Question 8: "Given it's potential for damage, why doesn't the church teach more about sex?"
Recap:
This week Jim started out with a very funny story about a misunderstanding he had once with a woman on a plane - really, you need to download the podcast for this one, it is hilarious! Then he went through the following scriptures:
I Corinthians 6:9-11, Genesis 38:9, Song of Solomon 7:6-8, I Corinthians 6:13-20
Take home: To be in God's company you must stay in God's plan for sexuality.
Why is the church reluctant to talk about sex?
1. We are uncomfortable with our sexuality.
2. We are conditioned by our culture to think about sexuality in negative terms.
3. We are afraid of sexuality's power.
4. We are afraid because we might be rejected.
Jim then offered a few ideas for managing sex within a biblical framework:
1. Acknowledge that you are a sexual being. Sex is a good gift from God.
2. You must determine what your boundaries are. Set them a little further out than where you want to fight the battle.
3. Get an accountability partner.
4. Make sure that sexuality is part of the discussion in your home.
5. Protect yourself with some kind of Internet filter.
As always, Jim did a very good job setting the table for discussion... though there are always more things to say and additional comments to be made. Let's take them one by one and add a bit more commentary.
One and two can be taken together:
1. We are uncomfortable with our sexuality.
2. We are conditioned by our culture to think about sexuality in
negative terms.
Hmm... I actually think the "church" is more to blame for this than the culture. From at least the time of the puritans forward the church has been responsible for repressing any talk about sexuality in the culture. Who goes up in arms whenever there is a program on TV that talks about sex? The church! Jim is one of the very few pastors I know who is willing to hit this topic head on in church! Well done Jim!
Right now in Marion, IN there is a huge billboard with the word SEX in huge letters above a picture of two people's feet sticking out from under a blanket. It is an advertisement for a new church in town called "The River" where they are trying to actively engage the culture on issues like sex and money. Of course, they are the talk of the town - though not as positively as you might hope.
Lately, the culture has been on a quest to embrace sexual expression. To pull it out of the closet and into the public square. This is an over-reaction on the part of the culture. We (the church) must be very careful not to over-react in the opposite direction. We must maintain the discussion by balancing a healthy regard for sex with a strong desire to protect the abuse and degradation of men, women, and children.
3. We are afraid of sexuality's power.
I am not sure that "afraid" is the right term. Again, it throws the shadow of "bad" over sex. Rather, we do not know how to deal with the powerful draw of human sexuality. Sex sells! We all know that. But we are built that way - no matter how you slice it, the eyes of a heterosexual male will be drawn to the shape of the female body and vice ver se. This is neither wrong, nor is it unhealthy - it is the way GOD made us! The challenge is that God has asked us to exercise self control.
As with so many things that God made, we (the devil) have taken them and distorted what was beautiful, replacing it with something cheap and tawdry. The beauty of sex (and it's real power) lies in the way that it reinforces the spiritual link between two married people. There is some very interesting research emerging in this regard. When you look at the human brain during sex it lights up in the same way as it does when humans are meditating or praying intently. These intense spiritual experiences hit the pleasure regions of the brain with a jolt of incredibly powerful stimuli.
Equally fascinating is the observation that cocaine and pornography stimulate the same pleasure inducing synapses - trouble is, they do not link to anything real. Cocaine use leads to more cocaine use, porn addiction pulls the user away from their spouse and toward the fantasy world of porn. The power of pornography is that it pulls the user away from their spouse by linking them to an imaginary sex partner. Of course, extramarital affairs have the same effect - only with a real person at the other end.
4. We fear rejection: This is a fundamental human fear. We long to belong to a group. To be accepted for who we are and valued for what we believe. This fear of rejection plays itself out in many ways. Sex, is certainly one of them. As Jim described, we fear rejection on both ends of the sexual expression spectrum. Some of this can be drawn from out puritanical origins and some from our basic human fears.
Jim's four recommendations are sound - though it might have been helpful for him to expound on the second a bit more. Still, question #1 in the series is coming and I think he will be even more direct when he arrives there.
Do you think Jim's approach to this question was adequate?
What would you add or take away?
Are there passages in the Bible that address this subject with any more frankness than the ones Jim chose?
What do you think?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Go ahead ask anything - Sermon 2
Does God decide?
Recap:
Jim began this sermon with the very real and tragic story of his friend Randy, a pastor from South Bend, whose parents were involved in a very random automobile accident and whose daughter was killed tragically in another accident. His treatment of this story, though shocking, was sensitive and appropriate as he always is in matters like these. (Well done, Jim).
