Intellectuelle   Christian living

“Christians don’t tell lies, they just go to church and sing them” A.W. Tozer

One Sunday in April I stood in church and sang ”I Exalt Thee” yet as I was singing I couldn’t stop asking myself “Do I exalt thee? Really?” How often during the course of a day do I exalt myself? Or expect others to exalt me? A.W Tozer was right, I was singing a lie. I reflected on how pride is the foundation for all sin. My needs, okay wants, come first. As I was singing I couldn’t stop asking myself “Do I exalt Thee” or do my desires supercede His?

Often times that pride is not manifested externally, but in my heart I feel it raise its head. I silently make judgments about how someone stacks up to me. Are they smarter, thinner, funnier or am I? Too often it is me who comes out ahead. And too often the inflection in my voice betrays what is hidden in my heart. My tone implies that I am too busy and too important to bother with you.

What is most grievous is that I at times have allowed myself to be so calloused to those thoughts that it isn’t until much later when I ask the Holy Spirit to shine a spotlight on my sin that those thoughts of self righteousness take center stage. Phillipians 2:3 tells me not to do anything from rivalry or conceit but how often do I need to get an unwarranted word in to a conversation to showcase my wisdom or education? How often do I cut people off in conversation because I know that what I have to say bears far more importance than anything they would have to contribute? How often do rules not apply to me? How often I need to let others know of my good deeds despite the command to do my deeds in humility?

It took my son to point out that when I am rushed I tend to ‘”prance around and shout out orders”. Ouch. Painful but true, in those moments my flesh makes sure that my son knows how inept he is and what a disappointment his performance is. My pride and self-importance overshadows my teaching of him and renders it ineffective. My pride has trumped the respect I am to show my husband when I quickly scoff at comments he makes about the children because after all, not only am I a woman and thus born with superior intuition and perception, but I am also a mother and it is I who know all when it comes to the children. Fortunately our gracious Father is quick to lay low my pride and provides opportunity throughout the day to remind me of who I am and who He is.

So what am I to do to exalt thee and not me? On a daily basis I need to asses myself in the light of God’s holiness. I need to remember that God is opposed to the proud (1 Peter 5:5; James 4:6)? I need to heed the command to consider others more significant than myself (Phil 2:3). I need to step down from my perch and ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate how I exalt me, so that “I Exalt Thee” is not just a song but a way of life.

(Series subtitle: Attitudes of the Heart and the Actions That Proceed Therefrom)

JCHFleetGuy at Brain Cramps for God commends philophronos blogging, a promising new venture by Laura of Pursuing Holiness and Henry Neufeld of Threads from Henry’s Web.

philóphron: to think, have a mindset. Friendly, courteous, benign (1Peter 3:8). Deriv.: philophrónos (G5390), in a friendly or kind manner.

Laura points to 1 Peter 3:15-16 as the model for all discourse:

If we are called to make our defense of our faith with gentleness and respect, how much more should we do so with respect to minor issues like the politics of our nation or any of the temporary governments of this world?

Christian bloggers should purposefully express our political beliefs with gentleness and respect, with the intention of setting the example for non-Christians. We’re not all going to agree. We don’t need to agree. But we can debate the issues in such a way that the debate glorifies God and points people to Christ. We’re challenging Christian bloggers who write about politics to write at least one post a week until the election - and hopefully after it

In the comments to Laura’s post is a link to another of her posts illustrating the “pay it forward” concept behind philanthropos blogging. The idea: one act of kindness will beget another (not necessarily in return, but passed on to others). She calls it a “dangerous naivete.” Indeed, "paying it forward" is the hope in the Christian’s “shining the light” for others to see. The reality is, of course, that many are not the least bit interested in the light. That includes Christians at times, including me. (I’m not referring to turning away from general assent to the gospel, but from assent to its implications for every situation encountered every day). But the “dangerous naivete” is the belief that at least some will “pick up the ball and run with it.” Says Laura, “I’d rather be dangerously naive than cynical.”

Me too. But most of all I’d rather be dangerously not naive, which is to say, completely trusting in God. Knowing that I may be paid back a completely different account than I was paying forward (or not at all, in this life anyway). I must do it anyway. We must speak and act, always, in the Light so that the Light will shine forth. But not self-consciously, with our every word and action a self-consciously calculated action aimed to influence. We do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, period. I know that, myself, as soon as I start trying to determine or second-guess the results of any action I take, my focus is turned right on you-know-who and not straight ahead. As soon as I try to get this kind of handle on something, all sorts of fears, worries, and false hopes take over. It’s the death of me! (As someone once wrote), in seeking to save my life, I lose it.

Do I hope for positive influence from the things I do? Of course. But it’s not me. Any positive influence that may come through me is from God. And most of the things He does through me I have little awareness of anyway.

Coming next: comments on civility

I was going to write a post on the Ted Haggard situation and how Christians really aren't allowed to be sinful, much less blatantly sinful, even though they all seem to agree that once we are saved we don't become sinless, just forgiven, and hopefully less sinful. But it appears that it's already been done and very well at that, so I will just refer you to Charlie Lehardy's post on Scot McKnight's.

Update: I'll confess, I'm a little baffled by the sudden outpouring of "oh yes, I'm such a horrible sinner" from various places in the Godblogosphere. What? Now all of a sudden everyone is willing to openly admit what terrible sinners they are? I am in no place to question anyone's sincerity, but I find it odd that that suddenly lots of people are jumping on this bandwagon. If it's all truly sincere, though, be prepared for a huge and very welcome overhaul of evangelical Christendom!

Update no. 2: a great comment at Jollyblogger on the issue, by commenter slaveofone:

What I find incredible is that it took someone outside the church to bring light to and expose the darkness of someone inside the church...

What's going on at the level of the sheep if the shepherds are lost?

Have we become so enamored of good appearances that we have shunned that which might expose the dark, unseen places, letting them grow and fester among each other like a cancer in the body of Christ?

