The Heart of a Pastor @christianaudio @caReviewers

A couple of weeks ago, I posted an initial review of Eugene Peterson's memoir, The Pastor. I have finally finished it and absolutely loved it. While I am not in the role of professional clergy, this book hit home to me. If you want to know what my heart is as a psychologist and where I find meaning in life, read this book.

Peterson's book is a perfect example of how amazing of a writer he is. His prose becomes beautifully poetic (and I'm one who generally dislikes poems) with vivid imagery. In the afterward, a letter to a young pastor, he stated that he does not feel like he is a pastor of great achievement. While he did translate The Message Bible and has written many books, I got the sense from reading this that he is not your typical uber-famous Christian who has met the world's standards of success.

Yes, Peterson has had some of that, but he writes not to be famous, but because that is his love and passion. In fact, his personal testimony about the development of The Message makes me love and appreciate it all the more.

But returning to his pastoral work, this is where he finds his primary identity, with the writing elements being more of a supplement to that work. As a pastor, he led a flock of about 500 by the time he left. That's large compared to many institutions, but quite modest compared to those congregations of the best selling authors. And Peterson seemed to have no problem with the size. In fact, he indicated that he didn't want it bigger. He was satisfied with his work, and it showed through his heart and the true, lasting transformation that occurred in his community.

As a psychologist who definitely can be tempted by trying to achieve widespread notoriety, this tome reminded me of the power of daily, incarnational work that we all do on a daily basis. Our daily relationships and connections are what counts. Peterson knows that and lived it. And I have been blessed by his testimony of that life.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the christianaudio.com book review bloggers program. 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.”

Why I Ask Questions And Don't Give Answers

I've had some questions recently about my blog and my approach. My blog is a bit unconventional, which can raise questions. Back in 2008, when I started this, I wrote a couple of posts explaining how the blog developed (which can also be found on the right-hand side of the blog below the picture of Jacob wrestling with the angel). However, sometimes it's good to revisit the purpose, especially as it can change over time.

The biggest question I get is why I ask so many questions, leave them open-ended, and don't give clear stances. A lot of people want the clear, unambiguous answers, particularly related to spirituality. Heck, Wikipedia cites professor Rob Wall as saying Mark Driscoll's authoritative, clear, definitive speech is what makes him so popular. I agree.

This blog isn't for those people. It's also not for people wanting to find out what Christianity is about. It's not for "baby Christians."

My intention is to write a blog for people who have been Christians and have questions. They have doubts. Struggles. My purpose is to provide a space where people can have questions, doubts, struggles, and ambiguity while not having to give up faith.

So often the institutional church creates a perceived and real ultimatum of doctrinal certitude that if you don't believe a certain thing, then you may not be a Christian. I personally believe there is a very small number of issues that really determine a person's salvation. I was talking to a friend just the other day that I have a relationship with God that exists beyond doctrine. Virtually all of my beliefs could be proven to be false, and I would still struggle with giving up my faith because of that relationship.

My faith is based on relationship, not doctrine.

Doctrine, while important, can often lead to impediments in our relationship with God, usually because of man-made wall that our friends construct. While I do believe in walls, I have also found that there comes a time when people have to discover them on their own. Simply being told about the walls and enforcing them doesn't always help growth. Helping people explore and understand and discover the boundaries and mysteries of life and faith is much more powerful.

So even when I do make a more definitive statement or take a position, I also usually attach questions to it. My goal is to get people to think and think critically about themselves and their faith.

I do the same thing in my psychology practice. Many people come in looking for advice. They generally don't get advice from me. I help them come up with the advice they give themselves.

So why do I ask questions? Because millions of people ask the same ones and need a forum to know that they're not alone and can still pursue God in the midst of those questions. Why don't I provide clear answers? Because I don't find that effective for the population I'm aiming at.