Then came the question: Does God decide who will experience tragedy or who will be prosperous?
Jim then proceeded to the book of Job where Satan comes before the court of God and is asked by God whether he as considered his servant, Job. Of course Satan then challenges God by saying that Job only loves him (God) because God protects him. God then gives Satan permission to test Job.
Several minutes later, Jim moved to the passages of scripture where the relationship between God, Satan, and the people on earth is described as a spiritual war – and where Satan is described as a roving lion seeking whom he may devour.
Point number 1 – God does not decide who will be harmed, Satan does. Satan is the ruler of earth (in some sense) and has been given free reign over the plight of people (to a certain degree).
Jim then moved into James (1:2-8) and reminded us that trials only serve to make us stronger.
Point number 2 – The bad things that happen (the devil causes to happen) make us stronger. In other words, we grow most by going through trials of many kinds.
Which brings us to:
Point number 3 – We do not know what good may come of the evil things that befall us.
There are two kinds of trouble (maybe three) –
1. Creation trouble – things in the world that happen because it is fallen. Tornados, earthquakes, etc.
2. Acts of the will: (both resulting from sin)
a. Our decisions sometimes get us into trouble
b. Others decisions sometimes get us into trouble
Finally, Jim wrapped things up this way – “Nothing can separate you from the Love of God.” No matter what happens, God is always there and he still loves us.
Like you, some really intelligent people have challenged me on these arguments over the years. Let me bring up a few of their questions/issues:
1. God created the angel who would later become the devil. Wouldn’t an all knowing God know that? And in knowing, not create that being?
2. Does God’s creation of Satan hold him culpable for every evil thing that happens on earth?
3. If God is all-powerful, can’t he stop the devil? Don’t we pray for that every time we request safety?
4. If God is all-powerful can’s he stop people from making choices that harm others?
These are really tough questions that Jim did not attempt to answer on Sunday; perhaps because there are no easy answers to give, or perhaps because our understanding of God is so very limited.
But, what does the Bible say about these points?
Actually, the end of Job is instructive – though rarely preached. If you thumb to the end of the story – say about chapter 38 or so, Job asks God this same question and God responds: None of your business! You are mortal; I am immortal. I don’t answer to you. While that may not seem very satisfying in our litigious world, there is something very true in the answer. We always seek someone to blame, but the question of evil is not really a question of blame. Rather, it is a question of free will, the foundations of the universe, and choice.
Something to think about:
What if randomness is a necessary part of the universe? What if God knew at the moment of creation that the only way to bring about the universe He desired was to build into it a certain amount of randomness? If God’s ultimate desire was to create humans who would choose to love Him in return then he needed to allow them the opposite choice. Otherwise they would be automatons, robots, only capable of acting on their programming. For humans to choose love, they would need to experience things in the universe that were seemingly out of control. Yes or no, up or down, right or left, positive or negative, good or evil; all of these are dipolar choices and God for his own reasons has created a universe where that choice is possible. We need a certain amount of “randomness.” Indeed, the concept of “randomness” is borne out in the physical reality. At the subatomic level there are particles operating in a way that is fundamentally unknowable – while at the macroscopic level Newtonian physics can describe most of what we see.
Consider the opposite – a world in which God has everything planned. In that world, you and I might be predestined to accept Christ and go to heaven, but Chloe in the UK might not be. Why does she exist - to go to hell and be eternally damned? Too bad Chloe, no matter what she does, not matter how she chooses; she is damned. This approach is intellectually unpalatable to holiness, Wesleyan/Armenian people like me. In that kind of world, God would plan all of the suffering, in advance, whether on his own or indirectly by the creation of the devil. Yikes! I like that even less!
Of course God would still know what is going (from our point of view) to happen because he stands outside of time. Time is not a linear construct to God, he moves across time as easily as we move across the room. The birth of a child and the death of that same child are the same moment to God. I still believe that He cares intimately about the moments in-between birth and death – but to Him they are not separated by years only by thought.
What if randomness isn’t really random? According to chaos theory mathematics seemingly random events are part of a much larger whole that has surprisingly intelligent patterns. Who knew, science pointing toward God.
All of this leads me to a very careful choice of words – God is sovereign. I prefer this phrase to the more commonly held – God is in control. If we believe the later, then God gets credit/blame (whether direct or indirect) for both the good and the bad things that happen. If the former, then God gets praise for the good and requests for assistance in the bad. For his own reasons (he is God after all) he seems to choose the former.
