Psychology without faith is lame

This post is a reworked version of a post from August 2010.

Last day I was quoting Einstein as having said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I want to apply some of the things I was saying about the Faith/Science debate to the Psychology/Faith debate. As with Science, what is presented in Psychology is not always right, and because of this some Christians have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, rejecting all of Psychology period. But also, as with the Science faith debate, the main contradictions in the Psychology / Faith debate occur because the data is interpreted in terms of anti – theistic presuppositions. So again it is not Psychology or Faith (as some argue thinking it is possible to choose just one of the two) it is Psychology plus Faith. And again the question becomes “Which faith, an atheistic faith or a theistic faith?” Do we interpret the data (observed phenomena) in terms of our anti-theistic presupposition or do we choose a theistic interpretation? My view, as I argued earlier is that “The Bible has the best solutions for life” (March 2012).

Let's take guilt as an example. The existence of guilt is an accepted fact. Now some will say the problem is that Christians (and the like) are going round talking about sin, and laying guilt trips left right and center. The solution, in their mind, is to shoot all Christians. Christians on the other hand say that guilt (as opposed to shame see April 27 and May 10th post) is real, and that it comes as a result of doing something that we know deep down is objectively wrong. The solution, in this view, is to be forgiven by the only One (God) who has the right and the power to forgive, and who also had the ability to cleans us from all unrighteousness (see 1 John 1:9).

Having said this I need to admit that we Christians have not always spoken the truth in love, and this is wrong, abhorrent and it grieves my (and I believe His) heart. Presenting truth in judgmental self righteousness is wrong. On the other hand, if what we believe is true, then not to present the practical solutions the Bible gives to those who will listen would be unloving. We are told to be always ready to give an answer to the hope that is within us. We are not told to force our opinions on those who are not listening! So you see it depends which faith is true, atheism or theism. This is the real issue here!

As with all other branches of research/knowledge, we need to be aware that confidently expressed Psychological solutions based on the wisdom (and presuppositions) of man are not always correct. What is true, is that Psychological research can give insight in our understanding of human nature in general, and the nature of our psychosis in particular. Having said this, I firmly believe that any principles that Psychology discovers that work, can all be found in the Bible. And of course the Bible got there first. I have written more about this which again can be for for example in “The Bible has the best solutions for life” (March 2012).

There is indeed much that could be said. But to come to the title of this post, Psychology without faith is lame. I am of course referring here to the Christian faith. Part of what I mean is that understanding what is wrong, is not the same as fixing it. In addition, we may know perfectly well what we aught to do to fix things, but the wherewithal to do it is more often than not, missing. Nicky Gumbel (of Alpha fame) says it over and over “Yes, but how?” Paul, seeing the problem complains that the good things he wants to do he does not do, and the bad things, he does not want to do, these are the very things that he does. He goes on to ask who will deliver him from all this and answers for us “Jesus Christ the Lord” (Romans 7:19-25). He and we, need help. We cannot live the Christian life without God's help, and we only have access to this help through faith. We need His help to change, and we need Him to heal our hearts. He is the One who “heals all your diseases.” I know that it is foolishness to the World, but the testimony of so many of His people is that He helps those who are humble enough to ask for it. It is my testimony too. Taste and see that the Lord is good!



Let me acknowledge here, that there are those who do not name the name of Christ who do somehow manage to pull themselves up out of their addictions. They obviously have a will power much stronger than mine! Those I have spoken to though, tell me that they never seem to loose the craving, and that many times – there is a substitute addiction that replaces the one given up! The big problem here, is that even when I can change the behaviour, it does not heal the wounds that many times drove me to the behaviour in the first place. I personally need God to work in my desires, I need His healing in the hurts I have sustained and continue to sustain in life, and I need something from Him in the wherewithal to do it.



These helps are more available than we have begun to imagine. It only comes however as we are vitally connected with God through prayer, godly council and His Word. There are many helpful resources that God has raised up, and continues to raise up at this hour, in and for the increasingly sick society in which we live. Some of the keys He is unveiling in and through His Word can be found, for example in such works as “Healing Light” by Agnes Sanford, or in Leanne Payne's “Healing prayer”, or in “Healing of Memories” by David Seamands. Then there is “Transformation of the inner man” by the Sandfords (see Elijah house ministries), or the Restoring the Foundations work of the Kelstras (RTF), or the Theophostic (God's light) Prayer ministry, or Jack Frost's “Shiloh Place ministries”. All these and others, seek to bring the intervention of God into our recovery and healing as we co-labour and cooperate with Him in and through our ongoing and growing interpersonal relationship with Him.

Another way to say this is that Biblical recovery is to be found in partnership with Him in and through His Word. I have described it elsewhere as a trinity of helps, Bible help (the insight and inspiration we get from it), self help (the part we must play) and God's (the help the tangible leg up we get when we fully participate in this partnership I am describing). I want to quote and then say something about one key set of verses in this regard. The verses are Philippians 2:12, 13 which say “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

The “Therefore” connects these verses to the context. It is because Christ who could have taken advantage of His nature as God did not, but instead for our sake and our salvation became obedient in the extreme, that is even to death on the cross, it is for this reason we need to continue to work out etc., etc. If there is anything about us at all, and we had a friend on earth who did something even remotely like what Jesus did for us, we would likely move heaven and earth to live worthy of his sacrifice. We need to see the reality of the fact that Jesus is that friend and to live accordingly. This is the force of the “Therefore.”

The aspect of salvation being talked about here is the deliverance from the power of sin (as opposed to the penalty, or the presence of sin - see Bible Best Solutions II from March). We need to work this through in fear and trembling for many reasons for example because we are lazy, and we reap according to the measure we sow; or because the propaganda of the World too easily chips away at our confidence, and our nature is to drift away; or because the way is narrow and few find it – especially fullness of life in Him; or because we are busy, or wounded, or tired and easily discouraged. We need to be tenacious and stay focused on and connected to Him, in and through His World, in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayer (Acts 2:46,47).

But the good news is that when we do our part, He comes in and makes up for what we are unable to do. He is at work changing even our desires (He is at work in us “to will” to do “His good pleasure”) and also in the wherewithal to do what needs to be done (He is at work in us “to do His good pleasure” ). He knows when we are burnt out and need rest and at such times He calls us to Himself to find that rest (Matthew 11:28-30). And it's all found in relationship with Him. We are meant to experience His healing empowering presence. Psychology, even Biblically based Psychology (principles), cannot give us this. It is only found in His presence. In His presence there is joy and peace and hope and love and energy. Psychology cannot give us this either. Man made Psychology does not always work, Psychology that works is in the end Biblical Psychology, but even that without faith and trust in God is lame. Please don't let the propaganda and the groundless atheistic faith based ridicule of the World rob you of (take away) these treasures!

