Tag Archives: Christianity

October 11, 2010 · 11:15 am

Pretense: Just how evil is it?


In Acts 5, we read the story of a couple (Ananias & Sapphira) who sold some property and gave a portion of the proceeds to their church. Seems good, right? Well, God struck them down dead on the spot.

If you have never read that story, it sounds pretty harsh judgment on someone who just gave a chunk of change to God. However, the story tells us that some others sold items and gave 100% to the church. This couple donated a percentage of the proceeds but–and here’s the kicker–intended others to think they had given it all.

Have you ever thought about how this story my apply to you? Frankly, I haven’t given it much thought. I don’t have much resources to sell and give to God. But, G. Campbell Morgan‘s thoughts on the passage bring the core of the problem to light

The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within.

Let it be carefully remembered that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not that of refusing to contribute….Neither was it that of refusing to give all.

Wherein then lay the sin? …The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the sin of pretending that part was all….The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is that of attempting, by confession of the mouth, or song of the lips, to make it appear that things are, as they really are not.

Morgan right rightly points out the heart of the problem: Pretense. Or, if you prefer, hypocrisy. Pretending to be someone of character when it isn’t true; pretending to feel something when you don’t; pretending to be spiritual when not connected to God; pretending to care about someone to their face while despising them in the heart. Sounds like a spiritual form of plagiarism.

If we are honest, we pretend all the time. We smile when we are angry. We say, “that’s okay,” when we don’t mean it. Now, I should point out that there are times when we don’t feel something but we act in a way that honors what we believe. For example, I may sing praises to God at church when feeling disconnected from him. I may help my son with homework when I would rather do anything else. That is not pretense. It would be hypocrisy only if I were to present myself to others as one close to God or tell my son that I love doing homework with him.

Let us work hard to make our mouths and hearts line up–especially if we have any leadership position. Sometimes we may need to be silent rather than pretend. Other times we may need to be more vocal about what is really going on inside us.

And let us consider soberly what Morgan says about today’s church:

The Church’s administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

October 1, 2010 · 10:48 pm

Preaching to the 20%?


I’m representing Biblical Seminary this weekend at the Shepherd Press Marriage & Family conference being held in Harrisburg. Dave Harvey opened the conference with a very good sermon on showing mercy and kindness to family members. He stressed the importance of Luke 6:36 and the need to show mercy to sinners just as God does for us. This goes against our typical human desires for revenge or at least punishment for the misdeeds of others.

But, without taking anything away from the good sermon I found myself asking this question. How would ______ hear the call to have mercy on a sinner spouse. ______ represents a person I know who has been emotionally and financially abused by her husband. She finally was able to bring truth to light and has a reprieve from his sin while he is living with his parents. However, she faces strong pressure by others to reconcile (despite little evidence of true repentance in the husband).  Knowing what I know about this woman, I suspect she would feel more pressure to have mercy and allow her husband to return to the home.

I think most sermons really preach to the 80%. 80% hear this and recognize that mercy may be shown in numerous ways. Even allowing truth to come to light is an act of mercy. Mercy may be treating someone better than they deserve but may not mean playing the part of the fool and thinking that a few tears and words are enough. But what of the 20% who are weighed down with guilt and assume that a general principle must be applied in a very black/white manner? How do we care for them when exhorting all Christians on to the Gospel saturated life?

I want to reiterate that I think Dave Harvey did a good job. I do think that it may be too easy for the rest of us to assume that the more vulnerable among us will be able to nuance the big virtues of the Christian faith; that they will know that to emphasize one (e.g., truth-telling) does not mean a rejection of another (e.g., forgiveness).