Has our faith become so powerless that it can do nothing among each other to work healing and affect good unless the very hand of Yahweh stretches out and points at someone saying "help my servant"?

This is not an isolated occurrence. Neither is Haggard's error solely his own. This is representative of a larger problem in us as a Christian body. Where were we when Haggard needed us? Where are you when I need you? Where am I when you need me? If there is sin, brokenness, trouble, injustice, need of love, whatever in one member of the body, it affects the whole. We are not automatons, separate and aloof. Our lives are healed and strengthened or weakened and destroyed because of each other.

James 5:16: Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

James 2:15: If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

I think the latter verse can be applied to any need that a person may have, not just clothing and food. It may be understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, advice, discipline, or any number of things.

In the wake of the Ted Haggard scandal, Justin Taylor posts an extended quote by Al Mohler on homosexuality in particular and sin and the church in general. An excerpt:

We know better than to say that people cannot change. We also know better than to believe that people can change themselves. As Jonathan Edwards made clear, we sin in our affections, and we do not even understand ourselves in terms of why we love the things we love and desire the things we desire. This is why we are so dependent upon the work of Christ in our lives and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in reordering our affections. This is no easy process, but it is real and it is enduring.

One thing I would add is that part of our dependency upon Christ and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit is dependency upon others to give or help us find what we ourselves lack. If those others let us down, God does not. But I think neglect of good works on the part of others could be part why God doesn’t always seem to deliver us from our sins, even when we desire it. True, we don’t always want to be delivered (or perhaps we do and don’t at the same time!), but part of the Christian promise is deliverance.

Not being delivered may have the effect of keeping us dependent upon God and others, but the results of sin -- all sin -- are clearly disastrous. Therefore we need to confess, to both God and others, on a continual basis. And we are not only dependent upon God in Spirit for healing but upon God as He works through other people. Corrolary to this is that we are responsible to be available to one another and effectual to give aid. Those who have knowledge (and preferably experience) in how to overcome certain sins need to be sharing this with those who struggle with those sins.

(Some may wonder why I seem to equate needs with sin, and that's a good question. I do so because I believe that sin is an attempt to meet a need. It is an attempt to save ourselves in some way rather than allowing ourselves to be saved by God. If we help one another meet true needs, we can help one another overcome sin.)

Mohler addresses the church’s need to “love sinners more than sinners love their sinfulness” – think about that! What a tenacious love. I believe it needs to be plugged into the equation that begins with "sinners cannot change themselves; only God can." I would say that only God working in all the ways He works, including through people, can.

Perhaps our main stumbling block in this area is shame and embarrassment...which I suppose are forms of pride, shame especially. (What do you think?) But it's an area that needs to be explored, and I hope to do so, and hope others will join me.

Iin response to these words of Ted Haggard's:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark . . .

JCHFleetGuy says:

The problem with being repulsed by the darkness inside us is that we stay away from it instead of shining a light on it and examining it. We all have darkness inside of us; all have parts of us that repulse us; and we gain healing, in part, by holding those parts out in God's light and not allowing them to stay in some dark place and fester.

There's been much written on avoiding temptation to be unfaithful in one’s marriage, especially concerning practical steps that can be taken. The practical is, indeed, important, but more so is the tending of one’s inner life, where scenarios develop in the first place. These scenarios can cause us to lose mindfulness of the practical aspects. (I.e., we don’t care about minding natural boundaries when cultivation of an inappropriate scenario occupies our inner life.)

The first boundary crossed when seeds of unfaithfulness germinate is the view of another person as less than other, in all the aspects that the person is "other." What separates mere friends from potential adulterers is that there is always a sphere of the friend’s life that one will never enter, whether in thought or in deed. When one ceases to think of the friend as “other,” though – other in certain aspects of life, person, and marriage – one starts to imagine thoughts of ownership of that person that are untrue. This is a wholly different concept than that involving mere consent.

(Although the violation of the otherness of a person will, at some point, meet with legitimate consent issues involving someone...if not another person, then ultimately God.)

There will certainly be a common sphere shared by friends -- a sphere of common interests and experiences, as well as a bond of caring and fidelity. But part of that bond of caring and fidelity is to never violate the “other” of that person.

Contrast this with one’s spouse – a spouse must never be an “other!” And, not to be misunderstood, I don’t mean that he or she is not to be honored as a distinct and separate person. However, marriage means that two become one, and thus one's spouse is privy to one’s living space, possessions, and habits as well as one’s thoughts, wishes, troubles, everything – by the nature of being one’s spouse. Trouble happens when one spouse or the other denies this belonging and withholds or rejects what ought to be shared. (Sharing involves both the giving and the receiving) It’s a sure-fire intimacy-killer, and tills the soil for unfaithfulness. Faithfulness means being faithful in every way to everyone involved – faithful to both offering one’s “things” and taking in one's spouse’s shared things, as well as never giving to, or taking from, any other what rightfully belongs to a spouse.

This concept of "otherness" applies to many things, not just marital fidelity. Perhaps in our culture of ease and sense of entitlement, though, we've come to think that whatever we want (or think we want), we can have. Yet the ten commandments speak of coveting, and, though they address things such as neighbors' possessions, the issue is not limited to these things. Just about every sin imaginable starts with the prideful coveting of something that has not been granted us. We sin because we want what is not rightfully ours. But would that we'd all enjoy the bounty that the Lord does grant us, allowing that which we might desire wrongfully to always remain "other."

(Series subtitle: Attitudes of the Heart and the Actions That Proceed Therefrom)

In part I I linked to Brain Cramps For God’s post on philophronos blogging, the comments to which included these words from Mike Finley:

This post addresses the way we "thing" one another and act hatefully. Another aspect is the way we address one another in a seemingly friendly, but still disrespectful way.

My feeling is that this is common among missionaries -- that we hope the positivity of our message annihilates that of those whom we meet. It is a kind of smiling cruelty -- it disrespects, it trashes the possibilty of true communication, it is passive aggressive. But it is the foundation of much Christian "dialogue."