One final comment – taken from Shane Claiborne’s recent book – We ask God “Why do you allow suffering in the world?” to which God responds: “You are my hands and feet. Why do you allow suffering in the world?”
Recap:
Jim began this sermon with the very real and tragic story of his friend Randy, a pastor from South Bend, whose parents were involved in a very random automobile accident and whose daughter was killed tragically in another accident. His treatment of this story, though shocking, was sensitive and appropriate as he always is in matters like these. (Well done, Jim).
Then came the question: Does God decide who will experience tragedy or who will be prosperous?
Jim then proceeded to the book of Job where Satan comes before the court of God and is asked by God whether he as considered his servant, Job. Of course Satan then challenges God by saying that Job only loves him (God) because God protects him. God then gives Satan permission to test Job.
Several minutes later, Jim moved to the passages of scripture where the relationship between God, Satan, and the people on earth is described as a spiritual war – and where Satan is described as a roving lion seeking whom he may devour.
Point number 1 – God does not decide who will be harmed, Satan does. Satan is the ruler of earth (in some sense) and has been given free reign over the plight of people (to a certain degree).
Jim then moved into James (1:2-8) and reminded us that trials only serve to make us stronger.
Point number 2 – The bad things that happen (the devil causes to happen) make us stronger. In other words, we grow most by going through trials of many kinds.
Which brings us to:
Point number 3 – We do not know what good may come of the evil things that befall us.
There are two kinds of trouble (maybe three) –
1. Creation trouble – things in the world that happen because it is fallen. Tornados, earthquakes, etc.
2. Acts of the will: (both resulting from sin)
a. Our decisions sometimes get us into trouble
b. Others decisions sometimes get us into trouble
Finally, Jim wrapped things up this way – “Nothing can separate you from the Love of God.” No matter what happens, God is always there and he still loves us.
Like you, some really intelligent people have challenged me on these arguments over the years. Let me bring up a few of their questions/issues:
1. God created the angel who would later become the devil. Wouldn’t an all knowing God know that? And in knowing, not create that being?
2. Does God’s creation of Satan hold him culpable for every evil thing that happens on earth?
3. If God is all-powerful, can’t he stop the devil? Don’t we pray for that every time we request safety?
4. If God is all-powerful can’s he stop people from making choices that harm others?
These are really tough questions that Jim did not attempt to answer on Sunday; perhaps because there are no easy answers to give, or perhaps because our understanding of God is so very limited.
But, what does the Bible say about these points?
Actually, the end of Job is instructive – though rarely preached. If you thumb to the end of the story – say about chapter 38 or so, Job asks God this same question and God responds: None of your business! You are mortal; I am immortal. I don’t answer to you. While that may not seem very satisfying in our litigious world, there is something very true in the answer. We always seek someone to blame, but the question of evil is not really a question of blame. Rather, it is a question of free will, the foundations of the universe, and choice.
Something to think about:
What if randomness is a necessary part of the universe? What if God knew at the moment of creation that the only way to bring about the universe He desired was to build into it a certain amount of randomness? If God’s ultimate desire was to create humans who would choose to love Him in return then he needed to allow them the opposite choice. Otherwise they would be automatons, robots, only capable of acting on their programming. For humans to choose love, they would need to experience things in the universe that were seemingly out of control. Yes or no, up or down, right or left, positive or negative, good or evil; all of these are dipolar choices and God for his own reasons has created a universe where that choice is possible. We need a certain amount of “randomness.” Indeed, the concept of “randomness” is borne out in the physical reality. At the subatomic level there are particles operating in a way that is fundamentally unknowable – while at the macroscopic level Newtonian physics can describe most of what we see.
Consider the opposite – a world in which God has everything planned. In that world, you and I might be predestined to accept Christ and go to heaven, but Chloe in the UK might not be. Why does she exist - to go to hell and be eternally damned? Too bad Chloe, no matter what she does, not matter how she chooses; she is damned. This approach is intellectually unpalatable to holiness, Wesleyan/Armenian people like me. In that kind of world, God would plan all of the suffering, in advance, whether on his own or indirectly by the creation of the devil. Yikes! I like that even less!
Of course God would still know what is going (from our point of view) to happen because he stands outside of time. Time is not a linear construct to God, he moves across time as easily as we move across the room. The birth of a child and the death of that same child are the same moment to God. I still believe that He cares intimately about the moments in-between birth and death – but to Him they are not separated by years only by thought.
What if randomness isn’t really random? According to chaos theory mathematics seemingly random events are part of a much larger whole that has surprisingly intelligent patterns. Who knew, science pointing toward God.
