Category Archives: Christianity

June 17, 2011 · 1:34 pm

Feting John Franke


Yesterday we feted John Franke, Professor of Missional Theology,  for 18 years of service and to bless him as he begins his new life as theologian in Residence in a church in Allentown. John has been a colleague and a friend. I was asked to say a few words about his and instantly, 3 words came to mind:

tenacious. honest. compassionate.

John is tenacious for the pursuit of truth. He is also tenacious in an argument. I have had many with him (all friendly). Having a sparring partner like John causes one to stretch and consider new ideas. I am sure that I am a better teacher and thinker because of him.

John is not just tenacious in the realm of intellect. I have had the pleasure of playing against him in basketball, ping-pong, foosball, etc. My most favorite experience with John in this regard was on a pleasure trip with him where we took turns riding on a tube pulled by a boat. Each of us rode the tube by ourselves. After a few minutes, the driver of the boat did his magic to see if he could cause us to fall off. While I and another friend were soon bounced off, John hung on for dear life. Even when the tube flipped upside down, John tried to hang on despite being under water.

John is honest about what he thinks and believes. Sometimes that has cost him dearly when he failed to recite certain expected talking points, whether with colleagues or in the class room. You never worried that John thought one way but talked as if he thought another. If you asked John to share his opinion, he did so.

Now, honesty without compassion can turn into harshness. But, John has obvious compassion, especially for the downtrodden, the minority, the one with a weaker voice. In his teaching he would give opportunity for folks who had felt marginalized in evangelicalism to voice their concerns and interests. The only people who had to worry much about John were those who were themselves unwilling to extend a listening ear to those on the fringe.

We will certainly miss John’s voice and his playfulness on our faculty. But, we also know that God is calling him to a new ministry and so we send him on serve the local church and to continue to write for a larger audience.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Seminary, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as ,

June 14, 2011 · 2:49 pm

Competing Models of Christian Counseling? Who is Right?


A couple of recent pieces have me thinking about (a) models of Christian counseling and, (b) the intramural conversation amongst Christians on which model is most Christian. One piece is David Powlison’s article in the Summer 2011 issue of the Westminster Today magazine (this link is to the magazine site but the current issue is not yet up). The second is by Ed Welch–a blog on Biblical Counseling Coalition website.

This is not a new topic for me. From my “About Me” page you can see that I have training in biblical counseling and also in clinical psychology. I respect the folks at CCEF who had a huge impact on my life and thought–especially that lovely editor they employ ;). While getting my PsyD I published on the historic divide between biblical counselors and Christian psychologists and the need to build bridges. I’m an associate editor for Edification, a Christian Psychology peer-reviewed journal.

All that to say, I have some thoughts on some ways we might move beyond right/wrong while still being concerned about building a clear, cogent, God-honoring model of Christian counseling.

Drop the labels

Yes, we should drop our labels. What is the difference between a Christian counselor, Christian psychologist, integrationist, or biblical counselor? These differences are as varied as the numbers of people who use them. Yes, there are probably some benefits to communicating a personal stance with one of these terms. But, for every benefit, there are probably any number of negatives, including the use of the label as a curse. “Are you that kind of biblical counselor” (whatever kind you find offensive)? “Are you a Christian who happens to be a psychologist or a Christian psychologist?”

In addition to dropping labels, we should also drop broad brush judgments. Calling Christian psychologists “syncretistic” is offensive and ill-fitting. Calling biblical counselors “psychology bashers” does not accurately portray their nuanced approach. Saying that psychology and biblical counseling is “fundamentally incompatible” (from either side of the debate) ignores the benefits that both sides gather from each other.

No labels? What then?

Facets. I’m sure there going to be problems with this idea too but let us choose to focus on facets of counseling models. For example:

  • How does Scripture shape counseling foundations and goals?
  • How do we learn from, utilize, and critique psychological constructs, data, etc?
  • How does typical human development trajectories influence our understanding of the change process?
  • How do we learn from those who do not share our epistemic foundations?
  • How do we articulate diverse counseling goals (suffering well? symptom reduction? discipleship? skill acquisition? insight?) as all working toward the common goal of glorying God and enjoying him forever.

