While surfing the net a couple of days ago I came across several news stories about the Amish population boom. According to those news reports the Amish are growing so fast that a new Amish community is established every 3 1/2 weeks. These Plain People are now the fastest growing religious group in America, and virtually all of their growth is due to natural increase, not conversion. Although they almost certainly didn't plan to, the Amish are demonstrating the potent power of being quiverful.
There's a lesson here for mainstream Christians.
I opined once before on the "quiverful" doctrine, which asserts that believers should forego contraception and let God determine the size of their families. In that post I expressed some reservations about the teaching and I stand by them. However, the surging Amish population highlights how "quiverfullness" can be a potent weapon to combat the Church's decline.
Let's face it. Christianity is under siege in modern America. Not only is the faith being attacked from without, but it is also collapsing from within. It's been reported numerous times that 70% of today's Christian kids leave the faith after high school and never return. Some have questioned that number, but if the actual apostasy level is "only" 40-50% it's still catastrophic because mainstream Christians, even conservative ones, are not reproducing enough to replace the defectors. The Amish have defectors too, but their high birth rate means they more than replace them.
Most modern believers seem to think of church growth only in terms of increasing membership in individual congregations. They also seem to believe that such growth comes, and should come, exclusively through conversion of unbelievers. The role that birth rate plays in growing the Church is lost on most believers today even though natural increase was one reason for the early church's rapid growth. Unlike their pagan neighbors, the early Christians rejected abortion and infanticide--both very common in the Greco-Roman world--as murder. Thus, they grew in numbers. Just like the Amish are today.
As I said above, I have some problems with the "quiverful" doctrine but I'm coming to believe it can be the salvation of American Christianity. Converting unbelievers is a duty for Christians and, I believe, will always be the primary way to expand the faith. However, natural increase also has a vital role to play in growing the Church, and it doesn't mean that every Christian woman must be constantly pregnant. The early Christians' higher "birth" rate consisted not only of having more biological children, but also of taking in orphans and rescuing exposed babies. Modern quiverful Christians should follow their example and eagerly take in the unwanted children of the world. They should build their large families, and thereby build the Church, through natural reproduction and adoption. If God wants us to be quiverful I believe He wants us to be so by emptying out the orphanages, foster homes, and embryo freezers where children languish and die.
The Amish are doubling their population every twenty years. They're growing their faith community exponentially. That's the power of having a full quiver. We can't deny it. The evidence is right before our eyes. The only question is whether the faltering mainstream Church will accept reality and change its ways. Evangelizing the lost doesn't seem to be working. If the Church can't convert new believers then it must grow new believers. The Amish are showing how to do just that, if we will but have the eyes to see.
Showing posts with label Christian Practice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Practice. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
On Being Quiverful
This post was prompted by the news that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, America's most famous big family parents, were expecting their 20th, yes 20th, child. Sadly, Duggar #20 didn't make it. During a doctor visit to discover the sex of their baby, Jim-Bob and Michelle learned that their little one had died in utero.
When I heard of the Duggars' miscarriage I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was sad for Jim-Bob and Michelle who so clearly view every child as a joyful blessing. But I also wondered that maybe this miscarriage was God's way of telling them it was time to stop having children. Not, understand me, God's way of stopping the Duggars' fertility but, rather, God's way of telling them to stop their marathon procreation. In short, telling them it's time to use birth control. And therein lies the problem.
The Duggars are followers of something known as the quiverful movement, which is popular among a small segment of ultraconservative Christians. The stated aim of the movement is not for Christians to have many children, but for Christians to trust God to decide the size of their families. Therefore, the movement is strongly anti-contraception, seeing it not only as anti-child but also as evidence of distrusting God. So, it's highly unlikely that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar will interpret their miscarriage as a divine message to stop reproducing.
I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible, and the Bible, especially the Old Testament, encourages fruitfulness and repeatedly describes children as a blessing and a reward. Because of that I think most Bible-believing Christians will and should have more children than unbelievers (and nominal Christians). However, I do NOT believe that means family planning has no place what so ever in the life of Christians. I've read no Biblical commandment to that affect, and I've read no commandment asserting that contraception denies children are a blessing and/or indicates a lack of trust in God.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not endorsing the anti-child/anti-family sentiment that prevails in our feminism-dominated culture, and I'm not denying that attitude's destructiveness and incompatibility with Biblical teaching. Christians who believe the Bible won't be anti-child or anti-family, and most of them will have more children than the feminist-controlled majority. However, having more children than the majority doesn't mean Bible-believing Christians must engage in uncontrolled, irresponsible reproduction.
There are legitimate reasons for limiting procreation, at least in certain situations. Financial difficulties, health issues, and pathologies like addiction and abuse are all legitimate reasons for delaying childbearing. Christians who use contraception in such circumstances are showing neither anti-child prejudice nor a lack of trust in God. On the contrary, they are using the common sense God gave them to make responsible decisions in trying situations. Such believers need support and understanding, not condemnation, from their brothers and sisters in Christ.
I believe the quiverful movement means well. I admire its commitment to following the Bible's standards rather than the world's. On that score, I think the movement can teach something to the larger Christian community which is plagued by worldliness. I also believe, however, that the quiverful movement has the potential to do more harm than good. Runaway reproduction can have serious consequences for families, consequences which are NOT God's will. If the quiverful movement can accept that fact then it can be a positive force in the Church. If it can't, the movement will undermine itself by judging Christians who use family planning in tough circumstances. That, not using birth control, is the real sin.