“Smiling cruelty”..."passive-aggressive.” Indeed. Whether we hope to “kill with kindness” or not, falsely kind behavior is not unlike that of the false prophets’ who “come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Harsh words, yes. But insincerity is no small matter for the Christian. To quote I Peter again:

Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. I Pet. 2:1-3 (emphasis mine)

False kindness puts a medal on our chests (for kindness) but does nothing for what’s inside our chests (or heads). It is a Pharasaical show. Yet if God is trustworthy, and we truly trust in Him, then there can be no untrustworthiness in us. If we go through the outer motions of friendliness while harboring hateful or unfriendly thoughts privately, we deceive. Deceit, regardless of the type or the motive, is lying. Whether done to protect ourselves, put on a good show, or to “kiss up,” we court others’ trust only to take advantage of it. We betray it. We become consumers of others rather ministers to them, and encourage empty relations in which parties merely use one another rather than truly care for one another.

Oftentimes, of course, civility is necessary for the restoration or maintenance of trust. Civility as diplomacy, as a good-will gesture, cannot be overrated and is the language of formal relationships. But such formality can also be hidden behind and used to manipulate rather than foster good will in cases where it is not called for. Oftentimes, diplomacy means respect for another so that grievances are shared in a timely and appropriate manner. This too is honesty; it is an admission of another’s importance and dignity.

There are times when grievances must be made known, regardless of the effect it may have on a relationship. It is the way out of passive aggression, the path of honesty, and also a form of helping others acknowledge accountability for their actions. Grievances are to be distinguished from unfriendly thoughts, however. It’s not that unfriendly thoughts ought to be hidden or covered up or shared openly, but that they must be confessed to God (and perhaps to a trusted friend) and repented of. As adultery starts in the inner thoughts of a person, so does hateful behavior. We repent from our sinful thoughts before God and also are obliged to apologize for unfriendly actions toward others.

Another problem with inward unfriendliness is that it doesn’t stay inside. It will come out somehow, and most often inappropriately. It may manifest in self-abuse, or in outbursts of violence, harsh criticism, or other destructive behavior in word or deed, usually in great disproportion to whatever it is vented against and often to a scapegoat (or whipping boy).

Next up: thoughts on anger

Between Two Worlds links to two views on mercy ministries at Modern Reformation. Both are well worth reading. I especially commend the main point of the second one: that Christians are called, first and foremost, to minister to each other.

Also at BTW is a great post on communication, aptly titled Rebuilding Your World of Talk. It addresses the head/heart matters behind our communication rather than addressing mere “technique" when talking with one another. Form follows function.

David Wayne will be meeting with Stephen Shields of Emergesque to further their Reformed-Emerging Conversation. They will continue “brainstorming some ways that we can foster conversation within the reformed and emerging communities, and are working on a project to that end that I hope to tell you about soon.” I am encouraged by this example of work toward Christian unity.

Check out Shield’s post on A Nurtured Culture of Christian Disagreement. What do you think? Can a blog truly foster “mutually beneficial discussion around matters of disagreement”? Shields thinks it can, if

* both participants have a substantial amount of spiritual maturity, and/or
* when the environment is well-moderated with a nurtured culture of Christian disagreement.

Julana at Life in the Slow Lane writes Therapy notes 33: teaching, trusting. Julana has a son with Down’s syndrome and poignantly blogs vignettes from their lives.

When a child begins a voyage through the seas of habilitative therapy, he simultaneously embarks on his teaching career. Firstly, he teaches his therapists how he learns. Secondly, he ends up being regularly observed by college students in the fields of psychology, special education, and physical, occupational, or speech therapy.

What struck me about this statement is the view of student as teacher. Really, this dynamic can and ought be applied to any relationship, whether teacher/student, doctor/patient, parent/child, boss/employee, friend/friend, or spouse/spouse, etc.

I will never forget the time when, many years ago, I was conversing with a man about my work. I was fairly new in the community and he had befriended me and helped me to make contacts. At one point he questioned me about something, and I answered, and then he said something like, “OK, I see what you’re saying. See, I’m learning how to talk with you; I’m learning your language.” Well, that was a revelation to me. No one had ever said anything like that to me before.

Many years later, when I had become a parent and was trying to learn how to parent my extremely intense oldest son, I couldn’t find a book that didn’t seem to be missing what I really needed to know. Especially since I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Then I found Mary Sheedy Kurcinka’s Raising Your Spirited Child, and there was my answer. This book is about getting to know your child and his/her particular characteristics, understand them, and then work with them to help him/her learn how to live. This book is not a “Christian” book, yet neither does it equate kids’ tendencies with excuses to allow misbehavior. It simply encourages a compassionate, respectful, and honorable view toward children (and toward ourselves, which I also appreciated!).

Our children will learn compassion and respect by being treated with compassion and respect. Our friends and other loved ones will be helped to maintain, or increase, their compassion and respect for others by being respected and treated compassionately by us.

Julana also speaks of the reassurance fostered by therapists’ and helpers’ kind, compassionate treatment of her son, which enables her to trust that there will be people to help him when she is no longer able to do so. I believe it is this sort of treatment that enables any of us to trust others, even God perhaps, and be reassured that we will be taken care of when we need it.

I was cleaning up my computer files and found this quote that I'd saved. It's from Phil Dillon, who blogs at Another Man's Meat. (Couldn't find the post it was from, my apologies.) Here's the quote:

I came to see, little by little, that it was not my place to defend myself or prove myself to others. There are times when it seems more difficult than others. It’s even happened recently. And, thanks to that “chance” meeting in a parking lot years ago I come to rest in those wonderful words when I feel the urge to regress – “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom He hath sent.”

