My new article in Priority! Magazine- Winter 2011

PRAYER POWER Gaining Prayer's Best Dividends by Jack Corbin Getz Font Size	Email this article to a Friend
Given the nature of our distracted and often fragmented lives, praying covenantally usually requires some basic structures: a place, a time, and a practice. … To help with that are three easily remembered prayer types, which, when balanced, will lead to great spiritual gain and effective praying. Share Prayer  Jimmy was driving down the street in a sweat because he was almost late for an important appointment and couldn't find a parking place. At his critical crossroad of crisis, he did what many do, he tossed a Share Prayer God's way: "Lord take pity on me. If you find me a parking place I'll go to church every Sunday for the rest of my life and give up all my bad habits!" Miraculously, a parking place appeared. With that, Jimmy looked up again and prayed: "Never mind Lord, I found one." The upside of Share Prayer is that it's portable and convenient, allowing a running "state–of–the heart" report to God, which in some cases is all the moment calls for. Other times, however, it's not what God has in mind when He asks us to be people of prayer. Far too many make Share Prayer their primary source of spiritual investment, which is akin to thinking that saving pocket change is a wise retirement plan. While convenient, compact, and often comforting, Share Prayer is no substitute for more focused forms of praying.  Subject Prayer  Subject Prayer has both great utility but also notable downsides. Such prayers grow out of hard times when we, or someone we know, need God's immediate help.  Subject Prayer takes two forms: petitions for our needs, and supplications for others' needs. When we make a promise to pray for someone else, it involves us, invests us, and indicates that we care enough pray. But not all prayers carry the same weight. Some are tossed like darts at a heavenly target, in hopes that a few will hit the mark. Others involve painstaking sacrificial intercession that requires incredible commitment and ongoing desire. While both have value, the latter speaks clearly to the level of spiritual integrity and discipline that must accompany our public promises to pray.  Certainly, God cares about everything that concerns us and He enjoins us to tell Him whatever is on our hearts, but assuming He's beholden to jump to our commands or to be our genie in a prayer bottle who ought to make everything fair and level is a disservice to both Him and prayer.  Silent Prayer Here is where great saints discover divine intimacy and mine spiritual power. Silence, more than any other form of prayer, convicts, confirms, calls, and conforms us to Christ's image. In silence, personal interaction with the divine takes place (a possible reason why so many avoid it). Of course, Silent Prayer is the most demanding form of praying to master and sustain. If you have mercenary motives or too little time to pray, don't try it. Remember, God's written promise: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). Half–hearted prayers apparently don't help us locate God because, as Ken Gire suggests, "God is not indiscriminately intimate."  Silent Prayer is where serious spiritual formation takes place. Devoting good amounts of time in silence with God yields perspective, inspiration, courage, and spiritual power. It's here where you gain an active relationship with the Lord because in silence, truth always has its way. (See Psalm 46:10.) Brennan Manning writes, "Silence is not simply the absence of noise or the shutdown of communication with the outside world, but rather a process of coming to stillness. Silent solitude forges true speech. I'm not speaking of physical isolation; solitude here means being alone with the Alone, experiencing the transcendent Other and growing in awareness of one's identity as the beloved."  Given the benefits of contemplative or Silent Prayer, it's worth at least half of a healthy prayer portfolio. Granted, other forms of prayer have a necessary and legitimate place, but none, combined or alone, yield the long–term benefits of silent, contemplative, meditational praying. Spiritually, we get what we pay for, and reap what we sow; therefore, why not spend spiritual capital where the dividends are the greatest? (See 2 Corinthians 9:6.) Excerpted and adapted, with permission, from Getz's book Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work: Finding a way back to the heart of God. (Available at. iUniverse.com/bookstore) Priority Magazine Winter 2011 Volume 13 Number 4 http://www.prioritypeople.org

Evolution haunts me.

For some reason I’m drawn to those wonderful nature shows that appear ‘round-the-clock on cable television. The beauty of nature and the wonder of how the animal kingdom works together boggles my mind.

As a Christian, I often feel guilty if I fall for the evolution talk that permeates the scripts of every episode. While I find some of it hard to refute, much of it smacks of an easy linguistic convenience or expedience that satisfies the scientific intelligentsia who won’t consider any other possibilities. Sure, it’s much easier to say that the lemur evolved its long tail over 30 million years than to say, "There sure is a clever and creative mind behind how all these creatures function in their habitats."

