Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).
As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.
She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?
I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.
In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.
I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).
Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.
But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Monday, March 31, 2014
Monday, September 16, 2013
Does Psychology Create a Need for Church Style? @maguyton
How much does our psychology influence the faith approach we follow, appreciate, and even need? There is regularly a lot of dialogue in the blogosphere about the holiness and horror of both the sin/wrath-focused church and the therapeutic church. Morgan Guyton recently published a couple of excellent posts on fundamentalism and his thoughts on the drive to the (highly disturbing) Christian domestic discipline movement (AKA wife spanking--yes, seriously). These posts spurred me to write about some thoughts I've had about the dichotomy between the sin and therapeutic churches.
One of the things I often hear from major proponents of sin-focused approaches is that we all need to be reminded of our problems, our weaknesses, and that God is in charge. In accordance, the argument for and against the therapeutic churches is that they make us feel too good about ourselves and make us forget about our failings.
This also reminds me of some of the applications of the 12 step approach (not all implementations are the same). Interestingly, there is a decent amount of narcissistic traits in people with substance misuse problems (this is a broad generalization, of course). I think the people who do best in 12 step programs often have this tendency, which is why it makes sense that they need to be reminded of their limitations. Can the same be said for the sin-focused churches? I think so. Some of the loudest voices of this approach (cough, Mark Driscoll, cough) ooze narcissism, so I can see how they benefit from being reminded of their finitude. And just like a good narcissist, they assume everyone is like them and needs the same approach.
Except I've met very few people who aren't aware of their limitations. Those who seem to be needing reminders fall into the undermentioned category. Almost every person I've worked with in my clinical work is acutely aware of his/her problems. Especially when we start getting into levels of higher anxiety, the last thing people need is to be reminded of what's wrong with them. Believe me, as someone with a strong level of perfectionism, I condemn myself plenty.
Continuing this message in the spiritual life does nothing to bring us closer to God. Rather, it reinforces psychological pathology, reinforcing a process of psychic self-flagellation. The therapeutic church approach, reminding people of the unconditional love and grace of God, compensates for the self-condemnation pattern many people experience regularly.
So perhaps both approaches are needed based on particular individuals and psychological processes. After all, God does meet us where we're at, right?
Does that mean I could actually recommend Driscoll and crew to the narcissists? I would have a hard time doing so because of his self-righteous condemnation of others rather than just himself (actually, I don't think I've ever heard him criticize himself, just like a good narcissist). Unfortunately, this becomes a pattern of many sin churches--the people condemn themselves, then become self-congratulatory for doing so and turns the condemnation on others, reinforcing the narcissistic tendencies.
Interestingly, a healthy therapeutic church (yes, there definitely are extreme, unhealthy ones who disregard any semblance of growth and change) could be very good medicine for narcissistic traits. In psychology, a popular explanation of the etiology of narcissism is called the narcissistic injury, which argues that these individuals in fact have an incredibly low self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy. Building up authentic self-regard is actually the "cure" for narcissism in this case. Internalizing God's unconditional love and grace is a core goal of therapeutic churches. And it's a beautiful spiritual and psychological cure to many ills...
One of the things I often hear from major proponents of sin-focused approaches is that we all need to be reminded of our problems, our weaknesses, and that God is in charge. In accordance, the argument for and against the therapeutic churches is that they make us feel too good about ourselves and make us forget about our failings.
This also reminds me of some of the applications of the 12 step approach (not all implementations are the same). Interestingly, there is a decent amount of narcissistic traits in people with substance misuse problems (this is a broad generalization, of course). I think the people who do best in 12 step programs often have this tendency, which is why it makes sense that they need to be reminded of their limitations. Can the same be said for the sin-focused churches? I think so. Some of the loudest voices of this approach (cough, Mark Driscoll, cough) ooze narcissism, so I can see how they benefit from being reminded of their finitude. And just like a good narcissist, they assume everyone is like them and needs the same approach.
Except I've met very few people who aren't aware of their limitations. Those who seem to be needing reminders fall into the undermentioned category. Almost every person I've worked with in my clinical work is acutely aware of his/her problems. Especially when we start getting into levels of higher anxiety, the last thing people need is to be reminded of what's wrong with them. Believe me, as someone with a strong level of perfectionism, I condemn myself plenty.
Continuing this message in the spiritual life does nothing to bring us closer to God. Rather, it reinforces psychological pathology, reinforcing a process of psychic self-flagellation. The therapeutic church approach, reminding people of the unconditional love and grace of God, compensates for the self-condemnation pattern many people experience regularly.
So perhaps both approaches are needed based on particular individuals and psychological processes. After all, God does meet us where we're at, right?
Does that mean I could actually recommend Driscoll and crew to the narcissists? I would have a hard time doing so because of his self-righteous condemnation of others rather than just himself (actually, I don't think I've ever heard him criticize himself, just like a good narcissist). Unfortunately, this becomes a pattern of many sin churches--the people condemn themselves, then become self-congratulatory for doing so and turns the condemnation on others, reinforcing the narcissistic tendencies.
Interestingly, a healthy therapeutic church (yes, there definitely are extreme, unhealthy ones who disregard any semblance of growth and change) could be very good medicine for narcissistic traits. In psychology, a popular explanation of the etiology of narcissism is called the narcissistic injury, which argues that these individuals in fact have an incredibly low self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy. Building up authentic self-regard is actually the "cure" for narcissism in this case. Internalizing God's unconditional love and grace is a core goal of therapeutic churches. And it's a beautiful spiritual and psychological cure to many ills...
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
A Graceful Creed @ScottStapp @christianaudio @caReviewers
Somehow I made it through high school and college without knowing the band, Creed. I discovered them after finding lead singer, Scott Stapp's solo album during grad school. The music and lyrics were very meaningful to me and helped validate the pain and struggles I felt as my aunt died of cancer. Creed's music was also powerful. I've looked a few times to see if he was releasing another album, to my disappointment.
But then last month, he releases his memoir, Sinner's Creed, and the lack of releases make sense. This incredibly courageous reflection on his life, faith, success, and struggles was quite powerful. I found it particularly relevant and moving from both a psychological and spiritual formation perspective.
I've written before about God image, the psychological concept describing how we view and experience God. Stapp's book is a wonderful example of how experiences in life and relationships with others impact our perspective of and relationship with God. If someone did not believe in the incarnational way God works and how we affect each other's relationships we God, I don't know how they could doubt it after this book.
Stapp's preface is particularly powerful, explaining how obtaining God's love required certain behaviors and work. Things had to be black-and-white clear. So clear that questions were banned. He goes on to say, "And yet the story of my life is profoundly unclear... What remains clear, though, is my passion for the God of love" (p. x). His life and story clearly demonstrate this process.