I really appreciate these words because I too find myself feeling pressed or obliged to either defend myself or to further explain when it is not necessary. Sometimes I think it is necessary, for example, if I am questioned or challenged over something I did or said. In this case my "defense" is an explanation for the benefit of the questioner. These kinds of things are common in family- or other close relationships, I think. (And in blogging :-) )

Sometimes, though, misunderstandings persist, as with other types of disagreement. (And often no doubt exist at the same time in the same situation.) In this case, no amount of additional defense or explanation can help, so one must let go and move on.

From Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint, a commentary titled Forgiving Our Enemies: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima—and Calvary.

This is the kind of story I love to read; it gives me great hope. It reminds me of the depths of God’s power and love.
____

During his 40 months as a POW, Jacob DeShazer began reading a Bible. After asking Christ to forgive his sins, he looked at the enemy guards and officers and realized,

”if Christ is not in a heart, it is natural to be cruel... [M]y bitter hatred ... changed to loving pity." Remembering Christ's words from the cross— "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"—he asked God to forgive those who tortured him, as well.

Over a thirty-year span, Captain Fuchida and Sergeant DeShazer traveled together throughout Japan. Together and separately, they saw tens of thousands of Japanese converted.

A reflection upon the statement, “If Christ is not in a heart, it is natural to be cruel:” I think it’s natural to be cruel when others are cruel to you regardless, but only when one dwells within God’s love and forgiveness in Christ can cruelty from either side be resisted. Meaning, one can resist the mental and emotional effects of outer cruelty and also control impulses to retaliate from within.

I also think it is natural to love those who love us, even without Christ in our heart. Who doesn’t want to be loved? Yet only by dwelling within God’s love and forgiveness in Christ can we keep from making idols of those who love us. Only by dwelling thus can we keep proper boundaries or even properly admonish those who love us, when necessary.

This was first posted this at my own blog earlier in the year. I hope it might offer some encouragement to any new mums who are reading here.

Channel 4 aired a programme last night entitled “Extraordinary Breastfeeding.” In it the they met various women who were breastfeeding their children well beyond the expected Western ‘norm’ of 1 year. Many of them were feeding children aged between 2 and 4 years, whilst one mother was still breastfeeding her 7 year old daughter. Such practice might, I suspect, have self-styled breastfeeding experts such as Gary Ezzo and Gina Ford reaching for the Valium bottle. Many people would be appalled to hear about these families thinking it inapropriate or just plain wierd that they would want to raise their families this way, even medical experts around the world have varying guidelines on how long it is beneficial for children to be breastfed.

I fed our first son for almost two years, though after his first year it was usually only before bed. I have recently stopped feeding our second son at 16 months due to us all being unwell for a couple of days and my supply sadly disappearing overnight. I have been fortunate in that I have never encountered any negative criticism regarding breastfeeding, unlike some of my friends who have been asked to leave restaurants, or to feed their baby in the ladies toilet.

So what’s a parent to do then with so much contradictory advice?

Some time ago I found the blog of a young woman who lost her husband to cancer May of last year. It is a gripping and very moving account of his illness and of her life following his death, and offers an open view of her grief.

In reading No-Sleep Tricia, a few things stood out to me: (1) Grief is in many ways like a long, protracted illness except – it’s not an illness. But it may act and feel like one. (2) A loss and its after-effects can leave a person topsy-turvy for quite some time. (3) Most people who have not (and perhaps also some who have) experienced a major loss are incapable of understanding or properly supporting another person through such a loss. (4) We are missing a really, really big opportunity to minister when we inadequately deal with friends and acquaintances who are struggling in this way.

We need a working theology of grief, with a like-informed practicum.

Though I’m guessing, I would say that the problem is largely four-fold: (1) We don’t, in general, really want to get to know others well enough, or let others get close enough, to enter into such a difficult situation with them. Because, (2) we don’t really know what to do. (3) We don’t realize the extent to which a trauma affects every facet of a person’s life unless we’ve experienced something similar ourselves. (4) We don’t want to step out of our comfort zones enough to be of real assistance.

These things only serve to make the grieved person feel even more alienated than they probably already do; a major trauma turns their world upside-down. Things are no longer the way they “should” be. Spouses “shouldn’t” die young; children “shouldn’t” get seriously ill and die; people shouldn’t have accidents or get terrible diseases. People shouldn’t abuse and damage one another. Everyone “should” be relatively happy. Yet parents of newborns, parents of handicapped or chronically-ill children, and people who’ve experienced trauma or illness often speak of feeling as if they are living in a different world from most everyone else.

And why is this?

I’m wondering whether it isn't the other way around. Is it the others -- those who either deny extreme difficulties or have never experienced them -- who are missing out on what life’s really all about? Are they missing opportunity to have their focus redirected to things that really matter? Are they missing potential for deep and lasting ministry to one another?

Really, we’ve got be available enough to meet the pain of our brothers and sisters, and not just to say a quick prayer. We must know and trust one another to know when there is real need, and be humble enough to both ask for help and offer it when needed. We give the concept of service a lot of lip service (and I do too), not to mention shallow or token gestures. But do we really give in proportion to the need?

And what of the idea of service from the needy person’s point of view? Most of us have probably had it battered into our heads that we must serve, serve, serve – others, that is – and so prove our faithfulness to God. But a traumatic event can leave a person feeling very inadequate with – *gasp* – nothing at all to give. He may feel less than respectable, less than valuable to the human race, or to God, in his great need.

But perhaps it’s really the needy person who has the greatest ability to serve – to serve others with insight, honesty, openness, and the opportunity for another to serve him as well. An equitable exchange of service.

We all know in theory that a person’s value is found, not in themselves or their circumstances or their daily work and activity, but in who they are, either in Christ or as a creation of the Almighty God. But do we live it? It’s not just the weak – physically, mentally, or emotionally – who have need. No one is so strong that he is not also in some sort of need! It is as honorable to be in need as it is to serve; as it is as honorable to be in emotional or mental need as in physical need.

It's also true that some people are not open to help. In such a case, one may still be friendly and available, and prayerful, but perhaps no more. And that’s OK. There are plenty of others waiting and hoping for a friend who’s willing to stick with them!