The other night while watching a program about how all big cats are part of the same genus, we heard that their amazing diversity came about from eons of adaptation to their unique environmental needs. For example, according to the guy on TV, because the black panther hunts exclusively at night, one old panther way back millions of years ago decided to change his family’s fur color to black. Wow. How smart was he to make that happen?

They also say that all the big cats, as well as a bunch if other night stalkers, changed the pigment in their eyes to allow them to see in the dark. Somehow, that special fluorescent stuff that coats the back of their eyeballs started working. So tonight, they will easily see all the other edible night creatures whose lazy ancestors fell down when it came to evolving enough defenses to keep them from being run down and consumed by panthers, leopards, tigers, lions and hyenas.

My favorite part of the show related to the great Bengal tigers that are so invincible as well as beautiful. The narrator said they were once tan like lions, but because they hunted in the forests, they needed to break up their evolved orange fur with stripes so they are invisible while they stalk the less-evolved prey they call dinner. What’s funny about that is they tried to tell me that the tiger was invisible, but I saw him without any trouble. His stripes helped, but his orangeness made him stand out like ... an 800 pound orange tiger standing in the bushes.

Something didn’t make sense as my restless mind wandered away from the narrative for a few minutes. The it hit: if tigers evolved stripes (or leopards spots) to hide in the forest, why didn't they go ahead and evolve themselves green? That way they would really be invisible. But if they did that, they would be creepy, ugly and probably much fatter, not majestic, muscular and orange.

And what about sharks evolving as the top predator of the ocean? Did the rest of the ocean's stupid creatures (prey) not bother to travel that far? They say dolphins have almost human level intelligence and speak a special dolphin language, but apparently sharks liked being dumb as rocks.

It seems that each creature evolved from something less to something more, but some weren’t as clever as others when it came to evolving. Many species chose to survive by simply creating multitudes of offspring so at least some of the family would escape the dolphins and sharks. "Hey Fred. How do you think we can change ourselves to avoid being eaten?" "That's simple Barney, make more babies!"

That reminds me of the old joke about the two back-packers who were wary of bears in the woods so they planned their survival techniques. One of them said "I'll just take off and run like crazy." The other said "That's foolish. A bear can run you down in no time," to which the first responded, "I know that, but all I need to do is outrun you!"

If the evolutionists can get by with explaining the mysteries of nature by saying every animal if perfectly self-adapted to survive and reproduce, why do so many still get eaten by tigers, leopards, lions, panthers or sharks or sneaky snakes?

If an animal 10 million years ago was eaten by another one, how does that hard lesson or congenital weakness get genetically transferred to the next generation who also gets eaten? If stinks bugs evolved an awful smell to survive, why don't all bugs evolve some stink? And if one species of fish was clever enough to develop wings, why didn’t other fish do the same? Obviously, evolution doesn't explain why every group stops short of becoming impregnable or invisible to the Genghis Kahn's of their world.

Simplistic as it seems, the food chain appears to be less about random self-generated chance and more about an actual plan that works great for everyone. The little critters reproduce so many offspring that their species survives, and the big dudes make just enough of themselves to control their area but not too many to strip it bare. Sometimes the big guys win, but sometimes the little meerkat scampers back to his hole only to emerge a minute later to see an ugly green tiger slinking back to the jungle. (That's metaphorical, because I clearly don't know enough about meerkats to know if green tigers eat them.)

Oaky, I admit, it's easier for my brain to say this was all well-planned, not the result of millions of years of self-generated mitosis. (Or is that bad breath?) I think I’ll leave it right there for now.

Thomas Aquinas on debating with others

"[I]t is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered."
— Thomas Aquinas

Who Needs Help?

Blogger Friends:



I have a good friend in England who is reading my book as his Lenten devotionals. I appreciate that. He's a deep thinker, a globally minded man who probes both small things yet thinks universally.

