irrational practices as cross dressing. The strength of sexual addictions have lead some Psychologists to proclaim, for example, that pedophilia is incurable. No one caught in the grip of sexual addictions, be pornography or promiscuity in any of its forms, can doubt the truth about the difficulty of bringing these things under control.
All of this, and we have not even started to get into the health issues that surround our frantic obsession with sex. Did you ever stop to ponder the fact that STD's (sexually transmitted diseases) would be stamped out in a single generation that practiced Biblical morality. There were enough STD's around in my own rebellious youth, but with today's resistant strains in ever increasing pandemic proportions, you can die. That was never a fear in my day.
One has to wonder, how far will we go in rationalizing our behaviour, how far down the proverbial slippery slope are we willing to go before we become willing to re-examine our views on what is right and wrong? I was disturbed to learn of the decriminalization of incest in certain European countries, and to read, in journals endorsed by the American Psychological Society, that “research has started to show that pedophilia can be positive for the child”, and even that “parents should welcome pedophiles into their home”. Suppose, just suppose, as it is being argued in this latter scenario, that in certain instances these 'man loves boy experiences', are looked on as positive by the child. Let me ask, in the light of bonding inherent in early sexual experiences, what happens when the pedophile wants to move on? The above research is of course, being contested.
Would it not make sense, in the light of all of this, to be willing to re-examine our sexual values and practices? Should we not consider what the tearing of sexual bonds does to our Psychological, mental, emotional and even physical health? God calls is sin. It has been said that sin takes us further than we want to go, keeps us longer than we want to stay and costs us more than we want to pay. As I have said before, Jesus puts it this way “He who sins is the slave of sin”. I have been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. Fortunately, there is a way out, a way back. As I said last day, He is into the rescue and restoration business. He came to restore ruined lives, to bring hope, joy, peace, love, to bring us into healing within the community of the rescued, and to lift us out of the dung heap! “I am come”, He tells us, “that you might have life, and life in all its fullness” (John 10:10). Truly He is the way the truth and the life!
Friday, November 26, 2010
God's provision and protection though marriage I. Provision
The other day I was complaining to the Good Lord that I feel misunderstood. His tongue in cheek reply to me boiled down to “You think that you are misunderstood. Buddy you ain't seen nothing yet. What about all those religious types who say they represent me, but don't? What about all the self righteous hypocrites who claim to speak for me, but don't even know me? What about all the blame, all the bad mouthing, all the false accusations, all the nasty things people say and think about Me? You think you have a problem. My son, you ain't seen nothing yet”.
Some people have this picture of God that He is some kind of celestial Scrooge who, whenever He sees someone having fun, He leans over the balcony of heaven and yells down “Cut that out”. If this is you, you have it all wrong, for “At His right hand there are pleasures for evermore”. God's rep is nowhere more twisted than in the area of sex. After all He invented it! I also think that it says something about His sense of humour. I mean if you think about it, it's really weird. “My dear you are so beautiful, I have this almost irresistible desire to put my finger in your ear!”
In the coarser days of my youth the we jested (in song) about the mating habits of a certain bird, which mated just once a year. “What's it so happy about?” we asked each other.“Tonight's the night” was the reply. In ancient Israel, the couple soon to be married would be separated for a year, while the groom built and prepared a home. At the end of this time, they would come together in the bridal chamber and not emerge for a week. On top of this, the exact timing of the wedding would be known only to the groom, who could come any time day or night, for his bride (Matthew 25). Imagine the excitement as the day approached, imagine the anticipation, the longing, the joy. Talk about romantic. The law then excused the young man from war for a year!
Contrast this with the cheep quick fix of the one night stand, or the soon fading passion of relationships built only on physical attraction, on biological need. In his book “Four loves”, C.S. Lewis (or Narnia fame) contrasts two of these loves, eros love (erotic love) and phileo love (friendship love). He makes the point that timing is all important in the healthy interrelationship of these two types of love. The friendship love, says Lewis, is stunted when we rush into the eros love before it is time. When yielded to too early, the eros love with its powerful biological imperative, far too easily takes over, and becomes all consuming. The point that Lewis wants to make, is that a relationship that has as its basis only the erotic component of love will, sooner or later fade. When, in a relationship friendship love was either never really developed, or stunted, then there is nothing for the couple to fall back on when the physical side fades. Is it any wonder the divorce rates are so high in our "I want what I want, and I want it now" society.
If the Biblical standards seems impossibly high, impractical, improbable, ivory-tower, nonrealistic, and pie like in the sky, let me suggest that it is only because we have made it so. In fact there have always been societies where the expectation (and hence the substantial reality) of sex between one man and one woman only within the confines of life long marriage, has been the standard practice. And this not only within the Judeo Christian contexts. The Zulu tribe held strongly to this morality. I mean if puffins can manage it, surely it should not be impossible for humankind!
