Does Following God “Work”?

If every person in Myrtle Point who has “tried” following God came to church on the same Sunday, probably every church would be full to overflowing.  Many who have tried “the God thing” will tell you up front that it didn’t work. Does following God “work”?

Notice the language of the question. It is interesting that very few say they decided what they had believed wasn’t true. I think a hundred years ago when Darwin, Marx, Freud and biblical higher criticism were rampant, more people deserting their faith would have said they found Christianity is untrue. Today, however, people use the language of a dissatisfied customer returning a product to Wal-Mart. Our language about God has been taken captive by our consumer culture.

Of course there is something problematic with very idea of “trying out the God thing.” Some things can’t be experienced tentatively—we can’t download salvation for just a trial period. We can’t try out the boat with one foot on the dock. Skydivers can’t jump just a little out of the plane. I am not advocating a leap in the dark. Before committing to God, people should examine all the claims of the faith, their own hearts, and the testimonies of others. But when convinced of the truth, the believer must fully commit to following Christ to even know what such a life is like.

The second problem with the language is the word “work”. When someone complains that following God hasn’t worked, it usually means they had an agenda for God. They had expectations God failed to meet. In high school I had a friend who became a Christian for a couple weeks, but concluded that following God didn’t work because his father was still drinking heavily. He had prayed for his father for two weeks, but had not shared his faith with him. First, he wanted to see if God “worked”. It did not occur to him that God may have wanted to work through him and the example of his transformed life.

Anytime we approach God on the basis of our “to-do list”, our relationship with God is doomed to fail. God insists on being God—and he alone sets the agenda. We must come on the basis of God’s “has-done list”. He has made us. He has forgiven and redeemed us. He has given us the gift of eternal life. Which of these hasn’t worked? Yes, we may not get the job we want, the friends we want—we may not even get the girl. We may not become more athletic, artistic, intelligent, or good-looking. And God may not prevent us from reaping all the consequences of what we have sown in the past.

If anyone had a right to complain that following Jesus “didn’t work,” it would have been Paul. After all, he was jailed multiple times, beaten, stoned, shipwrecked, and slandered by false brothers in Christ. Eventually, he was beheaded. How can this be called “working”? Yet Paul said, “I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.” The guy with the most to complain about complained the least.

 Much of this consumer approach to God is the fault of the church. We often present God as a self-help guru who will provide people with a complete makeover. We focus too much on what God will do for them and too little on what he has done. When we slice up the Bible into a list of God’s promises, we often leave off the promises that we will have tribulation in this world, be hated by the world, and suffer for his name’s sake. Although we celebrate the cross as the place where our sins were taken away, we don’t always invite new Christians to pick up the cross and suffer with Christ. All this makes lousy advertising copy for the product we call God. But we are not invited to a Black Friday sale but rather Good Friday obedience.

Posted in On Faith | 1 Comment

Enough?

It’s common to hear hip Christians like me say, “What’s important isn’t doctrine, but relationship with God!” And yet, the same folk who proclaim this often struggle to have a relationship with God. Eventually I figured out that doctrine and relationship aren’t opposites or enemies. In fact, many struggle with relationship precisely because doctrine has not taken center stage. Only right doctrine can lay the foundation for an unshakeable relationship with God.

The first doctrine is simply that apart from Christ, we are sinners and hopelessly lost. We stand guilty and condemned before God. We are burdened with guilt and enslaved by sin—captive to our own corrupt nature. Our sin corrupts us but also offends the loving God who is our creator. And our sin is contagious as it defiles and wounds those around us. It, literally, stinks to high heaven.

The second doctrine is that of atonement. To pay for our sin and set us free, Christ left heaven and came as man into this world. On the cross he paid for our sin and ransomed us from slavery to sin and Satan. He removed our guilt so that we might be called sons of God and have relationship with the Father through the Holy Spirit. And as children of God, we through faith inherit eternal life.

Let’s say this was all we got: Sin gone, hearts clean, adopted by God, inheriting eternal life. Would it be enough? Would it be enough for us to spend a lifetime serving this God out of gratitude? Would it be enough to earn our passionate love and uncompromising obedience? Would such an extravagant gift, such undeserved grace, be enough to kindle in us an extravagant and generous love for others? If we really believe these doctrines, it should be.

Too often I have lived and talked as though it isn’t enough. God doesn’t answer, it seems, all my prayers. Sometimes I pray for the sick and they get worse. I ask God questions, but often don’t get answers—sometimes the personal relationship seems impersonal. Too often my attitude is more like, “Yes, thanks for that incarnation thing and the cross. I imagine someday that eternal life thing will be cool, but really—what have you done for me recently?”