Recently, as part of an ongoing dialogue about things he may or may not agree with in the book, he about why I suggested that canned prayers don't lead to great personal spiritual depth. In the book I compare such systematic prayer practices to telling Barbara I love her versus an exclusive diet of Browning poems. The poems may work well on occasion, but if they are all I can muster, she may begin to wonder if I have my own feelings for her.
I also say that a scribbled home made Father's Day card from my grandsons, Isaac or Will, is far better to me than the most beautiful Hallmark card. Nothing against Hallmark at all, but that piece of colorful paper from them may hang on my wall for years. Brennan Manning says “A little child can not do a bad coloring; nor can a child of God do a bad prayer.”  

So, this morning while praying, I thought about my friend, Alan, and want to offer the following thoughts:



1) Prayer must be most of all a personal expression from me to my Maker. It doesn't have to be formal, poetic, profound or even logical, just as long as it's honest, honoring and humble. Since the Spirit makes intercession on our behalf, sometimes a simple groan or a one word prayer is enough to do the trick. (I especially enjoy the way I have fun with this process in the book.)



2) Prayer must always have a context. I believe that the focus of today's urgent need often provides all the context we need to pray purposefully. Sometimes, however, we have no urgent need and the microscope that moves us to pray with urgency becomes a telescope that causes us to simply ponder. The further away the moment is from urgent, the more we tend to wander and need some form of contextual structure.



3) "Canned" prayers and prayer structures/systems often provide such context. I say in the book that we often feel like sailors who hit the doldrums and have no wind to move the ship so they have to get down and row until the wind returns. Using the words of others or following closely to a liturgical prayer system is fine when it's needed, but, it's not the best for developing an ongoing personal relationship with the Almighty.


I included a number of prayer systems in the book's appendices, including one of my own that I call "A Cognitive Approach To Praying." There's also reference to the ancient system called Lectio Divina, and the system used by St. John of the Cross to prime the pump when his spiritual experience got dry. 

A good way to think of prayer systems is that they provide a framework for us to speak our minds and open our hearts to God. If, however, they dictate everything we say, they can become crutches that lead to ritual, not relationship.



I hope this stirs some good thoughts.
Jack

A Soul Mate!

"Contrarian thinking at it's best simply asks Is this true? It speaks up when the politically correct answer or conventional answer doesn't match reality - when things simply don't work the way everyone says they should."

Larry Osborne - "A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God" Multnomah Press

MY TAKE Trusting in Tough Times by Jack C. Getz Font Size

Email this article to a Friend

In these tough economic times, when almost everyone’s focus is on the sinking dollar and rising employment rates, Christians are hard–pressed to find the financial means to vigorously pursue their mission. That challenge is especially daunting for a movement like The Salvation Army, whose mission is to “…preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name, without discrimination.” How can the Army achieve those lofty goals when even its most faithful supporters find themselves facing financial meltdown? The story of George Müeller, who lived in even more troubled economic times than ours, provides an answer to that question that is also a challenge to deeper faith. Born in 1805 in Prussia, Müeller immigrated to England as a young man. As a seminary student, he was a playboy who had no time for the things of God, much less any notion of spending the next 70 years of his life in spiritual warfare on behalf of homeless street waifs. But by 1843, Müeller had turned his life over to God, and he responded to a sense of calling to feed and educate the masses of orphaned children who roamed the mean streets of Bristol, England. This was the era of the Industrial Revolution, whose dark side Charles Dickens painted vividly in his novels. The sad reality for thousands of children in that day was a life of poverty, thieving just to survive, and general hopelessness. Müeller began his outreach ministries with free meals and Bible stories for a few dozen children. Soon, demand grew to a point that his resources were strained, but his faith never wavered. As a young pastor and new husband, George and his wife tested God’s promises and refused to accept a salary. He learned that he could not trust himself and God at the same time, so he chose to put himself in a position to depend completely on God for all his needs and the needs of the children in his care. A few decades later, General William Booth of The Salvation Army demonstrated a similar faith when he said: “The promises of God are sure, if only you will believe.” Müeller accomplished his work in relative silence. He didn’t use mail campaigns, Christmas kettles, or development professionals. Amazingly, his only method was fervent prayer. For years the Müellers lived by just two principles: One, live completely by faith. Two, never tell anyone but God about financial or physical needs. Yet in the multiple facilities Müeller ran, no child ever missed a meal. The numbers associated with Müeller’s ministry are staggering by any standard. It is estimated that during 50 years of providing critical daily services to children, he raised the equivalent of about $180 million and touched the lives of more than 120,000 orphans. In his 1898 obituary in The Daily Telegraph, Müeller was called “the robber of the streets,” not because he was a thief, but because he was said to have “robbed the cruel streets of thousands of victims, the gaols [jails] of thousands of felons, and the workhouses of thousands of helpless waifs.” Like Müeller, The Salvation Army has always trusted God to provide. The record of how God has blessed and multiplied the Salvation Army’s “loaves and fishes” is nothing short of miraculous. And it is humbling to think that even though Army polices discourage paid advertising, the Army has always had enough, and usually more than enough, to accomplish what is needed most. Some might believe the current financial crisis is God’s way of cleansing the church from pride and self–reliance so that we will learn to trust Him more. That may or may not be the case, but in such times, everyone is forced to re–evaluate their priorities and realign their methods. Perhaps this is a good time, possibly the best time, to adjust the balance of trust that will allow God to do what He has always done: provide for His work through the ministry of those who trust Him, especially in tough times. The expanded work of George Müeller continues today through The Müeller Charitable Trust in Bristol, England. This article was published in Priority! Magazine. Read my latest article in the current issue.  Google it!