7 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, counseling

Tagged as , , , ,

September 21, 2010 · 4:00 pm

Coming to Peace with Psychology 4


Worthington’s Relational Model of Integration

**In case you are tempted to snooze through this long post or get bored by the endless attempt to construct a relationship between psychology and christian faith, skip to the last paragraph!**

In the conceptual world of integrating psychology and Christianity, there are four common depictions: Christian faith trumps psychology, psychological science trumps Christian faith, dialogical model, and parallel but separate levels of explanation. In Coming to Peace with Psychology (IVP, 2010), we have seen in the previous two posts that Everett Worthington wants to argue that psychological science (a) has something to offer beyond theory, (b) can teach us something about ourselves and God that Scripture does  not reveal, and (c) can interact with, influence, and be influenced by Christian faith. In sum, he argues for a relational, interactive levels of explanation view of integration.

Beginning in chapter six, he lays out a relational model, akin to a deepening love relationship,

…the fields of Christian theology and psychological science will become more committed to each other to the degree that we are satisfied with the union, invest in the union and don’t play around with alternatives (such as a conflict model). I believe that, in fact, psychological science and Christian theology are already married. In some ways it is like an arranged marriage. Because God reveals the divine character through both special and general revelations, the two disciplines are joined together. The question we face is, how committed will each discipline be to this arranged marriage? (p. 101)

In chapter seven and eight, Dr. Worthington digs deeper into the proposed relationship partners (psychological science and theology) and illustrates each domain’s way of collecting “data” and subsequent conflicts between the two. Psychological science deals in the realm of material.

Scientists can believe in many nonmaterial causes within reality but simply exclude them from the “map” of a particular science. They do so because, by convention, that science aims to explain materialistic relationships among variables. By analogy, an aerial photograph will not reveal the presence of an underground river…even though the photographer knows [it exists] (p. 107).

This material (data) is best collected using observational, correlational, and experimental methods. He acknowledges (ever so briefly) limits to these kinds of studies, especially alluding to the biases inherent in psychological hypotheses. Moving on, he reviews the nature of theology, its subsets (biblical, exegetical, historical, etc.), and methods reading its “data.” Finally, he reviews the relationship between the two. “At their root there is no conflict between God’s truths as revealed in Scripture and nature” (p. 115). However, both disciplines suffer from human error (e.g., errors in scientific conclusions, errors in translating or interpreting Scripture) and so he does not want to prioritize theology over psychology (the primary reason for this book—to correct what he sees as a mistake within some in Christian psychology).

What is the real problem between psychology and theology? In chapter eight, Dr. Worthington points out three problems that lead to unnecessary perception of conflict between the two disciplines:

  • trying to integrate clinical psychology and theology (rather than psychological science)
  • using a filter approach that presupposes a higher authority given to theology
  • denial that one can learn about God through nature by some Christian thinkers

While not devaluing clinical psychology, Dr. Worthington does not believe it to be “apt relational partner” to theology (though maybe more helpful to practical theology). Why? He lists a couple of reasons: clinical psychology is anecdotal, experiential and therefore not objective; clinicians may be more prone to having less theological training while pastoral counselors may have less than adequate knowledge of empirically supported treatments; therapists view people through their models rather than seek to construct data informed models.

Next he goes after Eric Johnson for his views on Scripture. Worthington wants to take Johnson to task for failing (his perception) to admit the weaknesses within human activities of theology and the interpretation of Scripture. While Johnson wants to argue for the uniqueness of biblical authority in Christian psychology, Worthington wants to argue for the ability (albeit limited) of general revelation to reveal surprising information about the nature of persons—even to those who reject Christian faith. I suspect that both agree with the other but see an imbalance (not enough credit given to Scripture re: human nature vs. too much credit given to Scriptural interpretation and not enough acknowledgment of disagreement amongst Christians).

Finally, Worthington concludes this chapter by summarizing his view of the impact of sin on science. His main point is that he is opposed to a Dutch Reformed emphasis on the noetic effects of sin. He quotes passages that state that nature communicates about God and the humans are therefore responsible for knowing God. He does not believe, however, that nature is sufficient in telling us about God and so we need Special Revelation for salvation. In the end, he wants mutual respect and humility to reign between experts of each domain in order to promote harmonious dialogue and learning.