All of this leads me to a very careful choice of words – God is sovereign. I prefer this phrase to the more commonly held – God is in control. If we believe the later, then God gets credit/blame (whether direct or indirect) for both the good and the bad things that happen. If the former, then God gets praise for the good and requests for assistance in the bad. For his own reasons (he is God after all) he seems to choose the former.
One final comment – taken from Shane Claiborne’s recent book – We ask God “Why do you allow suffering in the world?” to which God responds: “You are my hands and feet. Why do you allow suffering in the world?”
Monday, April 14, 2008
Go ahead ask anything - Sermon 1
Sunday, April 13
Recap:
Pastor Lyon started on Sunday with several interesting scriptures that all seemed point in the same direction - whether in the Old or New Testaments - God "has His heart fixed on the oppressed" and it is the job of God's people to represent them, care for them, and ensure that they are treated fairly. Then, he balanced this position with one scripture passage - Christians are to respect and obey the government that God has placed above them (with the caveat that we can disobey when a person like Hitler is capturing our neighbors and sending them off to death camps).
Jim then proceeded to walk a very fine line - in my view - between caring for the oppressed and obeying the government in power. While I generally agree with him, I would like to point out a slightly different view - perhaps, walking the other side of that very fine line.
But first, a few observations:
1. The preponderance of the scriptures presented on Sunday take a strong view of protecting aliens in the land.
2. The kind of government that exists today didn't exist in ancient Israel. The republics of Rome and Greece were around in Paul's time (not in Moses'), but these representative governments generally represented only the intellectual elite or the landowner. Many still had autocratic Kings with nearly unlimited power. The kind of representative government we have in the US today, where input that the average citizen can actually change laws was unheard of in ancient times.
3. History shows that "ethnic removal" has often had very dire consequences. Though I am not an advocate of "slippery slope" arguments, Hitler did start out this way.
4. The Church in America has often engaged in both civil disobedience and civil discontent when it comes to oppressed and/or under-represented groups (think fetuses, slaves, minorities, women, etc.).
5.One of the main reasons Christians in the USA go into politics is to make changes that they deem important. Indeed, they are often motivated by their faith to make a difference in the world through politics.
Therefore, I would walk a slightly different side of the line:
1. As Christians, we should do everything within the law to advocate for, protect, and serve any socially or economically oppressed group - particularly aliens (since they are specifically mentioned in scripture).
2. Further, because it is within our power to change government policy, we should do everything we can to effect that change. Protecting the person who has no legal status should be a cornerstone of our compassionate response to the world of people around us. Otherwise, why argue for women's rights in India? Doesn't their government endorse the practices of oppression and injustice for women, at least tacitly?
3. As Jim adeptly pointed out - we cannot simply remove these people from our midst. We need their participation in our economy to keep it moving. Therefore, it behooves us to facilitate their transition to legal status within our country.
In the end, it was an odd topic for the beginning of the "Go ahead" series. But one that the church must face. Will we rise in compassion and reach out to the people around us? As Jim says, will we take the time to listen and learn each story? Hear each heart cry? Understand the reasons for immigration, the desperate longing for family and home?
As we connect with these displaced and dispossessed people, we will grow in understanding of their plight. Only then, can we really serve them as God has called us to do.
Recap:
Pastor Lyon started on Sunday with several interesting scriptures that all seemed point in the same direction - whether in the Old or New Testaments - God "has His heart fixed on the oppressed" and it is the job of God's people to represent them, care for them, and ensure that they are treated fairly. Then, he balanced this position with one scripture passage - Christians are to respect and obey the government that God has placed above them (with the caveat that we can disobey when a person like Hitler is capturing our neighbors and sending them off to death camps).
Jim then proceeded to walk a very fine line - in my view - between caring for the oppressed and obeying the government in power. While I generally agree with him, I would like to point out a slightly different view - perhaps, walking the other side of that very fine line.
But first, a few observations:
1. The preponderance of the scriptures presented on Sunday take a strong view of protecting aliens in the land.
2. The kind of government that exists today didn't exist in ancient Israel. The republics of Rome and Greece were around in Paul's time (not in Moses'), but these representative governments generally represented only the intellectual elite or the landowner. Many still had autocratic Kings with nearly unlimited power. The kind of representative government we have in the US today, where input that the average citizen can actually change laws was unheard of in ancient times.
3. History shows that "ethnic removal" has often had very dire consequences. Though I am not an advocate of "slippery slope" arguments, Hitler did start out this way.