What re-centers me is the discipline of worship. Some might be surprised I call worship a discipline because today our approach to worship often focuses on how we feel. We often talk about what we got from worship, not what we gave. Did we feel the Holy Spirit? Were we spiritually refreshed? Was the worship “good”? We have movie critics, food critics, and in many churches—worship critics. Like all sacrifices, the “sacrifice of praise” requires that something die. Real worship that is about God and not us requires the death of our self-absorption. Worship focuses on what God has done and His eternal worthiness to be praised for lifting us out of sin, accepting us as his children, and giving us eternal life. If after doing this, no prayer was answered, no guiding voice was heard, no cascade of blessings fell—it would be more than enough.

So the strong and unshakeable foundation of a relationship with God—personal or impersonal—is built on doctrines that flood my heart with gratitude and love for Jesus. Gratitude for who God is and what Christ has done can carry my relationship through every dark night of the soul, every shattered dream, and every crushing disappointment. Worthy is the Lamb.

Posted in On Faith | Leave a comment

The Prophetic Spirit of Adoption

In a recent Time magazine interview (Nov. 23) Katrin Himmler was asked if she, like the descendants of other notorious Nazis, felt it was best not to have children so the name would die out. I found her answer interesting:

           Other children of perpetrators in Germany have decided to do that. But for me,
            that’s a continuity of how the Nazis thought—that everything is defined by blood
            lines. Genes aren’t everything. You can always make your own decisions.

Katrin’s great-uncle, Heinrich Himmler, was responsible for the plan that resulted in the death camps and murder of over six million Jews. Her decision to have children and not change her name took courage.

 As a father of four adoptive sons, I too believe, “Genes aren’t everything.” I believe in love—and have tried to give a lot to my sons. Like Katrin, I believe we can all make our own decisions. Most importantly, I believe in the grace of God and transforming power of Jesus Christ: salvation, new birth, redemption, cleansing, and becoming a new creature.

For Christians adoption is prophetic. Our adoptive love speaks prophetically that the child is more than his genes, that his choices matter, and that if he chooses God, grace will flow into his life and free him to be all God has created him to be. Many adopted children today know their birth family and parents—in some cases read about them the newspaper. So it is natural for them to wonder how much of who they are is locked into their genes. Sometimes as they get older, this question creates a tug-a-war between the genetic past revealed in their birth family and the spiritual future prophesied by their adopted family. In this struggle adoptive parents hope that “love never fails.”

 Of course, all love, if empowered by God, is prophecy. When we truly and unselfishly love others, we see not just what they are, but what God is redeeming them to be. By the Spirit, we glimpse their future in God. But since adoptive parents aren’t looking for Mom’s eyes or Dad’s personality, we feel more keenly the responsibility to help the child become the person God has created them to be. We are always trying to see them through God’s eyes, and then help them see themselves as God does.

This may all sound easy and spiritual. It is hard. Adoptive parents must keep their hearts pure and free of ego. When we adopt a child, we aren’t getting a blank slate on which we can write all of our dreams. The child we adopt can never become our project. (I suspect this is true of all children.) Our actions and words must always speak love and grace to the child, but we are often in the position of simply watching them discover their identity in God. We can never impose it on God’s behalf.

Like most prophecy, adoptive love is an invitation—one that can be accepted or rejected. God invites all Christians to look into His Word and discover their identity as His children, born of His Spirit. But this invitation does not require the negation of all our genes have made us because every person is created in the image of God with unique gifts and callings. Genes aren’t everything,  but they are something. All a child has inherited spiritually and genetically—even if from Himmler—can be redeemed by God’s grace and cleansed by Christ’s blood. Every adopted child that abides in Christ becomes a beautiful picture of what God’s grace and power can do, or could have done, in the lives of their birth family. God redeems our genes.

Like most prophetic words, adoptive love needs to be spoken with perseverance. Other words will compete. And during the teenage years these other voices can almost drown out the voice of grace. Being adopted, no matter how loving the family, often means a child will struggle with insecurity and personal identity. In the midst of this uncertainty, the world’s voice can sound quite convincing as it invites a teenager to anchor his worth in sex, alcohol, drugs, or peer-approval. Some adopted teenagers may be tempted to define themselves by the successes or chronic failures of their birth families. An adopted child’s rejection of our prophetic invitation into God’s purpose is especially painful for adoptive parents because it often feels like a rejection of us as parents. Like all wounded parents, adoptive parents must seek their healing from God and guard their hearts from bitterness or despair.