A Challenge

In the remainder of the book Dr. Worthington intends to illustrate what psychological science has to offer the “marriage” between the two. Books like this are written to try to bring balance to what is perceived to be imbalanced. Here, Worthington thinks too little credit is given to researchers’ ability to perceive human nature in ways that might reveal new things about the nature of God and humanity—things beyond Scripture. In another book, you might find more criticism of the biases of psychological research and the failure to acknowledge the impact of belief systems on data collection and analysis. Notice both sides are reacting against a perception of bias and control.

Here’s the challenge. Whether you lean toward Worthington’s arguments or those that give priority to Scripture and the Christian faith, consider where your views might be shaped by (a) experiences of being mis-represented by someone on the other side, and (b) too easy use of an obvious error on the other side (e.g., Worthington seems to brush over the problem of presuppositional biases in science or gives general revelation too much credit when Rom 1 tells us that humans deny its message well; Johnson seems to brush over numerous biblical interpretation conflicts, fails to interact deeply with current psychological research). Instead, see if you can build your view by first detailing the weaknesses (or mis-uses) of your discipline or view and then construct a proposed relationship from a positive framework that accounts for the aforementioned weaknesses rather than builds off of the mistakes of your epistemological opponent.

Leave a comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology

Tagged as , , , , ,

September 20, 2010 · 9:58 am

Coming to Peace With Psychology 3


In my previous posts I have introduced Everett Worthington’s, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians can Learn from Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). Dr. Worthington wants to explore a better conception of the relationship between psychology and Christianity—something better than ideas in conflict or even dialogue partners. Rather than being suspicious of psychology, he wants us to see that we can learn much about human nature and God from psychological science. He argues that use of scientific research can overcome some of our tendencies to use anecdotes and partially supported theories to explain behavior or predict outcomes.

In chapter five, Dr. Worthington begins by saying, “I want to see God more clearly. Psychological science can help” (p. 75). Without denigrating God’s self-revelation through the Bible he focuses on the human side of the relationship, “…I have a part in this two-way relationship. I must try to discern what God has revealed to us….The more I consult, the greater chance I have of knowing God better” (p. 76). Just how does he consult? He reads the Word, he listens to the Holy Spirit, he consults with fellow believers, reads theologians, and uses spiritual disciplines to reflect (think) on truth. “To see God more clearly, know God better and love God more, I might supplement God’s special revelation (and associated practices in the church ) by consulting God’s general revelation…as revealed by clinical psychology, sociology…or psychological science” (p. 77).

Thus, Worthington states that though Scripture is sufficient for the “necessities of salvation,” it does not answer all the questions we ask and so is not the only resource we need for certain subjects. So, can psychological science teach us about human nature (and by extrapolation, God)? Yes, says Worthington. Using the example of self-control he argues that scientific method can teach you about your “moral muscle and how to strengthen it” (p. 81). Now, readers of this blog will quickly point out that sometimes psychology seems to develop answers/descriptions to human problems that seem in opposition to the answers/descriptions given by Christianity. In response, he focuses on two problems: the failure of some in psychology to use rigorous scientific methods (thus encouraging biases) and the failure to discern the difference between description of human corruption and prescription (of who God is or what he wants).

Finally, he concludes this chapter by stating that though psychological science and theological inquiry speaks different languages (scientific methods vs. literary analyses) from different perspectives (human vs. divine), we ought not believe that the two ways of knowing are unable to “enrich and cross-pollinate each other.” Instead, they perform checks and balances on each other’s findings and interpretations.

Those of you familiar with the Levels of Explanation theory of integration will note that Worthington’s view is a bit more relational (hence that is what he calls it) and interactive than merely consigning the two methods to opposite corners of the ring. In my next post, I’ll give more of his detail regarding his “relational model.”