Listen first, repent first

In Ed’s blog post (linked above on the BCC site), he captures the most essential characteristic needed if we are going to learn from each other. We ought to,

listen and enter into the world of the other person (or in this case the other counseling perspective) in such a way that the person representing the perspective says, “Yes, that’s me. You understand.”

It is a sad thing that we counselor types start with diagnosing other model builders without listening first to both the content of that model and the person behind it. We treat our fellow counselors in ways we would never treat a client. How should we listen to others? Can we see what they see? Can we see what they see that we tend to ignore? Can we see the benefits of what they do and the potential liabilities they see in our model?

Be willing to repent where you have unfairly labeled, categorized, and marginalized one who was working for Christ’s kingdom–even if you think you have been hurt more.

List own weaknesses first

Most debates, whether between thinkers or spouses, rarely succeed in winning over the other person. Why? Because we are too busy defending, explaining away, pointing out the weaknesses of the opponent to actually deal with reality.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a counseling model builder express his/her models weaknesses or needed growth points first before exploring the deficits of the another? “My model doesn’t yet have a good understanding of ____. Your model does so much better with that and I want to learn from you.”

Build the center

Rather than start with the differences (which do indeed exist), what if we cataloged the similarities and areas of agreement among Christian models of counseling? In addition, what if we recognized those things we might not have noticed with out the help of those outside our own community. For example, Scripture may speak a great deal about loving neighbors but a particular model of psychology may flesh out what loving a very unique population of client ought to look like. Even if Scripture is sufficient, we do not diminish it when we acknowledge we hadn’t made a particular application without our neighbor’s help.

Acknowledge differences

We will not see eye to eye. We will disagree. Let us acknowledge these where they arise. Let us make sure the differences are real and categorize them into those that are peripheral and those that are substantial. For example, David Powlison speaks about the need for a counseling/care for the soul model back in the 1950s. Despite quality practical theology and discipleship programs, he asked,

But what was the quality [in the 50s] of corporate wisdom in comprehending the dynamics of the human heart? What sustains sufferers and converts sinners? Westminster Today, 4:1 (2011), p7

Right away I ask myself, are these the only two options (sustaining, converting) for Christian counselors? Is it possible also to have the role of treating symptoms? Teaching skills? Reducing suffering? I’m fairly sure that this initial difference is not really there. I suspect David does not reject mercy ministry to reducing suffering. But in dialog, he and I might end up agreeing that some biblical counseling models fail to focus on skill intervention in their quest to address the human heart. And we would likely agree that some christian psychology models fail to address the spiritual discipline of suffering well and the need for conversion. Might we end up agreeing that we want a full-orbed model that neither diminishes nor over-promises symptom care or sanctification?

Promote each other

Finally, we do well to promote each other at our conferences and learning communities. We encourage wide-ranging reading, critical interactions (note, not criticizing), and sharpening of each other. And we commit to lovingly correcting those of our “friends” who speak ill about our neighbors. We reject the fear of defending an outsider for fear of being rejected ourselves. 

 

11 Comments

Filed under AACC, biblical counseling, CCEF, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 31, 2011 · 5:40 am

Healing, recovery, restoration and other words for “getting better”


Recovered. Healed. Better. Restored. Resolved. Whole. What words do you use when describing positive change regarding traumatic events like abuse, the pain of adultery, or other like experiences? And more importantly, what do those words convey to yourself and others?

Why am I thinking about this? Soon, I will begin teaching an on-line summer class called “Healing Trauma in International Settings.” To be honest, I’m a little uncomfortable with the title I chose. Words matter and “Healing” conveys a message. Imagine replacing “healing trauma” with

Trauma treatment

Trauma recovery

Trauma care

Now, maybe I’m being overly sensitive but consider some of these other kinds of problems we face

  • You break your tibia during an aggressive move on the basketball court. Your leg heals and you go back to your basketball playing. Here we use healing to denote that you regained your former capacity to play sports. You are back to normal or near normal.
  • You cut your finger while slicing vegetables. You go to the hospital to get stitches. While you have a scar, your finger heals and you use it again. In time you have only a slight scar to remind you of that day.
  • Your house sustains a fire. You lose belongings. Your insurance company restores your house and replaces your possessions.
  • Your car is stolen. The police recover it and return it to you (with fuzzy dice attached)
  • You have a protracted conflict with a family member. At some point, you have a heart to heart and resolve your differences.

