Tag Archives: Christianity

Two ways to look at suffering


Yesterday, one of our pastors, David Goneau, preached on Acts 13 and made the following point: “Jesus’ Lordship advances through suffering.” His point was that through the book of Acts one cannot miss that the message of Christianity spread through the starter soil of opposition. Consider the cross, Stephen, Peter, Paul, James, etc.

So, there are at least two ways to look at our own suffering and hardships:

1. Not the way it is supposed to be. We rail against trauma, suffering, pain, death, hate, illness and much more because it is not the original design and we know it. Brokenness is something to be fought against; to be resisted at all cost.

2. The starter soil for our maturity. Who hasn’t had the experience of coming through a time of hardship with maturity that we wouldn’t want to give up? Haven’t we heard of those who raise children with disabilities say, “I wouldn’t have asked for this but I wouldn’t go back and change a thing.” Like some seeds that need to be frozen before they can bloom, we need certain forms of stressors to grow in maturity. (Consider the character of one who has nothing but luxury and never has to work!)

Is it hard to hold these two truthes at the same time? Yes! And followers of Jesus look for the day when their maturity will be complete and suffering will be no more–when Christ establishes his kingdom once and forever. Until then, we must try to hold on to both thoughts–to work against suffering everywhere (justice work) and yet allow what suffering we do experience to build character while we look for our relief.

2 Comments

Filed under Mindfulness

Podcasts for Pastoral Health


last March Biblical Seminary ran a daylong seminar for ministry leaders and their spouses. Podcasts of the plenary and break-out sessions are now available here for a very low price: http://www.biblical.edu/pages/connect/hazardoustoyourhealt0309podcasts.htm

Consider buying some and giving to your pastor and spouse. Other leaders like missionaries, elders, deacons, parachurch workers, etc. would likely benefit.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary, christian counseling, Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Missional Church, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring

Can your body cause you to sin, part 3


As promised, I offer you a vignette to consider as we think about the matter of culpability and involuntary sins.

Consider a 2 year old that has missed his daily nap, is hungry, and tired of being out in public. He has a meltdown. He kicks, screams, cries, refuses his mother’s comfort because he wants some object he cannot have. The good parent recognizes the child’s distress, whispers in his ear to comfort him, says “no” firmly to his kicks, and finds something for him to eat and a place to take a nap. Has the child sinned? He surely has demanded something, acted aggressively, maybe even disobeyed by going after the object after his mother said to stop. Yes, he sinned. But was it really voluntary? Well, maybe partly. But don’t we consider the circumstances and the fact that his body is not helping matters. We forgive, we overlook, we understand, we help. We do so because we know his choices are not really voluntary.

Now, we may have another reaction altogether when we see our little boy (fully rested and fed) look us in the eye and try to bite his baby brother after we just told him to stop. We know he has great voluntary control here and is in a power struggle. And we respond with appropriate discipline.

We could easily have considered a vignette of a brain injured man or a panic disordered woman. We respond to individuals based not on whether something is sinful or not but on how much voluntary control we think they have and the circumstances in play (environment, biology, understanding, etc.).

So, our bodies can cause us to sin. In the classic sense, we are guilty whether it is voluntary or not. And yet we, and God himself, varies responses to such sins based on a variety of factors. We do not ascribe innocence to those less culpable but do try to determine levels of responsibility. Thankfully, all of it is covered by the cross.

Here’s one way this might matter. I find many afraid to seek biological aids for what they determine to be spiritual problems (addictions, depression, anxiety, etc.). If we see body and soul together, then both body and soul interventions are working toward the same goal.

4 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, Doctrine/Theology, sin

Can your body make you sin?


I’ve had a small email exchange on this topic with a PhD student at another seminary and so I’m going to raise the topic here. Can your body make you sin? Obviously, I’m going to tackle this question from a Christian perspective that cares about sin and wants to think carefully about our ontology (what it means to be human).  

The major questions behind the question are (a) are we made up of 2 substances (body and soul), and (b) even if we are, does it matter when considering what causes people to do what they ought not? I am not going to even try to defend (a) but I do want us to think about (b).

Some background might help. (If you get bored with background, just scroll down to the questions below.)

