Imagine for a minute that next Sunday you're pastor gets up on the pulpit and says: "You know, I've been thinking. I believe that Mary really was a perpetual virgin. I believe that the bread actually becomes Christ body. In fact, I think that probably the Catholic church or the orthodox church is legitimately linked to the original church founded by Christ." How would you react? How do you think the pastor should be treated? Quite likely, the pastor would be pulled in front a board and warned, saying "either get your ideas right or you will no longer occupy this pulpit." And he would get a fair and firm warning. Why? Because those issues matter to us.
Now I don't mean to pick on pastors, because many are splendid people. But think back to your experiences with pastors you've had. What if you're pastor has not lead you to care about the poor one iota more than you did before you met him/her. Is there less pride in your life now than when you came under his tutelage? Has your patience increased? Probably most of us have very similar dispositions as 5 years ago. But isn't that much more of a tragedy?
Is it more important that you not have an idiosyncratic (from the outside) view idea about Mary, than that you actually care and feed for the poor. Its interesting because Christ says that in judgment day he is going to say to the ones he sent to hell "I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me no drink, naked and you clothed me not, sick and in prison and you visited me not." It seems to me to be a very practical religion, Christ-following is very simple, straightforward and tangible. And yet when we think about the idea of not gaining these characterisitics under a pastor we dismiss their absence as unimportant (because only legalistic minds dwell on them) but when it comes to ultimately benign ideas, we become indignant, irate and ready to review the pastor's worthiness as our leader.
This helps demonstrate what our core beliefs are. What defines us as Christians are not the beliefs that we hold that produce actions (beliefs like: God identifies himself with the poor so therefore help them) but creedal statements which are ultimately so opaque that the common man cannot make heads or tails out of them (and I would argue that the theologian can lose himself in his own slop of words).
This distinction is key: action producing belief vs. non-action producing beliefs (aka benign beliefs).
The most interesting thing about beliefs (and in particular benign beliefs) is that we tend to think people are 'godly' for what they choose to believe, as if beliefs were something you could turn on and off like water. Suppose I was to offer you $100 dollars, could you believe for 30 seconds that Santa Clause was real. Could you do it? What about $1000 dollars? What about eternal life? No, of course not! Because beliefs are representing reality. You do not choose what reality is, so, if you are honestly trying to know the truth, you cannot just decide to believe something that you don't. You wouldn't be trying to represent the world anymore! So, suppose the pastor honestly believes in the virginity of Mary, or suppose you don't. Neither of you are more honourable or less. You just happen to believe this. Maybe one of you is 'dumb' or 'uneducated' or 'tricked' but those are not moral flaws!
However, you are certainly accountable for whether you follow through with your action producing beliefs. You are definitely free to choose to help the poor or not, to exercise patience, to offer a prayer of thanks, to put others above yourself. And when we are not godly persons - we should worry about whether we are 'Christian' or God followers. We should not be worrying about whether we are God followers when we stumble across new beliefs.
You might object and say, 'Yes but we are commanded to believe in Jesus.' Yes, and by that he does not mean to take the theological corpus as you have twisted it (and rely on your fallible, and mostly uninformed interpretations of the Bible) and believe in that (sorry that does sound synically :( ). It means, that you need to believe in him, listen to what he says! If I believe in my coach, I listen to him when he says 'Kent, you can be an all-star point guard but you need to work on your left hand' instead of saying in my head 'Nope, my left hand is fine, I need to work on my foot speed.' To believe in him does not mean arguing about whether he is the best coach in the league or being convinced that I have all the answers to his critiques. It means I listen to what he says to me!
And yet when it comes to Jesus, 'believing in Jesus' seems to mean that we subscribe to a certain packages of ideas about him rather than actually just listening to what he commands us to do! This promotes the situation where it is possible to 'believe in him with your lips but to have your heart from him'. But what does he say: "If you love me, keep my commandments." And later what to the epistle writers say about him "If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed when the Lord comes."
Revisit your central beliefs and when you feel your faith most violated. What does it say about you?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sacred Commandment: Putting Words in God's Mouth
Recently, a friend was at my house and he made an interesting point. One of the ten commandments is to not "take God's name in vain." Do we really think that up there with "Don't murder", "Don't rape", and "Don't covet" is the command "use geez instead of Jesus when you're angry"? Maybe there's more to this commandment than what we think. So what could it mean? Let me give a three stories that could shed light on what this commandment might mean.
Last year, at the Christian university where I work, we were told that we needed a boost in enrollment. So, we consulted all the specialists and experts and they told us that we could, in an ideal situation expect X number of students. But we were going to trust God for 20% higher enrollment than that! The speaker reiterated "this is impossible, but with God nothing is impossible." We were told (as staff) to get involved: tell young people you know that they should consider our university; consider donating money to the cause; work extra hard at your work so we can achieve this goal. "We are trusting God for this increase, because this is his work." A year later we fell far short of the goal. We were just shy of the highest possible goal the experts told us we could get.
Less than a year ago, a young girl (around 18) was diagnosed as being at risk for cancer. Further tests were needed. At church, they prayed over her and said "God does not want you to die. He is not going to let this young life be snuffed out. We rebuke the devil and pray in confidence knowing that you will live." And the girl did live. The next set of tests came back negative.