4. The Church in America has often engaged in both civil disobedience and civil discontent when it comes to oppressed and/or under-represented groups (think fetuses, slaves, minorities, women, etc.).
5.One of the main reasons Christians in the USA go into politics is to make changes that they deem important. Indeed, they are often motivated by their faith to make a difference in the world through politics.
Therefore, I would walk a slightly different side of the line:
1. As Christians, we should do everything within the law to advocate for, protect, and serve any socially or economically oppressed group - particularly aliens (since they are specifically mentioned in scripture).
2. Further, because it is within our power to change government policy, we should do everything we can to effect that change. Protecting the person who has no legal status should be a cornerstone of our compassionate response to the world of people around us. Otherwise, why argue for women's rights in India? Doesn't their government endorse the practices of oppression and injustice for women, at least tacitly?
3. As Jim adeptly pointed out - we cannot simply remove these people from our midst. We need their participation in our economy to keep it moving. Therefore, it behooves us to facilitate their transition to legal status within our country.
In the end, it was an odd topic for the beginning of the "Go ahead" series. But one that the church must face. Will we rise in compassion and reach out to the people around us? As Jim says, will we take the time to listen and learn each story? Hear each heart cry? Understand the reasons for immigration, the desperate longing for family and home?
As we connect with these displaced and dispossessed people, we will grow in understanding of their plight. Only then, can we really serve them as God has called us to do.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Which version is THE word of God...
Question:
"Visiting the Christian Book store today I took a look at the Bibles. I found, King James, New King James, New International, New American Standard, New Century, New Livivg, God’s Word, Christian Standard, and English Standard. I also found The Message, and the Amplified Bible. Each of these versions has a slightly different way of saying those wounderful promises, unchanging truths, and uncompromising standards, that God has provided for us. Do you see a danger in having so many options when searching for Gods Word, and direction in our lives?"
This is a terrific question that is masking itself in "which version of the Bible should I read?" The real question here is this: Since there are so many versions of the Bible, How can I know which one to literally believe?
Answer - You should not necessarily read any of them literally, word for word.
WHAT!!!!
OK, let me qualify that a bit. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that are historic, literal, and intended as promises. But there is real danger in taking every word literally:
First - ALL of them are interpretations from other languages. Any time you translate something from one language - say Spanish - into English you lose some of the subtleties of the language. Add to that the fact that we are talking about translating from a language that has changed significantly in 6000 - 2000 years and you begin to see some of the problem. This does not mean that you should throw out scripture as unreliable - just be careful about how you apply certain passages. Approach them with reverence and grace rather than arrogance. I don't believe there are errors in scripture, just in our ability to understand it.
Second, there are several passages that are "literally" contradictory. So we need to dig a littler deeper. We need to understand things like historical and cultural context to really understand meaning. In short, we need to be careful scholars when it comes to scripture.
Third, following the ideas (ideals) presented in scripture may be more important than the specific words used to convey those ideas. This is why I like having several versions available. English is a colorful, but limited as a language. With several versions to choose from we can begin to get the full meaning and texture of specific scripture passages.
Finally, I am not casting doubt on scripture - just on our use of it. We need to be very careful readers and "livers" of the word of God. Carefully reading and understanding the Bible is crucial in the life of a believer. So, read the Bible, read commentaries on the Bible, talk to other believers, try to understand what the Church believes about specific passages in the Bible. There is great wisdom in a cloud of witnesses.
"Visiting the Christian Book store today I took a look at the Bibles. I found, King James, New King James, New International, New American Standard, New Century, New Livivg, God’s Word, Christian Standard, and English Standard. I also found The Message, and the Amplified Bible. Each of these versions has a slightly different way of saying those wounderful promises, unchanging truths, and uncompromising standards, that God has provided for us. Do you see a danger in having so many options when searching for Gods Word, and direction in our lives?"
This is a terrific question that is masking itself in "which version of the Bible should I read?" The real question here is this: Since there are so many versions of the Bible, How can I know which one to literally believe?
Answer - You should not necessarily read any of them literally, word for word.
WHAT!!!!
OK, let me qualify that a bit. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that are historic, literal, and intended as promises. But there is real danger in taking every word literally:
First - ALL of them are interpretations from other languages. Any time you translate something from one language - say Spanish - into English you lose some of the subtleties of the language. Add to that the fact that we are talking about translating from a language that has changed significantly in 6000 - 2000 years and you begin to see some of the problem. This does not mean that you should throw out scripture as unreliable - just be careful about how you apply certain passages. Approach them with reverence and grace rather than arrogance. I don't believe there are errors in scripture, just in our ability to understand it.