1. In the Christian life sin matters. Sin is that which we do that violates God’s definition of holiness. Sin is that which fallen creatures do all the time. Thankfully, God provides a way of escape from the logical consequences of sin (grace via the cross). Despite (no, because of) this gift from God, Christians still care about eradicating sin even though it is not possible. It stands to reason, then, that it can help to discern the sources of sin in order to stop them.

2. The classic Christian view of human nature is that we are made of two substances: body and soul. We are not just our physical bodies but something intangible was imputed to us when God breathed life into Adam. Our soul allows us to worship God. The bible refers to our soul in various ways: will, heart, desires, etc. The soul is the driver of the will and therefore responsible for the moral direction of our actions. Early theologically oriented scientists (think Descartes) assumed the existence of the soul but looked to explain how the intangible soul connected to the tangible body. Now with the advances in neuroscience we have better explanatory power in describing the action of thoughts, feelings, and knowing. However, the will remains a mystery. While we can explain neural networks and what the brain does when desiring something, we cannot yet explain WHY we want or desire certain things. 

Some philosophers and theologians have attempted to deal with classic dualism by suggesting that we are only one substance. I am not capable of succinctly defending this position so I point you to Nancey Murphy and a review of her book here.  She does a masterful job defending non-reducible physicalism.

Okay, now if you think humans are made of body and soul you have these questions to consider.

  1. Is it possible that my body (against or apart from my will) might cause me to sin?
    • What is gained and/or lost if we say yes? If we say no?
  2. If it is possible, am I culpable for such sins? 
    • What is the consequences of saying yes to this question?

During this week I plan to give a feeble defense of a yes answer to both questions 1 and 2. We’ll see how this unfolds.

5 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology

Must read: “The Other Cup” by Ray Dillard


Folks, it is “Good Friday” and if you are wondering why it is called good, you ought to read this sermonby the late Ray Dillard. CCEF offers it up for free on their homepage. If someone knows how to get a recording of it, that would be the only better option. I was present when he preached this quite a number of years ago. It is, by far, the best “Good Friday” sermon I ever heard. The cup of wrath is well-known to Christians everywhere. But there is another cup…

Ray Dillard was professor of OT at Westminster during my tenure and one of my favorites.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sin

Connecting the dots: porn and rape


A few days ago a young woman/teen was found partially clothed and semi-conscious under a Philadelphia bridge. At the time I am writing this post, it is assumed (nothing too outlandish here) that she was assaulted and raped and left for dead. Whether or not this turns out to be the exact situation for this injured woman matters not for the rest of the post. What does matter is that we know that rape happens.

How does one get to the place of treating another human being like an object and caring nothing for that person’s feelings, interests? We’d like to believe that rape, murder, slavery, trafficking, and the sort are different sorts of animals than the wee little sins we commit. But such heinous acts have exactly the same roots as “normal” objectification.

Take porn for example. On first blush, there is not any interpersonal crime in looking at a pornographic image. The assumption goes that the individuals in the pictures have voluntarily allowed themselves to be photographed and are happy with what they are doing. Of course, we know that these two assumptions are not always true. But even IF we accept the assumption, we must also accept that the viewer of the pictures cares nothing about the person in the picture. They exist for one reason only–to provide pleasure for the viewer. They have no feelings, they are only objects on a page.

The one dimensional image allows the viewer to begin the process of not seeing the other and not seeing their abuse of the other. And we are well aware of the common path of porn use. Start with a scantily clad image, move to complete nude, then to more and more dramatic pictures of sex acts which often include bondage, pain, or other grotesque acts.

Most people would have trouble watching a friend or a loved one engage in such an act, much less act out such activity on someone in pain. Most of us couldn’t just rape a stranger–at least at this point. But the root is the same: ignoring the personhood of the person in front of us. The person who is able to rape, traffick, or enslave has just been more successful in protecting themself from empathy, putting themself in the shoes of another, etc. We haven’t yet gone that far but notice that we begin such activities by our ability to objectify people on television or even in our everyday life. We murder (in our hearts) the incompetent bagger at the grocery store. We care little about his or her life. I’m not putting a passing hateful thought on par with rape but when we fail to recognize the person on the other side we begin to make it possible to deny the humanness of the other, whether a victim of a crime or the perpetrator.