At the same time, the end of the book seemed a bit strange, going back to a sin-centered narrative rather than a love-centered narrative. While sin is clearly important in the Bible, do we see everything through the lens of sin or through the lens of love? It has some major implications. Stapp seems to move toward the love lens only to almost awkwardly end on the sin lens. I actually wonder if this is in part due to the influence of the 12 step approach in his life in the last few years. While not originally true, in many areas, the 12 steps have taken on a neo-Calvinistic sin-focused condescension. Perhaps this continues to be part of Stapp's journey.
The book is well-written (and narrated, although it would have been wonderful to hear Stapp narrating his own story). It was interesting to me, as a fan, but I'm not sure it would be as attractive to non-Creed or Stapp fans. It's another story of a celebrity's crash and redemption. At the same time, I think in our societal Cult of the Celebrity, it is important to continue to hear these stories to remember that not all is wonderful with fame. In fact, it can destroy life and faith more than anything else. I actually summarized part of Stapp's story in a parent education group a few weeks back when so many parents were more concerned about their kids' grades than their mental health.
One powerful message of this book that we all need to hear is remembering our priorities. This will make all the difference. Despite Stapp's weaknesses, I was quite impressed with how hard he tried to maintain his priorities and keep his son's needs first. In fact, all-in-all, I have so much more respect for Stapp after reading his memoir and am an even bigger fan. I listened to his solo album and the Creed records for at least a week. The meaningful music became all the most meaningful.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Celibate Homosexuality & Other Romance
Yesterday's post on unnatural things not necessarily being sinful could obviously apply to homosexuality. Plenty of Christians state homosexuality is both unnatural and sinful. There are many statements of faith and behavioral contracts that state all sexual activity must exist only within the confines of a heterosexual marriage.
From this perspective, would it be acceptable for two men or two women who are in love to be in a celibate relationship?
Could a man and a woman live together out of wedlock while not engaging in any sexual activity?
If the sin is sex and we remove the sex, is the problem solved?
From this perspective, would it be acceptable for two men or two women who are in love to be in a celibate relationship?
Could a man and a woman live together out of wedlock while not engaging in any sexual activity?
If the sin is sex and we remove the sex, is the problem solved?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Unnatural and Not Sinful
So often so many things are labelled "sinful" with the explanation that they are unnatural. The Bible frequently points out actions that should be avoided because they are unnatural. However, does something that is unnatural necessarily mean it is sinful?
As a result of the Fall, we are odds with the created world around us, which would mean plenty is unnatural due to this fact. We do not call of these situations sinful, though. Neither does the Bible.
Take the whole book of Job. Plenty of unnatural occurrences for this poor man which should be avoided if possible. Yet one of the clear messages was that he was not sinful.
What about the blind man who Jesus healed? Remember the debate about who sinned? Jesus said it was not because of sin. Blindness is unnatural. Yet it is not sinful. It is the result of the fallen, broken world, but would not be considered to be the man's fault.
We can continue this line of thought through a variety of medical conditions, from the common cold to cancer. In the mental health field, we often apply these ideas to de-stigmatize and normalize mental illness. While clearly abnormal, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety, etc. are not sinful. Sometimes behavioral sin can lead to these conditions. In my professional experience, though, this is not the case. Being anxious is not a sin. Being depressed is not a sin. Being schizophrenic is not a sin.
So what about other things we call sins simply because they are unnatural. Is that a fair label? When is it accurate and when is it not?
As a result of the Fall, we are odds with the created world around us, which would mean plenty is unnatural due to this fact. We do not call of these situations sinful, though. Neither does the Bible.
Take the whole book of Job. Plenty of unnatural occurrences for this poor man which should be avoided if possible. Yet one of the clear messages was that he was not sinful.
What about the blind man who Jesus healed? Remember the debate about who sinned? Jesus said it was not because of sin. Blindness is unnatural. Yet it is not sinful. It is the result of the fallen, broken world, but would not be considered to be the man's fault.
We can continue this line of thought through a variety of medical conditions, from the common cold to cancer. In the mental health field, we often apply these ideas to de-stigmatize and normalize mental illness. While clearly abnormal, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety, etc. are not sinful. Sometimes behavioral sin can lead to these conditions. In my professional experience, though, this is not the case. Being anxious is not a sin. Being depressed is not a sin. Being schizophrenic is not a sin.
So what about other things we call sins simply because they are unnatural. Is that a fair label? When is it accurate and when is it not?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Calling Out Sin
Those who have been following my blog lately have probably noticed a theme on sin and sin reduction. In general, I'm not a big fan of the holiness movements that (in my opinion) over-emphasize the role of the lack of sin in people's lives. The idea of confession can also be over-used in a way that guilts and shames people into being meek and mellow followers of a certain set of rules and regulations (at least on the surface).
At the same time, I have strong holiness roots, spiritually and secularly. As one of my friends and I have talked about, we both generally have excellent self-control. Heck, I've avoided eating and going to the bathroom for hours in order to get projects done.
Yet that kind of self-control can be just as damaging as a prodigal lifestyle. Perfectionism is debilitating. I don't know of any psychological theory that encourages perfectionism. Yet it runs in my family, making us all anxious. My wife often comments about how unhappy I must be trying to make everything "right" and fixing things. Living a virtuous life can be taken too far (look at the Pharisees).
Ultimately, it's all behavior and external. The heart is what matters. And virtuous behavior can kill the heart. Ironic, isn't it? Unrighteous behavior can kill the heart, as can the opposite.
That is why I so often see the need for love. Without love, there is no heart. And there is no room for error.
Being a psychologist, I daily work with people who have a variety of behavior problems. Most of the behaviors could be given the sin label.
I sometimes have to point out a dysfunctional pattern. However, most of the time, people know how they're screwing up. They need help fixing it. And usually the solution is some form of giving and receiving love.
Even the narcissists know their foibles. In psychology, we talk about how a narcissistic injury caused the over-inflated ego. This is a deep injury to one's self-esteem and identity. There is, in truth, a lack of self, causing a facade of strength to cover the emptiness.
There isn't a person with a psychological disorder (or lack thereof) who really needs to be told how awful they are. They already know. They may not act like it, but that's usually because they have no hope of any better kind of redemption.
So what do we, as a Church, often provide? More condemnation and calling out of what they're doing wrong.
What we need to emphasize is what everyone is longing for: A means for transformation, to become whole. And the answer is Jesus Christ. Through love. Through unconditional, unwavering, magnificent love. Despite our sins, despite our doubts, despite our lack of love. Christ loves us. And Christ loves others through us. When we let him.
Yet there are times when it is good and right to call out a sin. I think it needs to be done in the context of a trusting, solid relationship. Without that, the safety of assured love and acceptance leaves a void of rejection and antipathy. Who wants to confess facing that abyss?
This is the process I generally follow as a therapist. Before I can confront someone, I need to build a rapport with them, a relationship built on honest trust and love. Otherwise, the confrontation is not helpful. When done right, it can lead to transformation.
What do you think? When and how is it appropriate to call out sin? Should it ever be done publicly? Generally (like against the "big" sins)?