My examples all convey a resolution of a problem where the problem recedes, maybe even disappears. But what about trauma? Is there a form of resolution and healing of rape or sexual abuse or domestic violence where the memories disappear? Should there be? Wouldn’t forgetting these experiences place the person in danger of living in unreality and, in some cases, at risk of re-injury? Here are some important questions:

  • What does healing from an affair look like? How do you know you have “recovered”? What symptoms or experiences would remain?
  • What does healing from a rape look like? What would be expected if you “pretty well recovered”? What is to be expected to not change?

As a counselor I do not want to under or over-sell the recovery process. Victims do find tremendous healing but to assume all vestiges of a traumatic experience go away would be false. Unfortunately, we who have not been traumatized sometimes expect the kind of recovery where victims go back to a way of life and thinking as if the trauma never happened.

If we are honest, we wish to live in a world without lasting consequences from sin and suffering.

We want people to “get over” their pain and go back to a way of life as if it never happened. It would be like asking a person who lost a leg to hope they will run exactly like they did before losing the leg. Indeed, they may run again. But never as fast and never as easy. There will be a stump to care for, a hip to learn new motion, phantom pains to re-interpret, and limits to accept.

This world of limits is one God wants us to live in and one we detest. Our first parents saw the limits of their wisdom and desired to get wisdom on their own. We too love the happily ever after story where humans obtain health and healing apart from limitations. We tell the stories of miraculous healing as if we no longer live in a broken world.

Let us endeavor to tell true stories of healing that glorify God and remind us that we depend upon him for every breath.

8 Comments

Filed under Abuse, adultery, biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 19, 2011 · 11:45 am

What caused sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests?


Did you see the 152 page report published about the causes of sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic church? You can read a very short new story here which links to a pdf of the entire report. You don’t have to read the entire report since the first several pages serve as a summary of the entire report. The report is being rejected by most who have read it because the most prominent “cause” of the increase of child sexual abuse between the 1970s and 1985 is social and moral degradation. In the words of one radio host…”they’re blaming Woodstock? Really?”

What I want to read in the report is their comments on the culture of seminary training. Just what was going on in the lives of the seminary leaders? It may well be that seminary professors and leaders were explicitly and implicitly creating a culture of boundary violations, sexual abuse. It may well be that perpetrating priests were raised and brought up in the church and seminary under a leadership that encouraged such behavior (even if not outright).

Obviously, I’m not thinking that seminaries are only to blame. A culture of secrecy, a culture of protecting the system and ignoring the victim (or much worse), failure to assess priest candidates (both at initial entry and later), and failure to encourage real spiritual formation are just a few of the facets of this problem. But as a seminary professor, I do bear the responsibility of thematic problems of my graduating students. If one student is a bad apple, I’m not responsible. However, if my graduates begin to exemplify a particular theme (e.g., ethical violations, legalism, arrogance, etc.) then I may indeed be responsible for either (a) encouraging such behaviors, or (b) not identifying the problem behaviors/attitudes and not attempting to remediate the problem.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Christianity

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 17, 2011 · 5:56 am

What is the difference between a trial and a stressor?


Words matter. The words you use to describe an event really do shape how you will view it and how you will respond to it. For counselors, the words they use to conceptualize a client/case will shape how they see clients and how they will attempt to intervene. This is why I take considerable time in my Practicum class to practice case conceptualization.

Most beginning counselors are good at collecting information. But, for most, that data might well be a hopelessly knotted  ball of twine.  Where to start pulling? How do we make sense of the various pieces of data? And since data never comes to us uninterpreted, which “data” do we tend to gravitate to? Behaviors? Family history? Motivations? Biology? Environment? Client beliefs? But even more confusing are the words we use to describe these sectors of life–and the meaning they convey!

Stressor v. Trial?

Here’s how language influences case conceptualization. Your client experiences long-term family discord due to an adult child with schizophrenia. The family member routinely goes off medications and the police have to be called in order to transport him or her to the hospital after threatening self-harm. Your client comes to counseling to seek support for handling this difficult situation. As you can imagine, the client feels alone, worn down, and wondering how to keep going despite no sense that the situation will get better any time soon.