Reminds me of Miroslav Volf’s quote in Exclusion and Embrace (p. 124): 

“Forgiveness flounders because I exclude the enemy from the community of humans even as I exclude myself from the community of sinners.”

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, christian psychology, Christianity, deception, pornography, sin

Must See Pastor’s Conference at Biblical Seminary


Folks, last reminder for those of you in the Philadelphia area. On March 20, 2009 we will be hosting a pastoral health conference at the seminary from 8:30 am to 3:30 pm. The conference is entitled:

Hazardous to Your Health: Pastoring Through Church Challenges

We have a great range of speakers on a variety of church challenges topics. You can hear Diane Langberg talk about leadership; Rev. Rick Tyson talking about ministry depression; two pastor’s wives talking about the unique challenges they face; An attorney address legal challenges; John Freeman address sexual brokenness in the church, and much much more. I will be concluding the conference with the final plenary devoted to describing a simple revolution in the area pastoral renewal. Rev. Philip G. Ryken will participate with me to describe some ways he is meeting the challenge of ongoing spiritual care.

Please torture your ministry friends and acquaintances to come. It will be a refreshing and useful time for them. Especially invite spouses of ministry leaders. They almost never get any kind of opportunity to be blessed and encouraged.

Here’s the link to purchase a ticket for attendees (check out the lower rate for students and guests of ministry leaders!). Registration includes lunch and comedic entertainment:

http://www.biblical.edu/pages/connect/hazardoustoyourhealth0309.htm

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Seminary, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring

What discourages you?


Spoke today to a group of pastors about encouragement and discouragement in their ministries and lives. Generally speaking, our levels of either fluctuate with our expectations crashing into reality. When things go as we hoped, we feel encouraged. When they don’t for periods of time, we get discouraged.

What discourages pastors? Many struggle with knowing just how to evaluate their work. Since the work is never done and there is always more to do (another complaining friend, another couple to counsel, another program to oversee, another small group to visit), the temptation is to fall back on some unhelpful measuring sticks and either try to do more than one should or give up and withdraw.

My view is that while our circumstances give ample opportunity to deflate us, discouragement is much less the result of our circumstances and much more the result of unmet desires and expectations. Haven’t you have had the experience where something went badly but since you had no significant expectations for anything better, you weren’t all that discouraged by it? Our problem is that we look to the wrong things to encourage us. We look to successes in ministry, in work, in marriage, in parenting, in whatever we do. And the absence deflates us and tempts us to either get angry or quit.

Among the passages we looked at were:

1. Phil. 2: “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, then…” Many are familiar with this passage because of Paul’s exhortation to set aside our own agenda and to follow the example of Christ–sacrificially serving others. And many admonish us to take to heart what it is this passage calls us to do. But, what is the engine that drives us? Encouragement. Where does that come from? See v. 21 of the previous passage: “It has been granted you to believe….” Encouragement comes from remembering the work of Christ NOT from our success in ministry.

2. Heb. 12:5. This passage starts out with a “therefore” as well. Remembering all the saints before us and their faithfulness, we are called to “run the race” and “throw off everything that hinders us.” We are to leave sinfulness behind. But such a task wearies us. Verse 3 tells us that spiritual weariness is not fixed by numbing ourselves with food, sex, TV, etc, but by “considering Christ” and his endurance. The the author knows that to kill the flesh we have to fight to the point of what feels like bloodletting. But in verse 5 he tells us to take courage because God is disciplining us. Huh? Did you ever take courage when your father or mother disciplined you? I didn’t. But Hebrews is telling us that one of our sources of encouragement is that God is treating us as family and so he lovingly disciplines and refines us. 

Bottom line, our encouragement comes from remembering that God is at work in our lives even if we cannot see it. Now, encouragement may come in the form of being able to quote Ps 88 which communicates much faithful despair. 

One more point. We ought to differentiate between discouragement and grief or sadness, or frustration, or confusion. These are not the same. It is possible to be dismal about the outcome but having courage to keep going. Courage and action are more likely signs of encouragement than anything else.

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Despair, pastors and pastoring

Do you see your body as good?