My Hero

There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus is my ultimate contrarian hero. The next in line for me is C.S. Lewis, a man of incomparable gray-matter who was voted the most influential Christian writer of the 20th century. (That was the last one, right?)

One of the things I like best about Lewis is his disarming way of being brilliantly and charitably contrary. Most people see things one way but he invariably points out a better, or bigger way to think about virtually any subject. I have read him so long that I'm allowing my similar nature to thrive, not that he and I ought to be compared. As I said in my book about another hero, Brennan Manning, my squeak compared to his roar is laughable, none-the-less, I keep squeaking.

(I'm extremely happy to report that someone very dear to me told me this week that reading my book (see link) reminded them of reading Lewis! They meant they had to take it in small portions and think about it before proceeding. I don't understand that completely but I'll take it, believe me!)

Here is a good example of how Lewis thought and why he wins yet another Contrarian of the Day Award:

"Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think ... of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time or another.... The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think that love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence at trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man." Mere Christianity

In my book, Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work, I take some time to make the same point about the many impulses that come to us daily. Some of them may feel seamy when they arrive while others appear to be full of divine sanctity. Regardless of their condition, or the nature of their arrival, we have the time and the responsibility to examine each to discern their potential for good or evil.

Response (Response - Ability) is completely different than reacting. We get in trouble when we react to impulses, and most likely stay pretty clean when we respond to them - according to our values, commitments and covenants. Is lust evil? It is when it wins our hearts and minds. Is laughter good? Not when looking into a former business partner's casket for the first time. (Play that out with any impulse you can think of and see how right Lewis is.)

In my book, I call those impulses prayer triggers. That is to say, anything that comes to us can immediately be used to create a moment of prayer. If it's troublesome, turn it into a moment of discernment by asking hard questions about what it means or where it plans to take you if you follow it. On the other hand, if it feels like it is something good, use it as a moment of gratitude and praise to bring yourself into the presence of God. (Psalm 100:4)

Don't fall for everything you hear. Be a little contrary with some of the dogma that wants to devour your mind. Heck, if you tell me about it, you may end up winning an award from this desolate blogger.

Blessings.

Jack

Oprah Use To Go To Sunday School

“According to a stunning new survey by America's Research Group, 95 percent of 20 to 29 year old evangelicals attended church regularly during their elementary and middle school years. However, only 55 percent of them attended church regularly during high school, and only 11 percent of them were still regularly attending church when in college... 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 indicated that they had no religion... According to the Barna Group and the United Methodist Church, 62 percent of Americans in that age group consider themselves to be "spiritual", and 43 percent of them have prayed to some higher power in the last 2 months.

But what it does mean is that almost half of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 do not identify themselves with any particular religion.

And when you look at more recent poll numbers for Christianity in particular, the numbers become even more staggering.

Another new survey by the Barna group reveals that less than 1 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 hold a Biblical worldview. This new poll data clearly demonstrates that the youngest adults in America are clearly rejecting traditional evangelical Christian teaching.