Science or faith, or science plus faith?

As I showed last day there is no such thing as a neutral position in these Faith/Science debates. This being the case the question in the title of today's post is easy to answer, it has to be science plus faith. The big question then, as I said last day is "Which faith?" To say it in a slightly different way, the question becomes "Do we interpret reality in terms of the faith of some type of naturalism, or in terms of some theistic faith?" I pointed to my February post which argues that "The Bible has the best explanation of reality.” But there is another issue here, and it is knowing (on both sides) that logically that our views are positions of faith, how do we proceed in the debate? In other words knowing it can only be Science plus faith how do we hold these two things in tension and still have a reasonable and respectful debate?

As a thinking Christian I have to say that there are time that those who say they are on my side make me want to cringe. It was always the case that not everything religious was good, take the Pharisees of Jesus day for example. It is also the case that many who belong to Him do not love Him with their whole mind. Too much of what is presented is defensive or shallow or just plain wrong. There is nothing new here either. I am thinking of dear old Galileo who was forced by the Church to withdraw his “theory” that the Earth went round the sun. It was said that this theory contradicted the Scripture but the Scriptures nowhere imply this. Mind you astronomers of his day also resisted his theory.

The saying of Einstein comes to mind “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." We don't know exactly what he meant by this, and it is too late to ask him :-). But there are two dangers here. The first is to believe that Science has arrived and that everything that Scientist say is 100% correct, the second to believe that we have a perfect understanding of the Bible. With regards to the former, there is an interesting book I could recommend “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. One of his main points is that the old guys have to die before their pet theories can be overthrown. Science progresses by two steps forward one step back. The advantage of being old is that you see this over and over even in the course of one short life here on earth. No Science has not arrived.

With regard to our understanding of Scripture there are two errors here too, both warned against in the Bible. In the first Paul warns against those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). The context is talking about those who suppress the fundamental truths concerning such things as sin, righteousness and judgement by their unrighteous deeds. In other words about the fundamentals of salvation. The context of the second is spoken to those who think they know it all and are “puffed up” in their knowledge. The saying is “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2). Christians need take a lesson from poor old Galileo, and learn to say “I don't know.” It is not that Galileo’s Science contradicted what the Scriptures say, it is that it contradicted what was read into the scriptures by the Church of the day. We need to learn not to go beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).

In short neither Science nor our understanding of Scripture is complete! Science may seem to contradict my understanding of Scripture or my understanding of the exact way that Scripture is inspired, and on the other hand, since there are times when Science is proved wrong, we are wise on both sides to put certain issues on hold. When we present ourselves as being able to answer every question (again on both sides), we are in grave danger of coming across as pat and shallow and frankly unbelievable and even arrogant. For the Christian we need to understand that this is not the essence of being an Ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthian 5:20). So is it Science or faith, or is it Science and faith? What I am saying is that it is the latter, that certain things need to be held in tension (for example Science and Faith), judgement deferred at times, and that both sides in the inevitable debates, need to learn a little humility!

The myth of neutrality

Have you ever wondered why two people of equal intelligence can come to diametrically opposite conclusions about a given issue. And whoever you listen to first can seem to have logic completely on their side. Recognizing this phenomenon the Bible tells us “He who states his case first seems right, until his rival comes and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). Why is this, what is going on here?

The phenomenon just described is nowhere more pronounced than the so called Science/Faith or Faith/Reason debates seen and heard for example on YouTube. I say 'so called' because it seems to me that even the titles of such debates are biased. What I mean is that the very titles themselves seem to pit Science or logic against faith, as if one could only choose either one or the other. But consider this, there are Scientists who are theists and there are scientists who are atheists. And some of the most amazing minds of all time have fallen into the former category including Einstein, Newton, Pascal etc.

In terms of propaganda, the humanist/atheist would have us believe that his or her approach is neutral, whereas the theist approach is based on pure faith. But the humanist/atheist is anything but neutral in his or her approach, and those who present themselves in this way are falling into the fallacy of the myth of neutrality. In fact the only one who has even the possibility of being neutral, is the one who says he or she does not know. But even here, because of the possibility of willing ignorance, neutrality is far from automatic. It is rare to find a person who is even truly open, let alone neutral!

There is much to say about these things, but let me say this: Many of the things that are presented as contradictions in the faith/science, faith/reason debates are based on the philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy contends that only natural explanations of the universe are valid explanations of what is. This is the position of many of the so called militant atheists, in particular it is Richard Dawkins' view. In an interview he was asked what evidence he had for his belief that only natural explanations of the universe are valid, and he had to admit that he had none. As the question itself implies, naturalism is in fact, a belief system. If you hold to this position you can only do so by faith, not by reason.

This is of course denied, and various attempts to validate this and similar positions by reason have been made. But as I pointed out in my blog post “Truth, Bible, Propaganda” February 2011, it is a Mathematical theorem that all such attempts must end up in circular reasoning. The theorem in question is Goedel's incompleteness theorem which essentially says that any non-trivial system cannot verify itself. In particular not only is there no rational verification of the (rational) naturalistic view, but such an explanation cannot even possibly exist! This is because the existence of such an explanation would contradict Goedel's theorem. It follows naturally that every World view (and in particular the naturalistic World view) if it is held to be true, is held to be true by faith not by reason. To say this in terms of the title of the post, there is no World view that is neutral, every World view has an underlying unprovable presupposition that when held reflects the bias of the one holding it. I say more in the two posts "Is Reason is the unique pathway to knowledge?" and "I will not believe in, or accept anything that cannot be verified by one of the five senses!" both posts in July 2012.

That neutrality is a myth does not seem to be well known or understood. As a result many even highly intelligent people seem have no idea that their logic is based on (usually hidden) unprovable presuppositions. Perhaps the biggest challenge for us Christian in debate, is to uncover exactly what are the underlying presuppositions/World views that drive the logic of the one with whom we are in dialogue. The point is that these presuppositions are often hidden, many times even from the one with whom we are debating! Even harder is to discover what are the influences that lie behind the formation of that persons World view. Atheists are fond of attributing theistic world views to geography. I have heard Richard Dawkins say “If you were born in India you would be Hindu.” But by that logic Dawkins would be a Christian. Of course he would reply that he is not a Christian because he is a thinking rational human being (implying that theists are not). Does he think that he is the only one who approaches the issues intelligently? Certainly there are many who do simply adopt the faith of the culture of their environment, but to dismiss it all this way can hardly be described as neutral, and it may lack a certain humility.