When I heard of the Duggars' miscarriage I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was sad for Jim-Bob and Michelle who so clearly view every child as a joyful blessing. But I also wondered that maybe this miscarriage was God's way of telling them it was time to stop having children. Not, understand me, God's way of stopping the Duggars' fertility but, rather, God's way of telling them to stop their marathon procreation. In short, telling them it's time to use birth control. And therein lies the problem.
The Duggars are followers of something known as the quiverful movement, which is popular among a small segment of ultraconservative Christians. The stated aim of the movement is not for Christians to have many children, but for Christians to trust God to decide the size of their families. Therefore, the movement is strongly anti-contraception, seeing it not only as anti-child but also as evidence of distrusting God. So, it's highly unlikely that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar will interpret their miscarriage as a divine message to stop reproducing.
I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible, and the Bible, especially the Old Testament, encourages fruitfulness and repeatedly describes children as a blessing and a reward. Because of that I think most Bible-believing Christians will and should have more children than unbelievers (and nominal Christians). However, I do NOT believe that means family planning has no place what so ever in the life of Christians. I've read no Biblical commandment to that affect, and I've read no commandment asserting that contraception denies children are a blessing and/or indicates a lack of trust in God.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not endorsing the anti-child/anti-family sentiment that prevails in our feminism-dominated culture, and I'm not denying that attitude's destructiveness and incompatibility with Biblical teaching. Christians who believe the Bible won't be anti-child or anti-family, and most of them will have more children than the feminist-controlled majority. However, having more children than the majority doesn't mean Bible-believing Christians must engage in uncontrolled, irresponsible reproduction.
There are legitimate reasons for limiting procreation, at least in certain situations. Financial difficulties, health issues, and pathologies like addiction and abuse are all legitimate reasons for delaying childbearing. Christians who use contraception in such circumstances are showing neither anti-child prejudice nor a lack of trust in God. On the contrary, they are using the common sense God gave them to make responsible decisions in trying situations. Such believers need support and understanding, not condemnation, from their brothers and sisters in Christ.
I believe the quiverful movement means well. I admire its commitment to following the Bible's standards rather than the world's. On that score, I think the movement can teach something to the larger Christian community which is plagued by worldliness. I also believe, however, that the quiverful movement has the potential to do more harm than good. Runaway reproduction can have serious consequences for families, consequences which are NOT God's will. If the quiverful movement can accept that fact then it can be a positive force in the Church. If it can't, the movement will undermine itself by judging Christians who use family planning in tough circumstances. That, not using birth control, is the real sin.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Custom Vs. Worship
Tomorrow is Valentine's Day* and it made me start thinking about something that I think needs to be clarified for some Christians.
Valentine's Day is, of course, the holiday on which we celebrate love. Believe it or not, there are some Christians who oppose celebrating Valentine's Day because they say it has pagan roots, the same reason these Christians give for not celebrating Christmas and Easter. These Christians oppose birthday celebrations for the same reason. While I understand their reasoning I believe they are quite mistaken to oppose birthday celebrations or holidays like Valentine's Day because of their pagan origins.
It's true that Scripture tells us that God doesn't want His people to worship Him with heathen practices. That's why I agree with those "anti-holiday" believers who have a problem with Christmas and Easter. Those holidays are about actually worshiping God with pagan "holy" days, and that's wrong. Scripture tells believers not to worship the one, true God the way pagans worship their false ones. I understand applying that principle to things like Christmas and Easter, but it's misguided, I feel, to apply it to things like birthday celebrations and "neutral" holidays like Valentine's Day.
Yes, birthday celebrations and holidays like Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are rooted in paganism, but they are not celebrated today as ways ofworshiping God. Rather, these things have come down to us as customs. And that's the key. Worship and custom are two very different things.
Worship is how we relate to God, how we honor and praise Him in certain sacred settings. Custom is how we live our lives. Of course, if we are God's people then we will live our lives differently from unbelievers in many ways, but that doesn't mean avoiding everything in life that has pagan roots. In fact, we can't avoid everything in life that has pagan roots because paganism permeates human civilization.
Take the days of the week, for instance. Five of them are named after pagan deities. In English, four of those deities are Germanic and one is Latin. Tuesday is Tiuw's day, Wednesday is Wotan's day, Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Freya's day, and Saturday is Saturn's day. The other two days of the week, Sunday and Monday, are named after the sun and moon, which were worshiped as gods by pagans. It's the same with the months of the year. Six--January, February, March, April, May, and June--are named after pagan gods or goddesses. Two more--July and August--are named after Roman emperors worshiped as gods.
So where does this leave believers if we are to avoid all things pagan? Are we not to say the names of the days of the week or the months of the year? Are we guilty of worshiping false gods if we do say those names? What about eating the main meal of the day at noon, a practice that I've heard has pagan roots? Should believers who live where that's the custom eat their main meal in the morning or the evening instead? How far is avoiding all things pagan supposed to go?