Second, there are several passages that are "literally" contradictory. So we need to dig a littler deeper. We need to understand things like historical and cultural context to really understand meaning. In short, we need to be careful scholars when it comes to scripture.
Third, following the ideas (ideals) presented in scripture may be more important than the specific words used to convey those ideas. This is why I like having several versions available. English is a colorful, but limited as a language. With several versions to choose from we can begin to get the full meaning and texture of specific scripture passages.
Finally, I am not casting doubt on scripture - just on our use of it. We need to be very careful readers and "livers" of the word of God. Carefully reading and understanding the Bible is crucial in the life of a believer. So, read the Bible, read commentaries on the Bible, talk to other believers, try to understand what the Church believes about specific passages in the Bible. There is great wisdom in a cloud of witnesses.
Never been in love...
Question:
"I have never been in love or had anyone be in love with me, I don’t know what it feels like. I can say I love Jesus and I do, But how do I know I really love him? is there a feeling? I feel like I am just going through the motions. I am in my 50’s time is running out."
Ah, the weakness of the English language. The word love, of course, means many things. In his timeless classic C.S. Lewis takes his readers through the four Greek words most commonly used for love. The question above speaks to a common misunderstanding of love for another person (romantic love) and love for Jesus. Let me walk through each of the four loves:
Storge (affection) This is the kind of love that very close friends might have for one another. It speaks of familiarity, close conversation, nearness. Sometimes this is referred to as the love siblings have for one another - they are close, they love each other.
Philia (friendship) Actually the root word for Philiadephia (the city of brotherly love). Here we see the kind of love that friends who share a common interest might have for one another. It is not as "natural" as storge - meaning there must be a reason for this love to exist. You have friends who you see regularly at school or work - you care about them because they are part of the group. If you were not in that group you would likely not feel any love (philia) for them.
Eros (romantic love) This is the kind of love that first part of the question is referring to. Not everyone experiences this kind of love. It is sensual in nature and not necessarily either good or bad. It can be good in the context of a marriage relationship and bad in the context of pornography addiction. Eros can grow out of storge or Philia - but not necessarily so. Generally, eros seeks to get some kind of gratification from the person loved.
Agape (unconditional love) In earthly terms this is unconditional love for another person. I love my daughter regardless of what she does or does not do. That is one form of agape. Another form is the love that God has for us - it is unconditional. We have a hard time getting our minds around that concept. Many think they must do something for God to earn his love - this is a lie. You are loved by God - that's it! A final kind of agape is what God calls us to offer to each other. Unconditional love for imperfect humans is very difficult - it requires work, and is usually NOT a feeling.
I think you can probably guess from the discussion above where I am going with this Blog - I think the person asking the question is confusing romantic love with the love of God. To say you have never been in love, or been loved is simply false. Everyone has been loved or offered love - even if that love has only come from God.
The question really seems to center on the issue of "feelings". How do I recognize the feeling of love. That's a tough one. Philosophers have been debating it for centuries. How do you know you are in love? I would start by suggesting that you try doing the things that people in love do. Try doing something self-less for God. Like what? I don't know - what is God asking you to do? How about taking a shut-in neighbor a meal or mowing their lawn. When they say thanks or try to pay you - tell them "no, I am doing this because I love God" It might shock them, but after you have done it a few times you will come to feel more in love. Agape will flow from you to God and reflect back down on your neighbor.
Don't worry about feeling all gushy - that's a temporary feeling anyway. Even in the best romatic relationships.
"I have never been in love or had anyone be in love with me, I don’t know what it feels like. I can say I love Jesus and I do, But how do I know I really love him? is there a feeling? I feel like I am just going through the motions. I am in my 50’s time is running out."
Ah, the weakness of the English language. The word love, of course, means many things. In his timeless classic C.S. Lewis takes his readers through the four Greek words most commonly used for love. The question above speaks to a common misunderstanding of love for another person (romantic love) and love for Jesus. Let me walk through each of the four loves:
Storge (affection) This is the kind of love that very close friends might have for one another. It speaks of familiarity, close conversation, nearness. Sometimes this is referred to as the love siblings have for one another - they are close, they love each other.
Philia (friendship) Actually the root word for Philiadephia (the city of brotherly love). Here we see the kind of love that friends who share a common interest might have for one another. It is not as "natural" as storge - meaning there must be a reason for this love to exist. You have friends who you see regularly at school or work - you care about them because they are part of the group. If you were not in that group you would likely not feel any love (philia) for them.