Two weeks ago at church, a speaker got up and said "I have a word from the LORD for you. The LORD wants to use you this church to further his kingdom in a big way. You are going to be a big blessing and bring many souls into the kingdom." I don't know whether this is true or not (its only been two weeks) but I know that no one recorded the prediction, to check to see if it does come true.
That's the danger. Talk is extremely cheap. We can invoke God for all sorts of things. We say that we will "trust God" to do the impossible for our university. It didn't work out. So let's process that. Obviously our trust was misplaced. Now there are only a few options.
A) The fault is God's. He was supposed to follow through and he didn't
B) The fault is ours. We trusted God to do something that he in no way indicated that he was going to do.
If either of these options are true, then we have a big problem. I'm going to assume something along the lines of option B) occurred. But what does it mean? It means that we were rallying the troops around a promise that God never made. It means that irresponsible financial choices (choices that assumed God would come through ... after all, that's what having faith is ... isn't it?) were authorized by exploiting people's 'trust in God' even though God had promised no such thing. People put in overtime because we were supposed to collectively believe that God was supposed to come through. People used God's reputation (his 'name') to achieve their own goals, that God had in now way communicated as his own. I will not even begin to go into the repercussion this has on the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of students and staff - who adopt similar decision making policies on their own ... grabbing a goal of their choosing and then saying that it is God's responsibility (I mean we're trusting him for it right?) to ensure that it happens. However, we NEVER REVIST such statements. The speakers are never held accountable for their words.
The young girl from church did turn out to be OK, but is that because God had come through on his promise? Was God really obligated to heal her? Lots of people do die right after such prayers of victory are prayed. What does that do to the people who heard the prayer? People get angry at God because our language requires it ... we pray things like "We know this isn't what God wants ... he has claimed victory over this disease" and then the person dies. Of course, I'd be angry at God if he was the one who was responsible for taking care of things. ( Does this remind you of the verse in Romans:"The 'name of God' is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you"?) Our unfortunate gift is the ability to do mental gymnastics and reread any event as working out for the best - but usually this rereading happens because we are trying to cover our own misuse of God's name, and what we are supposed to expect from him.
And just like the lady at church, we can say things (especially long term 'blessings') and never be accountable, never actually check to see if what we are saying happens to be true. Instead we baptize our impulsive good wishes as a "word from the LORD" - a statement we are claiming comes from the throne of heaven, from the most powerful and flawless mind in the universe - a word that must be infallible. We are claiming that the words coming out of our mouths have this quality when we call something a "word form the LORD" or when we say publicly "we are trusting the LORD for ..." or when we tell an anxcious person "God wouldn't let this happen, he is going to rescue you."
And what if we are wrong? What if we are using God's reputation, and the implicit trust people have in his name to market our ideas (similar to how you see a famous swimmer on a box of cereal) What if those things we are spouting are not from God. On a small sacle, I would be very angry if people said "Kent says that this movie is great." People go see the movie, find that it sucks and then no longer trust me - ESPECIALLY if I hadn't said the movie was great!!!! But this is exactly what we do with God's name (and by extension his reputation) when we talk about far more serious things - like someone's life or soul. "God says your son is going to come back to Christ." "You can trust God that you are going to get the numbers needed for your university to survive." ... and then things don't work out. The hearers are definitely not going to trust him any longer (and if they are going to trust him, then they should think of you as a charlatton, one who puts words in God's mouth)
The thing is, we should be very careful what we attribute to God. There are promises from God and we should promote them, cherish them and share them. We should be very zealous to make sure that our actions, words and deeds give God a good reputation. We should be reflecting his image to the world (kindness, generosity, goodness, forgiveness, humility, meekness) and as ambassadors of his kingdom, we should be giving him and his kingdom a good name.
Last year, at the Christian university where I work, we were told that we needed a boost in enrollment. So, we consulted all the specialists and experts and they told us that we could, in an ideal situation expect X number of students. But we were going to trust God for 20% higher enrollment than that! The speaker reiterated "this is impossible, but with God nothing is impossible." We were told (as staff) to get involved: tell young people you know that they should consider our university; consider donating money to the cause; work extra hard at your work so we can achieve this goal. "We are trusting God for this increase, because this is his work." A year later we fell far short of the goal. We were just shy of the highest possible goal the experts told us we could get.
Less than a year ago, a young girl (around 18) was diagnosed as being at risk for cancer. Further tests were needed. At church, they prayed over her and said "God does not want you to die. He is not going to let this young life be snuffed out. We rebuke the devil and pray in confidence knowing that you will live." And the girl did live. The next set of tests came back negative.
Two weeks ago at church, a speaker got up and said "I have a word from the LORD for you. The LORD wants to use you this church to further his kingdom in a big way. You are going to be a big blessing and bring many souls into the kingdom." I don't know whether this is true or not (its only been two weeks) but I know that no one recorded the prediction, to check to see if it does come true.
That's the danger. Talk is extremely cheap. We can invoke God for all sorts of things. We say that we will "trust God" to do the impossible for our university. It didn't work out. So let's process that. Obviously our trust was misplaced. Now there are only a few options.