To sum all this up let me simply repeat that neutrality is a myth. This being the case, those who think that they are completely neutral and that their position is based solely on rationality, are self deceived. Lack of neutrality of course leads far too easily to bias. But surely the beginning of not being biased is to recognize that neutrality is indeed a myth, and then to try and take ones own bias into account in our thinking and decision making. As I have argued earlier the question then becomes “which view best reflects reality?” (see the series of posts starting with “The Bible has the best explanation of reality” February 2012). I will want to talk later about the fact the arguments discuss here apply also to the concept of moral neutrality, and then to refer back to "The Bible has the best solutions for life" (March 2012).

I thought we weren't supposed to judge!

I dealt earlier with the topic of the existence of right and wrong and truth. We might say that we believe the propaganda that all truth is relative, but nobody can live as if that were true. If somebody short changes you at the supermarket, you will not likely accept their explanation that for him (her) 10 - 2 = 4! You will want and probably demand, your $8. The next line of defense in this and other scenarios will likely be “You're judging me, and we are not supposed to judge right?” Well you can even quote scripture to that end “Jude not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). But are we necessarily judging (in the sense that Jesus means here) when we believe (and/or say) that something is wrong?

In believing that something is wrong we can certainly be, and many are, judgmental. But being judgmental has more to do with attitude than with truth. One dictionary defines “judgmental” as having or displaying an overly critical point of view. Another talks about harsh judgement. A judgmental attitude frequently carries overtures of condemnation and can be accompanied by traces (or more) of self righteousness. But this is not the same as simply thinking or stating an opinion that this or that, is wrong. A parent can correct a child without being judgmental, harsh or overly critical. The statement “Johnny it is wrong to take something that does not belong to you,” can be spoken in love, with the best interest of the child at heart. Why would this necessarily be wrong if spoken to an adult?

I like to distinguish between being judgmental and being discerning. I can discern that something is wrong without being judgmental. I understand that the flesh is weak, that we are creatures of passion. I understand how easily a person can fall into adultery, but I am not willing to say that adultery is not wrong. This is surely what Jesus was doing when he spoke to the woman caught in the very act of adultery saying to her “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (see John 8:11 and context).

It is true that the Jesus tells us not to judge (Matthew 7:1). However in a different context, He also tells us “judge with righteous judgment.” The context of this quotation makes is clear that what He is saying is that our judgement is to be judgment, as opposed to judging by mere appearance (John 7:24). It is the very same word in the Greek, that is used in both of these verses. However, rather than go away saying that the Bible contradicts itself, understand that Jesus is telling us in the first verse not to be judgmental, and in the second that if and when we do judge, we are to do so with righteous judgement. As in English, the same word can have different shades of meaning that can be determined by the context.

So what then is righteous judgement? Is it not at least partially approving things that are excellent (Philippians 1:10) and discerning those things that are not? The meaning is clarified somewhat in Galatians 6:1 where we are told “if anyone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” How can we restore such a one, if we are not allowed to judge (i.e. discern) that they are “caught in a sin” in the first place? But that we are not to be judgmental, is brought out by the last part of the verse which adds “But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” A non-judgmental attitude and a humble and gentle spirit go hand in hand. On the other hand, again as this verse implies, being non-judgmental does not mean being without opinion, or spineless or indifferent. Jesus was none of these things when He gave His seven fold “Woe”s to the Scribes and Pharisees calling them hypocrites (Matthew 23:13-29).

So the command alluded to in the title from Matthew 7:1 is not a command to cast away discernment, nor is it a command to shut our mouths period. It is to make sure that when we judge (discern right from wrong) we are to do so without an overly critical spirit, without harshness or condemnation, and without self righteousness. On the positive side we are indeed to judge (discern) right from wrong, but we are to do so only with righteous and just discernment, and in a gentle, humble and non-judgmental spirit!

Tolerance, Cheeks and Tunics

We live in a polarized society, you might even say there is a war going on between the secular and the sacred. By and large it is a propaganda war, with the media heavily biased in favour of the secular. As in most wars there are atrocities on both sides. In a previous post I mentioned the militants in the marketing of evil. On the other hand, much as it grieves me to admit it, not everything that call itself Christian is Christ like. Hypocrisy is rife in both extremes, but one suspects that the depths of Hell are reserved for the religious hypocrite.

What is sure is that Christ directed His most scathing comments at those who claimed to know (and love) God but who propagate and practice hate and bigotry (Matthew 23:13). Christ told us to love our enemies, and as they drove cruel spikes through His hands and feet asked the Father to forgive them. Perhaps He is the only one who always practiced what He preached. He taught us to turn the other cheek, and if our tunic is taken from us, to give our coat too (Matthew 5:39, 40). To be Christ like is to follow these teaching. May the Lord have mercy on us all as we must all fail here at times. On the other hand, there is a (diminished) secular version of all this. It's called tolerance. Now tolerance is surly a good thing, but the version of it demanded by the doctrine of political correctness is a perverted tolerance.

Tolerance has been defined as: 'a fair, objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry'. In terms of this definition, Jesus was surely tolerant. But as noted above this does not mean He never criticized others. Jesus judged with righteous judgement and His objective judgement was that the Pharisees were hypocrites. Jesus did not keep His opinions to Himself lest they offend others, nor did this tolerance keep Him from making His strong opinions known to others.

On the other hand, the tolerance advocated by the doctrine of political correctness disallows all of these things. I mentioned previously the strategy of jamming which has to do with disallowing or shouting down any dissenting view. Part of the technique employed here has been to label all disagreement as intolerance, hate or phobia. Hypocritically though this form of “tolerance” preachers intolerance to all who dare to express an opinion that goes against it. What kind of tolerance is this that will tolerate only those opinions with which it agrees? It is as I say a hypocritical and perverted form of tolerance which, in the end, is not tolerance at all!

Everybody's is doing it!

First of all no matter what “it” is, it's not true, “everybody” covers far too much ground. Perhaps the thing on your heart is widespread, but in Biblical terms as the Lord tells Elijah “I have reserve seven thousand in Israel― all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal” (1 Kings 19:18). Elijah was feeling sorry for himself and feeling that he was the only one who was faithful, but God had kept seven thousand who would not go along with the crowd and worship Baal. Similarly in this day, God has kept those who are faithful to Him and to His commandments. It may look like “Everybody's doing it,” but it's not true, not everybody is conformed to the World (Romans 12:2).

