I have said, "Most of my friends these days are felons, ex-felons, or preachers." This always seems to get a laugh, but it is literally true. I do have friends that fit none of these categories for sure, but having spent the past 30 years of my life in ministry I have alot of friends who are pastors, teachers, evangelists, theologians, and missionaries. This accounts for those being labeled as "preachers."
But for the past couple years a good portion of my time has been spent with men who are behind prison bars. These men are from various socio-economic classes and ethnic groups. There are doctors, businessmen, ministers, lawyers, truck drivers, chefs, waiters, barbers, and every other profession (legal and illegal) among those I teach and fellowship with. I have friends who have been drug dealers, gang leaders, tax evaders, and simply those who "crossed over the line" and found themselves on the other side of the law. I am not ashamed to say that I have friends who have murdered, stole, conned, cheated, and defrauded. I have friends that are registered sex offenders. I have friends that have been shot in drug deals, shot people in drive-byes, run from the police, the feds, and the county sheriff. I also have friends that are more dangerous with a computer than a 9 milimeter pistol.
Outside of the prison, many of my friends are those dealing with addictions. Many of these men have been in prison at one time or another. They come from every walk of life. One is a former art dealer from Hunington Beach, California, another an Alaskan crab fisherman, another who is a gourmet chef, and another who is a West Point graduate. Some are dealing with alcohol or drug addiction, others sexual addiction, and some with anger.
These are my friends. These are the people I "hang-out" with. These are the kind of people Jesus was around. He was called "a friend of sinners" and so He was. I, for one, am glad that He is a friend of sinners, otherwise He wouldn't hang out with me. I'm a sinner and a saint. I'm a Pharisee in recovery. I have known the prison I built with my own sin. I've been addicted to my selfishness.
Johnny Cash was once asked, "Why do people like your songs about prison?" He responded by saying, "Because everyone can relate to being in prison. We have all created our own prisons and been prisoners."
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Book Review of "Deep Church"
If you are not aware of the current controversy that is reigning in the evangelical world over the "emerging church" this book will not only inform you, but provide you with a perspective of a "third way," which holds to orthodoxy but addresses the concerns of the postmodern generation. I personally, found this book to be the most balanced and insightful response to the controversy that I have read. I have recommended it to my friends on both sides of the discussion, because I do believe that it articulates the balance that is necessary. One only needs to look at the comments of those who have endorsed this book, which include Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Tim Keller, and Tony Jones, to know that this book has struck a cord.
The author, Jim Belcher, is a P.C.A. pastor and church planter, graduate of Fuller Seminary, and a true insider to the beginnings of what later became labeled "the emerging church." The title for the book is taken from C.S. Lewis, who used this term in 1952, when he was defending supernatural revelation against the modernist movement. It is a way of expressing "mere Christianity." His call in this book is to return to the "Great Tradition" expressed in the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, which bound the Church together for centuries.
Belcher was very helpful for me in this book by examining the use of words. For example, when Brian McLaren uses the term "postmodern," he is not using it as an expression denoting the "rejection of absolutes." Unfortunately, this has been what some have heard. On the other hand, when Chuck Colson speaks of postmodernism, he is speaking of a philosophical perspective that has rejected any moral absolute foundation. Therefore, though McLaren and Colson may be using the same word, but their meanings are totally different. In the same way, the labeling of "emerging" or "traditionalist" can be very misleading. Not all those who have been labeled as "emerging," are the same, any more than those labeled "traditionalist" are. There is a wide range of perspectives among both groups.
Belcher addresses the concerns expressed by postmodern Christian leaders, acknowledging the true legitimacy of those concerns. Likewise, he addresses the concerns that many traditionalist leaders have about some of the theological issues raised by some of these emerging leaders. In all this the author points to a "third way." He holds the line on orthodoxy, while at the same time values innovation. He shows that the answers are not always "either - or" but often "both - and."
I highly recommend this book to you if you are a pastor, church leader, or a thinker. It is well worth your investment.