At the same time, I have strong holiness roots, spiritually and secularly. As one of my friends and I have talked about, we both generally have excellent self-control. Heck, I've avoided eating and going to the bathroom for hours in order to get projects done.
Yet that kind of self-control can be just as damaging as a prodigal lifestyle. Perfectionism is debilitating. I don't know of any psychological theory that encourages perfectionism. Yet it runs in my family, making us all anxious. My wife often comments about how unhappy I must be trying to make everything "right" and fixing things. Living a virtuous life can be taken too far (look at the Pharisees).
Ultimately, it's all behavior and external. The heart is what matters. And virtuous behavior can kill the heart. Ironic, isn't it? Unrighteous behavior can kill the heart, as can the opposite.
That is why I so often see the need for love. Without love, there is no heart. And there is no room for error.
Being a psychologist, I daily work with people who have a variety of behavior problems. Most of the behaviors could be given the sin label.
I sometimes have to point out a dysfunctional pattern. However, most of the time, people know how they're screwing up. They need help fixing it. And usually the solution is some form of giving and receiving love.
Even the narcissists know their foibles. In psychology, we talk about how a narcissistic injury caused the over-inflated ego. This is a deep injury to one's self-esteem and identity. There is, in truth, a lack of self, causing a facade of strength to cover the emptiness.
There isn't a person with a psychological disorder (or lack thereof) who really needs to be told how awful they are. They already know. They may not act like it, but that's usually because they have no hope of any better kind of redemption.
So what do we, as a Church, often provide? More condemnation and calling out of what they're doing wrong.
What we need to emphasize is what everyone is longing for: A means for transformation, to become whole. And the answer is Jesus Christ. Through love. Through unconditional, unwavering, magnificent love. Despite our sins, despite our doubts, despite our lack of love. Christ loves us. And Christ loves others through us. When we let him.
Yet there are times when it is good and right to call out a sin. I think it needs to be done in the context of a trusting, solid relationship. Without that, the safety of assured love and acceptance leaves a void of rejection and antipathy. Who wants to confess facing that abyss?
This is the process I generally follow as a therapist. Before I can confront someone, I need to build a rapport with them, a relationship built on honest trust and love. Otherwise, the confrontation is not helpful. When done right, it can lead to transformation.
What do you think? When and how is it appropriate to call out sin? Should it ever be done publicly? Generally (like against the "big" sins)?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Transformation and Sin
I frequently hear a lot of talk about sin. Mostly about condemning sin and needing to focus on reducing sin in our lives. Is reducing sin a good thing? Absolutely. But I've come to realize that all the talk about sin reduction reminds me of my battle with the emphasis on symptom reduction in the psychology world.
Christianity and psychology are about a whole lot more than inappropriate behavior. Sure, some people like focusing just on those things. In some ways, such a concrete focus is easier because it can clearly let us know if what we're doing is working or not.
But just as I did not go into the field of psychology to reduce symptoms, I did not accept a relationship with Christ to reduce sin. I pursued both to become transformed and help other become transformed.
In order to become transformed, we do usually need to change some of our behavior. But that is simply a means to an end. We need to address aspects of our lives that impede transformation. Yet we need to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of being like Christ, not just in behavior, but in mind, body, and spirit.
We also need to remember Paul's words in Romans 8:12-17 that we are no longer slaves to sin nor under any obligation to sin. Yet we frequently believe the lie that we are defined by sin. As John Eldredge so eloquently states in Wild at Heart:
We often believe a lie that Jesus has not redeemed us, our hearts, our minds, and our behavior. We fight with ourselves to change something and then also believe we have no hope of changing it because we are irreversibly evil.
Without God, little will change. With God, everything will change. However, that does not mean our circumstances, moods, and even all behavior will change. What I have found is that often God leaves those things to help further develop our spirit and character.
Character doesn't mean perfection. It's how we respond to life, even when those responses aren't perfect.
We should continually strive to put on the character of Christ, as Dallas Willard puts it. We should also strive to refine our behavior, attitudes, and moods. Our spiritual disciplines can help with this. So can psychotherapy. Yet if all we focus on is reducing or removing a certain misdeed, we miss the bigger picture of true transformation. And that might be the biggest sin and tragedy of all.
Christianity and psychology are about a whole lot more than inappropriate behavior. Sure, some people like focusing just on those things. In some ways, such a concrete focus is easier because it can clearly let us know if what we're doing is working or not.
But just as I did not go into the field of psychology to reduce symptoms, I did not accept a relationship with Christ to reduce sin. I pursued both to become transformed and help other become transformed.
In order to become transformed, we do usually need to change some of our behavior. But that is simply a means to an end. We need to address aspects of our lives that impede transformation. Yet we need to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of being like Christ, not just in behavior, but in mind, body, and spirit.
We also need to remember Paul's words in Romans 8:12-17 that we are no longer slaves to sin nor under any obligation to sin. Yet we frequently believe the lie that we are defined by sin. As John Eldredge so eloquently states in Wild at Heart:
You are not your sin; sin is no longer the truest thing about the man who has come into union with Jesus. Your heart is good. "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you" (Ezek. 36:26). The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than "a sinner saved by grace." You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God. In the core of your being you are a good man. Yes, there is a war within us, but it is a civil war. The battle is not between us and God; no, there is a traitor within us who wars against our true heart fighting alongside the Spirit of God in us:
A new power is in operation. The Spirit of life in Christ, like a strong wind, has magnificently cleared the air, freeing you from a fated lifetime of brutal tyranny at the hands of sin and death . . . Anyone, of course, who has not welcomed this invisible but clearly present God, the Spirit of Christ, won't know what we're talking about. But for you who welcome him, in whom he dwells . . . if the alive-and-present God who raised Jesus from the dead moves into your life, he'll do the same thing in you that he did in Jesus . . . When God lives and breathes in you (and he does, as surely as he did in Jesus), you are delivered from that dead life. (Rom. 8:2, 9-11 The Message)
The real you is on the side of God against the false self. Knowing this makes all the difference in the world. The man who wants to live valiantly will lose heart quickly if he believes that his heart is nothing but sin. Why fight? (p. 144-145)
We often believe a lie that Jesus has not redeemed us, our hearts, our minds, and our behavior. We fight with ourselves to change something and then also believe we have no hope of changing it because we are irreversibly evil.
Without God, little will change. With God, everything will change. However, that does not mean our circumstances, moods, and even all behavior will change. What I have found is that often God leaves those things to help further develop our spirit and character.
Character doesn't mean perfection. It's how we respond to life, even when those responses aren't perfect.
We should continually strive to put on the character of Christ, as Dallas Willard puts it. We should also strive to refine our behavior, attitudes, and moods. Our spiritual disciplines can help with this. So can psychotherapy. Yet if all we focus on is reducing or removing a certain misdeed, we miss the bigger picture of true transformation. And that might be the biggest sin and tragedy of all.
Friday, December 17, 2010
God is Not at War with Sin, but for Love #sandalschurch @sandalschurch
My church's advent sermon series is an unconventional This is War. The premise is that Jesus' birth was an invasion in God's war on Satan, sin, and death, and we need to remember that we are at war with those things.