Second of all even if it were true, “everybody doing it” it would not make it right, nor would it mean that the choices being made promote a healthy life. When I was growing up “everybody” smoked, and we are still paying the grim reaper for the many related incidents of lung disease. Following the crowd many times does not make for health, wholeness, joy peace or prosperity. Certainly some cultures are more healthy than others but a 51% morality is not God's way, nor does it bring in holiness, righteousness or justice. At one stage (perhaps it still is) it was widely held that education promoted maturity and goodness, that it was ignorance that promoted evil. I used to think that, that is until I became a graduate student. It was here that I learned that the Educated can be even nastier than the poor and uneducated. The only real difference was that Educated nastiness is more subtle, more hidden and more insidious. The fact of the matter is that human nature has changed very little over the centuries of recorded History. Human nature still embraces might as right, people are still basically selfish, and the default still seems to be to go wrong.

We can put a man on the moon, but we still turn a blind eye to poverty and oppression. If you doubt any of this consider that we have enough to feed the world. What is missing is the will to do it, both the collective political, and the individual will. Though some will respond to information about the plight of the hungry, most of us get tired because “we gave last year.” The World is filled with political injustice and we do intervene, but we intervene where it is expedient to do so (for example to protect our supply of oil), and we refuse to interceded where it it not. Might does not make right, political power does not bring justice. Democracy where the outcome is determined by the majority is better than the alternatives, but it only works where there is righteousness and justice. Democracy has worked in the West because whether we acknowledge it or not, it is based on Judeo-Christian values, the value of the individual, the value or rights and freedom, of freedom of speech and religion. But these values increasingly are being eroded by the “everybodys” of our society.

Jesus has a lot to say about the views and values and behaviours of the majority. He tells us “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13,14). To put it in modern jargon He is saying that the default is destruction. Don't take my word for this, look at where our godlessness is taking us. Already several countries have decriminalized incest, and what about euthanasia? In what way is this different from ethnic cleansing and the Nazi programmes to eliminate undesirables? As many philosophers have said “Without God all is permissible”. This is not to say there are not moral atheists. But there is no sound basis in atheism for morality, for if there is no God who is to say that this or that is wrong? A 51% morality may be broad minded, but it is a shifting sand and it is leading us to destruction. Perhaps everybody is doing it, but if so are we not in danger of being like so many sheep prepared for the slaughter (Jeremiah 12:1-3)?

Propaganda or provision and protection

If, as we (and Jesus) claim, the Bible is true, then much of what the World is telling us is not true. But the problems is that so much of it feels right. As always the Bible is aware of these things. In Proverbs 16:25, we read “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” Actually the very same proverb with the exact same wording occurs twice, here and in Proverbs 14:12. When something is repeated in the Bible is it there to emphasize its importance. A thing may seem right or feel right, but feels and seems right, is not the same as is right, and when it is not, it always has negative consequences, it produces (spiritual) death rather than (abundant) life

We might resist admitting that, and we seem to have this capacity to far too easily fool ourselves. Verse 13 of Proverbs 14 in the Message continues the thought of the previous verse “Sure, those people appear to be having a good time, but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.” The NIV renders this “Even in laughter the heart may ache, and joy may end in grief.” I know in the process of coming to the Lord, this verse described me exactly. I wore a mask of happiness, but I was dying inside. Many of us have to learn the hard way that God's ways are best, I know I did. But I also know that it was the heartache that lead me to reconsider my way of life, that and that His Spirit was wooing me.

And when we are in the midst of it all, in denial and rationalization, we are often desperate to justify ourselves. So much so, that in our justification we want others not only to agree with us, but we want to drag them into our erroneous ways. The Bible knows us here too, as it tells that those who do such rebellious things know deep down that they are deserving of God's judgement, nevertheless they approve of others who do them (Romans 1:32).

There are three influences the Scriptures tell us that lead us away from truth and righteousness and hence from the abundant life. They are the World the flesh (sinful nature) and the Devil (Ephesians 2:2-3a). Under these influences good and evil are turned on their head. Three thousand years ago the Lord warned Israel “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20), so none of this is new. Nor is the militancy with which these things are preached. And let's make no mistake about it, “preached” is the operative word. The tyranny of political correctness disallows any and all dissent from the teaching of the "new" morality. Those who disagree are called hatemongers, but one has to wonder exactly who is hating who? Two thousand years ago Jesus made it clear that the World would hate those who live for Him (John 17:14; 3:19).

And the evidence of what I am saying is all around us. We see it in the systematic, powerful, well funded and well organized lobby intent on tearing down the values and beliefs of our Judeo-Christain culture. David Kupelian in his book “The marketing of evil”, documents some of the human resources that have been deliberately committed to this agenda. If we define evil as anything that is opposed to life and wholeness, then we can understand one reviewer of Kupelian's book who wrote “From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice', the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive – with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines light on it all”.



In particular Kupelian exposes the Harvard marketing strategy behind some of the propaganda that has turned our morals upside down in North America over the past several decades. The three strategies are desensitization, jamming and conversion. Hitler knew if you kept telling even the biggest lie over and over and over, people would sooner or later start to believe it. This is desensitization, flooding the “market” with the lie, until people accept it. We see it over and over in the media as people of faith are almost always depicted as narrow minded hypocrites. Jamming has to do with disallowing or shouting down any view that is contrary to the one you wish to espouse. Try saying something on open line programs that is not considered to be politically correct, and you will see what I mean. The lag time on these “live performances” allow you to be cut off on the air before you even utter the first word. Conversion has to do exactly with what Isaiah was talking about above reversing good and bad, truth and error. In particular what was formerly thought to be evil is now promoted as good and wholesome and normal, and as throwing off the so called chains of Biblical morality. But what we are being sold is not wholesome and good and normal, it is destructive. We are only starting to reap what we have sown in these “choices” that we are making, and we may need to go a lot further down the road to decline before we are willing to re-examine where we are going.

And decline is where we are going. The “inconvenient truths” we need to lean from the school of hard knocks are inconvenient indeed. Into all of this God speaks his “no's,” And He does it in love, for He says these things for our provision and for our protection. More to come!

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, because God does it all for you!

I ended last day's post by saying that we need help, and that it is available. The tile of today's post is a misquote from Philippians 2:12,13, but it highlights what could easily be seen as a contradiction. The exact quote is “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure”. The apparent contradiction comes from wondering that if God works in both our desires “to will,” and the wherewithal “to do,” why would we need to be concerned at all, let alone be in fear and tremble because we might get it wrong? But it's not an all or nothing thing, as in He does it all and I do nothing. It's all about partnership with God. The good news is that it is not all up to me. The point is that when I do my part, then He makes up for what I am not (in my current stage) able to do for myself. However, He will not do His part in my recovery if I am not willing to do mine.