Leave a comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling science

Tagged as , ,

August 31, 2010 · 5:09 am

Coming to Peace with Psychology I (Review)


I’ve arrived as a blogger! No, I’m not getting paid to write and I’m not getting millions of hits each day. But I am getting a new perk. Someone has seen fit to send me complimentary books just in case I might wish to review them here. Free books! Do you know how cool that is? To an academic and book lover, it is just about the best perk ever.

[I guess this is a good time for a disclaimer. I only review books I find interesting. And even if the book comes wrapped in Ben Franklins (this one wasn’t for some reason), I promise to tell you what I really feel about the book]

Today, I received Ev Worthington’s new book, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians Can Learn From Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). You may be familiar with Dr. Worthington’s work on marriage enrichment, marriage and family therapy, and forgiveness. This is my first experience with him writing about the relationship of psychology and Christianity. Here are a few of his thoughts from the introduction and the enclosed “Author Q & A” about why we might need a new book on this topic:

  • “In this book I will claim that we can know people better, and even know God better, by heeding psychological science.” (p. 11)
  • “People have been integrating theology and psychology for years, but a vast majority of the integration has come from psychotherapists. Only a small minority of integrators have been psychological scientists…. While psychotherapists try to generalize about human nature on the basis of the clients they have seen and the models of helping they were trained in, psychological scientists measure the whole range of people–those 15 percent who were clients with some psychotherapist and about 85 percent more who are not.” (Author Q & A)

Wow. He lays down the gauntlet. The problem with previous integration has been the emphasis on anecdotes from therapists. If only we had more integration models by scientists. In fact, he is right–to a degree. Much of integration is highly theory driven. But is that bad?

[Rabbit trail: What are the common “sins” of theologian integrators? Clinician Integrators? Research Integrators? Theologians put far too much emphasis on their constructs and exegesis; clinicians put too much emphasis on “what works”; researchers put too much confidence in p values. In fact none have the corner on the market of truth. But again, Worthington’s book may be very helpful. He is right that both clinicians and biblical counselors fail to interact deeply enough with psychological research. Either they dismiss scientific methods by pointing out its weaknesses or they generalize from a small data point into a grand theory even though the data cannot bear the weight of the theory.]

Let’s hear some more from Worthington about the direction of his book:

  • His theses: Psychological science helps both Christians and non-Christians (a) understand God’s creation in human beings, (b) know about God more because the study of image bearers points to God, and (c) live more virtuously. (p. 13)
  • So, he sees psychology as a common grace to refine us all. This is very interesting. Usually integrative literature has cited common grace as what allows humans to rightly perceive. Here, the discipline IS common grace.
  • The relationship between psychology and Christianity is an “emerging marriage”– one that has possibilities of conflict and yet greater intimacy.

Finally, you might be interested in just what approach Ev Worthington will take in connecting psychology and Christianity. In the past some have described integration as a recycling project, a filter to get rid of non-Christian worldviews, a recasting effort, or a perspectival or level of explanation project. He mentions two: filter and perspectival approaches. The filter tries to have theological/biblical constructs as interpreting science. He finds this problematic. The perspectival model tries to separate the two disciplines as different ways of knowing.

So what does Worthington suggest? A new model he calls a relational approach.

That’s enough for this post. Next post I’ll make some comments on his first section (where he addresses some of the problems in previous integration by pointing to some psychological science).

4 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, philosophy of science, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 25, 2010 · 8:08 am

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Listening to God


Having read chapters by L. Rebecca Propst, Everett Worthington, and Siang-Yang Tan (in Integrating Faith and Psychology, IVP 2010), I am seeing an initial pattern–how important experience of God is in the development and outlook of the person–especially through the trials and tribulations of life. Worthington points to it in his work on the  topic of forgiveness (his mother was violently murdered). Propst speaks of integration as the product of her daily struggles and walk with God. Tan points to a burnout experience plus subsequent healing that led to his move toward psychology.