A) The fault is God's. He was supposed to follow through and he didn't
B) The fault is ours. We trusted God to do something that he in no way indicated that he was going to do.
If either of these options are true, then we have a big problem. I'm going to assume something along the lines of option B) occurred. But what does it mean? It means that we were rallying the troops around a promise that God never made. It means that irresponsible financial choices (choices that assumed God would come through ... after all, that's what having faith is ... isn't it?) were authorized by exploiting people's 'trust in God' even though God had promised no such thing. People put in overtime because we were supposed to collectively believe that God was supposed to come through. People used God's reputation (his 'name') to achieve their own goals, that God had in now way communicated as his own. I will not even begin to go into the repercussion this has on the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of students and staff - who adopt similar decision making policies on their own ... grabbing a goal of their choosing and then saying that it is God's responsibility (I mean we're trusting him for it right?) to ensure that it happens. However, we NEVER REVIST such statements. The speakers are never held accountable for their words.
The young girl from church did turn out to be OK, but is that because God had come through on his promise? Was God really obligated to heal her? Lots of people do die right after such prayers of victory are prayed. What does that do to the people who heard the prayer? People get angry at God because our language requires it ... we pray things like "We know this isn't what God wants ... he has claimed victory over this disease" and then the person dies. Of course, I'd be angry at God if he was the one who was responsible for taking care of things. ( Does this remind you of the verse in Romans:"The 'name of God' is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you"?) Our unfortunate gift is the ability to do mental gymnastics and reread any event as working out for the best - but usually this rereading happens because we are trying to cover our own misuse of God's name, and what we are supposed to expect from him.
And just like the lady at church, we can say things (especially long term 'blessings') and never be accountable, never actually check to see if what we are saying happens to be true. Instead we baptize our impulsive good wishes as a "word from the LORD" - a statement we are claiming comes from the throne of heaven, from the most powerful and flawless mind in the universe - a word that must be infallible. We are claiming that the words coming out of our mouths have this quality when we call something a "word form the LORD" or when we say publicly "we are trusting the LORD for ..." or when we tell an anxcious person "God wouldn't let this happen, he is going to rescue you."
And what if we are wrong? What if we are using God's reputation, and the implicit trust people have in his name to market our ideas (similar to how you see a famous swimmer on a box of cereal) What if those things we are spouting are not from God. On a small sacle, I would be very angry if people said "Kent says that this movie is great." People go see the movie, find that it sucks and then no longer trust me - ESPECIALLY if I hadn't said the movie was great!!!! But this is exactly what we do with God's name (and by extension his reputation) when we talk about far more serious things - like someone's life or soul. "God says your son is going to come back to Christ." "You can trust God that you are going to get the numbers needed for your university to survive." ... and then things don't work out. The hearers are definitely not going to trust him any longer (and if they are going to trust him, then they should think of you as a charlatton, one who puts words in God's mouth)
The thing is, we should be very careful what we attribute to God. There are promises from God and we should promote them, cherish them and share them. We should be very zealous to make sure that our actions, words and deeds give God a good reputation. We should be reflecting his image to the world (kindness, generosity, goodness, forgiveness, humility, meekness) and as ambassadors of his kingdom, we should be giving him and his kingdom a good name.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Deal or No Deal: Subconscious pacts with God
"Just because you choose to do things for God does not mean you will get any special protection." Now, although I doubt few would disagree with this statement, I believe it is incompatible with many Christians' worldview. Let me show you why.
How many of us find ourselves reacting this way to tragedies:"How could you let this happen to me God?" We somehow think that we have been wronged. We think that God (who could have averted the crisis) didn't prevent it - and He did something wrong!
Now you might say: "Hey, its just a human emotional reaction. We blame God because He's supposed to be loving us, and it feelslike He didn't love us because of His inaction." Well, that's true, but there's even more to it than that. Imagine that a couple moves to an impoverished urban area because, they say, "God has given us a clear calling to be here." But just after they move down there, the mother and father are shot and the child is left an orphan. What would your reaction be? You might say, "That's not fair, God! How could you call them to a place where you knew they were just going to get killed?"
We have a sense of justice, and when we feel it has been violated, it seems like God did something unfair.
And that's my point. We believe that when we obey God's "specific, direct will for our lives" then things have to work out well (for the kingdom or for our family). I mean, isn't that the whole point?
But even if you don't subscribe to the "God has a specific plan for your life" idea, you probably still get upset when you hear the story about the orphan. "The people were trying to do your work, and you didn't offer any protection, God." As we think deeper we realize we have a subconscious pact with God: "I try my best to obey your will, and you watch my back."
Think of these statements. You've probably either said them or heard someone say something like them ...
"We waited to have sex till we were married, and now we can't have kids, but other teenagers who shoot up on heroin have sex with a stranger and get pregnant! That's just so wrong."
"I spent money and time to go on a short terms mission trip and I got malaria and missed my final exams. Its not right!"
"We went to serve God with our time and energy by going to seminary and we lost our faith. How could God let that happen? Couldn't He have sent the right person along to say just the thing we needed to hear?"
"He never smoked or drank, and he was very healthy and fit, and yet he got cancer at such an early age. It's so unfair."