This is not a new idea; John Eldredge talked about Christ's birth as an invasion in Waking the Dead. Eldredge agrees that Satan is a enemy we must be aware of. However, he argues that the war is not on Satan, sin, and death, but rather a war for our hearts (Waking the Dead).
Now there is also substantial analysis about whether Satan is an actual being versus a metaphorical term to describe those in opposition to ourselves. Misunderstandings of the Fall, Hell, and Satan can definitely affect our views of spiritual warfare (summary version: most of our ideas of Hell and Satan come from John Milton's Paradise Lost, and we read those ideas back into the Bible).
Regardless, I agree that spiritual warfare exists, be it between literal dueling angels and demons or metaphorical angels and demons.
What I do not believe is that it is a war on sin. As I discussed in my review of The Pursuit of Holiness, the overemphasis on sin is a misrepresentation of the holiness movement. And it gives sin too much power. It also depends on how sin is defined. Really, anything disrupting the relationship between God and humans and God is sin, but more often, the functional definition of sin is misbehavior, which is very much limited. If and when sin is used in the former sense, it could be a war on sin, but as it is used in the latter sense more often, that is how it is defined here.
Does God hate sin? Yes. Is God's main focus sin? No. Can God tolerate sin? Well, he did when he spent 33 years amongst sinners.
Jesus' words did not focus primarily on sin. They focused on love. Remember the Greatest Commandment? It's all about loving God and others; not about avoiding sin. As my wife said after the message this past Sunday, focusing on the removal of sin just treats the symptom, but not the cause. The core problem is not sin. It is separation from God (yes, sin has a part of that, but it's not the whole thing). The only thing that mends a relationship is love. The solution to sin is not spiritual disciplines. It is love--loving God, others, and ourselves.
After the message, we sang Hillsong's Tear Down These Walls to emphasize solidarity in being at war together. Ironically, there is no mention of sin. Rather, they key phrase is "Let love tear down these walls." We need to emphasize love and hope, not the avoidance of sin and death.
In John 10:10, Jesus asserts, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" or "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." Focusing our energies on sin and death usually make us feel dead and destroyed. Emphasizing the love and hope Christ gives us helps us remember that we, indeed, do have life and that sin and Satan have no power over us when in Christ.
In contrast to the Sunday messages, this past Monday we had a leaders' meeting. The theme was still spiritual warfare, but it emphasized the power of change and hope. The emphasis was on the power of love and prayer. Rather than only discussing what to avoid and fight against, I find it so much more powerful and important and effective to really preach what we are to do and to fight for. And the answer is love.
This is not a new idea; John Eldredge talked about Christ's birth as an invasion in Waking the Dead. Eldredge agrees that Satan is a enemy we must be aware of. However, he argues that the war is not on Satan, sin, and death, but rather a war for our hearts (Waking the Dead).
Now there is also substantial analysis about whether Satan is an actual being versus a metaphorical term to describe those in opposition to ourselves. Misunderstandings of the Fall, Hell, and Satan can definitely affect our views of spiritual warfare (summary version: most of our ideas of Hell and Satan come from John Milton's Paradise Lost, and we read those ideas back into the Bible).
Regardless, I agree that spiritual warfare exists, be it between literal dueling angels and demons or metaphorical angels and demons.
What I do not believe is that it is a war on sin. As I discussed in my review of The Pursuit of Holiness, the overemphasis on sin is a misrepresentation of the holiness movement. And it gives sin too much power. It also depends on how sin is defined. Really, anything disrupting the relationship between God and humans and God is sin, but more often, the functional definition of sin is misbehavior, which is very much limited. If and when sin is used in the former sense, it could be a war on sin, but as it is used in the latter sense more often, that is how it is defined here.
Does God hate sin? Yes. Is God's main focus sin? No. Can God tolerate sin? Well, he did when he spent 33 years amongst sinners.
Jesus' words did not focus primarily on sin. They focused on love. Remember the Greatest Commandment? It's all about loving God and others; not about avoiding sin. As my wife said after the message this past Sunday, focusing on the removal of sin just treats the symptom, but not the cause. The core problem is not sin. It is separation from God (yes, sin has a part of that, but it's not the whole thing). The only thing that mends a relationship is love. The solution to sin is not spiritual disciplines. It is love--loving God, others, and ourselves.
After the message, we sang Hillsong's Tear Down These Walls to emphasize solidarity in being at war together. Ironically, there is no mention of sin. Rather, they key phrase is "Let love tear down these walls." We need to emphasize love and hope, not the avoidance of sin and death.
In John 10:10, Jesus asserts, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" or "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." Focusing our energies on sin and death usually make us feel dead and destroyed. Emphasizing the love and hope Christ gives us helps us remember that we, indeed, do have life and that sin and Satan have no power over us when in Christ.
In contrast to the Sunday messages, this past Monday we had a leaders' meeting. The theme was still spiritual warfare, but it emphasized the power of change and hope. The emphasis was on the power of love and prayer. Rather than only discussing what to avoid and fight against, I find it so much more powerful and important and effective to really preach what we are to do and to fight for. And the answer is love.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday Round-Up: Women in Ministry, The Role of Sin, Doubt, and Art
Here's some great articles I've read recently:
Men Changing Views on Women (in Ministry): A nice article about the movement of men from a complementarian perspective to an egalitarian theology, where women are allowed and encouraged to be in leadership.
No, It's Not God's Will: A short post emphasizing how fatalistic thinking emphasizing sin can be damaging. It also discusses what my problem is with the New Calvinism, in that everything that happens is viewed as being part of God's will. It's not.
How Does God See Me In The Midst of Sin: This is a great post and video exploring people's reactions when asked how God reacts to them despite sin. The video is very good. I think this, again, emphasizes the limitations of focusing primarily on sin, which really is not the center of the Gospel. Our relationship with God is.
Philip Yancey on Doubt: Excellent article exploring the role of doubt and its relationship to apologetics, both of which have been featured on this blog. One of the best quotes from the article, I think, is, "I ask the same questions, but quite frankly, the biggest encouragement to my faith has not been losing an argument or winning an argument; the biggest encouragement to my faith is seeing it lived out in real life."
New Reformed Movement- Grassroots or Astroturf?: An article from last month that I just discovered poking some holes in the idea that the New Calvinism is really as popular as many claim it to be. Basically, as Jethani says, it seems like the popularity has more to do with a desire for certainty than anything else.
Pop Art: This is not terribly relevant to this blog, but just plain cool (maybe it's relevant by remembering the beauty God has put around us that we don't see--like my attempts? :) ). An artist has taken pictures at 1/40,000 of a second at the moment a water balloon pops. You've got to see the images!
Men Changing Views on Women (in Ministry): A nice article about the movement of men from a complementarian perspective to an egalitarian theology, where women are allowed and encouraged to be in leadership.