As one who reads and sometimes writes about the relationship between faith and psychology (and the fact that we cannot separate these two concepts–faith and psychology are always linked for everyone), I find these stories useful. They remind me that much of our practical integration is seamless and emanates from the gut. It doesn’t mean that we ought not have critical thoughts about our gut or that we ought to supply theory to our practice. But, try as we might to focus on the logic of our work, our integrative work is in the moment affective work I think.

Tan and Propst are right. You want to do good integration? Don’t make it your primary focus. “Instead, seek the Lord and his kingdom first (Matthew 6:33), and always see the bigger picture of God’s will and God’s kingdom with loving obedience to him, even as we are graced and blessed by him.” (Tan, p. 88) “Follow hard after God. Cultivate a daily habit of prayer and Bible study. As much as possible, understand and try to grasp a truly supernatural view of the universe.” (Propst, p. 64)

Let us be reminded that there is something more important than getting the right view of Christian counseling–that of knowing and being sensitive to the Spirit of God. It is possible, to be right in one’s view of psychology and theology and fail to be sensitive to the Spirit of God.

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, church and culture, education, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 23, 2010 · 9:05 am

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Book Notes


IVP just sent me a new (free!) book, Integrating Faith and Psychology: Twelve Psychologists Tell Their Stories (2010), edited by Glendon L Moriarty and with a foreword by Gary Collins. I’m looking forward to reading it. Each chapter is by a different psychologist and tells more of a personal story on how they came to the work they do and how their faith matured along the way. This is not a theory driven book but a group of narratives. While I very much appreciate theories of how psychology and Christianity function together, narratives sometimes provide a window into a more living integration. I might disagree with a theory but appreciate the heart behind it. Each author describes their development as a person and a professional, points to mentoring along the way, addresses key personal and philosophical tension points, mentions their experience with spiritual disciplines, and concludes with a personal letter in order to share key wise advice to those interested in the integrative  process.

I’m especially interested in reading several chapters written by those I know more closely than others: Mark McMinn and J. Derek McNeil (former professors), Jennifer Ripley, Siang-Yang Tan, Everett Worthington, Bill Hathaway (people I’ve met at conferences and whose work I appreciate), and Mark Yarhouse (influential scholar and fellow student at Wheaton College).

The foreword by Gary Collins gives a tiny window into the tensions he experienced between evangelical-fundamentalists and the profession of psychology. He first felt the tension of psychology colleagues who looked down on him for being a Christian. There were leading scholars of his day who felt that religion was the cause of most psychopathology. He notes that this view has shifted greatly and there is now much openness to spirituality within psychology (though I hasten to add this openness isn’t always felt in the Northeast United States). He then briefly mentions Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, and the attacks he received from those Christians suspicious of psychology’s secular humanism.

I find his foreword less than helpful only in that it can only stereotype the conflict in 7 short pages (what else could he do?). But he does conclude by saying that not all the critical statements (about the integrative agenda) made by Christians were wrong and in fact many help to refine the work of Christian psychology. He lists quite a few names of those who have worked hard to build a psychology on biblical foundations. Nearing the end, he comments on a shift that happens somewhere in the late 80s and early 90s. “The integration movement began the shift to a younger, more pragmatic, less theoretical generation.” (p. 14).

I will blog here on a couple of the chapters as I make my way through the book. I’ll be looking for interesting historical threads that help me better understand some of the prominent leaders of the integrative movement.

1 Comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

August 9, 2010 · 3:07 pm

When life doesn’t follow the “plan”


One of the more significant causes of emotional/psychological suffering is the experience that life isn’t turning out as expected. While we all conjure up something different when we hear “normal”, we do have something that we assume is the normal expectation for how life should unfold. Most of us assume we will go to college, graduate on time, get married, have kids, start a career (or several over the course of our life), develop economic stability and growth, stay healthy, retire, find fulfillment, etc. Unexpected events will happen, we tell ourselves, but the general plan or trajectory should continue.