Perhaps (it is not outside the realm of possibility) that you who are reading this, have failed to achieve the high calling of this level of fidelity. Welcome to the club. I failed and failed miserably. The difference might be, that in the excesses of my youth, I never believed that what I was doing was right. I didn't care, no-one warned me of the consequences (broken marriages, life long trauma for my offspring etc.). No one shared with me that the appetites we develop demand to be satisfied, long after we no longer want them. Nor was I told that signing my name to a marriage certificate would not change any of it. I had to learn all this from the school of hard knocks. No indeed God is not some celestial Scrooge determined to spoil our fun, He is a loving Father who wants to spare His children form the pain of poor choices. This is why he calls wrong, the things that He calls wrong. In the same way that most parents say “no”, when they want to prevent their child from burning themselves on the hot stove, it is out of love for us that He sets rules designed to keep us from harm. We break the rules because we want to become free, but what we get is not freedom, but bondage. How true it is what He says when He says “He who sins is the slave of sin”.
But He is not just into setting rules, He is into an incredibly costly rescue and restoration mission. “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed”. The cost to Him was the Cross of Christ, the gift to us was life, life in all its fullness to those who will unreservedly follow Him. Why, oh why do we resist such love?
Some people have this picture of God that He is some kind of celestial Scrooge who, whenever He sees someone having fun, He leans over the balcony of heaven and yells down “Cut that out”. If this is you, you have it all wrong, for “At His right hand there are pleasures for evermore”. God's rep is nowhere more twisted than in the area of sex. After all He invented it! I also think that it says something about His sense of humour. I mean if you think about it, it's really weird. “My dear you are so beautiful, I have this almost irresistible desire to put my finger in your ear!”
In the coarser days of my youth the we jested (in song) about the mating habits of a certain bird, which mated just once a year. “What's it so happy about?” we asked each other.“Tonight's the night” was the reply. In ancient Israel, the couple soon to be married would be separated for a year, while the groom built and prepared a home. At the end of this time, they would come together in the bridal chamber and not emerge for a week. On top of this, the exact timing of the wedding would be known only to the groom, who could come any time day or night, for his bride (Matthew 25). Imagine the excitement as the day approached, imagine the anticipation, the longing, the joy. Talk about romantic. The law then excused the young man from war for a year!
Contrast this with the cheep quick fix of the one night stand, or the soon fading passion of relationships built only on physical attraction, on biological need. In his book “Four loves”, C.S. Lewis (or Narnia fame) contrasts two of these loves, eros love (erotic love) and phileo love (friendship love). He makes the point that timing is all important in the healthy interrelationship of these two types of love. The friendship love, says Lewis, is stunted when we rush into the eros love before it is time. When yielded to too early, the eros love with its powerful biological imperative, far too easily takes over, and becomes all consuming. The point that Lewis wants to make, is that a relationship that has as its basis only the erotic component of love will, sooner or later fade. When, in a relationship friendship love was either never really developed, or stunted, then there is nothing for the couple to fall back on when the physical side fades. Is it any wonder the divorce rates are so high in our "I want what I want, and I want it now" society.
If the Biblical standards seems impossibly high, impractical, improbable, ivory-tower, nonrealistic, and pie like in the sky, let me suggest that it is only because we have made it so. In fact there have always been societies where the expectation (and hence the substantial reality) of sex between one man and one woman only within the confines of life long marriage, has been the standard practice. And this not only within the Judeo Christian contexts. The Zulu tribe held strongly to this morality. I mean if puffins can manage it, surely it should not be impossible for humankind!
Perhaps (it is not outside the realm of possibility) that you who are reading this, have failed to achieve the high calling of this level of fidelity. Welcome to the club. I failed and failed miserably. The difference might be, that in the excesses of my youth, I never believed that what I was doing was right. I didn't care, no-one warned me of the consequences (broken marriages, life long trauma for my offspring etc.). No one shared with me that the appetites we develop demand to be satisfied, long after we no longer want them. Nor was I told that signing my name to a marriage certificate would not change any of it. I had to learn all this from the school of hard knocks. No indeed God is not some celestial Scrooge determined to spoil our fun, He is a loving Father who wants to spare His children form the pain of poor choices. This is why he calls wrong, the things that He calls wrong. In the same way that most parents say “no”, when they want to prevent their child from burning themselves on the hot stove, it is out of love for us that He sets rules designed to keep us from harm. We break the rules because we want to become free, but what we get is not freedom, but bondage. How true it is what He says when He says “He who sins is the slave of sin”.
But He is not just into setting rules, He is into an incredibly costly rescue and restoration mission. “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed”. The cost to Him was the Cross of Christ, the gift to us was life, life in all its fullness to those who will unreservedly follow Him. Why, oh why do we resist such love?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Does victim status + political power = justice?