I think everyone can see that paganism touches all aspects of life and that avoiding it all together is just impossible. And that shouldn't be believers' goal. Rather, we should be discerning, as befitting followers of Christ, and make rational distinctions between acts of worship and mere custom. We should understand that we can celebrate a birthday, or Valentine's Day, or eat our main meal at 12 pm without accepting whatever pagan religious beliefs undergird those things. We must not use pagan religious practices to worship God. But participating in pagan-derived customs which do not involve worship is perfectly ok. So go ahead and attend that birthday party, send that Valentine's Day card, and eat your dinner at noon. God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you do. He's saving those for the real sinners.
*I started this post on February 13.
Valentine's Day is, of course, the holiday on which we celebrate love. Believe it or not, there are some Christians who oppose celebrating Valentine's Day because they say it has pagan roots, the same reason these Christians give for not celebrating Christmas and Easter. These Christians oppose birthday celebrations for the same reason. While I understand their reasoning I believe they are quite mistaken to oppose birthday celebrations or holidays like Valentine's Day because of their pagan origins.
It's true that Scripture tells us that God doesn't want His people to worship Him with heathen practices. That's why I agree with those "anti-holiday" believers who have a problem with Christmas and Easter. Those holidays are about actually worshiping God with pagan "holy" days, and that's wrong. Scripture tells believers not to worship the one, true God the way pagans worship their false ones. I understand applying that principle to things like Christmas and Easter, but it's misguided, I feel, to apply it to things like birthday celebrations and "neutral" holidays like Valentine's Day.
Yes, birthday celebrations and holidays like Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are rooted in paganism, but they are not celebrated today as ways ofworshiping God. Rather, these things have come down to us as customs. And that's the key. Worship and custom are two very different things.
Worship is how we relate to God, how we honor and praise Him in certain sacred settings. Custom is how we live our lives. Of course, if we are God's people then we will live our lives differently from unbelievers in many ways, but that doesn't mean avoiding everything in life that has pagan roots. In fact, we can't avoid everything in life that has pagan roots because paganism permeates human civilization.
Take the days of the week, for instance. Five of them are named after pagan deities. In English, four of those deities are Germanic and one is Latin. Tuesday is Tiuw's day, Wednesday is Wotan's day, Thursday is Thor's day, Friday is Freya's day, and Saturday is Saturn's day. The other two days of the week, Sunday and Monday, are named after the sun and moon, which were worshiped as gods by pagans. It's the same with the months of the year. Six--January, February, March, April, May, and June--are named after pagan gods or goddesses. Two more--July and August--are named after Roman emperors worshiped as gods.
So where does this leave believers if we are to avoid all things pagan? Are we not to say the names of the days of the week or the months of the year? Are we guilty of worshiping false gods if we do say those names? What about eating the main meal of the day at noon, a practice that I've heard has pagan roots? Should believers who live where that's the custom eat their main meal in the morning or the evening instead? How far is avoiding all things pagan supposed to go?
I think everyone can see that paganism touches all aspects of life and that avoiding it all together is just impossible. And that shouldn't be believers' goal. Rather, we should be discerning, as befitting followers of Christ, and make rational distinctions between acts of worship and mere custom. We should understand that we can celebrate a birthday, or Valentine's Day, or eat our main meal at 12 pm without accepting whatever pagan religious beliefs undergird those things. We must not use pagan religious practices to worship God. But participating in pagan-derived customs which do not involve worship is perfectly ok. So go ahead and attend that birthday party, send that Valentine's Day card, and eat your dinner at noon. God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you do. He's saving those for the real sinners.
*I started this post on February 13.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
A New Year Of Mindful Living
Today is the first day of 2011, and it's the beginning of a new year of mindful living for me.
What's "mindful living"? For me, it simply means being mindful of God. It means being aware of His ways, His commandments, His character, His presence, His people and being aware of how my life reflects on Him and my fellow Christians. In short, "mindful living" means seeking first the kingdom of God, as the Bible puts it. Mind you, I have little practice in seeking God's kingdom first. Growing up, that wasn't even talked about, let alone practiced, in my nominally Christian family. So, I have little idea of what "seeking God's kingdom first" or "mindful living" looks like, but I'm going to try to practice it.
How do I begin to do something that's almost totally foreign to me? Where do I begin? Do I read Scripture every day? Do I go to church, even if I don't feel like I belong? Must I constantly watch what I say and do lest, through unChristlike words or deeds, I dishonor God? I think "mindful living" entails all of the above, and then some. I think it's practicing a whole new way of life that you are led into by God's spirit. For me, I think coming into that life will be gradual. As I've said before, I never had one of those sweeping conversion experiences where habits are changed instantly, so I know I'm not on the fast track to a Godly transformation. A gradual approach may actually be better since it will give me time to process the change, truly learn from my experiences and so make "mindful living" second nature.
Seek first God's kingdom then everything you need will be supplied to you. Meditate on God and His Law when you get up and when you lie down. That's what Scripture says (paraphrased, of course). Being aware of God is the beginning of mindful living. As the new year unfolds, I will try to be aware of God in my daily life, especially remembering to thank Him for His strength and answered prayers. I know I will forget to do that more often than I not. "Mindful living" hasn't been part of my life and old habits will die hard. Still, I'm going to start on this path and will trust that God will be faithful and just to forgive me when I fail. So, I'm on my way to a new way of life. I'm seeking firs the kingdom of God. Mindful living, here I come.