But then we hit more than a bump in the road. We don’t get married, can’t have kids, lose a job, divorce, get sick (or watch a loved one die before their time). When we suffer we are forced to come face to face with the fact that life does not have guarantees–except that there will be suffering and that suffering is not something we can get beyond, try as we might.

Christians are not immune from having expectation. In fact, we may have even more than those who don’t have the “hope of heaven.” We assume we will have peace and joy and that God will deliver us just as he delivered Daniel, David, Esther, etc. We recite Psalm 23 but gloss over the hard parts (death, enemies). Or, consider, for example, the pattern found in Psalm 107: Sin/Weakness leads to suffering…the people cry out in their trouble…the Lord hears and saves/blesses them with good things…  We like this pattern and expect to get the “happily ever after” that the pattern seems to promise.

Notice that as soon as God isn’t delivering us from our pain, we begin to look for the reasons. Maybe there is a new technique to prayer to try. Maybe there is a sin to confess. Maybe it is due to judgment on our country for its errant ways. We want to blame someone!

The truth is the “plan” isn’t as detailed as we would like it to be. Yes, there is a normal trajectory of life: growth…maturation…passing on to the next generation. But promises for obtaining specific outcomes are not given. We only assume they are assured until we discover one of our assumptions blown up by reality.

The same goes for our assumptions of the “rescue plan.” Either God does not deliver on his promises to care for his children OR his care looks markedly different from what we assumed it would be. And, it appears that God’s plan for rescue is global rather than individual. He did repeatedly rescue Israel during the time of the Judges…but some years and oppression went by each time and some of the chosen people did not survive.

Does this depress you? It can. Especially when we take note of more and more suffering and see less of the “normal” life we once expected. As we age we notice that death is everywhere–as if it wasn’t there so much when we were younger. If it doesn’t depress you, you may find yourself struggling with bitterness. How can God really exist or be good?

Or, you can consider John Calvin’s words (thanks John Freeman for showing them to me) and consider one blessing amidst the disrupted “plan.”

With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always keep this end in view–to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present life, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to come. For the Lord, knowing our strong natural inclination to a brutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us and rouse us from our insensibility, that we may not be too tenaciously attached to that foolish affection…the whole soul, fascinated by carnal allurements, seeks it felicity on earth. To oppose this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of misery, teaches His children the vanity of the present life.(as quoted in L. Boettner’s Immortality, p. 31)

If Calvin stopped there we might think he was a stoic–one who hated any pleasure. However, he is not. He says this “contempt” of this life should not lead to hate pleasure or “ingratitude” for good things.

So, consider for a moment what “plan” you expected and your reaction to not getting it. Or, better yet, what “plan” did you expect that you actually got but then found out that said plan didn’t deliver the goods you thought were to come with it?

How might your mood, your attitude, your perspective change if “the plan” was focused on meeting/seeing God each day? What would you stop striving for? What would you set aside as a waste of time? What would you notice that right now escapes your glance?

One final comment. I don’t think that this change in “plan” reduces the pain of suffering or stops our goal-directed activity in this life. We are designed to growth, develop, change, find pleasure, pursue economic stability for self and other. Further, suffering always hurts, no matter what good comes of it. Just because good comes from pain doesn’t mean pain is itself good. Our problem is that we sometimes often forget a deeper design of relationship with God.

10 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, suffering

Tagged as , ,

August 2, 2010 · 5:42 am

Backsliding?


I’m planning a series of writings on issues that Christians often bring to counseling; where they bring unique and significant questions that are difficult to answer. One of those issues is the topic of backsliding. We all know that the word backsliding carries the meaning of slipping away from a habit, identity, belief, etc. In Christian circles it means that one who was once active in their faith has stopped living it out or altogether moved away from said faith. One of my favorite quotes on this topic is from Tolstoy,

Quite often a man  goes on for years imagining that the religious teaching that had been imparted to him since childhood is still intact, while all the time there is not a trace of it left in him. (Confession, 1983 reprint, p. 15)

When someone is in this position, they often ask questions about how it happened or what the future will hold. I’ve just run across a sermon by G. Campbell Morgan on the topic (The Westminster Pulpit, v. 1, 1954). The full text can be found here.