No, It's Not God's Will: A short post emphasizing how fatalistic thinking emphasizing sin can be damaging. It also discusses what my problem is with the New Calvinism, in that everything that happens is viewed as being part of God's will. It's not.
How Does God See Me In The Midst of Sin: This is a great post and video exploring people's reactions when asked how God reacts to them despite sin. The video is very good. I think this, again, emphasizes the limitations of focusing primarily on sin, which really is not the center of the Gospel. Our relationship with God is.
Philip Yancey on Doubt: Excellent article exploring the role of doubt and its relationship to apologetics, both of which have been featured on this blog. One of the best quotes from the article, I think, is, "I ask the same questions, but quite frankly, the biggest encouragement to my faith has not been losing an argument or winning an argument; the biggest encouragement to my faith is seeing it lived out in real life."
New Reformed Movement- Grassroots or Astroturf?: An article from last month that I just discovered poking some holes in the idea that the New Calvinism is really as popular as many claim it to be. Basically, as Jethani says, it seems like the popularity has more to do with a desire for certainty than anything else.
Pop Art: This is not terribly relevant to this blog, but just plain cool (maybe it's relevant by remembering the beauty God has put around us that we don't see--like my attempts? :) ). An artist has taken pictures at 1/40,000 of a second at the moment a water balloon pops. You've got to see the images!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Don't Waste Your Life @JohnPiper @christianaudio @caReviewers
John Piper is a prolific writer who people seem to either love or hate. In December, I had the opportunity to review his latest book (in audiobook format), which made me into a non-fan of Piper. I cross-post my reviews on other sites, including Amazon. It was quite interesting to see how passionately people defended Piper in response to my review. And how they review the usefulness of a review and people's comments based on their agreement with them.
Another of Piper's books became available in christianaudio's reviewers program (with a complimentary copy), so I decided to take the opportunity to give Piper another chance. Don't Waste Your Life is actually an older book of Piper's (from 2006), and it definitely gave me a more positive view of Piper.
I'm still not a Piper fan, but he presented a much more balanced view of life in this book. As the title suggests, he is encouraging people to not waste their lives. In short, we need to live for Christ and not for the materialism of the world in order to not waste our lives. He gives an excellent story from his childhood that his father would frequently tell people about an older man who died feeling like his life was wasted on "worldly" endeavors.
I agree with this viewpoint. We need meaning and purpose in life, and the only way to get true meaning is by loving others through Christ (or more accurately, letting Christ love others through us). I also appreciated that Piper acknowledged the various ways people can enhance the Kingdom--not always through explicit ministry. He did an excellent job of supporting an incarnational view of spreading the Gospel, as he noted the critical need of people to do "mundane, secular" jobs.
He illustrates these points with nice stories, anecdotes, and metaphors. At the same time, it would have probably been easy to make a more concise version of the book.
In his eagerness to emphasize the tragedy of a wasted life, Piper also invalidates other life tragedies. He explicitly states that people getting cancer and dying in accidents are not tragedies. I greatly and passionately disagree. These are all tragedies; just different types.
Further, there was still too much emphasis on sin and leading a holy (meaning morally pure) life. From my post Wednesday: "While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God."
Different Christian traditions emphasize the roles of repentance and redemption to varying degrees. Piper clearly comes from one that sees the role of continual repentance as central. I think we need to emphasize redemption more.
Another of Piper's books became available in christianaudio's reviewers program (with a complimentary copy), so I decided to take the opportunity to give Piper another chance. Don't Waste Your Life is actually an older book of Piper's (from 2006), and it definitely gave me a more positive view of Piper.
I'm still not a Piper fan, but he presented a much more balanced view of life in this book. As the title suggests, he is encouraging people to not waste their lives. In short, we need to live for Christ and not for the materialism of the world in order to not waste our lives. He gives an excellent story from his childhood that his father would frequently tell people about an older man who died feeling like his life was wasted on "worldly" endeavors.
I agree with this viewpoint. We need meaning and purpose in life, and the only way to get true meaning is by loving others through Christ (or more accurately, letting Christ love others through us). I also appreciated that Piper acknowledged the various ways people can enhance the Kingdom--not always through explicit ministry. He did an excellent job of supporting an incarnational view of spreading the Gospel, as he noted the critical need of people to do "mundane, secular" jobs.
He illustrates these points with nice stories, anecdotes, and metaphors. At the same time, it would have probably been easy to make a more concise version of the book.
In his eagerness to emphasize the tragedy of a wasted life, Piper also invalidates other life tragedies. He explicitly states that people getting cancer and dying in accidents are not tragedies. I greatly and passionately disagree. These are all tragedies; just different types.
Further, there was still too much emphasis on sin and leading a holy (meaning morally pure) life. From my post Wednesday: "While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God."
Different Christian traditions emphasize the roles of repentance and redemption to varying degrees. Piper clearly comes from one that sees the role of continual repentance as central. I think we need to emphasize redemption more.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Sin of Holiness
According to Richard Foster in Streams of Living Water, the holiness stream is a focus on the virtuous life, as in right living and purity from sin. This perspective develops from the Wesleyan holiness movement that focuses on sanctification by avoiding sin and being morally pure.
Is this perspective in the Bible. Absolutely. God wants us to avoid sin. However, being morally pure does not guarantee that we are close with God. Just read the Gospels regarding the Pharisees and Paul's writings.
Being holy is not the same as being morally pure. Sacred is a better synonym with holy.
To be holy or sacred is to be made special for God. We can be set apart by being morally pure. However, God, through Christ, makes us holy. Regardless of our behavior.
As I also discussed in yesterday's post on confession, we often focus too much on sin and not enough on moving closer to God. There, of course, is a balance, as sin and God don't do well together. However, as Christ did many times on earth, he will also come to us in the midst of sin. And frankly, that's when we experience God the most. Christ physically came to those who were sinning. He didn't come to those who were pure.
Of course that doesn't mean we should sin in order to be with God. However, in many attempts to remain pure, we often blind ourselves to experiencing God, as was my experiencing with fasting. As we seek to do things for God, we often forget to be with God. While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God.
So I think in our aim to be holy we may actually lose our holiness by participating in life with God less.
Is this perspective in the Bible. Absolutely. God wants us to avoid sin. However, being morally pure does not guarantee that we are close with God. Just read the Gospels regarding the Pharisees and Paul's writings.
Being holy is not the same as being morally pure. Sacred is a better synonym with holy.
To be holy or sacred is to be made special for God. We can be set apart by being morally pure. However, God, through Christ, makes us holy. Regardless of our behavior.
As I also discussed in yesterday's post on confession, we often focus too much on sin and not enough on moving closer to God. There, of course, is a balance, as sin and God don't do well together. However, as Christ did many times on earth, he will also come to us in the midst of sin. And frankly, that's when we experience God the most. Christ physically came to those who were sinning. He didn't come to those who were pure.
Of course that doesn't mean we should sin in order to be with God. However, in many attempts to remain pure, we often blind ourselves to experiencing God, as was my experiencing with fasting. As we seek to do things for God, we often forget to be with God. While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God.