What's "mindful living"? For me, it simply means being mindful of God. It means being aware of His ways, His commandments, His character, His presence, His people and being aware of how my life reflects on Him and my fellow Christians. In short, "mindful living" means seeking first the kingdom of God, as the Bible puts it. Mind you, I have little practice in seeking God's kingdom first. Growing up, that wasn't even talked about, let alone practiced, in my nominally Christian family. So, I have little idea of what "seeking God's kingdom first" or "mindful living" looks like, but I'm going to try to practice it.
How do I begin to do something that's almost totally foreign to me? Where do I begin? Do I read Scripture every day? Do I go to church, even if I don't feel like I belong? Must I constantly watch what I say and do lest, through unChristlike words or deeds, I dishonor God? I think "mindful living" entails all of the above, and then some. I think it's practicing a whole new way of life that you are led into by God's spirit. For me, I think coming into that life will be gradual. As I've said before, I never had one of those sweeping conversion experiences where habits are changed instantly, so I know I'm not on the fast track to a Godly transformation. A gradual approach may actually be better since it will give me time to process the change, truly learn from my experiences and so make "mindful living" second nature.
Seek first God's kingdom then everything you need will be supplied to you. Meditate on God and His Law when you get up and when you lie down. That's what Scripture says (paraphrased, of course). Being aware of God is the beginning of mindful living. As the new year unfolds, I will try to be aware of God in my daily life, especially remembering to thank Him for His strength and answered prayers. I know I will forget to do that more often than I not. "Mindful living" hasn't been part of my life and old habits will die hard. Still, I'm going to start on this path and will trust that God will be faithful and just to forgive me when I fail. So, I'm on my way to a new way of life. I'm seeking firs the kingdom of God. Mindful living, here I come.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Christmas: Should We or Shouldn't We?
Should Christians celebrate Christmas? That's a question most Christians would find nonsensical, if they thought about it at all. Of course Christians should celebrate Christmas. What would their faith be without the celebration of it's founder's birth?
From a cultural standpoint, I support Christmas. Christmas is the single, most visible evidence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and there are people in our increasingly secular nation who hate that heritage. They are waging a "war on Christmas" as part of their efforts to eradicate all knowledge of America's Judeo-Christian roots. It is an act of rank anti-Christian bigotry. For that reason I support the celebration of the "mass of Christ" as a declaration of committment to what it is perceived to be evidence of: our Judeo-Christian heritage. That is my view of Christmas from a cultural perspective, but from a spiritual perspective I'm beginning to feel very differently.
I've known for years that Christmas isn't Biblical but originated in pagan religious festivals celebrating the winter soltice and/or the birth of various pagan gods such as Mithras. I've also known for years that in the Bible God tells His people NOT to worship Him the way the heathens worship their gods. I'm increasingly convinced that that's exactly what we're doing when we use pagan festivals to celebrate Christ's birth. And I'm increasingly uncomfortable with that.
I understand that Christmas is deeply engrained in Christian culture and most Christians see nothing wrong with it. They might think I'm being legalistic in questioning the correctness of celebrating Christmas. Some Christians might remind me that, in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul told believers not to let anyone judge them with respect to days they observe. Others might remind me that Christ freed us from the strictures of the Mosaic Law. I get that, but I also know that the Bible in the New Testament says we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. How can we worship the Lord in truth if we're using the festivals, practices, and traditions of false religions?
I'm not telling anyone to stop celebrating Christmas. I don't condemn the overwhelming majority of Christians who observe the holiday. In fact, I still observe Christmas, though not primarily as a religious holiday. Christmas, for me, has become more about gratitude and reflection rather than about celebrating Christ's birth. It's about giving thanks to God for His blessings and for the strength and comfort He bestowed on me to sustain me during my trials. And it's about reflecting on what I did during the year, honestly confronting my sins, and asking God to help me do better in the new year. That's what Christmas is mostly about for me now.
So, should Christians celebrate Christmas? I think the answer to that question should be left to each believer. I don't think congregations should require all their members to believe one way or the other. The question of Christmas is not, I don't think, a salvation issue. Believers with polar opposite views can be equally saved. Therefore, both sides should treat each other with respect. They should not make the other side's opinion into a character flaw. Both sides should strive to be Christlike in this debate. And that's what Christianity is really all about, isn't it? Becoming Christlike, not getting too concerned about which days your neighbors observe. That's the essence of Christianity.
Merry Christmas.
From a cultural standpoint, I support Christmas. Christmas is the single, most visible evidence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and there are people in our increasingly secular nation who hate that heritage. They are waging a "war on Christmas" as part of their efforts to eradicate all knowledge of America's Judeo-Christian roots. It is an act of rank anti-Christian bigotry. For that reason I support the celebration of the "mass of Christ" as a declaration of committment to what it is perceived to be evidence of: our Judeo-Christian heritage. That is my view of Christmas from a cultural perspective, but from a spiritual perspective I'm beginning to feel very differently.
I've known for years that Christmas isn't Biblical but originated in pagan religious festivals celebrating the winter soltice and/or the birth of various pagan gods such as Mithras. I've also known for years that in the Bible God tells His people NOT to worship Him the way the heathens worship their gods. I'm increasingly convinced that that's exactly what we're doing when we use pagan festivals to celebrate Christ's birth. And I'm increasingly uncomfortable with that.