Through all of these tribulations, adoptive parents must prophetically speak who we believe God has called our child to be. Our responsibility is to faithfully extend the invitation—we cannot determine the response. The decision of the adopted child matters.  All prophetic words are tested, and we must persevere in speaking even if our words are anointed only with our tears. Sometimes we prophesy with words—more often with open hearts and homes: always with tenacious love.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Billy Badger vs Hamas

My two brothers were older and bigger, but that did not keep me from harassing them. I would pester them, sneak up on them, spy on them, throw pillows at them and thump them on the head and run. Eventually they would lose their temper and take out after me. If my timing was perfect, just as we rounded a corner they would get caught clobbering me in front of Mom and Dad. Being five years younger than Larry and ten years younger than Stan, I could usually get them in trouble for hurting me. Of course, my parents caught on quickly and began scolding me for provoking my brothers.

When it comes to Hamas and Israel, the international community and press is not as quick as my parents. Hamas lobs hundreds of rockets into Israel; day after day they are warned to stop. But they don’t. Like my pestering, the rockets don’t do tons of damage, but they do keep many Israelis dashing to bomb-shelters and living in fear. Eventually Israel says, “Enough!” and orders its jets to strike back at Hamas and fire missiles at the launch sites of the rockets.

The only thing louder than the whine of the incoming missiles is the whine of Hamas as it complains to the press about Israeli aggression and its disproportionate response. Indeed, the response of Israel is disproportionate—more Palestinians have died than Israelis. And like me hoping to get hit right in front of parents, Hamas hopes civilians will be killed in front of TV cameras. Therefore they launch their rockets from the tops of apartment building, schools, and hospitals. Hamas may report seven fighters killed and two civilians, but cameras, and even CNN, will only show the civilians or children who are killed.

Demanding that Israel’s response be proportionate is idiocy. It is like me slapping a professional boxer 25 times, being continually warned to stop, and then getting my nose broken by one punch. Yes, that nose-crunching punch was disproportionate to my slaps, but (Do we need to say this?) well-deserved. Yet, we see resolutions condemning Israel for breaking the nose of Hamas every time we see it playing this game.

In my grade school, my mother taught 4th grade and had a bratty kid named Johnny who would not stop picking on this little kid named Billy Badger. During recess, Johnny once again punched Billy and took off running and laughing. Billy, however, exploded in anger, ran Johnny down, sat on top of him and rained down punches on his face. My Mom, on playground duty that recess, slowly walked over to them, giving Billy a few more moments to express himself to Johnny. Johnny was now crying and whining to my mom, “Make him get off me.” My mom said, “Well, Johnny, you should stop hitting and picking on Billy if you don’t want this kind of thing to happen. Are you going to stop?” Sniveling, Johnny said yes and my mother told Billy Badger to get off him. Johnny continued to be a brat—but did leave Billy alone.

I hereby nominate my mom for Secretary General of the United Nations. I suspect, however, that any teacher who has done playground duty or any mother that has raised three boys would see through the bratty game Hamas is playing.

Posted in Culture | 2 Comments

Generals and Privates

And now General Petraeus, a four-star general, former commander of American forces in Afghanistan, former director of the CIA. Really?

As another adulterer bites the dust and joins the ranks of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the usual debate swirls around. Should this transgression in their private life be any of our business? Does adultery make someone unfit for public service or office?

Without a doubt General Petraeus is a brilliant military leader who has earned the respect and admiration of many Americans. He holds a Ph. D. from Princeton. He is widely credited for implementing the “surge” in Iraq that marginalized Al-Qaeda. A year ago Congress unanimously voted to confirm him as director of the CIA. Many have suggested we should overlook his adulterous affair so as not to lose such a valuable public servant. He, however, has taken responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family, Congress, and the nation. On November 9, he resigned as Director of the CIA. But should he have?

Yes. Although some claim that his adultery is a matter of private sexual morality, they are wrong. Adultery, unlike fornication, breaks marriage vows that were made in public. The newspaper that will exploit the adulterous scandal may have run an announcement of the couple’s engagement and wedding. Those who attend a wedding, especially the groomsmen and maids of honor, are present as witnesses to couples’ public promise to be faithful to each other. No other promise a man makes is as solemn and sacred. The failure to keep this promise puts into question his ability to keep every other promise. The issue is not his sex life; it is whether he has the integrity to keep his vows and whether he will keep them when no one is looking. Just as embezzlement is about more than liking money, adultery is about more than liking sex. It is about being unworthy of trust.