The Old Testament law “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has been characterized by some, as barbaric. But in societies where escalating revenge was the norm, where it was essentially two eyes, or two teeth for one, the above law called for justice rather than escalation. In this context that law is seen to be good and right and proper. It has always been the case than in order to have peace, the victim has to be the bigger, that is the better, person. It is however my contention, human nature being what it is, that when victim status is aligned with political power, justice inevitably goes out the window. They say, do they not, that power corrupts? In this scenario, everybody suffers, everybody looses, including in the end, even those with the said political power. For example, in terms of the homosexual issue, the right of gays to self determination is being excluded.
No one should deny, or not abhor, the grave injustices that have been perpetrated on the gay community, nor that the legitimate rights of gays have been denied. This, together with hate crimes against gays, as well as indiscriminate prejudice against them, is wrong, wrong, wrong. The need for justice is great, and has needed and still needs to be addressed. The question I want to ask today however is “Is what we are getting justice, even from the point of view of gays?”
I am thinking particularly of those inside or outside of the gay community who, for whatever reason, find themselves with unwanted same sex attractions (SSAs). There are, for example, strong pressures to classify any speech by those who feel trapped by their SSAs, as hate speech, and to enact legislation declaring it a crime. In addition, in both Canada and the States, therapists have been dismissed from their jobs for being willing to cater to client self determination in this regard. Furthermore, there are cases where students of Psychotherapy, who are unable to parrot the politically correct view on these issues, are being denied access to training facilities. On top of this, Professors are being dismissed from their jobs for expressing similar views, or in some cases simply raising questions that might conceivably challenge, the doctrines of political correctness. Perhaps these things do not cause you concern, but in my view they should. These things are raising a lot of questions for me. Let me share some of these questions with you. After that, I invite you to judge for yourselves, and to judge with righteous judgement.
Whose rights shall we uphold, the rights of those who are comfortable with their SSAs, or the rights of those who are not? And to whom shall we allow the right of self determination (both inside and outside of counselling) the first group or the second? And on which side of the issue shall we insist that councillors have an obligation to respect, and work with, clients whose choice in their self determination, goes contrary to the councillor’s own views? And which councillors shall we dismiss from their jobs if they don't fulfill that obligation? Shall we insist that only one side (“them”) tolerate our views, but not be required to tolerate theirs? When did we banish “both” and “none of the above” from our list of options?
And when did we start confusing disagreement with hate? Certainly these two things can and do coexist, but is it necessarily the case that they do? Should we all be tarred with the same brush? And if it is valid to blur the distinction between disagreement and hate, should this be applied to one side, but not the other? I mean who shall we agree to hate, those who are conflicted about their same sex attractions or those who are not, or those who want to help them, or those who refuse to? I am sadly coming to the conclusion that hate is widespread on both sides of these and many other issues. But what if when SSAs are unwanted, it is the “unwanted” part that is irreversible?
And to whom shall we allow freedom of speech, those on our side of the divide only, or those on both sides? And which side of the nature verses nurture debate shall we read up on, “our side” or “theirs”? If we read both, and we have ears to hear and eyes to see, it will be abundantly clear that the jury is still very much out on the Science behind these questions. And is truth and justice advanced by the current stifling of debate, and of the freedom to express contrary views? If so why do we treasure academic freedom so highly? Let us ponder these questions and ponder them deeply and then, and only then, if we must, take sides. Let us judge with equity, let us make righteous judgements.
No one should deny, or not abhor, the grave injustices that have been perpetrated on the gay community, nor that the legitimate rights of gays have been denied. This, together with hate crimes against gays, as well as indiscriminate prejudice against them, is wrong, wrong, wrong. The need for justice is great, and has needed and still needs to be addressed. The question I want to ask today however is “Is what we are getting justice, even from the point of view of gays?”
I am thinking particularly of those inside or outside of the gay community who, for whatever reason, find themselves with unwanted same sex attractions (SSAs). There are, for example, strong pressures to classify any speech by those who feel trapped by their SSAs, as hate speech, and to enact legislation declaring it a crime. In addition, in both Canada and the States, therapists have been dismissed from their jobs for being willing to cater to client self determination in this regard. Furthermore, there are cases where students of Psychotherapy, who are unable to parrot the politically correct view on these issues, are being denied access to training facilities. On top of this, Professors are being dismissed from their jobs for expressing similar views, or in some cases simply raising questions that might conceivably challenge, the doctrines of political correctness. Perhaps these things do not cause you concern, but in my view they should. These things are raising a lot of questions for me. Let me share some of these questions with you. After that, I invite you to judge for yourselves, and to judge with righteous judgement.