So I think in our aim to be holy we may actually lose our holiness by participating in life with God less.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Confession
The word confession can bring up a lot of feelings in people, often negative ones. That's usually because it's associated with sin. I most frequently hear people use the term confession to be synonymous with saying something they've done wrong.
However, that is not always true. While to confess can be to acknowledge one's sins, it can also mean to acknowledge and profess one's faith or beliefs (don't believe me, here's some definitions). This is actually how the term was used quite frequently in early church writings.
These uses actually work quite well together. We can confess a sin while confess our faith. However, in society today, we focus on the first half, usually associated with shame. We like to tear ourselves and others down. God gives us the opportunity to build ourselves and each other back up through a confession of faith.
What would happen if we started using the term confession to emphasize the building up of people rather than their tearing down? How does this affect our theology when approaching the concept of confession?
However, that is not always true. While to confess can be to acknowledge one's sins, it can also mean to acknowledge and profess one's faith or beliefs (don't believe me, here's some definitions). This is actually how the term was used quite frequently in early church writings.
These uses actually work quite well together. We can confess a sin while confess our faith. However, in society today, we focus on the first half, usually associated with shame. We like to tear ourselves and others down. God gives us the opportunity to build ourselves and each other back up through a confession of faith.
What would happen if we started using the term confession to emphasize the building up of people rather than their tearing down? How does this affect our theology when approaching the concept of confession?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Permission to Speak Freely @speakfreelybook @flowerdust @christianaudio @caReviewers
This last week I had the privilege to listen to an audiobook version of the soon-to-be-released Permission to Speak Freely by Anne Jackson courtesy of a complimentary copy from christianaudio's reviewers program.
The basic idea intrigued me: Jackson asked on her blog, "What is one thing you feel you can't say in church?" The book is an outgrowth of the responses she received from that and her own experiences.
This is definitely one of the absolute best books I have reviewed for christianaudio. It is also one of the best nonfiction Christian books I have ever read (or listened to). It very much coincides with the mission of this blog of encouraging people to be honest and authentic about their struggles and having the permission to speak freely about difficult matters.
Jackson does a beautiful job of describing the problem of restricted dialogue, not only in the institutional church, but also throughout society. It causes more damage than good.
The way she humanizes the struggles is phenomenal. It is the first book in a very long time that has brought tears to my eyes, not only from sadness of the pain we all cause others, but also because of the hope she reminds readers/listeners of.
Through her commentary on the core of problems that take our attention (like addictions to substances and sex), she also helped me remember why I entered the field of psychology and not give into the push to focus on symptom management. It reminded me to take a wider and deeper perspective with myself and others.
She states at the end of the book that she cannot give some nice, easy steps to solve the problems like most self-help books do. While it's true she does not provide a formula (which would have ruined the book), she did provide a solution: Relationships. Honest, authentic relationships where people can engage one another, challenge one another, and grow IS the solution.
It's not easy. And it takes a lot of courage. I loved her recognition of this in discussing giving the gift of going second (if you want to know more, read or listen to the book! :) ). If we can use this courage, though, the results are astounding.
However, we still have work on developing a culture, both inside and outside of the institutional church, where we can give people the permission to speak freely about anything. The church building should be a safe place, a sanctuary, where people can openly struggle. Instead, it's often turned into the exact opposite.
On a final note, I also love the fact that Jackson read the book herself. As I have said before, I prefer books read by the author, even if they are not all that polished. This book is intensely personal on many levels. It would have definitely lost some significant meaning if a professional narrator was hired.
The basic idea intrigued me: Jackson asked on her blog, "What is one thing you feel you can't say in church?" The book is an outgrowth of the responses she received from that and her own experiences.
This is definitely one of the absolute best books I have reviewed for christianaudio. It is also one of the best nonfiction Christian books I have ever read (or listened to). It very much coincides with the mission of this blog of encouraging people to be honest and authentic about their struggles and having the permission to speak freely about difficult matters.
Jackson does a beautiful job of describing the problem of restricted dialogue, not only in the institutional church, but also throughout society. It causes more damage than good.
The way she humanizes the struggles is phenomenal. It is the first book in a very long time that has brought tears to my eyes, not only from sadness of the pain we all cause others, but also because of the hope she reminds readers/listeners of.
Through her commentary on the core of problems that take our attention (like addictions to substances and sex), she also helped me remember why I entered the field of psychology and not give into the push to focus on symptom management. It reminded me to take a wider and deeper perspective with myself and others.
She states at the end of the book that she cannot give some nice, easy steps to solve the problems like most self-help books do. While it's true she does not provide a formula (which would have ruined the book), she did provide a solution: Relationships. Honest, authentic relationships where people can engage one another, challenge one another, and grow IS the solution.
It's not easy. And it takes a lot of courage. I loved her recognition of this in discussing giving the gift of going second (if you want to know more, read or listen to the book! :) ). If we can use this courage, though, the results are astounding.
However, we still have work on developing a culture, both inside and outside of the institutional church, where we can give people the permission to speak freely about anything. The church building should be a safe place, a sanctuary, where people can openly struggle. Instead, it's often turned into the exact opposite.
On a final note, I also love the fact that Jackson read the book herself. As I have said before, I prefer books read by the author, even if they are not all that polished. This book is intensely personal on many levels. It would have definitely lost some significant meaning if a professional narrator was hired.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Marital Separation's (Lack of) Virtue
Christianity Today ran an interesting article last week regarding Al and Tipper Gore's separation and how separation can be pro-family. The author, Glenn Stanton, is the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, so the perspective is definitely from the value of not getting divorced, which is something I also value and would advocate for.
Before I read the article, I was expecting it to be something about how separation is acceptable because the couple is not actually getting divorced, so they're technically still married and following God's law. This kind of perspective is a really lame cop-out and a step into legalism, I think.
In many cases, the only difference between separation and divorce is piece of paper from the courts.
This was not the point of the article, but I have a feeling this was an underlying message. Stanton's point is that marital separation can be a sort of "pause button," allowing the couple space to breathe, re-evaluate their relationship, and then reconnect in a healthier way. While I could see this happening (Stanton said that happened to his marriage), I'm not convinced that's the reason anything near the majority (or even any semblance of a significant minority) of people separate. Rather, the article felt more like Stanton feeling the need to defend his own past separation.
From a psychological perspective, I could see pros and cons of marital separation. Looking at Stanton's argument, sometimes people do need space in order to reconnect. However, there are much better ways than separation. People definitely need to address the problem earlier (although this is not common--most people only seek marital counseling when they have basically already decided to divorce).
The best point Stanton makes is that separation brings the couple's community together, letting everyone know there is a serious marital rift and that they need help. Community is important. But if it takes formal separation to get people to help, it's not much of a community...
I also think separation from Stanton's perspective can actually be more damaging than helpful. I would think people more often will use it as an excuse to get separated to make themselves feel less guilt about the separation. They will "try" to reconnect, show it didn't work, and then use that as a theological excuse for divorce.