Do you know anyone who’s struggling? Go and offer your time, your ear, your care to them.

A few days ago, while discussing Edward Gilbreath’s article on blacks and the evangelical church at ChristianityToday.com, I suggested that a cure for discrimination is friendship. Mark Traphagen at Connversation also comments on Gilbreath's article and offers another suggestion:

...the thing that it takes...is the willingness to give up a certain amount of control. (emphasis in the original)

If we want blacks to begin to feel at home in our white churches, we’ve got to be willing to have blacks in leadership positions. And once that is accomplished, we have to make sure that they really have a voice in determining the “look and feel” of the church. Which means we may end up singing songs we wouldn’t choose ourselves or listening to sermons that aren’t all “tastefully-delivered” neat little logical treatises. That means giving up a little control, and that can be scary. But that is the cost of having a church that looks like all of God’s people.

HT: a comment by Mr. Traphagen at Jollyblogger

Man, I wish I could write like Dawn Eden.

(added): In a Sunday Times piece, she tells us why "Casual sex is a con: women just aren't like men:"

In the 1960s the future Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown famously asked: Can a woman have sex like a man? Yes, she answered because “like a man, [a woman] is a sexual creature”. Her insight launched a million “100 new sex tricks” features in women’s magazines. And then that sex-loving feminist icon Germaine Greer enthused that “groupies are important because they demystify sex; they accept it as physical, and they aren’t possessive about their conquests”

Says Eden,

...In some ways, the touring rock musician was my ideal sexual partner. By bedding them I could enjoy a temporary sort of fairy-tale bond; knowing it was bound to be fleeting as we would both move on meant that I never had to confront my own vulnerability about properly making a connection with someone. I could establish a transient intimacy and never have to deal with the real thing — and the real rejection that might entail.

Of course the rejection would come as the latest lover moved on to the next town and the next woman — but somehow, being able to see it coming made me feel more in control. I was choosing, I thought, the lesser pain.

But in all that casual sex, there was one moment I learnt to dread more than any other. I dreaded it not out of fear that the sex would be bad, but out of fear that it would be good. If the sex was good, then, even if I knew in my heart that the relationship wouldn’t work, I would still feel as though the act had bonded me with my sex partner in a deeper way than we had been bonded before. It’s in the nature of sex to awaken deep emotions within us, emotions that are unwelcome when one is trying to keep it light.

On such nights the worst moment was when it was all over. Suddenly I was jarred back to earth. Then I’d lie back and feel bereft. He would still be there, and if I was really lucky, he’d lie down next to me. Yet, I couldn’t help feeling like the spell had been broken. We could nuzzle or giggle or we could fall asleep in each other’s arms but I knew it was play acting and so did he. We weren’t really intimate — it had just been a game. The circus had left town.

Though Ms. Eden is speaking of the one-night stand or the casual hook-up (or whatever it’s called these days), I suggest that non-marital sexual relationships – even long-term ones – are even more damaging, because they drag the whole game out. The focus is still upon sex and “being together” rather than a relationship in which one has pledged to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, until death do us part.

Anyone who’s read Anais Nin (or tried to live her kind of life) knows that, in unfettered abandonment to one’s own sexuality through impulsive dream-chasing, attraction-nabbing, and desire-satiating, one actually disperses one's sexuality. And loses one’s self. One loses it in trying to find it, as well as the fulfilment one was hoping to find. Nin is celebrated as a feminist embodying female self-discovery, sexual self-realization and self-command, but in the end her sexual adventures left her just as disturbed as when she started. And just as empty and emotionally wrecked.

Contrast this to the mutual, ongoing discovery of the full sexuality of another along side of and combined with one’s own, within the rhythms of shared life and discovery in other areas. Within the security of the married-for-life relationship. Here is where deep cause for delight, joy, hope, and earthly fulfilment can be found.

I am fully aware that the state of marriage does not automatically guarantee these things. Selfish attitudes toward sex in any context can lead to real misery. Even within marriage, sexual problems can be incredibly painful, and physical or other problems may hamper the sexual relationship. Spouses can, and do, hide from intimacy with each other even while participating in sexual acts together.

However, problems can be overcome. And the only context in which they have any hope of being overcome, for real, is within the commitment of marriage. Spouses can teach and learn from one another in a lifetime process -- only within marriage is there a long term for hope.

Dawn Eden’s book, The Thrill of the Chaste, was published in December. Read more of Dawn at her blog, The Dawn Patrol.

HT: Sun and Shield

One problem with the practice of Christianity, as I see it, is that sometimes there are situations that don’t seem to fit the rules. Or else they are so complex as to require extraordinary maturity and discernment for proper handling. And even then, the most mature, humble, wise, and knowledgeable-in-the-faith may still disagree with one another as to what constitutes proper handling. Oy.

One of the ways this might be dealt with is through deference to authority. Got a real mess on your hands? Take it to a spiritual authority, get, uh, his advice, and then do what he says. Whew, problem solved. Actually I’m not entirely brushing off this approach; I think it has real merit. It’s often necessary. However, I wonder whether we’re always completely off the hook when we do this, thinking we can dust our hands of a situation simply because the responsibility’s been transferred to someone else. I also wonder whether we don’t often bear more responsibility than we can handle, or ought to handle, by not allowing an authority to pronounce, or at least suggest, a solution.

There are two extreme views when it comes to dealing with complex difficulties. One is to insist that there are no ambivalent, or nearly so, situations. Such thinking sees in black-and-white, and, in my humble opinion, is often simplistic and skeptical of the facts, especially those of situations with which the person is not familiar. At the other extreme are those who attempt to deal with an agonizing situation by insisting that there is more gray area, complexity, or ambiguity than there actually is.

Both approaches exhibit denial of some sort. When faced with a choice between two (or more) unbearable choices, i.e., choices between two apparent wrongs, the latter will justify whichever choice is made. And when faced with the same difficulty, the former will pronounce a classification with which to categorically pronounce a judgment either for or against a certain option – which may or may not address the entirety of the situation.