Whose rights shall we uphold, the rights of those who are comfortable with their SSAs, or the rights of those who are not? And to whom shall we allow the right of self determination (both inside and outside of counselling) the first group or the second? And on which side of the issue shall we insist that councillors have an obligation to respect, and work with, clients whose choice in their self determination, goes contrary to the councillor’s own views? And which councillors shall we dismiss from their jobs if they don't fulfill that obligation? Shall we insist that only one side (“them”) tolerate our views, but not be required to tolerate theirs? When did we banish “both” and “none of the above” from our list of options?
And when did we start confusing disagreement with hate? Certainly these two things can and do coexist, but is it necessarily the case that they do? Should we all be tarred with the same brush? And if it is valid to blur the distinction between disagreement and hate, should this be applied to one side, but not the other? I mean who shall we agree to hate, those who are conflicted about their same sex attractions or those who are not, or those who want to help them, or those who refuse to? I am sadly coming to the conclusion that hate is widespread on both sides of these and many other issues. But what if when SSAs are unwanted, it is the “unwanted” part that is irreversible?
And to whom shall we allow freedom of speech, those on our side of the divide only, or those on both sides? And which side of the nature verses nurture debate shall we read up on, “our side” or “theirs”? If we read both, and we have ears to hear and eyes to see, it will be abundantly clear that the jury is still very much out on the Science behind these questions. And is truth and justice advanced by the current stifling of debate, and of the freedom to express contrary views? If so why do we treasure academic freedom so highly? Let us ponder these questions and ponder them deeply and then, and only then, if we must, take sides. Let us judge with equity, let us make righteous judgements.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A Politically incorrect view on Homosexual and other sexual issues
We live in a society that one therapist described as stirred up and inflamed by pseudo, hyper sexuality. Though for us it is not the only one, without any doubt the most controversial aspect of this phenomenon is the homosexual issue. This is a particularly difficult issue for the Church, and it is not going to go away anytime soon. One way or the other, we in the Church have to deal with it.
I am writing today, as one who, as much as is possible within me, is seeking to understand and practice the Spirit of Jesus, when he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus spoke with compassion, but he also spoke the truth. The Church likewise is commanded to speak the truth in love. We have not done this well. Too often we have spoken in judgmental self-righteousness. This is totally unacceptable, abhorrent, and carries a spirit that is diametrically opposite to that in which I am seeking to write today. I apologize here and repent for any part that I, and others who name the name of Christ, have played in hating, fearing and otherwise dismissing, disrespecting and marginalizing gay people. I speak for any who are willing to identify with what I am saying here. I believe there are many. We do understand that there have been grave injustices and hate crimes and violence against gays. We abhor and condemn such violence, along with indiscriminate prejudice against gays. Truly, the injustices are great, and I hang my head in shame at this display of man's inhumanity to man.
We did not choose the homosexual issue, as a watershed issue for our faith, it is being forced upon us by the political agenda and the powerful, well funded and highly organized gay lobby. However, just as not all who name the name of Christ are anti gay, we do not believe that all gays are in the militant camp. Though we have not always done this well, we are committed to welcoming gays into our communities. We are willing to talk about the issues, to do so in the gentleness of the Spirit of Christ described above, and to leave room for them to be wrestled with. We do not, however want to hide the fact that we cannot in conscience affirm the gay lifestyle. Our position is that the “no”s of God are for our (and your) provision and protection (see coming posts). In particular anything less than the ideal of one man one woman in life long monogamous union within the context of marriage, is always at some level, destructive. Some of us have learned this truth the hard way, from the school of hard knocks. Our heart is particularly for those who are feeling trapped by their same sex attractions (SSAs). If this is you, we want you to know that we are distressed by the political and other pressures that are put on you, not only not to change, but to deny that is it possible.
While we understand that to many our position is totally unacceptable, we do not think that it is reasonable that we be expected to change either our beliefs, or our understanding of right and wrong, simply because of political and or societal pressure. We do not believe that truth can be legislated, or decided upon democratically. We are open to debate, indeed it is our challenge to the militants in the gay community that we be allowed to do so. When honest disagreement, inquiry and debate is (as is the case) loudly proclaimed as hate, we have to wonder exactly who is hating who (see next day's post). On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that the jury is still out on many of the dogmas proclaimed loudly (and admittedly successfully) by the militant arm of the gay community. This is particularly true of the "nurture verses nature" question. Debate is, as I say, disallowed by the rhetoric of political correctness. These days, the thought police are everywhere.
The Gospel that we preach promises that “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed”. Indeed if it could be shown that the Son (Christ) could not set you free from your unwanted SSAs, then for us the Gospel would be shown to be false. It is however the testimony of many that He has, He does, and He will deliver to the uttermost. We do not pretend that it is easy, indeed it is the testimony of those who in various stages either have successfully or substantially dealt with, or are dealing with their unwanted SSAs and/or other unwanted aspects of human sexuality, that it is not. How can research claim to be unbiased when, as it so often does, it dismisses evidence like this, that suggests the very opposite of what particular researchers seem to want to prove.