Yes again. Although many adulterers in the hall of shame were brilliant (Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar), many wondered how they could have been so stupid to think they wouldn’t get caught. The answer is something more dangerous than stupidity—it is arrogance. Many simply became intoxicated with their power and the belief that a different set of rules applied to them. And hypocritically these men tolerated behavior in themselves that in their wives would have outraged them. Some colleagues at my college have argued that this failure in personal morality can be isolated to one area, but I would argue that hubris, arrogance, or the proud delusion of privilege can never be isolated—that it eventually infects all of one’s character.

And yes again. Is it dangerous for the CIA Director or, for that matter, any important public official to have an affair they desperately want to keep secret? Of course, because the discovery of that secret can make them a target of blackmail and manipulation. When the one having the secret affair is the Director of the CIA, the danger is not just to the cheater, but to national security. I must admit this point would be negated if Petraeus had been more like some French public figures who openly take mistresses, but it would still bring into question his good judgment. Wisdom is important for leadership and Petraeus has revealed a shocking lack of it.

And yes again. Petraeus is a father. No matter how successful a man may be in leading other men, his first responsibility is to lead his family as a father. Adultery is not just cheating on a spouse; it is cheating on your children. As a leader, Petraeus failed to do his duty to protect his children from shame and failed to set an example they can emulate.

My greatest concern regarding adultery in our leaders is something difficult to prove. During the investigation and impeachment of Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica, pundits were puzzled by polls that showed Clinton’s approval rating had risen slightly—even among women. Apart from all their legislative and political achievements, our leaders present the nation with an example that should make us want to be better than we are. Our leaders should make us aspire to a higher standard of integrity and achievement. But I think a leader’s public moral failure can make many feel better about themselves. Some may say, “Sure, I’m cheating on my wife—but heck, even presidents do that.” After all, if a four-star General can’t say no to adultery why should we expect that anyone can?

Some (I know who you are) may be disappointed that I have gotten to the end and not used the s-word. No—the other one: sin. I am not like those who mourned the stupidity of Clinton’s affair with Monica, but were afraid to say it was morally wrong—that it was sin. Adultery is sin, and I suspect Petraeus spoke his wedding vows before God—not just people. I fear, however, that if we begin punishing the sins of everyone we have elected, we would not know where to begin—or where to end. We might end as a nation without government. My argument is that adultery is a kind of sin that brings into question the integrity, humility, and wisdom of a leader. It is not just an issue of private morality, but one of public trust.

Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

A Comment on Comments

If you find any of these blog entries helpful, intriguing, or infuriating, please comment. According to the counter it looks like people might be reading this blog, but without comments it hard to sense that I have readers and know who they might be. I prefer dialogue to monologue and reader response can help a writer discover when they are being relevant. Comments can help shape the direction of the blog even if the comment is simply a “thank you” or a “how dare you”.

If you don’t immediately see your comment posted, don’t worry. When you send a comment, I have to get on and approve the comment before it appears on the blog. This may take a few days. If you prefer not to have your comment posted, just say so. And sometimes I may respond privately to you if that’s most appropriate.

It is quite possible that some of your comments will be more helpful to readers than my blog, so for their sakes–please comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

One-issue Voters

As a thinking exercise, I sometimes ask whether it would be wrong to be a one-issue voter if the issue were slavery. In his debate with Lincoln, Douglas argued an essentially pro-choice position: let the southern states decide whether and when to end slavery. At the risk of sounding like an intolerant moral absolutist, I assert that pro-slavery Christians were wrong.

Perhaps I should defer more to the Supreme Court ruling (Dred Scott vs. Sanford) on who is a person and citizen. But God’s law transcends Supreme Court rulings. And yes, I know that some Christians find verses in the Bible that seem to justify the enslaving of Africans. But they are wrong. How can one even look at a slave and deny he is a person?

Perhaps I am too narrow. I would vote for an atheist before a pro-slavery Christian. I would vote for an incompetent candidate who promised to end slavery before I would vote for an intelligent and skillful pro-slavery candidate.

Perhaps I should care more about foreign policy, the economy, western expansion, and the Indian problem. Perhaps I am guilty of shoving my anti-slavery morality down the throats of others instead of letting slave owners make a private moral decision.

After all, I really don’t want to be associated with the John Brown types who wave a Bible in one hand and gun in the other.

I often wonder how history will judge me. An unbalanced and intolerant one-issue fanatic?  A courageous and compassionate defender of the helpless?