"Look at that guy, he is dishonest and selfish and yet he totally gets ahead in life. He gets scholarships, recognized in academy, church, society at large. How is it fair that the self-centered get ahead?"
This is the point. Yes, weu agree that life happens. Yes, we agree that bad things happen to good people. We even agree that the rotten scum of the earth get away with murder, extortion, rape and all sorts of awful things. But its like these facts haven't sunk in! We react against God's justice when tragedy strikes. Why? Because the point that "we are not exempt from the trials of this world" is just a creedal statement hanging on our mental wall, rather than a conviction buried in our bones.
Think about it. If you 'sacrificed' your money to do God's will by giving to the poor, but God was actually going to supply you with a car when you needed it as a reward - it wouldn't really be a sacrifice. If you courageously went to the mission field where their was danger of physical violence and disease, but you expected God to protect you from the dangers - then there actually isn't any courage required is there? But that's the thing. You are sacrificing, and you are being courageous because God is not like the government. The major corporations may be able to make any decisions they want without fear of consequences because they can rely on a government bail out - but that just isn't the case with Christians. You are actually going to need the virtues spoken of so highly in the gospel. You are going to need faith alright, faith that the cause is worth it when your life shatters and you feel yourself 'dying daily.'
But that's the irony. This death brings a new kind of life, a new energy, a new purpose. We need to lose that other life, let go of it. We may suffer and even die, but its okay. With this attitude, we will find new life.
How many of us find ourselves reacting this way to tragedies:"How could you let this happen to me God?" We somehow think that we have been wronged. We think that God (who could have averted the crisis) didn't prevent it - and He did something wrong!
Now you might say: "Hey, its just a human emotional reaction. We blame God because He's supposed to be loving us, and it feelslike He didn't love us because of His inaction." Well, that's true, but there's even more to it than that. Imagine that a couple moves to an impoverished urban area because, they say, "God has given us a clear calling to be here." But just after they move down there, the mother and father are shot and the child is left an orphan. What would your reaction be? You might say, "That's not fair, God! How could you call them to a place where you knew they were just going to get killed?"
We have a sense of justice, and when we feel it has been violated, it seems like God did something unfair.
And that's my point. We believe that when we obey God's "specific, direct will for our lives" then things have to work out well (for the kingdom or for our family). I mean, isn't that the whole point?
But even if you don't subscribe to the "God has a specific plan for your life" idea, you probably still get upset when you hear the story about the orphan. "The people were trying to do your work, and you didn't offer any protection, God." As we think deeper we realize we have a subconscious pact with God: "I try my best to obey your will, and you watch my back."
Think of these statements. You've probably either said them or heard someone say something like them ...
"We waited to have sex till we were married, and now we can't have kids, but other teenagers who shoot up on heroin have sex with a stranger and get pregnant! That's just so wrong."
"I spent money and time to go on a short terms mission trip and I got malaria and missed my final exams. Its not right!"
"We went to serve God with our time and energy by going to seminary and we lost our faith. How could God let that happen? Couldn't He have sent the right person along to say just the thing we needed to hear?"
"He never smoked or drank, and he was very healthy and fit, and yet he got cancer at such an early age. It's so unfair."
"Look at that guy, he is dishonest and selfish and yet he totally gets ahead in life. He gets scholarships, recognized in academy, church, society at large. How is it fair that the self-centered get ahead?"
This is the point. Yes, weu agree that life happens. Yes, we agree that bad things happen to good people. We even agree that the rotten scum of the earth get away with murder, extortion, rape and all sorts of awful things. But its like these facts haven't sunk in! We react against God's justice when tragedy strikes. Why? Because the point that "we are not exempt from the trials of this world" is just a creedal statement hanging on our mental wall, rather than a conviction buried in our bones.
Think about it. If you 'sacrificed' your money to do God's will by giving to the poor, but God was actually going to supply you with a car when you needed it as a reward - it wouldn't really be a sacrifice. If you courageously went to the mission field where their was danger of physical violence and disease, but you expected God to protect you from the dangers - then there actually isn't any courage required is there? But that's the thing. You are sacrificing, and you are being courageous because God is not like the government. The major corporations may be able to make any decisions they want without fear of consequences because they can rely on a government bail out - but that just isn't the case with Christians. You are actually going to need the virtues spoken of so highly in the gospel. You are going to need faith alright, faith that the cause is worth it when your life shatters and you feel yourself 'dying daily.'
But that's the irony. This death brings a new kind of life, a new energy, a new purpose. We need to lose that other life, let go of it. We may suffer and even die, but its okay. With this attitude, we will find new life.
Have you made any unspoken "pacts" with God?
Friday, December 5, 2008
God has a plan for your life: Two Views
If you are someone who believes in God, there is no question which will affect your life, its directions and how you live more than this: Does God have a plan for my life?
There are at least two major competing views for God's direction in your life among Christians. In one view, God has exact opinions about who you should marry, what school you should go to, how long you should stay at each job, and where you should go to church. In fact, in this view God may even have an opinion about what clothes you should be wearing on a particular day (because a certain witnessing t-shirt may be just the thing someone needs to join your church.) Let's call this "View 1."