What do you imagine might be the impact of calling this family situation a trial? And how might you view it differently if you called it a stressor. Notice any differences? Benefits of each? Drawbacks of either? In your mind, are they equivalent? (See Eric Johnson’s brief discussion of these two words and their similarities/differences in regard to Christian psychology in his Foundations for Soul Care, p. 240)

Here is my thinking. Within Christian tradition, a “trial” signifies a difficult time or season but from a spiritual or divine perspective. It conveys a purpose–a testing or proofing of one’s faith. We tend to view trials (or desire to at least) from an eternal point of view, “testing of your faith produces perseverance…”  (Jas 1:3). Notice that while “trial” does signify difficulty, the focus is largely on the purpose it serves.

On the other hand, a “stressor” is something that causes stress or distress in a person’s life. Notice that this word carries no sense of eternity, divine value or purpose. It merely describes a facet of life that is troubling a person’s life.

Imagine with me a counselor who uses “trial” to describe the distress in the life of the client mentioned above. How do you expect that might shape the counselor’s view of the situation and thus response sets to that client? Would our counselor be more likely to view the trial as something to endure, more likely to engage in spiritual conversations so as to find comfort and peace in the middle of the storm? Would their conversations tend toward the hope of heaven? Is it possible that using the language of trials might cause a counselor to ignore the real-time experience of distress?

Now imagine the counselor who uses “stressor” to describe the same distress. Would this counselor be more likely to discuss in detail the physical, psychological impact of living with a mentally ill and unstable family member? Would this counselor then be more focused on finding ways to decrease the moment-by-moment stress levels? Is it possible that using the language of stressor might cause a counselor to ignore an eternal perspective?

Hopefully, you can see the value of both word meanings and the interventions described. It is possible to use the language of trials and focus in on the details of how that trial impacts the client. And it is possible to use the language of stressors and keep in mind an eternal perspective. Whatever language, the interventions off stress education and reduction and hope building are necessary interventions.

If you are a counselor or counseling student, observe the language you use to describe your clients and their lives. How does that language influence your view of them and the interventions you might use with them?

6 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling skills, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

May 13, 2011 · 10:54 am

Ascertaining adult victim culpability


In a recent training on the topic of pastoral sexual misconduct, I was asked a question about the culpability of an adult victim. The question went something like this:

I know that a pastor who engages in sexual activity with a parishioner carries the bulk of responsibility for the immoral conduct. But doesn’t the woman that he had an affair with have some responsibility as well? Isn’t she culpable for something?

It is a question I have been asked many times–and a very good one. It is good because it causes us to think through how to respond to such individuals caught in a tragic situation. It is also good because it causes us to examine our own beliefs and impressions about justice.

Now, let me give you all some context on that question I received. This kind of question usually arises when discussing how we think about sex between a pastor and an adult parishioner that appears to be consensual. It usually is asked after I have made the case that the ONLY proper term for sex between someone with authority (legal, spiritual, work, etc.) and someone who is under authority is…sexual abuse. In this case, it is pastoral sexual abuse. Consequently, we ought NOT use the word affair to describe the relationship. The reaction behind the question about culpability has to do, I think, with the perception of choice, freedom to say no, signs of pursuit of a sexual relationship, etc. It doesn’t seem fair or just to let the person (woman in this example) off the hook.

The world recognizes that sex between teacher and student, pastor and parishioner, prison guard and prisoner, adult and child are wrong. Sex in these “forbidden zones” is abuse. But of course some power differentials don’t seem so large as others. We get that a prisoner has little choice to say no to a prison guard. But what about a friendly pastor and a lonely woman who enjoy each other’s personalities and then end up engaging in an affair? Is it really abuse? Is it abuse if she sought the relationship or sought to continue it after the first line crossing?

Here’s how I tend to try to respond. Stick with me as the matter is complex.

1. No matter what efforts the woman makes, the pastor is ultimately responsible to protect the integrity of the relationship. Thus, the pastor bears all the culpability for crossing the line.

2. The woman may bear some culpability for decisions and choices that set her up for this relationship. Maybe she fantasized about being loved, maybe she have desired power and found that sex is the ultimate power move. But just as likely she may have VERY LITTLE culpability. I’ll explain why next. But even if she does bear some…here’s a question I want you to pause on:

Why do we jump to this question right away? What drives us to want to settle questions of responsibility? What do we fear will happen if we treat her as a victim right now and leave culpability questions for a later time?