Posted in Culture | 12 Comments

Seven Obstacles to Real Repentance that Can Keep Us Stuck in the Muck

  1. Renaming sin. We often rename sin so that we don’t have to acknowledge it. We may call our sin a weakness, a tendency, a personality trait, a necessary adaptation to circumstances, a mistake, an error, a bad habit, etc. Of course, all of these other words for our sin allow us to escape God’s demand for repentance and real change. So we stay stuck.
  2. Excusing sin. It’s only a little sin. I need it. In my circumstances holiness and obedience aren’t practical—business is business and it’s a dog eat dog world. I only swear when it is really needed.
  3. Comparing sins. Yes, this may technically be a sin but so many people do it (over-eat?) that it’s not a major sin. At least, I’m not as bad as _____________ . Or I’m just as good as __________________ and they do ________________ .
  4. Not recognizing that God takes sin personally. In Jeremiah God calls sin and idolatry nothing less than adultery against Him. He takes it personally so we should too. Our repentance should be filled with shame that we have sinned against a perfect and holy God who created us and then saved us through the sacrifice of his own Son. When we sin, we sin against that kind of love.
  5. A refusal to acknowledge our idolatry as sin. We can keep many of God’s moral laws and yet still be guilty of idolatry if we put anything before God. What we idolize may be good: a wife, a job, our health, our finances, our recreation, our children, our church, our ministry, our reputation, or even our incredibly handsome English teacher. A real test for idolatry is to see where our three T’s (time, treasure, talent) are spent. Do we spend as much on offerings as on lattes, sodas, movies, and entertainment?
  6. A refusal to be honest about obedience. If we know God’s will and refuse to do it, that is sin. Since often only we know what God is directing us to do in specific areas of our lives—it is up to us to be honest with God and acknowledge when we have rebelled. Some people who have rebelled against God’s call on their lives are sitting in church every Sunday like good little Christians—but are spiritually stuck in the muck of their sin.
  7. Postponing obedience. Yeah, yeah, I know it’s sin and I will get right on that as soon as find the time. The check is in the mail. Tomorrow is soon enough. Let me sow my wild oats first. I’m only young once (but stupid is forever?).
Posted in On Faith | Leave a comment

October Blackberries

On the way through the cemetery with the dog, I stopped at the blackberry patch. In late August Teckla and I had picked enough berries to make jam. But today it was cold and overcast— the first cold day after many wonderfully warm ones. Many berries had shriveled, but here and there hung a few berries that fell easily into my hand. They were a little soft, but delightfully sweet. It seemed the cold nights had gathered all the sweetness of the summer into the berries. Their sweetness gave me a joy, a stained beard, and a hope for my own October berries.

Posted in On Faith | 2 Comments

If it’s not one thing, it’s a mother

Every year I get to teach Beowulf in my English literature course. I have grown to love it and I have learned several lessons from it:

1)      If it’s not one thing, it’s a mother. Beowulf kills the monster Grendel by tearing off his arm. The Geatish hero parties in the mead-hall with his Danish friends, is showered with gifts, and is living the good life when suddenly Grendel’s mother raids the mead-hall for a little Danish. This, I have learned, is life. Every monster has a mother, every victory is brief, and every life ends in defeat until the final victory of resurrection. We are warriors, and like good Vikings our goal should be to die with a sword in our hand and be carried from the battle field on our shattered shield.
2)      Swords fail, courage succeeds. Anglo-Saxons liked swords. They even named them. Twice in the story of Beowulf, once against Grendel’s mother and then against the dragon, Beowulf’s sword breaks or fails to bite into the monster. It seems wrong that swords that have names, Hrunting and Naegling, should ever fail, but I think this tale, or its scop, is making a point. We often hope for technology to save us from monsters—maybe even from ourselves. But the real monsters we face (greed, selfishness, cruelty) are only defeated with the weapons of the heart: courage, loyalty, and love.
3)      Fight the dragon, don’t play the slots. After fifty winters as king, Beowulf’s kingdom is attacked by a dragon that has been awakened. Although his hair is grey, Beowulf straps on his armor, grabs his sword Naegling, and wades again into the fray. He kills the dragon, but suffers a fatal bite to his neck. Today there are fewer gray-haired warriors. On the way to work, I pass a casino parking lot filled with the RV’s of retirees who sit for hours pulling the arms of slot machines. Our culture has defined old age as a time for rest, recreation, and retreat. I choose dragons.
4)      Live a life that shows the way. Beowulf asks that his burial mound, Beowulf’s Howe, be raised on a coastal headland where sailors could see it. For the most part, Vikings avoided open water and sailed along the coasts, navigating by the headlands and mouths of rivers. Throughout the poet’s account of Beowulf’s life, it is clear that he is not just reciting history or myth, but is setting before us the model of a hero and faithful king. The poem itself is like a burial mound on a headland that helps us navigate life. My grave won’t provide a landmark for mariners, but I hope my life points the way.

Posted in Culture | 2 Comments