In the other view (which I won't discuss beyond this brief introduction, although it is the one to which I subscribe), God has a will for your life. He wants you to be kind, forgiving, courageous and humble. In other words, his will is that you do good and hate evil. However, he wants you to make the wisest decisions given the information you've got. Let's call this "View 2"
Let me illustrate just briefly with an example. Suppose you are choosing between 3 universities to attend. UnderView 1, God has a perfect choice for you. If you don't seek to know what that choice is (i.e. "His will on the matter"), then you will end up with His "second best." The way you seek to know God's will is through a combination of Bible reading, circumstances, the prompting of the Spirit and seeking wisdom/wise counsel. Some may suggest more mystical approaches like looking for confirmations or inner promptings.
First, "Does God always give Christians the information they need to maximize their happiness?"
Initially you might answer, "Of course not, they need to really want to serve God before that happens." So I would rephrase my question. "Does God always give Christians the information they need to maximize their happiness, if, from the bottom of their heart they want to serve him?" You might still accuse me of setting up a straw man. You might reply, "God doesn't just care about our happiness, He cares about our character. Sometimes His desire to increase our character or increase His kingdom conflicts with His desire to maximize our happiness." So let me rephrase the question again, "Does God always give Christiasn the information they need to maximize their contributions to the kingdom if they want to serve Him from the bottom of their heart?"
Even with this nuanced version of the question, I think we have to say no. Let's consider just a few examples:
If you are a Christian business man, and you want to give your profits to the poor, is God going to supernaturally deliver to you information that will keep your business afloat? No! There are many Christian business men who have the best intentions, but their businesses die. Their intention is to serve God by helping the poor - why didn't God help them out?
If you were a Christian missionary years ago travelling on a boat to a foreign land to witness to the poor, did God tell you about the importance of vitamin C so you didn't get scurvy? No. Many travellers died (even the Christian ones with best intentions) because they didn't know how important it was to have some orange slices. Did God tell these missionaries about the communicable diseases that they would bring to the people they witnessed to, or that they would pick up in the tropical climates? No! Many Christians died, and killed others - despite their honourable intentions - because they didn't know about germs, parasites and bugs.
However, despite these blatantly obvious examples, we still seem to think that God will communicate to us information that will help us serve him, or maximize our happiness. Why? First, almost every evangelical saturates their speech with this language:
"God told me ..."
"I'm really seeking the Lord on what I should do ..."
"I really have a peace about it ..."
"I know that this is God's will for my life ..."
"I was called to this ..."
"Don't worry, God will undertake if it's in His will ..."
"If it's meant to happen, it will happen ..."
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Christians (from the layman to the CEOs of Christian parachurch organizations) are careless about their language.
Second, and more importantly, we continue to 'testify' about God's supernatural provision of information. A few days ago, I was in a meeting and a good man (I don't know him well, but I have no reason to doubt his integrity or wisdom) with a high position in the company began to give his 'story/testimony.' He talked about how he had gone through very difficult financial straits. God had called him to BC, but that required taking a second mortgage to pay for a second house. Although it was very stressful at the time, it eventually all worked out. Thus he learned: "You grow as you trust." My point is this: usually, the only people we allow to speak from the podium are those for whom 'things worked out.' We want to be encouraged. THerefore, only the winners are allowed on the stage. What about the thousands of Christians in the USA that "trusted" God for the first mortgage and yet find themselves homeless because they went bankrupt? Those that take the stage at churches and Christian conferences to talk to us are the ones that were successful in some way. They didn't become bankrupt or they didn't lose their family or their faith. But there are plenty of Christians for whom those bad things did happen.
There are ministers who give their life to answer difficult questions about the faith, who lose their faith never to return. There are missionaries who die in a car accident on the way to the airport to serve God.
We do 'grow as we trust.' But we don't grow when we trust God to 'work things out when we step out in blind faith' or when we trust God 'to supernaturally give us information we need to make life decisions.' We grow as we trust God that His way is better. We grow as we act and trust principles like: stuff doesn't make us happy; accomplishments don't make us a better person.
But why do we believe that God will supernaturally give us the information we need to make decisions when there are blantantly obvious counter examples (mentioned above)? By constantly hearing 'testimonies' from the successful, we reinforce the idea that if you are faithful, things will work out (your ministry will grow, you will find the best wife, your family will be protected, you will find the answers you need for your faith, etc). It is the same effect as the pyramid scheme salesmen. You go to a Usana conference or a Herbal Life conference and they talk about how they used to be regular shmoes, but they struggled and reached the top, and so that means you can too. Except it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that some people will win. However, by putting only the winners on stage we get a false perception of how the world actually is.
In other words ... the language we teach our kids, and anecdotal testomonies (i.e. teaching by examples, rather than painting pictures of the world that are statistically accurate) has allowed us to convince people that "God will give you the information you need to maximize your service to him."
What do you think?
There are at least two major competing views for God's direction in your life among Christians. In one view, God has exact opinions about who you should marry, what school you should go to, how long you should stay at each job, and where you should go to church. In fact, in this view God may even have an opinion about what clothes you should be wearing on a particular day (because a certain witnessing t-shirt may be just the thing someone needs to join your church.) Let's call this "View 1."