A relevant question "Does victim status + political power = justice?" is discussed in next days post.
I am writing today, as one who, as much as is possible within me, is seeking to understand and practice the Spirit of Jesus, when he said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus spoke with compassion, but he also spoke the truth. The Church likewise is commanded to speak the truth in love. We have not done this well. Too often we have spoken in judgmental self-righteousness. This is totally unacceptable, abhorrent, and carries a spirit that is diametrically opposite to that in which I am seeking to write today. I apologize here and repent for any part that I, and others who name the name of Christ, have played in hating, fearing and otherwise dismissing, disrespecting and marginalizing gay people. I speak for any who are willing to identify with what I am saying here. I believe there are many. We do understand that there have been grave injustices and hate crimes and violence against gays. We abhor and condemn such violence, along with indiscriminate prejudice against gays. Truly, the injustices are great, and I hang my head in shame at this display of man's inhumanity to man.
We did not choose the homosexual issue, as a watershed issue for our faith, it is being forced upon us by the political agenda and the powerful, well funded and highly organized gay lobby. However, just as not all who name the name of Christ are anti gay, we do not believe that all gays are in the militant camp. Though we have not always done this well, we are committed to welcoming gays into our communities. We are willing to talk about the issues, to do so in the gentleness of the Spirit of Christ described above, and to leave room for them to be wrestled with. We do not, however want to hide the fact that we cannot in conscience affirm the gay lifestyle. Our position is that the “no”s of God are for our (and your) provision and protection (see coming posts). In particular anything less than the ideal of one man one woman in life long monogamous union within the context of marriage, is always at some level, destructive. Some of us have learned this truth the hard way, from the school of hard knocks. Our heart is particularly for those who are feeling trapped by their same sex attractions (SSAs). If this is you, we want you to know that we are distressed by the political and other pressures that are put on you, not only not to change, but to deny that is it possible.
While we understand that to many our position is totally unacceptable, we do not think that it is reasonable that we be expected to change either our beliefs, or our understanding of right and wrong, simply because of political and or societal pressure. We do not believe that truth can be legislated, or decided upon democratically. We are open to debate, indeed it is our challenge to the militants in the gay community that we be allowed to do so. When honest disagreement, inquiry and debate is (as is the case) loudly proclaimed as hate, we have to wonder exactly who is hating who (see next day's post). On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that the jury is still out on many of the dogmas proclaimed loudly (and admittedly successfully) by the militant arm of the gay community. This is particularly true of the "nurture verses nature" question. Debate is, as I say, disallowed by the rhetoric of political correctness. These days, the thought police are everywhere.
The Gospel that we preach promises that “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed”. Indeed if it could be shown that the Son (Christ) could not set you free from your unwanted SSAs, then for us the Gospel would be shown to be false. It is however the testimony of many that He has, He does, and He will deliver to the uttermost. We do not pretend that it is easy, indeed it is the testimony of those who in various stages either have successfully or substantially dealt with, or are dealing with their unwanted SSAs and/or other unwanted aspects of human sexuality, that it is not. How can research claim to be unbiased when, as it so often does, it dismisses evidence like this, that suggests the very opposite of what particular researchers seem to want to prove.
A relevant question "Does victim status + political power = justice?" is discussed in next days post.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ready to answer with meekness and fear
As I write this morning I am conflicted in several ways. I am part of discussion group where we are discussing "hard questions". To be frank, it is gut wrenching for me. Behind the hard questions are more fundamental questions. Should Christians speak out on controversial issues? If so, what do we speak, and when and how do we speak it?
By and large we live in a polarized society, a society at war with itself. Injustice abounds on all sides, as does ignorance, coupled with rhetoric which gives overly simplistic answers to complex questions. I have discovered that the extremes of both sides of the “Christians - non- Christian” divide, can be as bigoted and biased as each other, with neither side making any attempt to listen. I do not regard it as insignificant that the Good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth! Unfortunately there is this tendency on all sides to stereotype and dismiss the "other side" attributing to them the shallow answers that the stereotype suggests. Stereotypical positions are not the only ones that can be held! I have been attacked for holding views that in fact and reality, I do not hold. But I was not believed when I denied that I held them. The problem was that when I was seen not to be 100% in agreement with what was being said, I was placed in a box that really does not represent my views.
But is it oh so easy to become consumed by the issues, to see the injustices, misunderstandings and misrepresentations on one side, but not the other. And who is immune to this? I understand well the Prophet Isaiah when he said “I am a man of unclean lips, and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5). I find it real easy to display humility to those who are humble, but the true test comes in the presence of unjust, untrue, derisive and dismissive accusations. On such occasions I need to be reminded of the admonition to “Always be ready to give an answer, to anyone who asks, with meekness and fear” (I Peter 3:15). Meekness and fear do not come naturally to a Yorkshire born Englishman (now Canadian). I need His help here to love others, and to treat them as I want to be treated, rather than as I am treated.