And then there's the issue if there are children. Much research has shown that divorce definitely causes problems in kids. However, it also consistently shows that a constantly feuding couple who remains married does MORE damage to the kids than if the two divorced. Separation could be seen as a way of having a balance between marriage and lack of feuding. However, I don't think it does this well.
In fact, I think separation would be worse than divorced because of the ambiguity involved. Are mommy and daddy staying together? Are they separate for good? Kids don't do well with ambiguity, particularly when it comes to their families and living situations. Our treatment team at work often tells parents not to tell kids of major plans unless they are sure it will happen. If there's a chance it won't, the rollercoaster of expectation and anxiety just causes more problems.
So in summary, "separation" sounds nicer. It's more theologically friendly, as we haven't sinned by getting "divorced." But this is really more of a legalistic view. In many ways, I think separation is more dangerous and damaging than divorce. This is not always true, as in Stanton's case. But it needs to be approached cautiously, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Polarized Thinking in the Church
Last year, when I was running group on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), we would often discuss polarized thinking (also known as black-and-white or dichotomous thinking). In exploring how this can be damaging, people often discuss how it hurts ourselves. But I also think it's important to point out how it hurts others.
When we view people with our dichotomous thinking, we often thinking of them as either perfect or horrible (this idea is known as splitting). While it can feel good to be thought of as perfect, it is also anxiety provoking and setting others up for failure.
A perfect example is clergy. As a society, we often view clergy as perfect (or supposed to be perfect). A perfect example of this expectation of perfection is when people make mistakes. We've had several big-name pastors "fall" in the last couple of years.
We're never shocked when an actor has an affair (or even a politician), but a pastor? What makes them so special that they are free from temptation and sin? Really, they're more susceptible to such problems because of how the church community uses and abuses pastors.
So we hold this view of perfection, then the person doesn't meet that expectation, and so they move to the opposite extreme. This is not healthy, helpful, or biblical. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice post regarding Ted Haggard and the shock people have that he could start a new church. He also has nice, but sad joke about the situation.
But seriously. Why can't he start and led a church? He should not have been kicked out of his last church, in my opinion. He's human. He's made mistakes. That's what would make him a GOOD pastor! But then again, he moved into the area of sexual sin, the black hold of evil...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Salvation, Gospel, and Evangelism Without Repentance
When people talk about salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism, repentance is almost always central. Along the lines of the morality discussions from the last couple of days, repentance is a good thing. We need to recognize where we've screwed up so we can rectify that and grow.
However, I'm coming to realize that one can evangelize without emphasizing repentance. As I have discussed over the last couple of days, the Christian life is not about repenting of sin and becoming "holy" (i.e. pure). Rather it is about becoming holy by coming close to God through Christ.
That includes repentance and morality, but does not necessarily start nor end with it. It starts and ends with desire and love for Christ. Yet so often salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism begin and end with "Repent!" and give a cursory nod to love of and for God.
The problem is that most people I know already know how and that they have screwed up. They don't need to be reminded of that. Having God shame us and beat us up even more is not helpful. (No, I don't believe God does this, but that is the message I always get from the message people discuss of repentance.)
I thought I was not big on evangelism because I'm not big on shaming people more. And the centrality of repentance has never felt right to me. These were thoughts I had while listening to an audiobook version of Blue Like Jazz (review forthcoming).
Then I read a Celtic prayer book my wife got me for my birthday. And I realized that I actually am quite passionate about evangelism. My passion is for emphasizing the journey of faith. It's about telling people about transformation that is possible in relationship. It's about finding Truth through struggle. If I didn't have that passion, I would not be maintaining this blog or doing many other things I do.
I believe a lot of other people have a passion for evangelism but have been shamed into believing they are not evangelists because they are not telling people they suck but God loves them anyway. How different would the face of Christianity and the world be if we included repentance as a natural step in the path of faith rather than a shaming gate?
I think this is where repentance can be quite helpful: Not in telling people they suck (since most know that already), but that they need to rely on God to help with their suckiness. I think that's where a lot of us falter, even after our initial "repentance." Reliance on God and walking with him is central to the Christian faith journey. And trying to go it alone is where the central sin is, I think...
However, I'm coming to realize that one can evangelize without emphasizing repentance. As I have discussed over the last couple of days, the Christian life is not about repenting of sin and becoming "holy" (i.e. pure). Rather it is about becoming holy by coming close to God through Christ.
That includes repentance and morality, but does not necessarily start nor end with it. It starts and ends with desire and love for Christ. Yet so often salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism begin and end with "Repent!" and give a cursory nod to love of and for God.
The problem is that most people I know already know how and that they have screwed up. They don't need to be reminded of that. Having God shame us and beat us up even more is not helpful. (No, I don't believe God does this, but that is the message I always get from the message people discuss of repentance.)
I thought I was not big on evangelism because I'm not big on shaming people more. And the centrality of repentance has never felt right to me. These were thoughts I had while listening to an audiobook version of Blue Like Jazz (review forthcoming).
Then I read a Celtic prayer book my wife got me for my birthday. And I realized that I actually am quite passionate about evangelism. My passion is for emphasizing the journey of faith. It's about telling people about transformation that is possible in relationship. It's about finding Truth through struggle. If I didn't have that passion, I would not be maintaining this blog or doing many other things I do.
I believe a lot of other people have a passion for evangelism but have been shamed into believing they are not evangelists because they are not telling people they suck but God loves them anyway. How different would the face of Christianity and the world be if we included repentance as a natural step in the path of faith rather than a shaming gate?
I think this is where repentance can be quite helpful: Not in telling people they suck (since most know that already), but that they need to rely on God to help with their suckiness. I think that's where a lot of us falter, even after our initial "repentance." Reliance on God and walking with him is central to the Christian faith journey. And trying to go it alone is where the central sin is, I think...
Monday, February 22, 2010
De-emphasizing Morality
A couple of weeks ago, a friend wrote a guest post on moralism. This weekend, I got the following email devotional from Ransomed Heart, which seems to reinforce what he said.
I think it's really important to remember that the point of Christianity is not purity, but living with and becoming closer to God. That includes morality, but more as a side-effect rather than the end-result.
An analogy that came to me recently about this is marriage. Should I be nice to my wife? Absolutely. But is the goal of marriage being nice to her? I sure hope not. The goal is intimacy. If we have an intimate relationship, I will probably have to be nice, and the more intimate we become, the nicer I will likely become. But if I just act nice all the time and think our marriage is great, I will be sorely disappointed. Yet many marriages are just like that--nice with no intimacy.
Many people's relationships with God are like that, too: They are nice to God and others, but there is no intimacy with God. Purity and morality is good, but I think we over-emphasize it as a sort of goal of Christianity rather than result of faith and relationship with God.
I think it's really important to remember that the point of Christianity is not purity, but living with and becoming closer to God. That includes morality, but more as a side-effect rather than the end-result.