In the other view (which I won't discuss beyond this brief introduction, although it is the one to which I subscribe), God has a will for your life. He wants you to be kind, forgiving, courageous and humble. In other words, his will is that you do good and hate evil. However, he wants you to make the wisest decisions given the information you've got. Let's call this "View 2"
Let me illustrate just briefly with an example. Suppose you are choosing between 3 universities to attend. UnderView 1, God has a perfect choice for you. If you don't seek to know what that choice is (i.e. "His will on the matter"), then you will end up with His "second best." The way you seek to know God's will is through a combination of Bible reading, circumstances, the prompting of the Spirit and seeking wisdom/wise counsel. Some may suggest more mystical approaches like looking for confirmations or inner promptings.
In stark constrast, In View 2 God doesn't care which place you go to so long as you pursue His will (i.e. to be kind/courageous/humble etc.) at that location. Now, it may happen that one of these schools may be doing something wrong. For example, they may be evicting people from low-income housing and forcing them on to the street to make room for you in the dorms. If this was the case, then once you find out you would know it isn't God's will that you go to that place.
Why is View 1 so appealling? Well, first of all it seems pretty logical. God knows everything, so He knows the decisions that would maximize my happiness. He knows the woman who is the best possible match for me and He knows which school she is going to, so He would want me to go to that school. That would be His first choice, because it would make me most happy. Or perhaps, we can put this in an even more selfless manner. God knows the opportunities for service at each school. He knows which one I can do the most good at. He would want me to dothe most good, so that would be His first choice for me. If God has a first choice for me, then obviously He will want to communicate this information to me.
Unfortunately this whole train of logic rest on one questionable, unspoken assumption: God will supernaturally help me (more specifically, give me the information I need) if I want the best.
I agree that God knows much more about the world than I do, and I agree that the information He knows could make our lives better or more productive for the kingdom if He shared it with us. However, let's consider a few empirically verifiable questions by looking to our own expeirences for answers.
Why is View 1 so appealling? Well, first of all it seems pretty logical. God knows everything, so He knows the decisions that would maximize my happiness. He knows the woman who is the best possible match for me and He knows which school she is going to, so He would want me to go to that school. That would be His first choice, because it would make me most happy. Or perhaps, we can put this in an even more selfless manner. God knows the opportunities for service at each school. He knows which one I can do the most good at. He would want me to dothe most good, so that would be His first choice for me. If God has a first choice for me, then obviously He will want to communicate this information to me.
Unfortunately this whole train of logic rest on one questionable, unspoken assumption: God will supernaturally help me (more specifically, give me the information I need) if I want the best.
I agree that God knows much more about the world than I do, and I agree that the information He knows could make our lives better or more productive for the kingdom if He shared it with us. However, let's consider a few empirically verifiable questions by looking to our own expeirences for answers.
First, "Does God always give Christians the information they need to maximize their happiness?"
Initially you might answer, "Of course not, they need to really want to serve God before that happens." So I would rephrase my question. "Does God always give Christians the information they need to maximize their happiness, if, from the bottom of their heart they want to serve him?" You might still accuse me of setting up a straw man. You might reply, "God doesn't just care about our happiness, He cares about our character. Sometimes His desire to increase our character or increase His kingdom conflicts with His desire to maximize our happiness." So let me rephrase the question again, "Does God always give Christiasn the information they need to maximize their contributions to the kingdom if they want to serve Him from the bottom of their heart?"
Even with this nuanced version of the question, I think we have to say no. Let's consider just a few examples:
If you are a Christian business man, and you want to give your profits to the poor, is God going to supernaturally deliver to you information that will keep your business afloat? No! There are many Christian business men who have the best intentions, but their businesses die. Their intention is to serve God by helping the poor - why didn't God help them out?
If you were a Christian missionary years ago travelling on a boat to a foreign land to witness to the poor, did God tell you about the importance of vitamin C so you didn't get scurvy? No. Many travellers died (even the Christian ones with best intentions) because they didn't know how important it was to have some orange slices. Did God tell these missionaries about the communicable diseases that they would bring to the people they witnessed to, or that they would pick up in the tropical climates? No! Many Christians died, and killed others - despite their honourable intentions - because they didn't know about germs, parasites and bugs.
However, despite these blatantly obvious examples, we still seem to think that God will communicate to us information that will help us serve him, or maximize our happiness. Why? First, almost every evangelical saturates their speech with this language:
"God told me ..."
"I'm really seeking the Lord on what I should do ..."
"I really have a peace about it ..."
"I know that this is God's will for my life ..."
"I was called to this ..."
"Don't worry, God will undertake if it's in His will ..."
"If it's meant to happen, it will happen ..."
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Christians (from the layman to the CEOs of Christian parachurch organizations) are careless about their language.
Second, and more importantly, we continue to 'testify' about God's supernatural provision of information. A few days ago, I was in a meeting and a good man (I don't know him well, but I have no reason to doubt his integrity or wisdom) with a high position in the company began to give his 'story/testimony.' He talked about how he had gone through very difficult financial straits. God had called him to BC, but that required taking a second mortgage to pay for a second house. Although it was very stressful at the time, it eventually all worked out. Thus he learned: "You grow as you trust." My point is this: usually, the only people we allow to speak from the podium are those for whom 'things worked out.' We want to be encouraged. THerefore, only the winners are allowed on the stage. What about the thousands of Christians in the USA that "trusted" God for the first mortgage and yet find themselves homeless because they went bankrupt? Those that take the stage at churches and Christian conferences to talk to us are the ones that were successful in some way. They didn't become bankrupt or they didn't lose their family or their faith. But there are plenty of Christians for whom those bad things did happen.