The author, Jim Belcher, is a P.C.A. pastor and church planter, graduate of Fuller Seminary, and a true insider to the beginnings of what later became labeled "the emerging church." The title for the book is taken from C.S. Lewis, who used this term in 1952, when he was defending supernatural revelation against the modernist movement. It is a way of expressing "mere Christianity." His call in this book is to return to the "Great Tradition" expressed in the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, which bound the Church together for centuries.
Belcher was very helpful for me in this book by examining the use of words. For example, when Brian McLaren uses the term "postmodern," he is not using it as an expression denoting the "rejection of absolutes." Unfortunately, this has been what some have heard. On the other hand, when Chuck Colson speaks of postmodernism, he is speaking of a philosophical perspective that has rejected any moral absolute foundation. Therefore, though McLaren and Colson may be using the same word, but their meanings are totally different. In the same way, the labeling of "emerging" or "traditionalist" can be very misleading. Not all those who have been labeled as "emerging," are the same, any more than those labeled "traditionalist" are. There is a wide range of perspectives among both groups.
Belcher addresses the concerns expressed by postmodern Christian leaders, acknowledging the true legitimacy of those concerns. Likewise, he addresses the concerns that many traditionalist leaders have about some of the theological issues raised by some of these emerging leaders. In all this the author points to a "third way." He holds the line on orthodoxy, while at the same time values innovation. He shows that the answers are not always "either - or" but often "both - and."
I highly recommend this book to you if you are a pastor, church leader, or a thinker. It is well worth your investment.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Narrative and Meta-Narrative
A few months ago, I took a course in "contemporary family counseling." This course dealt with various approaches to family counseling that are currently in use. One such approach is "Narrative Therapy," which is based on the premise that "people live their lives by stories" and "families are formed, perpetuated, and transformed by the stories they share." This perspective is significantly important as we understand the influence of postmodernity upon our culture. In this way, narrative therapy departs from the scientific reasoning of modernity and embraces "narrative reasoning" (which is an important conceptual idea in postmodernity). This approach emphasizes understanding and interpreting our lives through our stories and substories, through which we find meaning in life.
As a believer, this approach intrigued me because of its parallels with Biblical teaching. To begin with, the Bible is primarily a collection of stories that have been handed down generationally to enable us to understand and interpret the larger context of our own lives. In this the Bible provides us with a "meta-narrative," the "big story" from which we are to view our own story. To illustrate, the big story is the story of the forest, while your story is the story of a tree within the forest. Your story must be understood within the larger context of the forest.
The Biblical story is the story of a Father and His Son, that is the meta-narrative. My story, and your story, must be understood in the context of this meta-narrative in order to understand and properly interpret our individual stories. Your life story is that of an "epic journey," with various twists and turns, plots and sub-plots, new characters appearing and older characters departing, there is tragedy and comedy, there is mystery and romance. But none it has ultimate meaning apart from the larger story - the meta-narrative. We lose our sense of meaning and purpose in life when we fail to see it, in the context of the meta-narrative.
Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Peter, James, John , and Paul are all part of the meta-narrative. But then again, so are you. Your name and your story may not be part of Scripture, but you and I are still part of that big story. The big story is not all about you, but you are in the story. Your story is a story within the big story.
As a believer, this approach intrigued me because of its parallels with Biblical teaching. To begin with, the Bible is primarily a collection of stories that have been handed down generationally to enable us to understand and interpret the larger context of our own lives. In this the Bible provides us with a "meta-narrative," the "big story" from which we are to view our own story. To illustrate, the big story is the story of the forest, while your story is the story of a tree within the forest. Your story must be understood within the larger context of the forest.
The Biblical story is the story of a Father and His Son, that is the meta-narrative. My story, and your story, must be understood in the context of this meta-narrative in order to understand and properly interpret our individual stories. Your life story is that of an "epic journey," with various twists and turns, plots and sub-plots, new characters appearing and older characters departing, there is tragedy and comedy, there is mystery and romance. But none it has ultimate meaning apart from the larger story - the meta-narrative. We lose our sense of meaning and purpose in life when we fail to see it, in the context of the meta-narrative.
Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Peter, James, John , and Paul are all part of the meta-narrative. But then again, so are you. Your name and your story may not be part of Scripture, but you and I are still part of that big story. The big story is not all about you, but you are in the story. Your story is a story within the big story.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Son of Man
Recently, while teaching through the first epistle of John, I was once again struck by the importance that John, and the other New Testament writers, place on Jesus' humanity. The Gnostic error that John confronts is that of "docetism," a term derived from the Greek word meaning "to appear." The docetists stated that Jesus only "appeared to be a man." John even refers to this error as "the spirit of the Antichrist" (See I John 4:2-3).
I find it interesting that in our day, we who defend the divinity of Christ, do not seem to place equal importance on defending Christ's humanity. Yet, the message of the Incarnation is about God becoming fully Man. Though Jesus did not cease being fully God, He became fully Man.
The title by which Jesus most often referred to Himself by was "the Son of Man" (a Messianic title first used in Daniel 7:13). By this title He was identifying Himself with Adam and consequently with all of humanity. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, took upon Himself a human nature, becoming clothed with flesh and became the Son of Man. He did this not only for the purpose of becoming our redeeming substitute, bearing the wrath of God the Father, thus paying the penalty for Man's sin, but to reveal what it means to be truly human. He shows us what it means to be human in the way God originally intended. Humanity apart from the Fall.
Only recently did I grasp the importance of Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordan river. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, yet Jesus had nothing to repent of. He was the sinless Son of God. Why then did Jesus insist on John baptizing Him? Because baptism is an act of identification. When we are baptized we are identifying with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14). Likewise, through baptism Jesus identified with us. He who was unfallen, identified with our fallenness.
Hebrews 4:15 tells that, "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." This means that the One who sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father, fully identifies and understands, what it means to live in this fallen world. He is in touch with our reality.
Therefore, let us remember in this Christmas season that He is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of Man.
I find it interesting that in our day, we who defend the divinity of Christ, do not seem to place equal importance on defending Christ's humanity. Yet, the message of the Incarnation is about God becoming fully Man. Though Jesus did not cease being fully God, He became fully Man.
The title by which Jesus most often referred to Himself by was "the Son of Man" (a Messianic title first used in Daniel 7:13). By this title He was identifying Himself with Adam and consequently with all of humanity. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, took upon Himself a human nature, becoming clothed with flesh and became the Son of Man. He did this not only for the purpose of becoming our redeeming substitute, bearing the wrath of God the Father, thus paying the penalty for Man's sin, but to reveal what it means to be truly human. He shows us what it means to be human in the way God originally intended. Humanity apart from the Fall.
Only recently did I grasp the importance of Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordan river. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, yet Jesus had nothing to repent of. He was the sinless Son of God. Why then did Jesus insist on John baptizing Him? Because baptism is an act of identification. When we are baptized we are identifying with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14). Likewise, through baptism Jesus identified with us. He who was unfallen, identified with our fallenness.
Hebrews 4:15 tells that, "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." This means that the One who sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father, fully identifies and understands, what it means to live in this fallen world. He is in touch with our reality.
Therefore, let us remember in this Christmas season that He is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of Man.
Sexual Addiction
In the past two weeks the media has given a great deal of attention to Tiger Woods and his alleged sexual transgressions. If the news, gossip, rumors, or innuendos are in any way true, it appears that he is dealing with sexual addiction.
For over the past two years I have facilitated a recovery group for men dealing with sexual addiction. The group runs the gamut from those addicted to pornography, to homosexuality, to those who have had adulterous affairs. Our group has been small because so few want to acknowledge this kind of addictive behavior, until it is forced into the light. The reality is that sexual addiction is far more prevalent that drug or alcohol addiction. It is generally easier to conceal, and there are many Christian men, including leaders, who are secretly addicted. The scandals that we are all aware of, over the past twenty years, testify to this fact. Statistically, over 25% of the pastors in the U.S. acknowledge that they are addicted to internet porn.