Eros (romantic love) This is the kind of love that first part of the question is referring to. Not everyone experiences this kind of love. It is sensual in nature and not necessarily either good or bad. It can be good in the context of a marriage relationship and bad in the context of pornography addiction. Eros can grow out of storge or Philia - but not necessarily so. Generally, eros seeks to get some kind of gratification from the person loved.
Agape (unconditional love) In earthly terms this is unconditional love for another person. I love my daughter regardless of what she does or does not do. That is one form of agape. Another form is the love that God has for us - it is unconditional. We have a hard time getting our minds around that concept. Many think they must do something for God to earn his love - this is a lie. You are loved by God - that's it! A final kind of agape is what God calls us to offer to each other. Unconditional love for imperfect humans is very difficult - it requires work, and is usually NOT a feeling.
I think you can probably guess from the discussion above where I am going with this Blog - I think the person asking the question is confusing romantic love with the love of God. To say you have never been in love, or been loved is simply false. Everyone has been loved or offered love - even if that love has only come from God.
The question really seems to center on the issue of "feelings". How do I recognize the feeling of love. That's a tough one. Philosophers have been debating it for centuries. How do you know you are in love? I would start by suggesting that you try doing the things that people in love do. Try doing something self-less for God. Like what? I don't know - what is God asking you to do? How about taking a shut-in neighbor a meal or mowing their lawn. When they say thanks or try to pay you - tell them "no, I am doing this because I love God" It might shock them, but after you have done it a few times you will come to feel more in love. Agape will flow from you to God and reflect back down on your neighbor.
Don't worry about feeling all gushy - that's a temporary feeling anyway. Even in the best romatic relationships.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Brith control and God's plan...
Question(s):
"(1) Does birth control go against God design? Are we preventing the birth of “chosen” ones? (2)But then, is it irresponsible to have children if one can’t provide for them?"
Question 1 - my short answer here is "no" at least not any more than taking an antibiotic or have surgery to remove a tumor changes God's plan for you to die in a timely and appropriate manner.
The bottom line on this question (for me) is a simple one. God gave us a certain amount of intelligence to control things in our environment. We make machines, we discover drugs, we learn about sterile techniques - all of these things have certain risks and benefits associated with them. In the case of birth control, (There are several methods here and I am lumping them together for convenience, but rest assured, I do not consider abortion to be an appropriate means of birth control.) we have learned ways of keeping sperm cells and egg cells apart - while still engaging in sexual activity. I would argue that God's plan included providing us with a brain to figure this out.
Question 2 - Yes, I think it is somewhat irresponsible to have children if you cannot provide for them. People should think about the possible offspring they might be generating before engaging in sexual activity. Only engaging in sex in the context of a committed marriage relationship is the Christian ideal for bringing children into the world.
But, people do irresponsible things every day. We are, after all, human and prone to make mistakes. So, what then? Here I would argue in favor of two things - changed priorities, and adoption. Changed priorities in that the parents of this new life might need to drop other (good?) things in favor of seeking employment to provide for their children. If that is not possible, adoption provides a terrific way to place a child in a loving home that can provide for their needs. In fact, MPC runs an excellent adoption agency called The Miriam Project - we really DO care for these children in tangible ways.
"(1) Does birth control go against God design? Are we preventing the birth of “chosen” ones? (2)But then, is it irresponsible to have children if one can’t provide for them?"
Question 1 - my short answer here is "no" at least not any more than taking an antibiotic or have surgery to remove a tumor changes God's plan for you to die in a timely and appropriate manner.
The bottom line on this question (for me) is a simple one. God gave us a certain amount of intelligence to control things in our environment. We make machines, we discover drugs, we learn about sterile techniques - all of these things have certain risks and benefits associated with them. In the case of birth control, (There are several methods here and I am lumping them together for convenience, but rest assured, I do not consider abortion to be an appropriate means of birth control.) we have learned ways of keeping sperm cells and egg cells apart - while still engaging in sexual activity. I would argue that God's plan included providing us with a brain to figure this out.
Question 2 - Yes, I think it is somewhat irresponsible to have children if you cannot provide for them. People should think about the possible offspring they might be generating before engaging in sexual activity. Only engaging in sex in the context of a committed marriage relationship is the Christian ideal for bringing children into the world.