There are ministers who give their life to answer difficult questions about the faith, who lose their faith never to return. There are missionaries who die in a car accident on the way to the airport to serve God.
We do 'grow as we trust.' But we don't grow when we trust God to 'work things out when we step out in blind faith' or when we trust God 'to supernaturally give us information we need to make life decisions.' We grow as we trust God that His way is better. We grow as we act and trust principles like: stuff doesn't make us happy; accomplishments don't make us a better person.
But why do we believe that God will supernaturally give us the information we need to make decisions when there are blantantly obvious counter examples (mentioned above)? By constantly hearing 'testimonies' from the successful, we reinforce the idea that if you are faithful, things will work out (your ministry will grow, you will find the best wife, your family will be protected, you will find the answers you need for your faith, etc). It is the same effect as the pyramid scheme salesmen. You go to a Usana conference or a Herbal Life conference and they talk about how they used to be regular shmoes, but they struggled and reached the top, and so that means you can too. Except it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that some people will win. However, by putting only the winners on stage we get a false perception of how the world actually is.
In other words ... the language we teach our kids, and anecdotal testomonies (i.e. teaching by examples, rather than painting pictures of the world that are statistically accurate) has allowed us to convince people that "God will give you the information you need to maximize your service to him."
What do you think?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"Do you have a peace about it"?
Often when I'm wondering about a decision to make, well meaning Christians will tell me to wait until "God opens a door" and ask me "Do you have a peace one way or the other?"
I'll leave the 'open doors' discussion for another blog post. Let's think about what people meanwhen they ask: "Do you have peace one way or another?"
Ostensibly, the unvoiced idea is that "You will have peace about the right decision, and you will not have peace about the wrong decision." That's an interesting idea. I think advocates of that often tacitly adopted assumption would quote Bible versus about God saying "This is the way, walk ye in it" or about "the peace of God which passeth all understanding will rule in your hearts."
Now, I think a strong case can be made that if you trust God enough to obey his ideals (like to not care whether or not you're recognized/promoted at work, but simply to do your best simply because that exemplifies the fruits of the spirit) you will have peace. But I cannot think of any example of where God promises that you will never lack peace about the correct decision. I can't think where God says to someone making a decision: "wait, look at how you are feeling - which makes you feel most calm. There, that's the right one." Obviously, that's an unfair characterization of how an advocate of waiting for peace would put it, but you get the point.
Leaving aside for one moment of whether or not looking for "peace" to guide decisions is biblical, let's think through the logical perspective. Obviously, if you make the decision you believe is the moral one, you will likely not be smitten by your conscience. So it is really possible that if you are trying to decide whether to do a wrong action or a right one, then you will feel a certain 'peace' (or lack of guilt) about one of the options. But usually, people are searching for peace about a) which trip to go on b) which school to go to c) whether to date a girl or boy d) whether to accept a job opportunity - and usually the options are morally benign. (None of them is really evil.)
Let's think a little further. Do we really believe that in every decision (or perhaps just every major decision - although that seems slightly ad hoc) God gives baptizes one option with peace? It would seem a stretch for a number of reasons. First, you must believe that everyone who made the right decision admid turmoil did so only because they missed the peace they could have had if they were just better adjusted with their emotions (but isn't the peace supposed to be a divince message, if so isn't God holding out on them but not giving them peace about the right decision). Second, there are people who have made decisions to divorce their spouses, leave for the mission field, and take degrees because they did have peace, and yet the decision was the wrong one. I met a guy in my first year of seminary who was working at a rock shop. He believed God had called him to youth ministry. He had a peace, and the door was open. Funds were available to support him through school. But then the funds dried up part way through school, and there, five years later, he was selling rocks. (You could say "God is just testing him." But again, you can't pull the 'everything works out in the end' trick. There are girls who get raped and killed. There is no happy ending for them. This story might have a happy ending, but others do not.) Not everyone who has peace about a decision gets it right. Maybe they didn't have the 'right kind of peace.' But that begs the question: what kind of peace is the right kind of peace? Are there really different 'kinds'?
But I think one of the biggest problems is that good decisions are often not peaceful. Normally, you feel peaceful about decisions that agree with the things you believe. My wife and I felt peace about investing a large chunk of money. We knew it was wise to save up for our kinds college fund and our retirement. We knew that the market was doing well, and we knew we had money. But we invested right before a global recession. Should we really expect that every believer would get a discomfort about investing right before the global recession - a collective spider sense about impending diasaster? I mean, this is important stuff. It is money that could be used for the Lord's work, to take care of our family. Its a major decision - why shouldn't this qualify as a place where the LORD speaks via peace?
It seems to me that a more realistic view is that we are not exempt from the problems that hit the rest of the earth. When it doesn't rain, the Christian farms dry up and die. When a global recession hits, the Christians don't have an early warning that prevents them from investing.