And I do mean recovery, it is not just about being good, thought I am not saying that is not important. In order to explain let me say that the word 'salvation' in this quotation is a very broad Biblical term. It has been described as having three aspects: deliverance from the penalty of our sin, the ongoing deliverance from the power of sin (often called sanctification) and finally the future deliverance from the very presence of sin (glorification) when we die or Jesus returns. In some circles the word salvation is used only for the first of these three aspects, but this is to fail to understand the breadth of the word, and also of what God wants to do in our lives.

Sadly many Christian never fully enter into the second aspect of salvation mentioned in this verse. In particular many do not even see the need to deal with things in their past that hinder them. Another reason I use the word recovery is because I think that what the secular word means contains much of what true sanctification is all about. But I want to use the word recovery in a deeper way than in the secular version, I want to say that sanctification rightly understood, is a Biblically based recovery. And as I said last day, this does involve doing the right things, making good choices (Biblical righteousness), but it also, as the meat of today's verse implies, it also involves very practical help from God in the process, and it involves healing. It is good news for me that God works in my desires, because many times I have been double minded about things. It is also good news that I am not left alone in my struggles and that there also is healing in the offing. Without His help we are more likely to give up, and without healing, the changes I make are less likely to stick even if I do experience breakthrough. Biblically based recovery (sanctification) is a lot more than just change of behaviour!

The three aspects of sanctification mentioned here are not available in secular recovery. For instance, many times we know perfectly well what we need to do, but the doing of it can be an insurmountable obstacle. Today's quotation promises that when we do our part, God will work firstly in our desires and secondly in the wherewithal, that is the strength, the wisdom etc., to do what needs to be done. It's called Grace. The third element is healing. We are told (Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18-21) that Jesus was sent to heal the broken hearted. Jesus is the one who heals. Biblical inner healing ministries are ripe with testimonies of people set free from their past by dramatic encounters with the living God. The movement I am most familiar with is the “Restoring the foundations ministry.” I have in and through training received significant healing of my own hart issues. The secular version of healing that “time heals all” is in fact a lie. In time we may learn to live with our pain, but it does not restore the emotional mental and/or psychological damage done in the happenstances of life. We need healing, I do!

But I need to say something about the fear and trembling mentioned in our main quotation. Many times we can make the change be healed and begin to walk in victory only to find in a moment of weakness that we have reverted to our habit, or to our old ways. God helps us in amazing ways, but we can then begin to take the credit for what He has done. The Scripture warns us that pride comes before the fall, and that he who thinks he stands should take care lest he fall (Proverbs 16:18, 1 Corinthians 10:12). So we need to work these things through in fear and trembling because it is far too easy to drift away, and as the writer to the Hebrews asks “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (Hebrews 2:1-3). If we are not careful we can find ourselves flopping back and forth between over confidence and the feeling that we have to do it all ourselves. The Lord does not want us striving, but rather He wants us to find our rest, our joy, our hope, our peace and sufficiency in Him. As I keep saying, it's all about our ongoing relationship with Him!

If you plant carrots you don't get turnip

In the current (Youtube) debates about the existence of God, one of the arguments on the “God side” is that the universe is a law abiding, life supporting and rationally accessible universe. Part of what this means is that through experiment and reason we can discover physical laws which the universe obeys. The law of gravity is one example as are Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. What is not quite so obvious is that there are moral or spiritual laws as well. Now you cannot break the law of gravity. If you step off the roof of a building you will not break the law of gravity, it will break you.

It's the same with Spiritual Laws, the only difference is that the effects of trying to break spiritual laws are not quite so immediate as with the law of gravity. Consider what Jesus tells us in John 8:34. He says “He who sins is the slave of sin.” For verification you have only to look to those (or perhaps even yourself) who are trapped in addictions. Secular versions of this not wanting to admit that some things are wrong, will talk about “poor choices having consequences.” But it goes much further than this. The fact of the matter is that when we make such “poor choices” we develop appetites that demand to be satisfied, and we become slaves to these appetites. This is what Paul means when he says of some, that their appetites are their god (Philippians 3:9 NASB). Though it includes our appetites for food it has a much wider application to our appetites for many things. Of course they don't literally worship their appetites, but the point is that they obey their appetites rather than God. When their appetites say jump, they jump! Self control is a virtue and the opposite lack of self control is a sin to which we far too easily become enslaved.

The spiritual law to which the title of this post alludes is the law of sowing and reaping. The verse that alludes to this principle (law) reads “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7,8). Let's unpack this.

The Bible tells us not to be deceived, many are. How many trapped in addiction to alcohol somehow or other think that they will one day be able to control their habit. The Bible talks about the deceitfulness of sin, of how when we allow our appetites to rule our lives we get hardened to them, and then finish up in denial or in making excuses. So don't be deceived, God cannot be duped, He has set this law of sowing and reaping into effect and it cannot be broken. Indeed if we try to break it, as with the law of gravity it will break us. One person put it this way, if you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got. We know full well that if we plant carrots we will not get turnip, what on earth leads us to think things will get better if we keep doing what we have always done? Into all of this the Bible tells us “do not be deceived.” As I said above, many are!

And one of the ways that we deceive ourselves is to play the blame game. How many alcoholics blame others for their drinking “It's your fault, if you hadn't …..” In fact the blame game is as old as Adam and Eve themselves. When God asks Adam if he had eaten of the forbidden fruit, his reply starts with “The woman You gave me ..” (Genesis 3:12). In other words it's the woman's fault, and in fact it's Your fault too God, You are the one who gave her to me! But we have to stop blaming others for everything that goes wrong. A lot of the mess we are in is because of the bad choices we made. Bad choices produce bad fruit, and we are responsible for the choices we make. Our choices to do what God says is wrong, have consequences, and if we chose to go against what He says we will reap the consequences. God's ways are best. When He says no, it is not for no reason, it is for our provision and protection. God's ways are not only good and right and proper, they are smart!

This law of sowing and reaping works both negatively and positively When we sow the positive we will reap good fruit. In fact Jesus tells us that with the same measure that we give, it will be measured back to us. If we sow generously and positively we will receive “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over” (Luke 6:38). This “multiplication effect” is in fact contained within the analogy. If you plant one potato you don't just get one potato back, you get lots. Of course as in the natural, this is not immediate like the law of gravity. It takes time to produce fruit. But assuredly the negative things we sow will eventually come bouncing back in abundance to haunt us, and the positive things to fully bless us. And when we continue to sow, the consequences both positive and negative just keep growing and growing and growing. I blogged earlier about “Do you want to be made whole,” and suggested that most of us don't change until the pain of getting stuck becomes grater than the pain and fear of change. In my own experience I know that I had to come to the place where I was sick of my sin, sick of my own negativity, sick of reaping what I finally had to admit was at least in part due to what I had sown. How about you? “Are we there yet mummy?”