I understand that Christmas is deeply engrained in Christian culture and most Christians see nothing wrong with it. They might think I'm being legalistic in questioning the correctness of celebrating Christmas. Some Christians might remind me that, in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul told believers not to let anyone judge them with respect to days they observe. Others might remind me that Christ freed us from the strictures of the Mosaic Law. I get that, but I also know that the Bible in the New Testament says we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. How can we worship the Lord in truth if we're using the festivals, practices, and traditions of false religions?
I'm not telling anyone to stop celebrating Christmas. I don't condemn the overwhelming majority of Christians who observe the holiday. In fact, I still observe Christmas, though not primarily as a religious holiday. Christmas, for me, has become more about gratitude and reflection rather than about celebrating Christ's birth. It's about giving thanks to God for His blessings and for the strength and comfort He bestowed on me to sustain me during my trials. And it's about reflecting on what I did during the year, honestly confronting my sins, and asking God to help me do better in the new year. That's what Christmas is mostly about for me now.
So, should Christians celebrate Christmas? I think the answer to that question should be left to each believer. I don't think congregations should require all their members to believe one way or the other. The question of Christmas is not, I don't think, a salvation issue. Believers with polar opposite views can be equally saved. Therefore, both sides should treat each other with respect. They should not make the other side's opinion into a character flaw. Both sides should strive to be Christlike in this debate. And that's what Christianity is really all about, isn't it? Becoming Christlike, not getting too concerned about which days your neighbors observe. That's the essence of Christianity.
Merry Christmas.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Devil Made Me Do It
As we approach Halloween with its emphasis on the demonically supernatural, I was inspired to do a post on a habit among many Christians that's a real pet peeve of mine. What is that habit, you ask? It's Christians' habit of blaming everything bad they do on the devil.
Now I understand that Scripture calls Satan the tempter. He tempted Jesus during His forty day fast in the wilderness, and he tempts us. But blaming the devil for all our sinful deeds is, in my opinion, a cop out. While Satan definitely works to lure us away from God and His way, we are also led away from God and His standards by our own sinful nature.
The Bible says that the unsaved man is naturally full of enmity toward God. When we are saved we do receive a new nature via the Holy Spirit, but the old one isn't erased. It remains, constantly contending with the new nature for dominance in each Christian. Maybe that's why many Christians blame the devil for their sinning: it's easier than waging spiritual warfare with themselves.
A life of perpetual, internal, spiritual struggle isn't what many people today are told to expect when they "accept Christ". Rather, they're told that accepting Christ means instant sainthood epitomized by a "victorious Christian life" of health, wealth, and happiness. Acknowledging, let alone struggling with, their sinful nature just isn't on the menu. So, when things start to go wrong and these Christians find themselves sinning they see it as a Satanic attack on their "victorious life". They don't take responsibility for their own actions, repent, and seek forgiveness from God and man; instead, they enlist prayer warriors to help them repel the devilish assault. In going this route, they deprive themselves of golden opportunities for spiritual growth.
The apostle Paul plainly states that all believers begin their Christian walk as spiritual infants and must grow into mature believers. This maturity develops through spiritual struggle, not just study of God's Word. Blaming the devil for their sins means Christians don't grow as they should. It prevents them from dealing honestly with their weaknesses. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians humility and helps protect them from pride. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians patience and empathy for others who struggle and helps protect them from self-righteousness. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians to rely on God for strength, bringing them closer to Him. Working, with God's help, to overcome their imperfections exercises Christians' spiritual muscles in a way blaming Satan can never do. And spiritually strong believers can resist real Satanic attacks much better than weak ones.
The devil made me do it may be an easy out but it can't create a mature, strong follower of Christ. Those who regularly use this out may appear Godly but lack the power thereof, as Scripture puts it. Therefore, anyone seeking to become a true Christian must put aside blaming Satan and accept responsibility for his sins. He must recognize his complete dependence on Christ for the strength to overcome sin. And he must accept that overcoming sin will be a lifelong struggle, but one that will refine him like fire refines silver. That will make the Christian spotless when he stands before the Lord. That's why the struggle is necessary and worth it, and why "the devil made me do it" must go.
Now I understand that Scripture calls Satan the tempter. He tempted Jesus during His forty day fast in the wilderness, and he tempts us. But blaming the devil for all our sinful deeds is, in my opinion, a cop out. While Satan definitely works to lure us away from God and His way, we are also led away from God and His standards by our own sinful nature.
The Bible says that the unsaved man is naturally full of enmity toward God. When we are saved we do receive a new nature via the Holy Spirit, but the old one isn't erased. It remains, constantly contending with the new nature for dominance in each Christian. Maybe that's why many Christians blame the devil for their sinning: it's easier than waging spiritual warfare with themselves.
A life of perpetual, internal, spiritual struggle isn't what many people today are told to expect when they "accept Christ". Rather, they're told that accepting Christ means instant sainthood epitomized by a "victorious Christian life" of health, wealth, and happiness. Acknowledging, let alone struggling with, their sinful nature just isn't on the menu. So, when things start to go wrong and these Christians find themselves sinning they see it as a Satanic attack on their "victorious life". They don't take responsibility for their own actions, repent, and seek forgiveness from God and man; instead, they enlist prayer warriors to help them repel the devilish assault. In going this route, they deprive themselves of golden opportunities for spiritual growth.