The Barna survey defined "a Biblical worldview" as holding all of the following six key beliefs:

1. Believing that absolute moral truth exists.
2. Believing that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
3. Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic.
4. Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works.
5. Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
6. Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.” http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/the-decline-of-christianity-in-america”

Given the information above, I conclude there is a problem in the church that transcends anything we can imagine, and there can be no sidestepping of the issue or ignoring its relevance to the future of the church as we know it. These facts are a ticking time bomb that will explode sometime in the next generation and result in even more dead churches and lost Kingdom opportunities.

It’s always been true that the college experience literally removes fledglings from the nests that long provided nurture and support and forces young people to try their wings. Given the “progressive” nature of most higher institutional educators, traditional values are challenged, at best, and ridiculed at worst. But, to be fair, isn’t college supposed to expose new world views and encourage eager young minds to consider alternative intellectual and spiritual options to their previously guarded existences?

It’s almost as if higher education says, “Okay. Your parents have had you long enough. Now it’s our turn to mold your mind toward a better, more enlightened view of the world.”

Unfortunately, they may be right. The traditional views and values held by mainstream Christian denominations don’t cut it with young adults. In fact, the continual decline in church identification and involvement outlined above suggests traditional “Church values” don’t cut it with adults either.

One conservative reaction to such volatile rhetoric (not to mention the factual realities) is to assume that the current generation of parents and offspring have simply “wandered away from the truth ... which, by the way, we still possess.” To fall for such logic, however, suggests that what’s needed is a good dose of the old time religion. Or, for people to get saved and find Jesus as their personal savior.

Unfortunately, that school of thought which prevailed for centuries rests on a cracked foundation that’s crumbling under the pressure of the new reality. Getting saved use to be the panacea for all personal and social maladies. Unfortunately, people no longer see their condition as a malady, but instead prefer freedom of spirit to just be acceptably spiritual without being a Christian.

It’s no longer a virtue to be called a Christian. In fact, it’s a liability when dealing with the hoards of people who leave the church because it, or the God it peddles, has failed to live up to its billing.

I suggest there are a number of related primary reasons why people jettison the Christian faith system as they are doing around the world. And, none of my list has to do with their personal immorality or lack of spiritual awareness. Here’s may take on what they may be:

1. The foundational issue, from which all the others flow is this: The rhetoric of Christianity doesn’t jibe with reality. For example, saints say many things about God’s love, yet for most people on this earth, life really sucks. The experience of trying to get through the day, much less the year, suggests that God isn’t all He’s cracked up to be, and He’s certainly not as loving or personal as gushing church ladies claim He is to them. He’s remote, silent and distant – at best – and destructive, hateful and mean-spirited at worst. Read the Bible if you don’t believe that.
2. Most church goers were raised to believe what the pastor or the denomination said it true. Therefore, the initial exposure to church tradition is given to children, usually in sunday school. (Oprah used to go to sunday school in Mississippi.) And, despite all the talk about Christian’s being loving people and the church a safe place, individuals, congregations, and denominations bicker all the way to heaven. And worse, pastors and priests have regular morality break downs as they lead their flocks to the Promised Land. The average, unversed, believer blindly follows their denomination’s intellectual champions, most of who lived in the middle ages, or earlier. To question established church doctrine usually creates looks of fear or anger, and the status of the seeker’s eternal soul is placed in doubt. “You must obey the home office if you want to continue to be part of this loving circle of believers.”
3. The scripture is possibly the primary source of the disenfranchisement of one-time sunday school children. The fundamentalist is adamant that any who don’t believe the Bible comes directly from God’s lips to man’s ears is ostracized, if not worse. The other view of the Bible that it’s man’s attempt to explain, experience and define God, simply blows the “spiritual chaff” out the church’s back door. The studies show that viewing the Bible through the first lens repels people away from the church and ubiquitous dogma defines Christian faith and practice, mostly because the church lady can’t explain away the problems the Bible creates. So people leave. Rigid views no longer represent the truth, nor are they the best way to keep the pews full of eager worshippers.
4. There are serious contradictions in what people intuitively feel is right. Dark, heavy lines divide Christians among themselves, and from society. Confusing social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the role of women both in the church and in the market place, and the very nature of truth itself (Jesus) are too easily addressed by much of the church. “Why do Christians make everything into black and white issues?” That used to work, but it doesn’t now. Thinking and individual experience trumps the one time virtue of being absolutely sure that your way is the only way.
5. The language of the church is confusing, if not misleading. Therefore people want to go where others speak plainly and honestly, not according to an unseen approved script passed down from headquarters or heaven. When marginal believers – or restless unsettled individuals – encounter words like: “God told me ... What is God saying to you?” or the classic, “Jesus is my personal savior and my best friend”, the back door can’t be close enough.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect it’s found dwelling within the confines of the following divine traits:

Truth

Honesty

Relevance

Tolerance

Charity

When Christians turn their faith into a system, it fails to attract people to the Light. In fact, it drives them away to lesser lights. This is a post- modern age full of people who no longer believe they have to toe the line and believe or behave according someone’s clearly failing principles.

Today, to reach people for Christ, something has to change. Specifically, He must be lifted up and made relevant. It takes personal discipline and dedication to relate to Him, however, and nothing else – not the Bible, the church, its traditions or other Christian dogma can take His place. He said if He was lifted up He would do the heavy lifting of drawing all people to Him.

So, showing up and sitting thorough worship, even participating in it, isn’t enough to lift Him high enough for someone outside the chapel walls to see who He is.

Faith must first be personal, flexible and somehow made valuable enough to pursue it as Jesus suggested His followers ought to. Right now, the demographics of the crumbling church prove it’s currently not any of those qualities for millions of fleeing potential saints.

The Lord said He would build His church and not even the power of Hell can stand against it, but fortunately, this isn’t a pitched battle between believers and Beelzebub just yet. It’s more of a battle between comfortable good and uncomfortable best. Unfortunately, it seems the church has settled for good because the price of best is too high to pay.

Jack C. Getz

October 27, 2010

A Christian Contrarian's Conversations

A Christian Contrarian's Conversations

Is this how you do it?

I received the following scripture verse and commentary today:

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." (Revelation 1:7)

"Soon will be the coming of the Lord from clouds and on high! At long last, all creation will bow before Him in full recognition of His majesty and glory. Praise the Lord all you people! Lift His name on high! Bask in the redemptive power of His blood! Believe on Him and be saved in the final day!"

To which I responded:

"Why do you say the coming of the Lord will be soon? Wags have been sharing that dogma for thousands of years, possibly to scare ignorant people into salvation or to comfort the saints by using false prophecy. It's both misleading and unsupported by Scripture and it sounds like you know something you don't. No man can know such things. If that's your opinion, why not preface your statement by saying " I believe" before making such an unsupportable and misleading claim?

For the record, I believe that more harm is done to the cause of the Kingdom through the spreading of such bad dogma than all the affairs and failures of prominent Christians combined."

Flippant faith dogma, such as the opening line in the commentary above, is deadly because it presents personal suppositions as facts. So, when the facts don't pan out in real life experience, two things take the blame: 1) your faith, because you can't make it work like others say it ought to, and 2) God, because failed dogma makes His promises sound like blarney. Dogma is deadly to the spirit because it kills reason, ignores experience, calls for faith in man-made doctrine, creed or opinions and short-circuits the process by which sincere seekers of truth work out their own salvation.

Dogma is everywhere in the church and it blocks the believer's view of God, faith, prayer, repentance and reconciliation, to name a few.

Where do you see it, smell it or hear it?

I'd be interested in what you have to say.

Jack

A friend recently took a bad spill in the shower, broke a couple of ribs, strained a knee and tore a meniscus. It sounds awful. Her take on it has led to my comments below. What she said that got me thinking was that she was getting a little spiritually complacent (my word) so God had to "whack" (her word) to get her attention.

My response to her is this:

"God disciplines us as He chooses but a spill in the bathtub isn't His way. That's punishment not discipline. He can use, however, any circumstance to draw us to Him. I fear religious types attribute everything that happens in life to God. I guess if you're a Calvinists that fits because they believe everything is in His sovereign plan. I say...never mind what I say about that. There are plenty of things He doesn't have anything to do with but when people need a rationale, or don't understand how something can be, they give God the credit. Some say, "Boy, God sure loves us. He gave us a beautiful day for our picnic." but they never say, "God sure hates us. He sent rain to ruin our picnic." You've got to be consistent when crediting things to God. God doesn't send rain or sunshine to show us He loves us, or that we are in His favor. I don't think He's got anything to do with the weather.Whatever the weather is, it's good for some and bad for others. The farmers love it but the picnickers hate it. I also don't think He ought t get all the credit for every problem we face. Our trials demonstrate the nature of our character, not His. James says all good gifts are from God and a broken rib and torn up knee are not good gifts. They are accidents that happen, not for a reason, but because accidents happen. God can use them, however, even though He doesn't will them to us or enjoy the pain they produce in us. Instead of saying God did this so He could teach me something or stop me from going somewhere, why not say Satan did it because he hates you? Or best, you did it because you slipped. Christians operate on way too much dogma, not truth, and I see what you said as classic dogma, even though you are sincere and believe what you say. The key is that you can choose to use the circumstance to gain intimacy with Him, and to be more careful in the shower. Sorry you asked? Jack "

I think I'm right, but I often do. How about you?

A Reflection On Easter

A Reflection on Easter Sunday
for the
Discovery Class
Dr. Colin Morris - Mercer University
My Sunday School Teacher

April 12, 2009

(This is a slightly modified version of a reflection piece that some of us looked at three years ago at Eastertime. Maybe it can serve as a lesson preview for this Sunday as we focus on what it means to be an “Easter people. Please take advantage also of the Holy Week Meditations that are available at the church’s website www.smokerisebaptist.org)

In modern time, the journey from Christmas to Easter is not a very long one – somewhere between three and four months, depending on the calendar and the spring equinox. By the time we have put away the decorations and returned the gifts that need exchanging, Ash Wednesday arrives and the count-down to Easter, known as Lent, begins.

Even in the historical perspective, the journey is relatively brief – thirty three years or so, depending on how we read the hints in the gospels that help us measure the time. One lifetime, albeit a short one, from a birth heralded as the focal point of history, to a gruesome death and mysterious resurrection that drew and held together that small band of followers who started that journey of Easter faith that we still share – not a very long period in the scope of history.

Our seasonal celebrations of both these events – Christmas and Easter – abbreviate a lot. After all, there are other holidays to attend to; and they do come around once a year. We don’t have to worry about shortchanging them, because we will celebrate them again soon. Even our view of the historical events they represent is somewhat limited by the meager information we have about them both. Christmas is Jesus’ birth, and Easter is his resurrection from the dead – that’s the beginning and end of the story – what else is there to say?

I have begun to wonder if we do in fact shortchange a reality like Easter by thinking of it as a holiday, or even as an historical event. To be sure, it is a highly significant celebration in the life of the church; and it is often presented as the central affirmation of the Christian faith: “He is risen!” And, its roots in concrete history remind us that the God we worship is a God who acts in history on behalf of God’s people and the rest of creation. To remove the covenant faith of the Bible from the arena of history into some metaphysical spiritual realm is to miss one of clearest emphases: “... and he shall be called Immanuel – God with us” “... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ...” ... the Kingdom of God is within (or among) you ...” “ ... he is risen! and you will see him in Galilee” “Behold, the dwelling of God is with humankind.” Our faith is an historical faith, because we live in history; and it is in history that God has promised to be with us.

But, even though our faith is rooted in history, it also looks beyond the windows of history to eternity, where the mystery of God and of life has a timeless quality. Today, when all of Western Christendom celebrates the event of Easter (the Eastern Orthodox tradition will celebrate it next Sunday), I wonder if it might be a helpful thing to do to consider the resurrection of our Lord beyond the level of an historical remembrance and think of it as a spiritual reality that points beyond the event itself to an eternal truth that we can embrace and share with the world as truly good news.

Maybe it would be best to consider this thought in terms of a question:

Is the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ a series of events that signal a change in the way God deals with the world; or are they a series of disclosures (revelations) of who God is and how God has always and will always deal with the world?

To be Easter-specific: is the resurrection of Christ a unique event that represents a turning point in God’s relation to history and the world; or is it a profound revelation of the eternal dimensions of the mystery of life in all times and places?


If it is the latter half of each of these questions, then the resurrection we celebrate at Easter changes from a picture to look at to a lens to look through; and the world and everyone and everything in it is seen through this powerful affirmation that what we know of life is not all there is to life.