I would encourage anyone dealing with sexual addictive behavior to seek help in breaking this bondage. Guilt and shame are the tools of the enemy that force this behavior into the "shadows." Only when we are willing to expose it to the light can this bondage be broken.
For over the past two years I have facilitated a recovery group for men dealing with sexual addiction. The group runs the gamut from those addicted to pornography, to homosexuality, to those who have had adulterous affairs. Our group has been small because so few want to acknowledge this kind of addictive behavior, until it is forced into the light. The reality is that sexual addiction is far more prevalent that drug or alcohol addiction. It is generally easier to conceal, and there are many Christian men, including leaders, who are secretly addicted. The scandals that we are all aware of, over the past twenty years, testify to this fact. Statistically, over 25% of the pastors in the U.S. acknowledge that they are addicted to internet porn.
I would encourage anyone dealing with sexual addictive behavior to seek help in breaking this bondage. Guilt and shame are the tools of the enemy that force this behavior into the "shadows." Only when we are willing to expose it to the light can this bondage be broken.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Redemptiveness of God
One of the things I have learned on a very deep level over the past three years is the fact that God is a redeemer. God has revealed Himself throughout the Scripture as a redeemer, it is His nature to redeem, and all that God does flows out of His agape love with the purpose of redemption. I think that I could prove that Biblically and theologically. But I also know it experientially. Knowing truth experientially moves it from the realm of theological theory, to the realm of deep-seated reality in our lives.
I have not only experienced great failure in my life, but I have also experienced God taking that failure and redeeming it, using it for His purposes and working it for good. Is that not what Paul tells us when he writes, "This we know, all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28)? We generally apply that truth to adversity, trials, and suffering. But it applies to our failures as well. Are our failures not included in the "all things?"
Did God work David's moral failure for good? Was David a better man after his sin with Bathsheba? Psalm 32 and 51 show us the brokenness of David's repentant heart. God worked David's failure for good. Not only his good, but for the good of everyone of us who have turned to these psalms for strength in the midst of our brokenness.
Did God use Peter's denial of Christ for good? Was something broken in Peter that needed to be broken? Did God redeem it for good?
God often uses our sins and failures as the means by which He draws us into greater intimacy with Him. I have found this to be true in my own experience. Failure shows us our own weakness and moral corruption. It forces us to face the reality of ourselves, and it brings us to the foot of the Cross.
In addition, God takes our failure, as he did Peter's, and uses us to "strengthen our brother" (See Luke 22:31-32). Our failure becomes the "fertilizer" that God uses to grow a new ministry. God sends us to those who must traverse the valley of darkness that we have walked through. God brings our failures full circle, if we allow Him, as He turns a negative into a positive. That is the redemptiveness of God.
I have not only experienced great failure in my life, but I have also experienced God taking that failure and redeeming it, using it for His purposes and working it for good. Is that not what Paul tells us when he writes, "This we know, all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28)? We generally apply that truth to adversity, trials, and suffering. But it applies to our failures as well. Are our failures not included in the "all things?"
Did God work David's moral failure for good? Was David a better man after his sin with Bathsheba? Psalm 32 and 51 show us the brokenness of David's repentant heart. God worked David's failure for good. Not only his good, but for the good of everyone of us who have turned to these psalms for strength in the midst of our brokenness.
Did God use Peter's denial of Christ for good? Was something broken in Peter that needed to be broken? Did God redeem it for good?
God often uses our sins and failures as the means by which He draws us into greater intimacy with Him. I have found this to be true in my own experience. Failure shows us our own weakness and moral corruption. It forces us to face the reality of ourselves, and it brings us to the foot of the Cross.