The apostle Paul plainly states that all believers begin their Christian walk as spiritual infants and must grow into mature believers. This maturity develops through spiritual struggle, not just study of God's Word. Blaming the devil for their sins means Christians don't grow as they should. It prevents them from dealing honestly with their weaknesses. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians humility and helps protect them from pride. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians patience and empathy for others who struggle and helps protect them from self-righteousness. Facing their weaknesses teaches Christians to rely on God for strength, bringing them closer to Him. Working, with God's help, to overcome their imperfections exercises Christians' spiritual muscles in a way blaming Satan can never do. And spiritually strong believers can resist real Satanic attacks much better than weak ones.
The devil made me do it may be an easy out but it can't create a mature, strong follower of Christ. Those who regularly use this out may appear Godly but lack the power thereof, as Scripture puts it. Therefore, anyone seeking to become a true Christian must put aside blaming Satan and accept responsibility for his sins. He must recognize his complete dependence on Christ for the strength to overcome sin. And he must accept that overcoming sin will be a lifelong struggle, but one that will refine him like fire refines silver. That will make the Christian spotless when he stands before the Lord. That's why the struggle is necessary and worth it, and why "the devil made me do it" must go.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
The Connection
This blog is about my often troubled and contradictory relationship with God,the Church, and the Christian faith. I was raised in a nominally Christian home and my Christian education was rudimentary. Neither one of my parents modelled Christian living to my siblings and me. My grandmother took me and my sister to church regularly but I never felt I belonged and as soon as I could I stopped attending. Still, I managed to emerge from my largely religious deficient childhood believing in historic, orthodox Christian doctrine.
I believe in God. I believe that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that He is now the only way to God and salvation. I believe all of that yet I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Something is missing in my spiritual life, and until I find it I feel the label "Christian" is best not applied to me.
What's missing? I can't put it accurately into words but I refer to it as "the connection".
Over the past two decades I've read lots of Christian books and watched lots of Christian television. I've noticed a common theme when the topic of salvation is being addressed. In virtually every case new Christians described having what I call the conversion experience. This experience seemed to cement their commitment to the faith more than a rational understanding of Christian truths. This experience, which was invariably described with great emotion, opened up "the connection" with God. And what is "the connection"?
"The connection" is the feeling that you really do have a relationship with God. "The connection" encourages and helps sustain committment to Christian convictions. It's more than just a cerebral understanding of the reality of God; it's the heartfelt realization that God is there. I've never had that heartfelt realization.
When I was fifteen I asked Jesus to come into my heart as I'd been taught to do in church. I was serious; I really wanted Jesus in my life and in charge of my life. After praying, though, I felt nothing. I thought I must have done something wrong so I asked again and again, nothing. I tried a third time and got the same result. That was 30 years ago and I still don't understand why I didn't experience "the connection". I still ask myself, why did God reject me?
Well meaning Christians who have had that conversion experience and know the reality of God will insist that God didn't reject me when I was a kid. They'll insist that He did answer me, even if I didn't feel it, and I've been His child ever since. They'll say that faith isn't about feeling but about believing that God will do what He says He will do and then acting like you believe it. That's what well meaning Christians will say because they just don't understand what it's like to pursue God and not find Him. They don't understand because they have "the connection". So those well meaning Christians, sadly, are of little use to me.
Why does God choose to connect with some people but not others? And why would He do that if He really wants everyone to be saved? I mean, how is God encouraging people to seek Him and His salvation when He ignores them when they do? Alas, I am at a loss for any rationally and emotionally satisfying answers to such questions. One resource that was helpful to me was the book Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. While I believe Yancey fell back on some pat answers toward the end of the book, it was so refreshing to see someone in the Christian community acknowledge that God can be disappointing. My attempt to reach God had left me feeling like a woman quoted in the book who said:
I kept hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a relationship. Either there's something wrong with what I was told, or there's something wrong with me.
Boy do I understand how that woman felt! And maybe she's got a point. Maybe what's wrong isn't her, me, and others like us but, rather, what we were told Christianity would do for us. I don't know, but my pursuit of God continues albeit with a lot less intensity than when I was young. I still want God in my life. I still want "the connection". Maybe, if I keep trying and have faith, I'll one day get it.
I believe in God. I believe that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that He is now the only way to God and salvation. I believe all of that yet I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Something is missing in my spiritual life, and until I find it I feel the label "Christian" is best not applied to me.
What's missing? I can't put it accurately into words but I refer to it as "the connection".
Over the past two decades I've read lots of Christian books and watched lots of Christian television. I've noticed a common theme when the topic of salvation is being addressed. In virtually every case new Christians described having what I call the conversion experience. This experience seemed to cement their commitment to the faith more than a rational understanding of Christian truths. This experience, which was invariably described with great emotion, opened up "the connection" with God. And what is "the connection"?
"The connection" is the feeling that you really do have a relationship with God. "The connection" encourages and helps sustain committment to Christian convictions. It's more than just a cerebral understanding of the reality of God; it's the heartfelt realization that God is there. I've never had that heartfelt realization.