At church on Sunday I attended a class discussing Lauren Winner’s “Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity” (Brazos, 2005). Her thesis (in the second chapter anyway) is that the church tends to have one of two responses to singles about sex: either be honest and loving (e.g., go ahead) or just don’t do it. She suggests that we look at the larger context of the “say no” passages in order to see God’s larger view of sex as good in the right settings. I won’t go any further here with that thesis but all that to say:

Winner wants us to think about the body as being good. And since the body is a sexual entity, that sex is also good. Got me thinking that most of us don’t see our bodies as something that is good. We focus on the fall and the brokenness we see. We see our lack of health. We see insatiable desire. We see danger. We see something that doesn’t measure up to the image we most want to see.

But here is the challenge. Did God make your body? Is it good? If you only focus on what is not good about your body, what are you missing? How are you marring the true story about your body?

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, Christianity, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Identity, Psychology

The God I Don’t Understand 7: How does the Cross work?


My apologies to those waiting for the next chapter in Wright’s book. Some other writing assignments require me to put down my fun books and pick up some work-related reading these days. But enough of my excuses… In chapter 7 Chris Wright admits that one answer to the question, “How did the cross achieve salvation for us?” is simple and from Scripture: “Because it did.” But he like many others would rather not stop there. And he contends the bible doesn’t stop there either.

He reminds the reader that evangelical interpreters of the Bible regard the most helpful metaphor of the cross as judicial–substitutionary atonement. There are other metaphors used in the bible to explain the “how” but 1 Cor 15:3 underlines and emphasizes that Christ’s death on the cross was sacrificial and substitutionary. Here Wright brings up the controversy surrounding “penal substitution” and the grounds by which some reject this forensic focus to substitutionary atonement. Of the 7 reasons he lists, the primary ones (in my eyes) are the sense that penal substitution focuses too much on guilt, portrays God as mechanistic or always angry, and emphasizes the only way to deal with sin is with violence.

Wright believes the arguments for rejecting penal substitution would be good if in fact evangelicals held them. But he fears that the arguments against the penal metaphor are caricatures. From this point he looks at how the bible paints God’s love and anger. His anger and love must be, he contends, taken together as part of a whole, rather than having one negate the other. The two expressions are not contrary to each other any more than we may be angry with a loved one for bad behavior and yet still love them at the same time. He suggests the Cross satisfies both God’s love and anger.

He further rejects the conflict between God the father and Jesus the son. God is not the angry father and Jesus the loving son who steps between us. That viewpoint would destroy God’s essential unity (see John 17 for this). He uses extensive quotes from John Stott here to bolster his argument

Finally, he addresses the concepts of guilt and shame. The argument has arise that penal atonement only makes sense in cultures with a “developed sense of personal and objective guilt.” Shame cultures, it is suggested, would not be able to identify as well. Further, in a postmodern world it appears that shame is the more likely experience (of not being internally consistent with oneself). But Wright says that both shame and guilt are addressed by the cross and both are related. He points to Ezekiel who talks about being shamed and feeling shamed (36:16-32). The cross (and the forgiveness behind it) takes away the shame quality even though they still feel it when they remember what God has done. Wright suggests that ongoing feeling is healthy. He quotes from another of his books

Israel were not to feel ashamed in the presence of other nations (36:15), but they were to feel ashamed in the presence of their own memories before God (36:31-32). Similarly, there is a proper sense in which the believer may rightly hold up her head in company.

He then talks about how God in the OT and Jesus in the NT publicly affirms those who were shamed. God removes their shame, no matter what others think of them. They now hold their head high. And yet, Wright tries to articulate that this person may still feel shame when remembering past sins but he is quick to point out that this feeling does not crush but fuels “genuine repentance and humility and for joy and peace that flow from that source alone.”

While the content of this chapter seems a bit more about confronting a wrong he sees in the penal substitution debate than about answering how the cross works, nonetheless I find his writing about guilt and shame quite helpful here–especially how he distinguishes the kinds and sources of shame. I think it might be helpful for those who trust in Jesus but who struggle with shame to consider for a moment what their shame drives them to do. To hide? To be grateful for God’s restorative work?

Next week, we’ll look at his final chapter on the cross.

Leave a comment

Filed under anger, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sin, Uncategorized