Is it possible that sometimes a wrong is a right simply because there really is no right option in the situation? Or is it that the wrong is still wrong, given that doing wrong is unavoidable in this fallen world of ours, even when our intents and intentions are as good as they can be? I tend to think that the wrong is still wrong, even if apparently there was no “perfect” right that could be done in the situation. Or if the person involved was humanly unable to do what it took to do the ostensibly right thing.

Such a view doesn’t excuse the wrong, yet it recognizes the limits of our fallen existence. We cannot possibly, in certain circumstances, even with the best of intentions, always do the right thing. This is why we need a Savior. Sometimes we find ourselves in impossible, agonizing situations that force us to do something that violates our conscience, yet we can see no other way. Might this be due to our blindness? Sometimes, surely. But if so, it may be our collective human blindness; a blindness from which no one, no mortal human, has been granted reprieve.

I realize I’ve given no concrete examples...those are coming in future posts. (Don’t say I didn’t warn you!) Actually, I’m sure most of use can think of a few. I welcome you to share them in the comments, and/or discuss this post.

Yet another great article at Christianity Today talks about Defining Business Success. At a time when so many churches are trying to “succeed” by adopting a business model or using various business strategies, its message is a breath of fresh air.

Stan Guthrie interviews John D. Beckett, 68, chairman of the privately held R. W. Beckett Corporation in North Ridgefield, Ohio. Beckett has written “one of the leading books on living out Christian faith in the marketplace, Loving Monday (InterVarsity, 1998).” Last year the sequel, Mastering Monday: A Guide to Integrating Faith and Work (InterVarsity, 2006) was published.

What strikes me most about Beckett's words on what makes a business successful is that they also ring absolutely true for a church, or for the individual Christian. Of the late Ken Lay and the Enron scandal, Beckett says,

But frankly, like so many of my peers and contemporaries, I think he [Lay] separated his work world from his faith world. Enron had a code of four values. Three are very close to my heart, because they're identical to the ones at our company: integrity, excellence, and a profound respect for the individual. What happened to these [values]? People close to it told me that they basically set them aside. They breached their own integrity for the sake of doing these deals. Apparently, this happened at the board level, and it happened with Ken Lay. We don't know the extent of his guilt, but I cannot absolve him for failing to stand up, pound the table, and shout, "We're violating our core values by going in this direction." He didn't; nobody else did.

I wonder, what would this look like in the church? Can we really stand up at a church meeting, pound the table, and shout out a violation? Can we call out the sin of another Christian, saying, "hey, you're violating our core values -- your core values, here?" I think in general, such action doesn't go over well. It's considered shocking, even scandalous -- a violation of social mores. But does this mean it shouldn't be done?

I believe that it should. If we are working together to serve God, then we must help keep one another on track. Not for the good of "the company," but for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, as well as ourselves.

In light of what happened at Enron, Guthrie asks what good core values are. To which Beckett replies,

That's the question. I don't think they're any good—in fact, they may be counterproductive—if they're not worked into the fabric of the organization.

He says that business formulas have a tendency to become substitutes for “being sensitive for the Lord.” As can any “Christian” formula:

I can't love a person as a formula. Formulas may get you part of the way, but ultimately they break down. Unless a person's heart has been transformed, you'll just never get there by pushing levers and turning dials.

Beckett’s definition of success?

If success is never losing a customer or having a bad product go out the door, or never having a failure in your organization, whether it's moral or financial or whatever, it just doesn't work that way. But if success is honoring the Lord, if it is being faithful to him, then we can go through mountains of success and valleys of failure and still come out serving the Lord.

Amen.

(I know I’ve practically quoted the whole interview, but go ahead and read it anyway. And pray with me that this model of success would manifest in the church.)

* At Naked Pastor, a fantastic list telling us How to be With Those Who Grieve. The summary: Be There, Shut Up, Be Yourself, Don't Stay Long, Get Physical, Listen, Be With Them, Don't Be Shocked, Comfort, Be Practical, Be Patient.

HT: Rebecca Writes

David also lists 10 Things A Friend's Death Taught Me. This list is as good as the last one. I urge everyone to read them both.

* At The Dawn Treader, an "old" post on the tragic death of a 16-year-old who was hit by a drunk driver, with a recent comment at the bottom by a mother who recently lost her only son. She explains what she's found helpful and comforting in the three months since his death.

* At Done With Mirrors, Callimachus reviews Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and notes the "fearful swath of death" that "[cuts] through young families" in 19th-century life stories:

Researchers into early nineteenth century families quickly come to accept the high death rates among children as a fact of life in those days. Families were large, medicine was crude, disease ran rampant, and it seems no family was untouched by the tragedy of a child lost.

He goes on to detail and give a plethora of examples. After one of these he writes:

It's remarkable that a tragedy so pervading, and so intense, has not been more considered by historians in examining the temper of the times. This grim fact of life seems to me to explain so much about the shape of 19th century American minds, especially where they seem different from ours: The determination to make something of oneself, the importance of family.

...not just the intensity of American religion but the form of it, so full of resurrection and the need to keep in God's good graces at every moment, seems to have been guided by the realities of death in that era. The hope of meeting in another world and knowing one another in the flesh again was the only solace. Lincoln, lacking it, was thrown into despair by the loss of Ann Rutledge.

...Others, faithful, were able to bear the loss by convincing themselves of this theology. Mary Todd, after her child's death, threw herself into the bosom of the Presbyterian church, while Chase, who always was devout, was tormented because his first wife had died without fully affirming her Protestant faith.

Given that, I wonder if it is mere coincidence that the decline in religious intensity among the mass of Americans seems to have begun within a generation of the decline of the child death rate, reversed when medical men and women finally began to understand, and beat back, tuberculosis, typhoid, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and whooping cough.

Thought-provoking.

HT: Ambivablog

The language of sex, that is.