In this way of thinking, Jesus – his life, death and resurrection – becomes the incarnation of a truth that lies beyond him: the mystery of eternal life; and we look with his help to a God whose nature is creative, redemptive, and eternal. Easter does not represent a change in God’s character or God’s relation to the world – it reveals what God’s character has been all along, and the way God has and will deal with the world.

But herein lies the problem: if we allow ourselves to focus too much of our attention on the specific details of the event or the pointer, we may not see the truth it is pointing to. There is more to this truth than the volume of our claims that Christ is the savior who “makes us right with God.” In him God invites us not only to see his special birth, but to see in every birth an incarnation; not only to see his agony on the cross, but to see in every death God’s participation in suffering; and not only to behold the empty tomb on Easter morning, but to embrace a God of history and eternity, with whom all tombs are empty.

“He is risen!” Indeed – and with him so is all of life. Alleluia – thanks be to God!

God is not love!

This is a paragraph from my forthcoming book that speaks to the nature of God and love. I receive support for this Contrarian view from the brilliance of two of my primary mentors for this view.

God is not love!

"When someone says, “God is love” they identify Him as the source and embodiment of love, but actually He is not love any more than He is justice, or mercy, or grace. He is much more. The great C.S. Lewis distinguished God’s love from the romantic’s false notion that “love is God” and A.W. Tozer amplifies Lewis by resoning that God is not love because love is not God. Love describes an attribute of God but it is not a proper object of worship. So, with both Lewis and Tozer, I concluded that the world and the people of flesh may worship love but children of the spirit simply experience and share love but we only worship God. (The Knowledge of the Holy. Page 97)" Chapter Six

This is where the action starts for this blog. I make a blog comment and you, the faithful contributor, makes a comment, contribution or correction about my blather. Just click the word "Comments" and go at it!

I'd like to discuss the matter of repentance.

Some believe repentance is saying "I'm sorry". We heard that in the old 1970's movie, Love Story, that love is a place where we never have to say "I'm sorry". In one respect I understand the sentiment. If we love someone there ought to be some serious tolerance or grace toward them and vise versa. But, I can't imagine when it's ever inappropriate to apologize, if we have been abusive with or insensitive toward another person.

I find myself saying "I'm sorry" much more than I like. The reason is not that I don't like to apologize - on the contrary, I find the act to be exhilarating and cleansing, but I hate the fact that I can say things - usually in an attempt to be clever- are taken wrong or that I might put another person in a position of feeling vulnerable, humiliated or even unsafe.

Just recently I was less gracious than I want to be with three individuals, at church, of all places. While my comments were completely harmless, in trying to be clever or sound intelligent, I embarrassed myself and needed to apologize to three people before lunch. My vows and values to be gracious in all encounters didn't last very long that day.

Some would say I just had a bad morning, but think I failed the repentance test.

When we fail to make the changes that we desire in our behavior, we exist in what I call the Repentance Gap. That's the place between our regrets, remorse or apologies and the next opportunity to repeat an offense. If we don't repeat, we have repented.

Repentance is not just apologizing or promising better behavior. Those who are abusive by nature-physically, verbally or emotionally- always apologize and make promises but they do it again. But their repentance is not complete because don't understand what Martin Luther meant when he said that true repentance means "to do it no more."

So, if not having to say "I'm sorry" means measured communications and behaviors as well as living so apologies are not needed, I think they got it right.

The good news is that if we blow it and long to turn the clock back and try again, we can find hope in the teachings of Steven Covey. He says when we break trust with another person, the only way to restore it is to make and keep small promises. (My paraphrase)To do this is proactive and responsive, not reactive and repetitive.

Our grand apologies, even if accompanied by tears, chocolates and flowers, are empty if bad persists. The only way to rebuild a damaged wall is to reverse the process of the damage-brick by brick. And the only way to avoid broken trust is to learn to live so we won't break it. Until that happens, all forms of repentance are just remorse.

The people I admire the most are those who are good to their word and live their values with grace. Living one's values is done by knowing what is valued and exercising the character and commitment needed to respond to life in the context of those values.

What do you think?

How to get into blog comments.

This is my second rave review and my effort to see how it works for those who want to contribute.

Check "Sign In" which I think will get registration information. Then the Post Comments link. I think. Push Publish Post below. I'm not sure the tabs are the same names as I said here, but you get the idea!

Great blog, Jack. Just what we need!