There are several things I found helpful:

1. His take on Deuteronomy as the law of love and containing the treatment of the disease of backsliding.

2. His take on how backsliding happens.

What is this process [of backsliding]? Mark three things…. The first is purely personal, perhaps hidden from men, the corruption of the self. The second is the sequel to self-corruption, the making of a graven image. Finally, the overt act of evil.

What is self-corruption? It is the devotion of the life to something lower than the highest. The first movement of backsliding may be accomplished without committing any sin which the [present] age names vulgar. In the moment in which a man takes his eye from the highest and sets it upon something lower, be the distance apparently never so small, he has set himself upon the decline which ends in the desert and in the agony of rejection. (p. 100)

3. His conception of idolatry.

You say….”I have set up no graven image.” Remember, the graven image is always the figure of that which lies behind it. When a man has corrupted himself, the issue is always that he thinks falsely of God. Man is so linked to deity in the very essential of his being that he will form his conception of God upon what he is in himself….He is forever projecting his own personality into immensity, and calling that God. (p. 101)

4. His closing on the promise: If you seek him, you shall surely find him…

If you seek him with all your heart and soul you will find him….Will he come with flaming and flashing glory? In all probability, no. Will he come with some new sense of his coming, making you thrill in every fiber of your being? In all probability, no. It is far more likely that he will come with a still small voice…. Trample your pride beneath your feet, Crucify your prejudice….

One of the struggles I hear in “backsliding” or relapsing sinners is that they (and me too!) look for Christianity to provide the same stimulus as an addiction. We look for God to give us the high, the excitement, the freedom from pain. He may, but never in the way that an addiction or a sin pattern might provide (in the short run). The struggle I hear is that when God does not supply an equally exciting substitute for the addiction then the person wonders if God is real or if the fight for freedom from addiction is really worth the effort in the end.

If you know someone with this struggle, send them the link to the chapter. It may provide a bit of relief.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

July 6, 2010 · 2:33 pm

Suffering and Divine Sovereignty?


What is similar and different counselors and beauty queens? Well, we both want to end human suffering and seek world peace BUT the counselor no longer talks as if it is possible in this life. We know that sitting in suffering is, in fact, an important act in this life.

So, for all you counselor types out there, I have a theology book for you. Currently, I am reading Suffering and the Goodness of God, edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson (Crossway, 2008).

Not all theology books are stuffy. Really. This one is very readable and helpful. Chapter one (Robert Yarbrough) lists 11 theses about suffering. I will not repeat them all here but each one is illustrated from Scripture and personal experience. Here is a taste:

1. Suffering is neither good nor completely explicable

2. Suffering in itself is no validation of religious truth

3. Accounting for suffering is forced upon us by our times

4. Suffering may be a stumbling block to Gospel reception

5. Suffering Creates teachable moments for Gospel reception (though this does not make suffering, in itself, good)

7. Suffering is the price of much fruitful ministry

10. Suffering unites us with other sinners we seek to serve

Lest you think this book takes a happy view of suffering, consider this quote:

It is certainly true that it is primarily God himself who in his redemptive activity has “caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). But this new birth does not take place in a vacuum. Rather it unfolds amidst earthly life, which is manifestly to some extent a vale of tears.

We sometimes wish to talk about “new birth” and redemption as if our suffering does not continue in this life.

The rest of the book addresses OT and NT interactions with suffering, the problem of evil and oppression and two chapters written by theologians about their own personal suffering. A good read if you realize you cannot ignore suffering or go back to some prior period of naiveté.

3 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals, Psychology, suffering

Tagged as , , ,