The pressure to be silent is enormous. But the issues are on my heart, and I do believe that we have been silent for far too long. On the other hand we Christians have often spoken out in self righteousness coupled with condemnation, and this is wrong, wrong, wrong. I am seeking as much as it within me to speak in the spirit of Jesus who addressing the woman caught in the very act of adultery said “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more (John 8:11)”. But I have also found that when one tries to take a middle and balance ground, one is usually “sat upon” by both side of the particular great divide you are seeking to address. Into this I hear Jesus again saying “Blessed are the peace makers”.
So to speak or not to speak then, that is the question. Or more precisely what to speak and what not to speak, and how to speak and how not to, and when to speak and when not to speak. These are the questions that are gut wrenching for me. You cannot be a peace maker if you remain silent, and you will not escape criticism if you do not. The verses that comfort me this morning are Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7B “There is a time and a season for all things, ... , a time to keep silence, and a time to speak”. Perhaps a modern translation would be a time to blog and a time not to blog. I have slowed down in the number of posts not because I do not have things on my heart, but because I do, but I am still wrestling with them. I do not want to do what I am accusing others of doing, giving pat and shallow answers to complex questions. I do not want to speak without compassion or without understanding both sides of the issues (Ephesians 4:15, Proverbs 4:7).
By and large we live in a polarized society, a society at war with itself. Injustice abounds on all sides, as does ignorance, coupled with rhetoric which gives overly simplistic answers to complex questions. I have discovered that the extremes of both sides of the “Christians - non- Christian” divide, can be as bigoted and biased as each other, with neither side making any attempt to listen. I do not regard it as insignificant that the Good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth! Unfortunately there is this tendency on all sides to stereotype and dismiss the "other side" attributing to them the shallow answers that the stereotype suggests. Stereotypical positions are not the only ones that can be held! I have been attacked for holding views that in fact and reality, I do not hold. But I was not believed when I denied that I held them. The problem was that when I was seen not to be 100% in agreement with what was being said, I was placed in a box that really does not represent my views.
But is it oh so easy to become consumed by the issues, to see the injustices, misunderstandings and misrepresentations on one side, but not the other. And who is immune to this? I understand well the Prophet Isaiah when he said “I am a man of unclean lips, and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5). I find it real easy to display humility to those who are humble, but the true test comes in the presence of unjust, untrue, derisive and dismissive accusations. On such occasions I need to be reminded of the admonition to “Always be ready to give an answer, to anyone who asks, with meekness and fear” (I Peter 3:15). Meekness and fear do not come naturally to a Yorkshire born Englishman (now Canadian). I need His help here to love others, and to treat them as I want to be treated, rather than as I am treated.
The pressure to be silent is enormous. But the issues are on my heart, and I do believe that we have been silent for far too long. On the other hand we Christians have often spoken out in self righteousness coupled with condemnation, and this is wrong, wrong, wrong. I am seeking as much as it within me to speak in the spirit of Jesus who addressing the woman caught in the very act of adultery said “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more (John 8:11)”. But I have also found that when one tries to take a middle and balance ground, one is usually “sat upon” by both side of the particular great divide you are seeking to address. Into this I hear Jesus again saying “Blessed are the peace makers”.
So to speak or not to speak then, that is the question. Or more precisely what to speak and what not to speak, and how to speak and how not to, and when to speak and when not to speak. These are the questions that are gut wrenching for me. You cannot be a peace maker if you remain silent, and you will not escape criticism if you do not. The verses that comfort me this morning are Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7B “There is a time and a season for all things, ... , a time to keep silence, and a time to speak”. Perhaps a modern translation would be a time to blog and a time not to blog. I have slowed down in the number of posts not because I do not have things on my heart, but because I do, but I am still wrestling with them. I do not want to do what I am accusing others of doing, giving pat and shallow answers to complex questions. I do not want to speak without compassion or without understanding both sides of the issues (Ephesians 4:15, Proverbs 4:7).
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The devil made me do it!
This is a famous saying by comedian Flip Wilson, as a joking way of excusing his behaviour. I remember a friend of mine's son using the same excuse. “Well then” his mum said, “we'll just have to spank the Devil out of you won't we!” I am aware I may well have opened a can or worms in terms of spanking kids, but if I may, I want to avoid that issue (at least here), and go to the point I am wanting to make. I recently watched a debate on youtube over “Does Satan exist”, and one of the protagonists was pew-pooing the idea of Satan claiming “We do not need a boogyman to blame it on, we just need to take responsibility for our actions”. There is of course a danger of using the Devil as an excuse, and certainly that was Eve's first recourse (Genesis 3:13) but the point of the story is that her excuse was rapidly taken for what it was, an excuse, and she and her husband had to suffer the consequences of their choices. So then the Scriptures teach the exact opposite of what this protagonist was saying. In particular, it teaches both that Satan exists and that we do have to take responsibility for our actions.