When I was fifteen I asked Jesus to come into my heart as I'd been taught to do in church. I was serious; I really wanted Jesus in my life and in charge of my life. After praying, though, I felt nothing. I thought I must have done something wrong so I asked again and again, nothing. I tried a third time and got the same result. That was 30 years ago and I still don't understand why I didn't experience "the connection". I still ask myself, why did God reject me?
Well meaning Christians who have had that conversion experience and know the reality of God will insist that God didn't reject me when I was a kid. They'll insist that He did answer me, even if I didn't feel it, and I've been His child ever since. They'll say that faith isn't about feeling but about believing that God will do what He says He will do and then acting like you believe it. That's what well meaning Christians will say because they just don't understand what it's like to pursue God and not find Him. They don't understand because they have "the connection". So those well meaning Christians, sadly, are of little use to me.
Why does God choose to connect with some people but not others? And why would He do that if He really wants everyone to be saved? I mean, how is God encouraging people to seek Him and His salvation when He ignores them when they do? Alas, I am at a loss for any rationally and emotionally satisfying answers to such questions. One resource that was helpful to me was the book Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. While I believe Yancey fell back on some pat answers toward the end of the book, it was so refreshing to see someone in the Christian community acknowledge that God can be disappointing. My attempt to reach God had left me feeling like a woman quoted in the book who said:
I kept hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a relationship. Either there's something wrong with what I was told, or there's something wrong with me.
Boy do I understand how that woman felt! And maybe she's got a point. Maybe what's wrong isn't her, me, and others like us but, rather, what we were told Christianity would do for us. I don't know, but my pursuit of God continues albeit with a lot less intensity than when I was young. I still want God in my life. I still want "the connection". Maybe, if I keep trying and have faith, I'll one day get it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Slight Problem With Carrie Prejean
Well, it's official. Carrie Prejean will keep her crown as Miss California despite the controversy over her support for traditional marriage. I'm glad for that. I support Miss Prejean in her struggle against the intolerance of gay activists; however, I do have a slight problem with Miss California.
I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.
I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.
It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.
For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.
I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.
I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.
It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.
For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Why Not Married Priests?
I want it known from the beginning that I'm not anti-Catholic. I believe that Catholics are Christians and I DON'T believe that the Pope is out to take over the world with the Illuminati. However, I was raised Protestant and many things about Catholicism do baffle me. One of those things is the prohibition on married priests.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Modern Modesty
The Bible has teachings on virtually every aspect of human life. Both the Old and New Testaments have many rules and commandments on how the faithful should live. Some of those rules deal with clothing. Biblical clothing rules range from the prohibition on cross dressing to commands for modest dress for women. It's the modest dress rules or, rather, their application that I want to discuss in this post.
I admire those Christians who take the Bible's teachings on modest dress seriously. So many of today's professed Christian women don't. Go to just about any church and you'll see women dressed in ways that are indistinguishable from non-Christian women. You won't see young ladies looking like Britney Spears in most churches but you will see young and old women alike sporting the latest, non-modest styles. This goes against the Bible's teaching that women are to dress modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety, and not dwell on being fashionistas, as we say today.
For Christian women who want to obey God current clothing styles offer few choices. Virtually everthing on the market for women today is designed to show off their sexuality. For truly modest wear Christians are forced to make their own clothes or buy from online Christian stores specializing in modest clothing. But there's a problem there, too. While looking at online modest dress stores I became painfully aware that most of them operate on the principle that modest is synonymous with old-fashioned, dowdy, and just plain ugly.
The devout Christian women and families who run most of these stores are well-intentioned, but they're fixated on 19th century pioneer wear for inspiration for the style of dresses and skirts they sale. I suspect that most pro-modesty Christian women don't really want to wear that stuff. Rather, I suspect they want to dress modestly without looking like they just walked off the set of Little House on the Prairie.
The Bible doesn't say that Laura Ingalls sets the standard for modest dress. If past clothing styles should be Christian women's inspiration for modest apparel shouldn't we look to the first century? Surely, the dress of New Testament Christians provides a more appropriate model of modesty than the dress of pioneer women who lived 1800 years later. But it's not necessary to look to the past at all to know what modesty consists of. It's possible to be both modern and modest.
An unlikely example of modern modesty for Chrisitian women is the late Princess Diana. In 1989 the princess visited the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. For her trip Diana had modest outfits specially made for her so she wouldn't offend Islamic sensibilities. Brightly colored tunics over loose pants and long sleeved, loose fitting, ankle length dresses paired with stylish accessories allowed Diana to wow the women of the Emirates without subverting their morals. The clothes are a perfect specimen of elegant and thoroughly modern modest dress. They can and should serve as an alternative inspiration for Christian women who want to be obey God without looking frumpy or excessively different from current fashion norms.
If looking like an extra for "Little House on the Prairie" suits you then by all means dress that way. Don't let me wrench you from your conviction. Just understand that that's not the only way to live out God's clothing requirements. There are valid alternative modes of dress that let women honor God while living in the here and now. It IS possible to be both modern and modest. We just need to open our minds a little to see that.
I admire those Christians who take the Bible's teachings on modest dress seriously. So many of today's professed Christian women don't. Go to just about any church and you'll see women dressed in ways that are indistinguishable from non-Christian women. You won't see young ladies looking like Britney Spears in most churches but you will see young and old women alike sporting the latest, non-modest styles. This goes against the Bible's teaching that women are to dress modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety, and not dwell on being fashionistas, as we say today.