But, people do irresponsible things every day. We are, after all, human and prone to make mistakes. So, what then? Here I would argue in favor of two things - changed priorities, and adoption. Changed priorities in that the parents of this new life might need to drop other (good?) things in favor of seeking employment to provide for their children. If that is not possible, adoption provides a terrific way to place a child in a loving home that can provide for their needs. In fact, MPC runs an excellent adoption agency called The Miriam Project - we really DO care for these children in tangible ways.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Christians, Muslims, and Jews... oh my!
Question;
"What are the similarities and differences between Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, etc…???"
Similarities first:
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons (we could argue about this one), and Jehovah's Witness folk are all monotheistic (One God) faiths. Hindus are altogether different - polytheistic (many gods). The first three are closely related to one another while the later two split out of the Christian tradition.
The oldest is Judaism. Founded by God through Abraham when God asked him to leave his country and travel to another land that he did not know. Abraham and Sarah were old (70+) and childless when God told Abe that he would be the father of many nations.
Not believing God, Sarah and Abe took matters into their own hands and Sarah sent her servant in to sleep with Abraham. This produced a son named Ishmael. Sarah then got jealous of Ishmael and his mother (Hagar) and tossed them out. God miraculously saved them and founded the Arab peoples.
Judaism really has it's religious roots in the exodus from Egypt that happened several hundred years later. When God delivered his people from Egypt he set up a system of governance and religious belief that still exists today. Many of the ceremonies and rites that orthodox Jews observe today began there. The Scripture for Jews is basically what we would call the Old Testament.
A couple of thousand years later, Jesus was born, lived a perfect life, and died - only to be raised again to new life. This is the foundation of the Christian belief system - later expounded by Paul, Peter, John, and others. Jesus was a Jew, so Christianity is descended from Judaism. Most Christians accept the New and Old Testaments as Scripture - though some would add the Apocrypha.
Shortly after the time of Christ, a man named Mohamed (prophet according to Muslims) was born, met with Angels, and had several prophetic visions. He transcribed these visions verbatim - this is the Koran, which along with the Old testament - is considered to be the Muslim Scripture. Since Christians and Muslims share the Old Testament and are both monotheistic - many consider them to be "cousins".
Most of the trouble that has arisen between the three groups has taken place because of various interpretors of the scriptures in the intervening centuries. The Jews early campaigns against the Christians, the Christian's retaliatory attacks against Jerusalem, and the Crusades back and forth between the Christians and Muslims have all been devastating to these three major and related religious belief systems.
Many of our Scriptures are similar, but the way we interpret them is quite different.
"What are the similarities and differences between Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, etc…???"
Similarities first:
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons (we could argue about this one), and Jehovah's Witness folk are all monotheistic (One God) faiths. Hindus are altogether different - polytheistic (many gods). The first three are closely related to one another while the later two split out of the Christian tradition.
The oldest is Judaism. Founded by God through Abraham when God asked him to leave his country and travel to another land that he did not know. Abraham and Sarah were old (70+) and childless when God told Abe that he would be the father of many nations.
Not believing God, Sarah and Abe took matters into their own hands and Sarah sent her servant in to sleep with Abraham. This produced a son named Ishmael. Sarah then got jealous of Ishmael and his mother (Hagar) and tossed them out. God miraculously saved them and founded the Arab peoples.
Judaism really has it's religious roots in the exodus from Egypt that happened several hundred years later. When God delivered his people from Egypt he set up a system of governance and religious belief that still exists today. Many of the ceremonies and rites that orthodox Jews observe today began there. The Scripture for Jews is basically what we would call the Old Testament.
A couple of thousand years later, Jesus was born, lived a perfect life, and died - only to be raised again to new life. This is the foundation of the Christian belief system - later expounded by Paul, Peter, John, and others. Jesus was a Jew, so Christianity is descended from Judaism. Most Christians accept the New and Old Testaments as Scripture - though some would add the Apocrypha.
Shortly after the time of Christ, a man named Mohamed (prophet according to Muslims) was born, met with Angels, and had several prophetic visions. He transcribed these visions verbatim - this is the Koran, which along with the Old testament - is considered to be the Muslim Scripture. Since Christians and Muslims share the Old Testament and are both monotheistic - many consider them to be "cousins".
Most of the trouble that has arisen between the three groups has taken place because of various interpretors of the scriptures in the intervening centuries. The Jews early campaigns against the Christians, the Christian's retaliatory attacks against Jerusalem, and the Crusades back and forth between the Christians and Muslims have all been devastating to these three major and related religious belief systems.
Many of our Scriptures are similar, but the way we interpret them is quite different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