Carrots and turnip II. Don't we also reap what others have sown?

(the law of sowing and reaping continued)

Indeed we do! Which one of us has not been hurt by the wrong others have done to us, either directly or indirectly? Now I do not in any way want to minimize the hurt and pain that these things bring. But the problem is that we get imprisoned by the past, seemingly unable to get past what others (or even you yourself) have done. And we don't need to. I have a post “Don't get mad, get even and poison yourself and those you love.” Many of us are trapped by our resentments or bitterness or consumed with plans to get even. It is far too easy to fall into a victim mentality where we blame others for everything that goes wrong in our lives. But how, you might ask, can we not be affected by the past? How can we stop the pain? How can we get past what they did to us?

I don't pretend the answer is easy, but it is simple “Forgive your abuser.” If you want to be free of his or her ongoing influence in your life, this is exactly what you need to do. For some, being told to forgive your abuser can seem worse abuse than the abuse itself. “Why should I let him off?” you might ask. Well first of all forgiving a person is not letting them off, it is releasing God to be at work in their lives to deal with it. “'Vengeance is mine' says the Lord, 'I will repay'” (Romans 12:19). It takes faith of course to trust God that He will be just in dealing with your abuser. And like an older child who insists in taking over from the parent, God needs to deal with us first before He can deal with the abuser. And forgiving is not the same as saying that what they did does not matter, or that it was not wrong. Nor is it giving permission to do it again. What forgiving does is to break the tie between them and us, and between our past and the present. We need to forgive mostly for our own sakes, to release us from all the negativity. When we don't forgive, we find ourselves filled with ongoing anger and resentment and pain. In order to find release we need to give our abusers a gift they do not deserve, the gift of forgiveness.

The Christian of course is commanded to forgive, and this command is related to the fact that God has forgiven us (Matthew 6:12ff). Jesus tells the parable of the unmerciful servant where a certain servant was forgiven a huge debt by his master, but then demanded a fellow servant pay him in full for a much lesser debt (Matthew 18:22ff). He is speaking of the ways we (knowingly or unknowingly) have sinned against God and that in the end the worst that is done to us is small, compared with the offense we cause God. You have to see it to understand.

But there is also a deeper principle here and that is that more often than not we make wrong responses to the wrong done to us (the main response to sin is to sin in return). When we turn to bitterness and grumbling and complaint and gossip and the like, we ourselves are sowing things that we will also reap. If we sow unforgiveness we will reap unforgiveness (Matthew 6:15). If we grumble and spread discontent it will come back on us. The Bible tells us “Good sense makes a man restrain his anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19:11). In the same context as the vengeance passage quoted above, Paul tells us “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). We do ourselves no good if we allow ourselves to drop to the level of those who abuse us, for in doing so, in addition to the abuse suffered, we reap what we sow in our responses. Anger, wrath and negativity breed and multiply, they produce neither the righteousness of God, nor the abundant life (James 1:20; John 10:10). A godly response to the wrong done therefore is, as last day, not only good and right and proper, it too is smart! We do of course need His help, and it is available.

Take away guilt and shame II. Take away Shame

In these posts I am distinguishing between guilt and shame as follows: Guilt says “I've done something wrong, I've made a mistake, what I did was not good.” Shame, on the other hand says “ there is something wrong with me, I am a mistake, I am no good.” It should be clear that guilt and shame are related, and in fact guilt can easily turn into shame. However shame can be there even when there is no sin, that is we can feel shame even when we have done nothing wrong. So we feel shame when we have suffered physical or sexual abuse, we feel shame when we are rejected or abandoned, we feel shame when we are put down or humiliated in some way. We feel shame when our parents divorce, or because of some family secret we must keep. We feel shame when we do not measure up to societies or other people's expectations. We feel shame when we have outrageous and unacceptable thoughts. “If anyone ever found out what goes on in my head, I would die of embarrassment!” Actually as long as I don't embrace them, I can blame such thoughts on the Devil and take authority over them (2 Corinthians 10:4,5).

The Book that knows us (the Bible) speaks in multiple places about being covered with shame. In Psalm 44:15 David says “I live in disgrace (dishonour) all day long, and my face is covered with shame.” Note that this level of shame is not just some transitory thing, it is “all day long,” and it covers, as in overwhelms and thus becomes the only “visible” thing. Elsewhere it is not just the face that is covered, but the whole body. For example in Psalm 109:29 the Psalmist talks about being “clothed in shame.” There are times (and for some it is 24/7) that shame debilitates us, keeps us hidden, isolated and from living a fully functional life. It manifests itself many times in self defeating negative self talk: “I am a looser,” “nobody will ever accept me for who I am,” “there is no point in even trying, I am, always was and always will be, a failure,” etc., etc., etc.

Before the fall in Genesis 2:25 we read that Adam and Eve were naked but they were not ashamed. In fact in a perfect world we would feel no shame. After the fall (chapter 3) Adam tells God “I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Genesis 3:10). Nakedness in this story is not just about physical nakedness, it is about spiritual nakedness, the feelings of being open and vulnerable and exposed. In a world where people make poor and wrong choices, being open and vulnerable and exposed no longer feels safe. As with Adam and Eve, hiding is a very common response to feelings of both guilt and shame, but it is not the only one. In Jeremiah 3:3 we read “you have the brazen look of a prostitute; you refuse to blush with shame.” I call this shamelessness, and we can think of this way of dealing with shame as either denial or a refusal to be shamed. Actually there are two types of shamelessness, there is the shamelessness of the prostitute, and then there is the shamelessness of the Pharisee, the false pride of self righteousness which says “I have nothing to be ashamed of.” But whether we hide our shame, act shameless, as if we do not care, or if we deny it's existence, shame remains.