To imply that those who believe in Satan don't need to take responsibility for their actions, is to probably to confuse the temptation to do something, with yielding to that temptation. For the Christian, knowing that some of the temptation comes from outside of himself, can be helpful in dealing with the temptation. This is because he has been given weapons to help him wage this warfare (II Corinthians 10:3-5). Actually temptation comes from three sources, the World, the flesh (inner lusts) and the Devil. We are responsible for resisting temptation in all three areas, after all we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7) no matter where the temptation comes from.
But there is one area, again for the Christian, where that debate missed completely where it is helpful to know that Satan and his minions are real. I am thinking about the times when somebody does something to us and it really really hurts. I am of course thinking about the need to forgive. At such times it is helpful to read that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. In other words, the perpetrator is not the real enemy, the real enemy are the wicked spirits that are influencing him. When I see this, it becomes part of what I need to separate the sin from the sinner, to start to love the sinner but hate the sin. How else can we even start to obey Jesus' command to love our enemies? Knowing that the god of this world has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe, can help me to see them for what they are, deceived and influenced by their own enemy who, at least in the West, has convinced them that he does not exist.
The title of last day's blog was “You believe in Satan, give me a break”. I can tell you this much, he will not give you a break, and if you deny he exists (as in the West he seems to want you to), then he is likely influencing you a lot more than you have even begun to imagine. Again, he seems to have two strategies to get you to see him behind every rock and tree, or to believe he does not exist.
To imply that those who believe in Satan don't need to take responsibility for their actions, is to probably to confuse the temptation to do something, with yielding to that temptation. For the Christian, knowing that some of the temptation comes from outside of himself, can be helpful in dealing with the temptation. This is because he has been given weapons to help him wage this warfare (II Corinthians 10:3-5). Actually temptation comes from three sources, the World, the flesh (inner lusts) and the Devil. We are responsible for resisting temptation in all three areas, after all we reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7) no matter where the temptation comes from.
But there is one area, again for the Christian, where that debate missed completely where it is helpful to know that Satan and his minions are real. I am thinking about the times when somebody does something to us and it really really hurts. I am of course thinking about the need to forgive. At such times it is helpful to read that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. In other words, the perpetrator is not the real enemy, the real enemy are the wicked spirits that are influencing him. When I see this, it becomes part of what I need to separate the sin from the sinner, to start to love the sinner but hate the sin. How else can we even start to obey Jesus' command to love our enemies? Knowing that the god of this world has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe, can help me to see them for what they are, deceived and influenced by their own enemy who, at least in the West, has convinced them that he does not exist.
The title of last day's blog was “You believe in Satan, give me a break”. I can tell you this much, he will not give you a break, and if you deny he exists (as in the West he seems to want you to), then he is likely influencing you a lot more than you have even begun to imagine. Again, he seems to have two strategies to get you to see him behind every rock and tree, or to believe he does not exist.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
You believe in the Devil? Give me a break!'
Well Jesus believed in him. Perhaps if the one who is widely regarded as the best teacher the World has ever known believed in him, then just perhaps it may be worth checking out.
As I have argued in my early blogs, in the end all World views are unprovable positions of faith. I also contend that the Jewish-Christian Scriptures give the best explanation of reality, of what is. In the area under consideration, I am claiming that the Bible has the best explanation for the nature of man who can rise to the highest and noblest of heights, but also sink to the depths of the depths in depravity. The Biblical explanation for the first characteristic is that we are made in the image of God, for the second that we are (by default) fallen under the influence of the personification of all that is evil, of Satan, the Devil, the enemy of our souls.
According to the Bible, the devil has two strategies, deception and/or fascination. He is the Father of lies, so he seeks, for example to persuade us he does not exist, or he seeks to fascinate us with his power (and even to follow him!). My brothers and sisters from Africa know well about this power. They have no doubt that he exists. They know about daemon possession too, and they know the supernatural strength that often accompanies this phenomenon, so that it cannot be dismissed as psychosis. The pigs, in the story of the demon possessed man in the gospels, did not rush down the cliff into the sea because they had been told all their lives about daemons, and were thus brainwashed into thinking they were real (Mark 5:11-13).
Yes in places like Africa, they know that the Devil and his daemons exist. We in the West are more naïve, but I do not mean this in the way that most people mean it, they think we Christians are naïve to believe in him. But if you deny his existence, how do you explain the proliferation and power of evil in the World, the bottomless pit of the destructive side of human nature? How could anyone be so evil that he could order the murder of six million men women and children? And how could so many be willing to carry out his orders? Closer to home, have you ever wondered where some of your more obnoxious thoughts come from, you know those thoughts you would never tell another human being? What would people think?