3. Not only does the pastor bear the blame for the sexual relationship, the pastor is likely to have used any number of techniques (in a knowing way or a self-deceived way). What are most pastors good at? Words. Words with emotion. Setting a tone. A pastor is usually quite gifted in convincing others that what they think, say, feel is right. Thus, their words shape, manipulate, coerce, groom the other into being open to a sexual relationship.

4. How do most cases of pastoral sex with adult parishioners begin? In the pastoral counseling office. A needy person feels desirous of pastoral care, seeks out the pastor and within that context, the pastor begins shaping the relationship which leads to sex. Now, it is possible that the parishioner is also a leader in the church, either paid or volunteer. Would such a person have greater culpability. Likely. But again, I could not answer this question until after evaluating the techniques of deception used by the pastor.

Conclusion? Culpability lies so heavily with the  person in power–the pastor–that victim culpability cannot be ascertained until (a) the pastor’s techniques of deception are better understood, (b) the victim has received help for the damage done to him/her by the pastor, and (c) opportunity for spiritual healing is present. Finally, this set of values I have laid out here do not require that we treat the pastor harshly. We also want to help the pastor understand what brought him/her to this point in life. And yet, we do not need to spend much time, at first, trying to determine guilt.

7 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Uncategorized

May 6, 2011 · 12:45 pm

Guest post/article on www.christianpsych.org


For those interested in Christian psychology and its future, you can read a short essay I wrote on the topic here

Check out the site for other interesting blog entries. It shows the diversity of ideas and interests in the field.

3 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Psychology

Tagged as

May 2, 2011 · 8:57 am

What is the proper response to Bin Laden’s death?


Last night as the news media began telling of Bin Laden’s demise I began contemplating this question: What is a proper response to his death or, for that matter, the death of any oppressor, abuser or grossly unjust person? What is the right response?

Celebration? I heard one person say they were not celebrating death but were celebrating the end of a mass murderer. Glee? Wishing him well in hell? Praising justice or vengeance? Confidence? (immediately, news outlets were noting futures for markets and the US dollar were on the rise and oil futures were on the decline)

Or, should we merely mark it with somber reflection on all those who died at his hand or in the attempt to bring him to justice over the past ten years?

Is there a best response? Here are some words that come to mind:

  • Relief. Something undone has been completed. At least one era has come to an end. One person seeking harm to another can do no more.
  • Joy. Now this is a complex emotion. You will see at the bottom I do not think we ought to gloat. But joy is a proper emotion when right is defended and wrong is put away. Now, this emotion needs tempering because in this world, we can easily defend righteousness with wrong actions and motives. You damage me so I, in turn, take out my wrath on your family. So, our joy must be tempered by the knowledge that “they” are not always evil and “we” are not always good.
  • Satisfaction. Any time justice is served, there is a level of satisfaction or vindication. Never fully experienced in this life, but in bits and pieces. (Of course there will be ongoing conversation about whether this was carried out in a just manner)
  • Remembrance. Of those who died as victims to a tyrant (and their families), of those who died trying to bring a tyrant to justice.
  • Reflection. Several kinds of reflections are quite appropriate. First, it is good and right to reflect on justice as a key character of God. Such reflection ought to cause us also to reflect on our own need for mercy in light of our own failings. We can reflect on how we want to handle future tyrants and how we speak about those who are quite different from us.
  • Pray. We can pray for peace. We can pray for protection of those who still serve in harm’s way. Pray for an end to the training of malleable children into practices of war, whether a child suicide bomber in the Middle East or a child soldier in the Congo.  We can pray that we will not turn a blind eye to injustices within our own communities. It is deadly to think that injustice is only in other countries. Remember, turning a blind eye to injustice in our midst is being complicit with the actual act of injustice.

While joy is a proper response to justice (Prov 21:15), I would think we ought not celebrate or gloat. Proverbs 24:17 tells us not to gloat when our enemy stumbles. But later in the same chapter it does tell us that there will be blessing for those who convict the guilty. Let God be the author of that and let us not attempt to bless ourselves.

If we rejoice, we ought to rejoice that God is in heaven and that our names are written in the book of life (Luke 10:20). Rejoice that all things here will pass away and one day there will be no more need for armies and warfare.