Many of us were born into shame based families and/or shame based communities, and we live our lives out of them. The characteristics of shame based systems include rigid (often unwritten and unspoken) rules, emotional unavailability and invalidation, and strong pressure to conform. The diabolical thing about all of this (and I mean that quite literally) is that when we are shame based, we are usually attracted to shame based groups, systems and/or partners. Part of this seems to be that such systems are emotional familiar, and may have the appearance of being safe (the devil we know!). I say diabolical, you know as in 'of the Devil'. He wants to use these things to keep us stuck and ultimately to destroy us. So we even find ourselves in shame based churches where we wear masks to hide from each other and often from ourselves. In some places we judge a sermon by how bad it makes us feel. If we don't come out feeling guilty, it was not a good sermon! Some of our Hymnology is also shame based. Even John Newton's famous “Amazing grace” has traces of this, as he thinks of himself as a “wretch like me” (present tense). Certainly John needed to repent of the things that he did, and I have no doubt that the things that he did made him feel wretched, but we must not take up “wretch” or “worm” as our identity. These things have a show of humility, but it is a false humility, and is ultimately undermining and destructive.

All of these things (denying, hiding or adopting shame and worthlessness as our identity) are attempts to deal our shame, and they are all inadequate. In a sense every inadequate way of dealing with shame is an attempt to hide. Even the shamelessness of the prostitute is a way of hiding from shame. And shame has this in common with guilt, hiding it does not take it away, it does not bring healing. But if all of these covering of shame are inadequate (and they are) then what exactly is an adequate covering? What is it that can take away my shame?

Since shame has to do with taking on a false identity, it's cure is to assume ones true identity. For the Christian this is first and foremost about being a child of God. Heidi Baker of Iris Ministries tells moving stories of when the kids they take off the street really start to get this, it changes them from acting little better than animals to functioning and secure children knowing they are loved. Guilt and shame have this in common, both are ultimately taken away through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In the case of guilt the cross takes away our sin, in the case of shame the cross allows God to give us a new identity, the spirit of adoption where we cry out Abba (Daddy) God (Romans 8:14, 15). The cure for shame then is to find our true identity in relationship to Him (adoption / friendship etc. John 15:15). This relationship that covers our shame is pictured in both the Old and the New Testaments.

In that lovely picture of redemption from abandonment in Ezekiel 16 we read '“I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you and you became mine' says the Lord GOD” (verse 8). In Isaiah 54:1 the barren woman is told to sing for “more are the children of the desolate (barren) woman than of her who has a husband.” In verse 4 she is told “Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.” The reason for all this is given in verse 5 it is because “your Maker is your husband - the LORD Almighty is his name.”

Notice in each case that the shame is taken away in and through relationship (covenant / marriage etc.) with God. In other words the removal of shame is all about the compensation that comes from an intimate personal relationship with God. He makes a covenant with the barren woman, He becomes a husband to the widow, and when she enters fully into this in the way that she is intended to do, she is able to sing (Isaiah 54:1). Elsewhere God tells us that He is a father to the fatherless (Psalm 68:5), and here again is the picture of Abba – a loving daddy to a small child (see also Romans 8:15). This relationship with God is intended to be healing, comforting and very very real. The reality and depth of it will result in the widow and the barren woman “forgetting the shame of her youth”. It is not second best compensation, it is a relationship that offers fullness of joy. In Psalm 34:5 we read “Those who look to him are radiant; their faces are never covered with shame.” God tells Abraham in the shame of his childlessness “I am your exceedingly great reward” (Genesis 15:1).

Jesus, in Luke 4:18,19 claims Isaiah 61 as His mandate for ministry. In particular He is telling us that He was sent to heal the broken hearted (Isaiah 61:1). Part of this is that “Instead of your shame you shall have double honour” (verse 7), and we will “greatly rejoice in the Lord”, because “He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness” (verse 10). So the robe of righteousness (redemption, salvation, conversion) covers not only our guilt (last day) it covers our shame, it brings healing, and it is all found in relationship with Him.

And it is because the taking away of our shame is found in relationship, that there is another difference between between guilt and shame. It is this, our guilt is automatically taken away at the point of salvation. At that point our names are written in the book of life. But the healing and the taking away of our shame is not automatic. It is when we know who we are in Him, that we will no longer be covered in shame. For those covered in shame this may take time even when we work hard at it. In the end it is unbelief that hinders us. We feel we are not worthy and we disqualify ourselves. We tell ourselves “God loves others but not me.” We need to confess this unbelief as sin and turn away from it. We need to spend time with Him in His Word and in prayer (John8:31,32). We need to abide in Him (John15:5), and part of the fruit this bears will be the confidence that we are His and loved by Him. And we need with Jacob of old to get into His presence and tell Him “I will not let You go until you bless me” (Genesis 32:26). We need to tell Him that we will not let Him go until we experience that He is our exceedingly great reward. I don't know about you, but I need to feel it! When we know who we are in Him, it begins to matter less and less what others think about us, and when this happens our shame is taken away indeed.

Godly sorrow, repentance and joy, or worldly sorrow and death.

I was saying last day that there are three ways of dealings with our guilt, but only one is effective (to be forgiven). There is book I own but have never fully read. In a sense I don't need to because the title says it all “Repentance, the joy filled life.” It kind of works like this: If you can think of a happily married couple who have learned to fight fair (not too much, not too little, and always with respect). Then one day they face the biggest challenge of their marriage, and for several days are at loggerheads not knowing even if the marriage will survive. Then on the sixth day, they both have a breakthrough where they suddenly both see point of view of the other person, see that they were both wrong, and in the seeing are sorry for their part in it all. They weep in each other's arms and truly mean that they will try harder. All this leads to reconciliation and joy. Nobody likes fighting (well most don't), but when you fight fair and are able to admit your faults, making up is wonderful, it brings such joy!

So where am I going with this? It seems to me that this kind of making up is the closest we can come on earth to give us a picture of the joy that reconciliation of the sinner with God brings to both God and the sinner. The full text of the verse in the title of the post is “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death” (2 Corinthians 7:10). The picture of the sorrow of the married couple just before making up is perhaps the closest we can come to on earth to the “godly sorrow that leads to repentance.” And (again with the couple) when this is two sided, there are indeed no regrets. The renewed fellowship is a cause for rejoicing, and the mended relationship is something that both sides want to maintain and to grow. Without this mutual submission and confession, there is too often a kind of death, firstly of the relationship but secondly the acrimony of separation and divorce with its pain is a kind of living death.

We can learn a lot from the best relationships on earth, about what our relationship with God can be like! Of course God does not need to repent (say sorry to us), but it is as I say the closest we can come to illustrating it by earthly relationships. And in fact there is Scriptural warrant for using marriage as an illustration in this way. In Ephesians 5:25-32, in his instructions to married couples Paul compares the marriage relationship to that of Christ and the Church, and describes it as a great mystery. Furthermore, the Christian is described (individually and corporately) as the bride of Christ (i.e. Revelation 19:7, 21:9; 22:17). What I am saying is that the Lord Himself has it in mind that the best marriages be a picture of what our relationship with Him can be, and is intended to be, like. And then some!