I’ve gotten the idea from several sources that many Christians younger than me (and perhaps not) are not convinced by the statement that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Nor do they view all extra- or premarital experiences or solo sex as necessarily wrong. Rather than hear that doing these things is wrong, though, they want to know why the alternative is better. They want constructive suggestions toward a positive view of sex.

Well, I’m all for the positive. I have many thoughts on this, as well as doubts as to my ability to articulate them in a meaningful way. I have doubts as to whether my thoughts might be meaningful to anyone besides me. Sex is a, uh, touchy subject. Discussions of sexual morality can release negative passions rivaling their positive counterparts in sex.

And you may wonder, what could a 40-something woman who’s been married for 19 years have in common with a single person, in the sexual arena, so as to have anything worthwhile to say to them? Well, trust me, more than you might think. My own journey to discover what sexuality is and what it means, both personally and in the sense of the absolute, has been long and torturous. But along the way I’ve come up with some things, I think. I humbly offer them here.

There has of course been great writing on sexuality over the years. Writing solid in scholarship, theology, and wisdom. Much of it has also been suppositional in nature. My writing here will be no different. However, as this is a blog series I have not prepared for it as I would a book, and I suffer no delusions as to my writing ability. So I can with all confidence say that my commentary will be neither thorough, detailed, nor entertaining. But hopefully it will be clear enough in its own right, and contribute to the overall discussion.

First, I want to establish that sex and sexual desire are intrinsically good. As are multitudinous instances of their expression. However, not every sexual act is good (no kidding) nor is every instance of indulged desire. The trick is figuring out which is which.

While I understand the wish for a fleshing-out of the positive reasons for non-marital abstinence, I can’t help but be reminded of how I felt at age 13. I really wanted to drive. I thought it was stupid that I had to wait 'til I was 16. But though I may have been perfectly capable of driving at 13, rules is rules. It didn’t hurt me, anyway, to wait, and probably kept me from causing damage. This is just one of many things I’ve wanted in life before its proper time. In pursuit of these I bungled a lot of other things, and ultimately didn’t achieve what I was hoping for in the first place.

But I don’t know how someone who doesn’t want to delay gratification can be convinced that doing so is best, especially if they’re like me (stubborn, needing "good" reasons). As I’ve learned, though, commitment to such a delay has to be made in faith. It's done not because one feels like it or really wants to, but because one trusts in Something greater than one’s immediate wishes or desires. In this trust one can find the strength and peace necessary to turn one’s energies toward another activity.

The truth is, most of the benefits of this decision to trust may not actually be appreciated until much later (if ever) in this life. There may indeed be worldly rewards for illicit sexual activity. But the Christian’s reward is in heaven...why trade it for a paltry one?

...continued from Part I.

In Eros Defiled, John White suggests that our sexual attitudes and practices get “set” by the same mechanism that caused Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell: habit, and association with pleasure (pp. 40-42). Orgasm, being a very intense physical, mental, and emotional pleasure, is no doubt a strong behavioral reinforcer that helps establish both healthy and unhealthy sexual patterns. Yet as Lauren Winner suggests in Real Sex, discipline of the body, mind, and heart can help guide the creation of healthy patterns and provide a positive kind of positive reinforcement.

Awhile back I wrote some posts on masturbation (three links). These were mainly responses to some excusatory posting and other writing I’d seen done by several Christians – even James Dobson -- which prompted me to try and develop a sort of apologetic for the non-masturbatory life. After doing this I found that others had done it too. Most recently, via a Google search for commentary on Eros Defiled, I found Derek R. Iannelli-Smith's Reflective Review (pdf), in which he quotes J. Robertson McQuilkin in Introduction to Biblical Ethics:

...self-stimulation, at least apart from sexual play in marriage, violates two probably all three [sic] of God’s purposes for marriage. The first purpose of marriage is oneness; sex was designed to cement and promote that oneness.

Before continuing the quote, a comment: some may wonder what this has to do with, say, someone in their teens, or someone older who is not married. I think the assumption here is that marriage is the only place for sex, period. In keeping with the theme of sex as a language, consider sex as a specific and exclusive language spoken as one between two people in the covenant of marriage. Specific, because this same language can never be spoken by these or any other individuals in any other context or with any other people. Just as a sperm and an ovum come together to make a unique individual, the married couple’s sexual language is all their own. Exclusive, for the same reason. Exclusive to that marriage, that two-becoming-one. To take one half of this language and speak it with another is to corrupt the language, as is beginning to create a language with someone outside of the complete two-becoming-one of marriage.

(Update: I just realized that this argument must be qualified in order to accommodate legitimate re-marriage. It should be re-defined according to the matter of fidelity, which will be discussed in part III).

Masturbation runs in the opposite direction. It is sex stripped of love, stripped of commitment, stripped of all the purposes for which sex was created.

Quoting Jay Adams in The Practical Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling:

Masturbation is a self-oriented pleasure brought about by autoerotism, in which, contrary to Paul's assertion in I. Cor 7:4-5, one assumes rights over their own body that belongs to his spouse...Masturbation is a manifestation of the desire to "get"; true biblical sexual relations are governed by love and the desire to "give."

(I’ll say more on that later.)

Iannelli-Smith adds,

Masturbation reveals a heart problem and a disorder of worship in adults [as opposed to that done innocently by children].

Masturbation reveals a heart problem. Not a mortal, unforgiveable sin that will irreparably wreck your life, but let's call a spade a spade: indeed, a disorder of worship. Life, in many ways, is about worship. Everyone worships something, or a lot of things. What is being worshiped in the case of solo sex? Well, perhaps self, and sex, rather than God, if, as I believe, and as Iannelli-Smith upholds, God is a God Who’s set forth right and wrong attitudes of the heart, and judges according to these. For example, the sin of adultery lies not so much in the committing of the act as in the consideration of the act, which reveals an allegiance (worship) to something or someone other than God. It is not mere temptation; it’s already an indulgence of temptation. (In the review, though I think some parts could be worded better, Iannelli-Smith makes some good points about right and wrong ways of being let off the hook for immoral sexual behavior, and includes words on homosexuality. )

In Real Sex, Winner makes a case for the necessity of being chaste in the context of the Body of Christ. I think this is important; we are all part of this Body, which, as a whole, must support the chastity of its members. However, taken too far, it might lead one who fails in chastity to blame this failure on lack of support from the Body. In such a case the Body may indeed be partially to blame, yet the matter of where one’s heart is lies solely between the individual and God.