In addition, God takes our failure, as he did Peter's, and uses us to "strengthen our brother" (See Luke 22:31-32). Our failure becomes the "fertilizer" that God uses to grow a new ministry. God sends us to those who must traverse the valley of darkness that we have walked through. God brings our failures full circle, if we allow Him, as He turns a negative into a positive. That is the redemptiveness of God.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
"I" Trouble
A journalist once asked Mother Teresa, "What do you think should change in the Church?" She responded by saying, "You and I."
Last week I was sharing with a group of prison inmates what I have observed over the past three years working with addicts and those incarcerated in prison. I said, "My observation is that both groups are selfish and always will do what is to their personal advantage. Prior to ministering to these groups, I pastored churches for over 25 years. I found that they were selfish and would always do what was to their personal advantage."
I was making the point that all of us, because of sin, are selfish, self-centered, and always looking for what benefits us. We are by nature, "takers' not "givers." The root issue, which I dare say is not often addressed in the Church, is that we all have "I" trouble. Greed, lust, pride, contention, addictions, and all other attitudes and sinful behavior are only the outworking of our self-centeredness.
George MacDonald saw this as the "darkness" that mankind dwells in, and Christ came to deliver us from. He listed 12 points of darkness that are revealed by these inward attiudes:
1)I am my own. My own king and my own subject.
2) I am the center from which go out my thoughts.
3) I am the object and the end of my thoughts; back upon me as the alpha and omega of life, my thoughts return.
4) My own glory is and ought to be my chief concern.
5) My ambition, to gather the regards of men to the one center.
6) My pleasure is my pleasure.
7) My kingdom is as many as I can bring to acknowledge my greatness over them.
8) My judgment is the faultless rule of things.
9) My rights are - what I desire.
10) The more I am all in all to myself, the greater I am.
11) The less I acknowledge debt or obligation to another, the more I close my eyes to the fact that I did not make myself; the more self-sufficing I feel or imagine myself - the greater I am.
12) I will be free with the freedom that consists in doing whatever I am inclined to do, from whatever quarter may come my inclination.
Did Jesus come merely to take us to Heaven when we die? Or, did He come, as well, to deliver us from the self-destructive darkness that we live in and bring us into the light?
Last week I was sharing with a group of prison inmates what I have observed over the past three years working with addicts and those incarcerated in prison. I said, "My observation is that both groups are selfish and always will do what is to their personal advantage. Prior to ministering to these groups, I pastored churches for over 25 years. I found that they were selfish and would always do what was to their personal advantage."
I was making the point that all of us, because of sin, are selfish, self-centered, and always looking for what benefits us. We are by nature, "takers' not "givers." The root issue, which I dare say is not often addressed in the Church, is that we all have "I" trouble. Greed, lust, pride, contention, addictions, and all other attitudes and sinful behavior are only the outworking of our self-centeredness.
George MacDonald saw this as the "darkness" that mankind dwells in, and Christ came to deliver us from. He listed 12 points of darkness that are revealed by these inward attiudes:
1)I am my own. My own king and my own subject.
2) I am the center from which go out my thoughts.
3) I am the object and the end of my thoughts; back upon me as the alpha and omega of life, my thoughts return.
4) My own glory is and ought to be my chief concern.
5) My ambition, to gather the regards of men to the one center.
6) My pleasure is my pleasure.
7) My kingdom is as many as I can bring to acknowledge my greatness over them.
8) My judgment is the faultless rule of things.
9) My rights are - what I desire.
10) The more I am all in all to myself, the greater I am.
11) The less I acknowledge debt or obligation to another, the more I close my eyes to the fact that I did not make myself; the more self-sufficing I feel or imagine myself - the greater I am.
12) I will be free with the freedom that consists in doing whatever I am inclined to do, from whatever quarter may come my inclination.
Did Jesus come merely to take us to Heaven when we die? Or, did He come, as well, to deliver us from the self-destructive darkness that we live in and bring us into the light?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