You may be one who wants clear answers. If questions or ambiguity hurt your faith, I don't recommend you continue to visit. I have found ambiguity pervades all of life, especially mine. The more I can come to accept and be comfortable with the ambiguity rather than forcing on an artificial answer, the closer to God I get. And that's my hope for those who read this blog.

Compassionate Conservative Christianity from @MaxLucado #MaxOnLife @LucadoTeam

Back in December, I wrote a review of Max Lucado's latest (at that time book). I mentioned how refreshing that book was because Lucado presented conservative evangelical Christian ideas while emphasizing "liberal" social justice. It's a great case for those two to not be in opposition to one another.

Lucado is one of the few authors whose work I have known since early on my Christian life and who I still read and respect highly. I recently had the opportunity to read his newest (and man, does he have a long authorship credit!) book, Max on Life, providing answers to 172 common questions he has received over the years. These were culled from letters, emails, sermons, books, etc.

The result is the most theological work I've read of Lucado's. Usually his work feels more devotional and singly-focused, emphasizing the encouragement of the saints. And this is good stuff. Many of the questions he addresses, though, require more directly theological responses.

Readers of my blog and tweets know I have lobbed a few volleys against penal substitutionary atonement lately. Lucado advocates this atonement theory. However, he doesn't do so in the same condemning hellfire and brimstone fashion that many other big names do these days. His emphasis is more on the transcendent love of God that rescues us from everything. Rather than being against sin, he is for love and God. His presentation of some of these ideas helped me realize that my theological problems are at times more with the viciously vociferous advocates of some positions than the pure theology itself.

There are some gems of lines in this book. One of Lucado's strengths is clarity in his writing and purpose. If you're one who has a lot of questions and want a clear, concise answer, this is a great book. If you want more of Lucado's traditional writings that are more narrative in format, you may want to pass.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. 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 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Romance Sans Sexuality

Related to yesterday's post about celibacy and romance, I've noticed that a lot of romance is rooted in sexuality. Taking a holistic, incarnational perspective that values the body and not create a dualistic mind-body split, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ultimately, can romance be separated from sexuality? How would you define romance? What is different about romantic love than friendship love or family love?

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?

Jesus Can Be Hard to Find in the Present

Over the past few years, I have come to deeply appreciate the value of living in the present and not always the future. When I came across Warren Wiersbe's Jesus in the Present Tense: The I AM Statements of Christ, I was very intrigued. I've always loved hearing the various names of God and their significance. Using them as a devotional to see God around us all the more is awesome.

The book starts out great, emphasizing the importance of names, including that of God. I particularly loved the exploration of people who know God but have not known God's name for various reasons (this could be a full separate conversation).

In the preface, Wiersbe that Jesus "is alive and says, 'I AM.' He can meet our needs today. He is alive this very moment and offers us a satisfying spiritual life in the present tense" (p. 11) He explains that the simple statement, "I AM," emphasizes the present nature of Christ, which is a reflection I had not noticed, but think is powerful.

Unfortunately, the rest of the book does not really seem to focus on the present nature of Jesus. The names of Jesus and subsequent exploration of their meaning is fine, but they're not that significant. Most of the time, it simply feels like a new way to present conservative evangelical theology. It's a much more organic way of doing so with some devotional elements, but it honestly feels more didactic than devotional.

Ironically, halfway through the book, Wiersbe states, "As important as doctrine is, it isn't enough for us simply to affirm what we believe. We must realize that Bible doctrine is incarnated in the Son of God and that He through the Spirit makes each doctrine real and active in our lives" (p. 103). This is an amazing statement that I think really is the motivation for the book. While we need to know what we believe and why we believe it, our faith is not living or effective if it is not vibrantly present in our daily life in the context of relationship. Again, though, this book just seemed to miss this focus consistently.

Just prior to the above quote, Wiersbe states the following, already in italics: "He moved the resurrection out of a statement of faith and into a person, and out of the future and into the present" (p. 103). This is a great reflection that we should all remember!

Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for a review (with no obligation for a positive review).

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?