Let's look a little closer at the Biblical view of what goes on inside our heads. All would agree that there are our own thoughts, and thoughts planted there by others. Sometimes we know when they are our thoughts, but sometimes we do not. Lets just stop here for a moment. I remember a conversation that went like this. “They call a collection of geese a gaggle. What do they call a collection of little girls?”. She answered “A giggle - a giggle of girls!” Who thought of that one? Well I did, and it was the teacher in me who “told her” asking the question in such a way as to suggest some connection (however vague) with the answer I was seeking. But I could not convince her it was my idea. Well I didn't try too hard, it was not that important. Perhaps you would see clearly that it was my idea, but what I want you to see is how easy it might be to fool people into thinking something you gave them is their own thoughts. And how much easier would it be if I had a machine that could plant thoughts into your mind and speak them in the first person? “Its all my fault”, “I wish he were dead”, “I would just like to ….etc., etc.” And how powerful would it be if the timing was right on, just after that “#@%^#” did it again!
The Scriptures tell us about two “voices” that we hear, the voice of the good Shepherd, and the voice of the thief, that is God's thoughts, and the thoughts planted there by the one the Scripture describes as the very enemy of our souls (John 10, Ephesians 6:12,13). Jesus calls him the thief because of his agenda, which is to kill and to steal and destroy. What if it is true? Would you not want to know so you can learn to discern to his thoughts from your own? And who is naïve, the Christian who is not ignorant of his devices (II Corinthians 2:11) or those who are? (More to come).
As I have argued in my early blogs, in the end all World views are unprovable positions of faith. I also contend that the Jewish-Christian Scriptures give the best explanation of reality, of what is. In the area under consideration, I am claiming that the Bible has the best explanation for the nature of man who can rise to the highest and noblest of heights, but also sink to the depths of the depths in depravity. The Biblical explanation for the first characteristic is that we are made in the image of God, for the second that we are (by default) fallen under the influence of the personification of all that is evil, of Satan, the Devil, the enemy of our souls.
According to the Bible, the devil has two strategies, deception and/or fascination. He is the Father of lies, so he seeks, for example to persuade us he does not exist, or he seeks to fascinate us with his power (and even to follow him!). My brothers and sisters from Africa know well about this power. They have no doubt that he exists. They know about daemon possession too, and they know the supernatural strength that often accompanies this phenomenon, so that it cannot be dismissed as psychosis. The pigs, in the story of the demon possessed man in the gospels, did not rush down the cliff into the sea because they had been told all their lives about daemons, and were thus brainwashed into thinking they were real (Mark 5:11-13).
Yes in places like Africa, they know that the Devil and his daemons exist. We in the West are more naïve, but I do not mean this in the way that most people mean it, they think we Christians are naïve to believe in him. But if you deny his existence, how do you explain the proliferation and power of evil in the World, the bottomless pit of the destructive side of human nature? How could anyone be so evil that he could order the murder of six million men women and children? And how could so many be willing to carry out his orders? Closer to home, have you ever wondered where some of your more obnoxious thoughts come from, you know those thoughts you would never tell another human being? What would people think?
Let's look a little closer at the Biblical view of what goes on inside our heads. All would agree that there are our own thoughts, and thoughts planted there by others. Sometimes we know when they are our thoughts, but sometimes we do not. Lets just stop here for a moment. I remember a conversation that went like this. “They call a collection of geese a gaggle. What do they call a collection of little girls?”. She answered “A giggle - a giggle of girls!” Who thought of that one? Well I did, and it was the teacher in me who “told her” asking the question in such a way as to suggest some connection (however vague) with the answer I was seeking. But I could not convince her it was my idea. Well I didn't try too hard, it was not that important. Perhaps you would see clearly that it was my idea, but what I want you to see is how easy it might be to fool people into thinking something you gave them is their own thoughts. And how much easier would it be if I had a machine that could plant thoughts into your mind and speak them in the first person? “Its all my fault”, “I wish he were dead”, “I would just like to ….etc., etc.” And how powerful would it be if the timing was right on, just after that “#@%^#” did it again!
The Scriptures tell us about two “voices” that we hear, the voice of the good Shepherd, and the voice of the thief, that is God's thoughts, and the thoughts planted there by the one the Scripture describes as the very enemy of our souls (John 10, Ephesians 6:12,13). Jesus calls him the thief because of his agenda, which is to kill and to steal and destroy. What if it is true? Would you not want to know so you can learn to discern to his thoughts from your own? And who is naïve, the Christian who is not ignorant of his devices (II Corinthians 2:11) or those who are? (More to come).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