From Out of Ur, The Ten Deadly Sins of Preaching. These could equally apply to Christian blogging, or, Christian living. Every Christian should read this.

A ChristianityToday article on the future of Calvary Chapel discusses the apparent “lax moral standards among some key leaders.” On the issue of accountability as it applies to Calvary Chapel, Bill Ritchie, pastor of Crossroads Community Church in Vancouver, Washington, says that

the accountability system has limits. It is voluntary for both the overseer and the pastors. Then again, he says, there is no foolproof system of accountability. "I've seen travesty in every form of governance that exists."

There simply is no final accountability here on earth. We will all answer to God one day.

...continued from part II.

Part of the trouble in accepting the limitation of sexual activity to marriage is a view of sex as merely the intensely pleasurable thing that it can be...mostly for the pleasure itself. In other words, a short-sighted view. Really, a selfish view. Don’t reach for your gun yet; this can be true in marriage as well. Now you can get your gun. There is little reverence for sex outside of the delirium it can induce and perhaps also the fact that it can create a new human life (which often-times is not desired), or that it can bring two people very close together, and not just in a physical way.

But what of sex as the consummation of a sacred bond, the bond of marriage – so sacred that it mirrors that of Christ and the church? (Ephesians 5) This language of Christ and the church, as is also spoken of God and the nations of Israel and Judah in the book of Isaiah, is rife with terms of fidelity. How can Zion play the harlot? (Isaiah 1:21) How can the church betray its first love? (Revelation 2:4)

“Consummation” means “completion, fulfillment, perfection – an arrival, something carried to the utmost point or degree.” That is the purpose of sex – to complete, fulfill, perfect, be the arrival of, and carry to the utmost point or degree a marriage. A marriage being the joining together of man and woman in spirit; in person -- heart, mind, and body; and in life -- daily, and until death.

fidelity, n. [L. fidelitas, from fidelis, faithful, trusty, from fides, faith, trust.]
1. faithfulness; careful and exact observation of duty, or performance of obligations or vows; good faith.
2. firm adherence to a person or party with which one is united, or to which one is bound; loyalty
Syn. – conscientiousness, trustworthiness, trustiness, fealty, allegiance, constancy, exactness, accuracy, integrity.

Sex is about fidelity. If one has sex with someone to whom one is not married, one will not be faithful to him or her unless both go to their graves together in an acting marital relationship. If one has sex with someone outside of marriage, then one is not being faithful to either one’s current or one’s future spouse(s), which is part of where I think the language of “saving” oneself for marriage comes from, and rightly so.

Blasphemy- What is it? Who commits it? How can it be avoided?

We talk much of "scandal" but not much about its outcome, which, oftentimes, is blasphemy.

(a continuation of Part IV)

A review at Boundless quotes Hugh Hewitt in In, But Not Of, A Christian Guide to Ambition:

“The most powerful jobs in America may be far less significant than any ministry that provides the context for a conversion from disbelief to belief. You don’t believe that? Then you don’t believe the gospel, and you don’t believe Christ.” He uses Winston Churchill as an example: “Box all of Churchill’s tangible achievements . . . and that box might be nothing compared to the life of a humble missionary who took the gospel to an obscure Amazon tribe.”

If this statement is true, though, how can it co-exist with the seeking of power and influence, even if for Christ? Isn’t it oxymoronic to say that one is seeking power and influence for Christ? Christ has his own power and influence, and in fact is the only real source for any power or influence we may have for the gospel.

”Influence is not an automatic gift bestowed on good people. It is earned.” – Hewitt

I realize that this quote is out of context, but I think that influence is bestowed upon someone who has earned it in an earthly sense, if not automatically. Perhaps we may earn this influence from God as well. But if we are living for God and not man, our focus is not upon whatever influence we may earn from men, because this is not always trustworthy! The esteem of men can be vain and can be earned for traits that are not necessarily godly. If every good thing is from God, then, even if it comes through men, it is still not of man – this is the difference between being of the world, and not.

....In other words, seek after power knowing that it is far from being the most important thing in the world, that you are seeking it solely to serve God and your fellow Christian workers.

No... Seek solely to serve God and your fellow Christian workers. This naturally precludes seeking power. It’s a matter of using whatever power you’re given. Before questions of use can be answered, we must answer questions of the power’s origin. It’s not a matter of “Power and influence must always be means to the right end” (the review), but “By whose means was this power and influence gotten to begin with?”

We all are given power and influence of various sorts. There is power inherent in our talents which may garner influence, or it may be our looks, or our family, or community standing, or whatever. Yet it’s what we do with these talents and circumstances that matters. Opportunities arise; we don’t have to go looking for them unless we are living as hermits. Some of them may be honorable, others not. Many will arise out of life circumstances.

The truth is that we may be exploited even through the power and influence we have – a funny twist on the idea of having power and influence, isn’t it? Same for fame – obviously. But there are obvious examples of this (someone like Anna Nicole Smith, may she rest in peace, and Benny Hinn), and not-so-obvious ones...the person who seems influential, though she may be very competent and ostensibly doing "work for God," may still be serving others’ agendas (or her own) and not necessarily God’s. The value, in God’s eyes, of her work lies not in the influence she’s earned, even rightfully, but in her usefulness, as powered by Him, to witness to the gospel. Those who exploit, in any form, are themselves the ones who are truly being exploited...something to think about.

Psalm 127: Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it;
unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. It is vain for
you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives
to His beloved even in his sleep. NASB

Psalm 128: How blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, Who walks in His ways.