Honestly, it would seem that if you are trying to make good decisions based on kingdom principles, then your decisions are not going to be 'peaceful.' As I said earlier, people are most at peace when they do things that are most align with their beliefs and personality. But what about when you're trying to make a decision that based on Heurtz's three kingdom principles "I am NOT what I have" "I am NOT what others say about me" (and a third one I currently forget). Part of me strains against letting someone else take credit for my work. I don't have a peace about keeping my mouth shut. But that is the right decision.
So where does the peace come in? When I learn to be content with what I have, when I learn to value goodness more than accomplishments - well, somehow life is less stressful. The days when I can just not care about 'stuff' and instead take whatever I have left and give to the poor out of a generous heart: on those days, I feel a peace and joy.
The peace promised is not an ouija indicator on life's decision board. The peace is a direct result of a counter-cultural ideal - abandoning the rat race to put others ahead of ourselves and God principles and priorities and character ahead of it all.
What do you think?
I'll leave the 'open doors' discussion for another blog post. Let's think about what people meanwhen they ask: "Do you have peace one way or another?"
Ostensibly, the unvoiced idea is that "You will have peace about the right decision, and you will not have peace about the wrong decision." That's an interesting idea. I think advocates of that often tacitly adopted assumption would quote Bible versus about God saying "This is the way, walk ye in it" or about "the peace of God which passeth all understanding will rule in your hearts."
Now, I think a strong case can be made that if you trust God enough to obey his ideals (like to not care whether or not you're recognized/promoted at work, but simply to do your best simply because that exemplifies the fruits of the spirit) you will have peace. But I cannot think of any example of where God promises that you will never lack peace about the correct decision. I can't think where God says to someone making a decision: "wait, look at how you are feeling - which makes you feel most calm. There, that's the right one." Obviously, that's an unfair characterization of how an advocate of waiting for peace would put it, but you get the point.
Leaving aside for one moment of whether or not looking for "peace" to guide decisions is biblical, let's think through the logical perspective. Obviously, if you make the decision you believe is the moral one, you will likely not be smitten by your conscience. So it is really possible that if you are trying to decide whether to do a wrong action or a right one, then you will feel a certain 'peace' (or lack of guilt) about one of the options. But usually, people are searching for peace about a) which trip to go on b) which school to go to c) whether to date a girl or boy d) whether to accept a job opportunity - and usually the options are morally benign. (None of them is really evil.)
Let's think a little further. Do we really believe that in every decision (or perhaps just every major decision - although that seems slightly ad hoc) God gives baptizes one option with peace? It would seem a stretch for a number of reasons. First, you must believe that everyone who made the right decision admid turmoil did so only because they missed the peace they could have had if they were just better adjusted with their emotions (but isn't the peace supposed to be a divince message, if so isn't God holding out on them but not giving them peace about the right decision). Second, there are people who have made decisions to divorce their spouses, leave for the mission field, and take degrees because they did have peace, and yet the decision was the wrong one. I met a guy in my first year of seminary who was working at a rock shop. He believed God had called him to youth ministry. He had a peace, and the door was open. Funds were available to support him through school. But then the funds dried up part way through school, and there, five years later, he was selling rocks. (You could say "God is just testing him." But again, you can't pull the 'everything works out in the end' trick. There are girls who get raped and killed. There is no happy ending for them. This story might have a happy ending, but others do not.) Not everyone who has peace about a decision gets it right. Maybe they didn't have the 'right kind of peace.' But that begs the question: what kind of peace is the right kind of peace? Are there really different 'kinds'?
But I think one of the biggest problems is that good decisions are often not peaceful. Normally, you feel peaceful about decisions that agree with the things you believe. My wife and I felt peace about investing a large chunk of money. We knew it was wise to save up for our kinds college fund and our retirement. We knew that the market was doing well, and we knew we had money. But we invested right before a global recession. Should we really expect that every believer would get a discomfort about investing right before the global recession - a collective spider sense about impending diasaster? I mean, this is important stuff. It is money that could be used for the Lord's work, to take care of our family. Its a major decision - why shouldn't this qualify as a place where the LORD speaks via peace?
It seems to me that a more realistic view is that we are not exempt from the problems that hit the rest of the earth. When it doesn't rain, the Christian farms dry up and die. When a global recession hits, the Christians don't have an early warning that prevents them from investing.
Honestly, it would seem that if you are trying to make good decisions based on kingdom principles, then your decisions are not going to be 'peaceful.' As I said earlier, people are most at peace when they do things that are most align with their beliefs and personality. But what about when you're trying to make a decision that based on Heurtz's three kingdom principles "I am NOT what I have" "I am NOT what others say about me" (and a third one I currently forget). Part of me strains against letting someone else take credit for my work. I don't have a peace about keeping my mouth shut. But that is the right decision.
So where does the peace come in? When I learn to be content with what I have, when I learn to value goodness more than accomplishments - well, somehow life is less stressful. The days when I can just not care about 'stuff' and instead take whatever I have left and give to the poor out of a generous heart: on those days, I feel a peace and joy.
The peace promised is not an ouija indicator on life's decision board. The peace is a direct result of a counter-cultural ideal - abandoning the rat race to put others ahead of ourselves and God principles and priorities and character ahead of it all.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)