For Christian women who want to obey God current clothing styles offer few choices. Virtually everthing on the market for women today is designed to show off their sexuality. For truly modest wear Christians are forced to make their own clothes or buy from online Christian stores specializing in modest clothing. But there's a problem there, too. While looking at online modest dress stores I became painfully aware that most of them operate on the principle that modest is synonymous with old-fashioned, dowdy, and just plain ugly.
The devout Christian women and families who run most of these stores are well-intentioned, but they're fixated on 19th century pioneer wear for inspiration for the style of dresses and skirts they sale. I suspect that most pro-modesty Christian women don't really want to wear that stuff. Rather, I suspect they want to dress modestly without looking like they just walked off the set of Little House on the Prairie.
The Bible doesn't say that Laura Ingalls sets the standard for modest dress. If past clothing styles should be Christian women's inspiration for modest apparel shouldn't we look to the first century? Surely, the dress of New Testament Christians provides a more appropriate model of modesty than the dress of pioneer women who lived 1800 years later. But it's not necessary to look to the past at all to know what modesty consists of. It's possible to be both modern and modest.
An unlikely example of modern modesty for Chrisitian women is the late Princess Diana. In 1989 the princess visited the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. For her trip Diana had modest outfits specially made for her so she wouldn't offend Islamic sensibilities. Brightly colored tunics over loose pants and long sleeved, loose fitting, ankle length dresses paired with stylish accessories allowed Diana to wow the women of the Emirates without subverting their morals. The clothes are a perfect specimen of elegant and thoroughly modern modest dress. They can and should serve as an alternative inspiration for Christian women who want to be obey God without looking frumpy or excessively different from current fashion norms.
If looking like an extra for "Little House on the Prairie" suits you then by all means dress that way. Don't let me wrench you from your conviction. Just understand that that's not the only way to live out God's clothing requirements. There are valid alternative modes of dress that let women honor God while living in the here and now. It IS possible to be both modern and modest. We just need to open our minds a little to see that.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
"Jesus loves you!"
I believe that most Christians really do mean well. When people they know are having severe problems Christians will "encourage" them with a cheery "Jesus loves you!", totally not understanding how lame and even depressing that sounds. Yes, I believe that Christians' faith can be a barrier to their acknowledging the depth of other people's pain and feeling real empathy.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Christians don't feel for people; I'm saying that they often don't understand that more than an obligatory "God loves you!" is needed to comfort them. Suffering with those who suffer is a part of the faith that many believers have totally rejected, even if they don't realize it. Instead, the seductive "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine has convinced too many Christians that life is to be problem free, and they're often emotionally and psycologically unprepared when it's not. Saying "God loves you!" becomes almost a magical spell which, when repeated often enough, is expected to put things right.
This can be galling to a lot of hurting people. Talk of God's love is often NOT what people need to hear when mourning the death of a loved one, facing a cancer diagnosis, or reeling in shock from a spouse's infidelity. In such trying times the love of God is NOT what many folks are feeling. The abandonment of God, the distance of God, the coldness of God, the incomprehensibleness of God are what dogs most people's hearts and minds in the dark times. Christians need to acknowledge and validate such feelings rather than try to soothe them with religious platitudes.
When everything is going wrong in a person's life God does not seem very loving. It's ok to admit that. It's ok to be mad at Him. God, as I once heard on a tv show, can take our anger. Trying to paper over it with pat answers insults the intelligence of people. Face it. A relationship with God doesn't guarantee you'll get loving care and attention from Him at all times. Sometimes you get the cold shoulder, and nobody knows why but God. Staying faithful to the Lord in such times is possible but far from easy. People need wise and patient counsel to stay on the right path, and the way to begin is to stop saying "Jesus loves you!"
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Christians don't feel for people; I'm saying that they often don't understand that more than an obligatory "God loves you!" is needed to comfort them. Suffering with those who suffer is a part of the faith that many believers have totally rejected, even if they don't realize it. Instead, the seductive "health, wealth, and happiness" doctrine has convinced too many Christians that life is to be problem free, and they're often emotionally and psycologically unprepared when it's not. Saying "God loves you!" becomes almost a magical spell which, when repeated often enough, is expected to put things right.
This can be galling to a lot of hurting people. Talk of God's love is often NOT what people need to hear when mourning the death of a loved one, facing a cancer diagnosis, or reeling in shock from a spouse's infidelity. In such trying times the love of God is NOT what many folks are feeling. The abandonment of God, the distance of God, the coldness of God, the incomprehensibleness of God are what dogs most people's hearts and minds in the dark times. Christians need to acknowledge and validate such feelings rather than try to soothe them with religious platitudes.
When everything is going wrong in a person's life God does not seem very loving. It's ok to admit that. It's ok to be mad at Him. God, as I once heard on a tv show, can take our anger. Trying to paper over it with pat answers insults the intelligence of people. Face it. A relationship with God doesn't guarantee you'll get loving care and attention from Him at all times. Sometimes you get the cold shoulder, and nobody knows why but God. Staying faithful to the Lord in such times is possible but far from easy. People need wise and patient counsel to stay on the right path, and the way to begin is to stop saying "Jesus loves you!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)