An analogy that came to me recently about this is marriage. Should I be nice to my wife? Absolutely. But is the goal of marriage being nice to her? I sure hope not. The goal is intimacy. If we have an intimate relationship, I will probably have to be nice, and the more intimate we become, the nicer I will likely become. But if I just act nice all the time and think our marriage is great, I will be sorely disappointed. Yet many marriages are just like that--nice with no intimacy.
Many people's relationships with God are like that, too: They are nice to God and others, but there is no intimacy with God. Purity and morality is good, but I think we over-emphasize it as a sort of goal of Christianity rather than result of faith and relationship with God.
 |
 |
| February 20, 2010 An Invitation to DesireThis may come as a surprise to you: Christianity is not an invitation to become a moral person. It is not a program for getting us in line or for reforming society. It has a powerful effect upon our lives, but when transformation comes, it is always the aftereffect of something else, something at the level of our hearts. And so at its core, Christianity begins with an invitation to desire. |
Friday, February 5, 2010
Accountability Partner or Parole Officer?
I was thinking recently about the ideas of accountability partners. I've never liked the idea of them, and I think I finally know why.
The theology of accountability partners is in many ways rooted in the moralism my friend discussed on here yesterday. It's about being morally holy all the time. Avoiding doing bad rather than encouraging to do right (there can be that, but really the point of these partnerships is avoiding sin).
From this perspective, accountability partners are almost more like parole officers: You were just released from prison (saved from Hell by Christ), but you still need to check in with your PO regularly because if you do something wrong, you'll just go right back. The goal is to keep you out of prison rather than building you up and growing you.
While it can be good to have someone help keep you away from doing wrong, there is so much more to life and our spiritualities than that. Really, moving away from sin is part of moving towards Christ. So spiritual formation partnerships more along the lines of spiritual directors seem a lot more biblical and helpful.
Additionally, accountability partners are often thrown together and expected to be totally honest with one another. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If anything, it would lead to more denial, which just causes more problems. And further, from what I hear, accountability partners usually give overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Not that they are honestly trying to help to the best of their abilities, but it just doesn't seem to be all that great.
It's not great in part because it's so shame-focused. "How did you screw up this week?" is kind of the theme of accountability. I think a better question is "What did you do right?" And rather than giving an simple answer to screwing up, we should ask, "How can I help you?" Just reminding other people to not do certain things is rarely helpful. And frankly, temptation is not always indicative of spiritual weakness; it can be a sign of something deeper going on.
An example of this is sexuality. And let's be honest, when people talk about accountability partners with regards to men, it's about sex. The list of no-nos for men who are in accountability partnerships are likely to include: lust, noticing another woman, thinking about another woman, dreaming about another woman, and the biggest sin: masturbation.
While these things could be problematic as an addiction, they can also indicate that there are relationship problems going on. Just as I talk about with symptom management in psychology, these "sins" may actually just be the symptom of something else and only focusing on the symptom ignores the problem, making it come out in another way.
Accountability is an important thing, but it should occur within the context of a supportive, encouraging, trustworthy relationship. What do you think?
The theology of accountability partners is in many ways rooted in the moralism my friend discussed on here yesterday. It's about being morally holy all the time. Avoiding doing bad rather than encouraging to do right (there can be that, but really the point of these partnerships is avoiding sin).
From this perspective, accountability partners are almost more like parole officers: You were just released from prison (saved from Hell by Christ), but you still need to check in with your PO regularly because if you do something wrong, you'll just go right back. The goal is to keep you out of prison rather than building you up and growing you.
While it can be good to have someone help keep you away from doing wrong, there is so much more to life and our spiritualities than that. Really, moving away from sin is part of moving towards Christ. So spiritual formation partnerships more along the lines of spiritual directors seem a lot more biblical and helpful.
Additionally, accountability partners are often thrown together and expected to be totally honest with one another. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If anything, it would lead to more denial, which just causes more problems. And further, from what I hear, accountability partners usually give overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Not that they are honestly trying to help to the best of their abilities, but it just doesn't seem to be all that great.
It's not great in part because it's so shame-focused. "How did you screw up this week?" is kind of the theme of accountability. I think a better question is "What did you do right?" And rather than giving an simple answer to screwing up, we should ask, "How can I help you?" Just reminding other people to not do certain things is rarely helpful. And frankly, temptation is not always indicative of spiritual weakness; it can be a sign of something deeper going on.
An example of this is sexuality. And let's be honest, when people talk about accountability partners with regards to men, it's about sex. The list of no-nos for men who are in accountability partnerships are likely to include: lust, noticing another woman, thinking about another woman, dreaming about another woman, and the biggest sin: masturbation.
While these things could be problematic as an addiction, they can also indicate that there are relationship problems going on. Just as I talk about with symptom management in psychology, these "sins" may actually just be the symptom of something else and only focusing on the symptom ignores the problem, making it come out in another way.
Accountability is an important thing, but it should occur within the context of a supportive, encouraging, trustworthy relationship. What do you think?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Misunderstanding the Fall and Hell
This video from BioLogos and this one from Out of Ur are provide excellent summaries of the misunderstanding of the Fall that many Christians have. I've discussed this a couple of times previously, but this presents some of it in a clear, concise way.
It really is important to note that much of our understanding of Heaven, Hell, and Satan come from Milton's Paradise Lost, not necessarily Scripture.
It really is important to note that much of our understanding of Heaven, Hell, and Satan come from Milton's Paradise Lost, not necessarily Scripture.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Fundamental Attribution Error
I'm studying for the EPPP (Examination for the Practice of Professional Psychology--the national license exam). As I've been studying, I've been reminded of several concepts that are appropriate for this blog.
One such concept is the fundamental attribution error. This concept states that we often blame a person for problems instead of the environment, often saying the person is bad, sinful, etc.. I'm sure we can all think of examples, but here's a couple of examples I thought of:
The girl who got raped deserved it or was asking for it.
The homeless man is just lazy and evil.
There are clearly times when a person is responsible for their situation, but sometimes they're not. We have to remember that we live in fallen world, which is leads to a lot of problems for all of us that may not be due to any one individual's sin. We should remember this common error that most Americans usually make before we use guilt unfairly. And different cultures and traditions may also lead to greater or lesser use of this error.
Have you seen this error at work in your life?
One such concept is the fundamental attribution error. This concept states that we often blame a person for problems instead of the environment, often saying the person is bad, sinful, etc.. I'm sure we can all think of examples, but here's a couple of examples I thought of:
The girl who got raped deserved it or was asking for it.
The homeless man is just lazy and evil.
There are clearly times when a person is responsible for their situation, but sometimes they're not. We have to remember that we live in fallen world, which is leads to a lot of problems for all of us that may not be due to any one individual's sin. We should remember this common error that most Americans usually make before we use guilt unfairly. And different cultures and traditions may also lead to greater or lesser use of this error.
Have you seen this error at work in your life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)