So then let's take the analogy further. If they are wise, our ideal couple after having experienced the joy of reconciliation, will learn to keep short accounts with each other. That is with this positive experience behind them, they will no longer immediately blame each other the next time things go wrong. Rather they will be willing to openly and honestly ask in a heart felt way “is this me,” and “where am I to blame?” In an actual couple I know the female of the species told me not that long ago “I did not realize, until I got married, how selfish I am.” There is much hope for a long and happy marriage for this couple (for I happen to know that it's not just she who has this willingness to be shown they are wrong).

And is this willingness to be shown to be wrong oppressive? Is it a good thing or a bad one? With this real life couple I am describing it is good. In fact it is a delight to watch them grow in and through just simply living all of this out. It would not be good if one of them was not willing to be shown when and where they are wrong, or having been shown where they are wrong, were not willing to work on putting right the wrong done, or not willing to change in the future. It could also be oppressive if one took advantage of the other, or held grudges or sought revenge rather than reconciliation and peace. But as I say, it is not like this with the couple I am describing, and it is very freeing for both of them. As the relationship continues to grow they have a growing confidence that what is spoken will be spoken in love (or when it is not, that an apology will be forthcoming). They are also confident they will be heard, and that what is heard will be carefully (and prayerfully) considered to see if what is being said is true. They are also ready and willing to change where their actions or attitudes or expressions brought the other one pain. They are willing to do this because of the joy of intimacy and the pain of being at loggerheads (the carrots and the sticks of relationships). They allow the process of living, communicating and (when necessary) fighting (fair) – to enhance the relationship, and it does. When difficulties come they work through them. And difficulties do and will always come, as this or that circumstance reveals yet one more thing that has not been dealt with (or not dealt with sufficiently). The process is a refining process (Proverbs 27:17), where they are learning be kind and compassionate with each other, and gentle and considerate and respectful, not snaky and not with belittling put downs. In this way they are becoming more and more confident that over time things will indeed be dealt with, and confident that there will always be a successful and even joyful, conclusion to any and all conflict. It is (again as I say) delightful to watch.

There are five components that I see that drive the beauty of such relationships, and that I believe can help us to move deeper into the type of intimacy I am describing both with God and each other. I will describe them first in terms of our earthly relationships. The first component is communication. It is a major problem in many relationships as we conflict avoid, putting certain topics off limit, and/or shutting them down when they become difficult, or feel threatening or make us angry. However when these things are worked through in the way described above, they become the glue of a deeper bonding. The second component that I see is the willingness to be be shown our faults, and being shown admit them, willing to make the appropriate changes. These things are essential to intimacy. The command to confess our faults one to another and to pray for one another comes with a promise – that we will be healed (James 5:16). It is the exact opposite of what so often seems to happen at the break up of a marriage where each one confesses the other one's faults, laying 100% of the blame on the other party.

The third essential component is a willingness to be open vulnerable and transparent with each other. In a truly successful marriage (as opposed to one that simply survives) there can be no secrets, no hidden skeletons in the closet. Such things drive us towards shame, fear and control. It seems to work like this, shame and fear of discovery leads us to put up walls of control to keep the shame and the secrets secure. Of course you would need to know that your partner is safe, before you open yourself up in the way I am suggesting. All of this requires the fourth ingredient that is the trust that builds up over time when energy and effort and both parties work at the relationship. In particular, because trust is earned, it might take some time to achieve. And taking the time to discovering if one's partner is safe (and.or to train each other in this way), is a very good reason not to rush into marriage. This too is hard in our instant society! Finally there is the passion for intimacy with each other. Nobody wants a limp lover!

So much for earthly relationships. There are both similarities and differences with our relationship with God. I want to start off by saying clearly that just as the mutual submission, love respect and transparency of the best earthly relationships is not oppressive, so neither, when we come to Him in the teachability of a little child, is our relationship with God. As with the ideal couple it is incredibly freeing (John 8:31), and this in my own experience of Him! On the other hand, perhaps the most significant difference is that we know that His side is always loving and always true. But let's look at how the five components mentioned above, work out in terms of our relationship with Him. Firstly then communication, it is intended to be two way. Prayer of course is our way of speaking with God, but we are also intended to hear from Him. The first and perhaps clearest way that He speaks to us is in and through His Word. He also speaks to us in and through others, but most wonderful of all, there is the still small voice of God (1 Kings 19:12,13). Jesus tells us clearly “my sheep know my voice” (John 10:47). Being His sheep has to do with following Him. There is much to say about these things (see for example “You hear from God? And fairies too right?” September 2010).

Secondly is the willingness to be be shown and to admit our faults, and to do something about them. As with earthly relationships our willingness to allow God to lead us into all truth is essential to intimacy with Him. Also as in earthly relationships, the idea is not to be weighed down with guilt. On the contrary it has to do with walking humbly in the assurance that though we are incomplete we are nevertheless loved, accepted, and encouraged to grow. The third essential component is a willingness to be transparent with God, He has given everything to make relationship possible at incredible cost to Himself. Surely the least we can do is to be honest with Him, with ourselves and to keep short accounts with Him. As Adam and Eve found out in the garden, you can't hide from Him anyway, and there is coming a day when all will be exposed (Mark 4:22). Surly it is better to get things out into the open at least with Him, that way they can be dealt with, and anything that needs to be forgiven, forgiven. Next comes the fourth component, the fact that all of this requires time and energy and effort for trust to build. God is of course entirely trustworthy, but we may not feel this as there are many things that happen in life that we neither like nor understand. It can take time to learn to stop fighting the people and circumstances that God allows in our lives to refine us. Finally there is the passion for God. He is not impressed by apathy (Revelation 3:15-19). The Great Commandment is that we should love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). He wants us to be as long term passionate about Him, as He is about us. He loves us with an everlasting love, and He sent His Son to make it all possible. He is worth it all, He is!

I hear someone saying “If it's all so wonderful Phil, what is the sorrow part of the post all about?” Well, it's about how we enter in, and keep moving ahead when we fail. As with the illustration of the couple the deeper intimacy comes only after the struggle brought about simply by living, so often only in encountering the pain and the sorrow of living in this fallen world, do we see our part in it all, and our need to change. The sorrows of life are indeed a kind of living death, and we stay in that death when we refuse to come to Him for restoration comfort and rest (Matthew 11:00; 2 Corinthians 1:3,4). The godly sorrow that brings life and joy comes through repentance, turning, and finding forgiveness for our own part in it all. And we choose. What do you want, godly sorrow, repentance and joy, or worldly sorrow and death? As for me, I choose life!