21 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, news, News and politics, sin

Tagged as , , ,

April 30, 2011 · 11:32 am

Sensible Evangelical Worship?


In the upcoming week I will be meeting with DMin students to talk about renewal. These students are all active in ministry as leaders and thus are in the habit of leading others by discipleship, counseling, teaching, mentoring, preaching, worship leading, etc. Leaders tend to be servers rather than takers. This is why many ministry leaders find themselves spiritually dry and lonely. Put a leader in a conflictual relationship with those he or she serves and dryness becomes major depression.

One of the important tasks of ministry leaders is making their own relationship with God a priority. Too often their spiritual disciplines exist only in the preparation for ministry activity. In other words, as they consider what to say or do with others, they may apply what they are studying to themselves. While this is a great benefit of teaching–teaching self first!–it ought not be the only form of renewal for the leader.

One of the best ways to pursue renewal is to use all of the human senses, hence the title of this blog. Too often we evangelicals use our head and think about worship. But what if we were in the habit of following our orthodox or Anglican brothers and sisters? What if we were more inclined to use silence, visuals, smells, and bells?

Consider your last worship time. What did you do? Read? Sing? Imagine? Listen? Move? Which of your senses do you commonly leave out of the worship experience? Which do you commonly use most of the time? How might using less used senses add to the experience?

I’m especially interested in the experiences of those who were raised in the 3 hymns and a sermon mode of Sunday worship or the 1 Psalm, 1 Proverb, 1 NT reading and 1 OT reading for daily quiet time. How have you begun to use more of your senses?

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture

Tagged as , ,

April 18, 2011 · 8:38 pm

A king like no human king


Listening to a sermon yesterday by David Goneau led me to write these words. I’m not a writer, as you will see, but John 12-13 led me to write the following imagined conversation between two nameless disciples of Jesus.

The din deafening, the palm fronds waving, the sunlight blinding in the late morning light, the children’s voices ringing with laughter while two fishermen slowed their pace from the crowd in order to whisper to each other

“Can you believe this?,” says the older one to the younger.” Think about it, not long ago we left nets and boats in Galilee…and now…” his voice faltered even more.

“Yes and NOW,” says the younger, “now we are the council for the promised messiah! The King of Israel. Think what Eema would say now…one of her sons not a lowly fisherman but a prince!”

The older, and more learned of the two, thought of his readings in the prophets. “This is what Zechariah foresaw: palms, hosannas, and a donkey!”

“I know, a donkey. Couldn’t he have ridden on a warhorse? Now that would have made a statement!”

“Peace, son. He brings peace, not a sword.”

The younger still had stars in his eyes. “Do you think we will get a seat next to him when he sits on the throne? Maybe you can be on his right and I can sit on his left. Hey, let’s catch up! I think they are going to up to the Temple Mount. We don’t want to miss it.

…

As the two made their way down from the temple and walked along a city street, the younger spoke again, “Did you see how those marketers reacted when HE went nuts on them? You gotta believe those Pharisees are going crazy. There is no denying it, there is a new political power in town.

The older remained quiet in thought.

The younger, not recognizing the silence, continued, “we should hurry up. Some of the others have gone on ahead to make plans for the feast tonight. If we get there we might be able to pick our seats and sit close. I wonder if he’ll tell us what he is up to and what jobs he’ll give us. You know, we didn’t abandon him in Galilee as some did. That ought to count for something.”

Finally, the older broke his silence. “Something isn’t right. What do you make of all his statements that he is going to suffer and die? It just doesn’t make sense. We’re on the brink of victory and he’s talking about death. I don’t get it.”

…

As the disciples gathered around Jesus, all eyes were focused on Jesus. He, saying nothing, got up and went behind a small wooden screen. When he emerged, Peter’s gasp was the loudest. There Jesus stood in a towel, like a nameless servant.  

The younger leaned over to the older. “WHAT is he doing? He’s the king! Why is he doing this horrible thing?

“No! May it never be that YOU wash my feet!”

“If I do not wash your feet, you can have no part in me.”

“Then wash my feet and my whole body!”

“My friends, do you now understand? Do likewise. For my kingdom is not designed by human minds. Rather, dying leads to life, service leads to freedom, being the least leads to greatness.

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity

Tagged as , ,