http://lafayettecc.org/news/gatherings/080-born-this-way/

Now, I promised you that I would write some articles here regarding some of the most controversial passages in the Bible regarding gender, and as a matter of fact, I have addressed a good number of them in my four sermons on the topic, but in the process, I have not had the time to write up the articles I wanted to write.

I’m thinking I should probably take my notes from those messages and post some of their content here, but I can’t promise anything right now.

However, there’s one thing I wanted to post before the series is completely out of my head. It’s an analogy on gender from the world of music.

• God wants male and female humans to live in harmony, not unison.
• God is calling men to set the melody and women to create the harmony.
• God is the bass notes with which the rest of the notes must agree.

Check out my video on the topic. Here’s the youtube clip. Skip to 8 minutes, and you’ll see me try to illustrate this with a piano!

The biggest problem for me was that for most of the week, I was wrestling with how to tackle the message. You see, there are a lot of controversial passages in the Bible when it comes to gender issues, and I always want to teach the Bible in a compelling, motivational way, and I am always cautious to teach in such a way that the contentious emotions can be defused. So I struggled with the message.

I actually had two different angles I could have gone with the message. One angle was to tackle the emotions by sharing personal stories in light of Genesis 1-3 and illustrating the beauty of our gender differences. The other angle was to survey the major passages in the Bible to get a comprehensive overview of its teaching.

The first option would have been shorter and easier, the second option felt more necessary. After talking with my wife, I agreed to go the second route. However, that meant I picked the more elaborate route. As it so happened, I completely ran out of time on Sunday and decided that I would post a few articles here to address what I couldn’t cover on Sunday.

I will separate them all into different posts based on the Bible passages, so stay tuned!

This past Sunday, I ended our service by taking some live questions from the congregation, but I wasn’t able to address all the questions live. Therefore I’m tackling some of them through this blog.

Does this mean that you cannot be a Christian unless you go to church?

The simple answer is that you can be a Christian without going to church if you define “Christian” to mean “I have been saved.” (Salvation does not depend on going to church or anything else you do. It is a gift from God. See Ephesians 2:8-10). You can also be a Christian without going to church if you define “church” as “an event where I show up, sit, soak, and leave 60 minutes later.”

However, if you define Christian to mean “follower of Jesus” and if you understand “church” to mean “the universal family of God, specifically expressed in local fellowships” then you can’t be a Christian and intentionally avoid the church. Reading the rest of Ephesians will make it clear that God did not save us to be isolated individuals destined for heaven. To the contrary, Jesus died for us to cleanse us of sin and thereby bring us into God’s family! Reading 1 John will remind you that you can’t love God and hate his family.

Even more strongly, John speaks of people who were once part of his church and then decided to leave the church:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. — 1 John 2:19

To state it strongly, every true follower of Jesus will pursue frequent fellowship with other believers that involves locality, leadership, mutual submission, expression of gifts, discipleship, evangelism, ministry, and worship. Any fellowship expressing all of that is rightly called a church.

This past Sunday, I ended our service by taking some live questions from the congregation, but I wasn’t able to address all the questions live. Therefore I’m tackling some of them through this blog.

If the church is the community of believers who are to be continually gathering and working to build the kingdom, why do we meet on Sunday mornings the way we do? How does this fit and/or conflict with the picture of the church in Acts?

One of the claims I made on Sunday was that modern day people who say things like “I don’t want to go to church, I want to be the church” as an excuse to not be a regular part of a local church are fooling themselves. Of course, I agree that no one should merely “go to church” because in the Bible, “church” isn’t something you go to. “Church” in the New Testament refers to the people not an event or a location. Therefore, no individual can “be the church” because “the church” by definition (based on the word Jesus used: ekklesia) is an association of people. If anyone is “being” the church, they are being the church with other people.

Anyway, in discussing that point, I reminded everyone that if they don’t want to go to church on Sunday, they don’t have to. They could do what the first century Christians did and meet every day in public places and in people’s homes. I was speaking a bit facetiously because I knew that the expression of Christianity found in the book of Acts would be rather difficult to reproduce in the hustle and bustle of modern American society.

Nevertheless, this question (quoted above) is profoundly applicable to us today. Basically, the point is that if first century Christianity was so “organic” and ingrained in every part of life, why do we reduce modern Christianity to Sunday worship?

I have to answer this question by dealing with it in two different ways.

Christianity is not Sunday Worship

I could harp on this one all day long, but I’ll simply say that I totally AGREE with the sentiment of the question. Christianity is so much more than Sunday Worship. Christianity is so much more than creating a service with music and professional teachers and kids programs and brochures and greeters and refreshments, etc., etc. Christianity is so much more than attending those services.

Christianity has always been about people reconciled to God, reconciled to others, meeting together for corporate worship, for mutual growth, for pooling resources to do good, and for proclaiming the good news of Jesus.

That can happen on Sunday morning, Tuesday night, Wednesday afternoon, or even daily at lunch. The chosen interval of time between gatherings is irrelevant, but the gatherings are still necessary. In fact, the gatherings are commanded in Scriptures like Hebrews 10.

Therefore, we should never reduce Christianity to church attendance, even though cultural questions like “Do you go to church?” almost presuppose that very reduction. It would be much more threatening, but more accurate, to ask, “Are you living like Jesus?” or “Does your life reflect the gospel?”

Sunday Worship and/or “Church Attendance” is Purposeful

Even though Christianity cannot be reduced to church attendance, there are very good reasons why they are so closely linked. In fact, I can think of four reasons why Church Service Attendance should be considered essential to the Christian life.

1. Church Services are a historical union of Sabbath Observance and Resurrection Celebration

Remember that the earliest Christians were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. As Jews, it was standard practice for them to go to the synagogue (Jewish religious gathering) each Sabbath. God had commanded that the Jewish people preserve the holiness of the seventh day of the week, and they did so by gathering together to worship God with songs/prayers and with teaching from the Torah (the Hebrew Bible). Those who lived in Jerusalem would have likely spent their Sabbath in the courts of the temple and would have seen sacrifices or even offered sacrifices.

However, when Jesus was raised from the dead, the earliest Christians began to celebrate on a new day of the week as well. Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, the first day of the week, and that began a tradition among Christians of celebrating every Sunday. They continued to honor the Sabbath in principle by setting aside one day out of seven, but many chose Sunday to be that day in honor of the Resurrection.

Therefore, Sunday worship is a way of unifying the Old and New Testaments. It is one day out of seven, following the principle of the Sabbath, and it is on the first day to commemorate the greatest miracle of all time.

But that’s not all that history teaches us.

2. Sunday Worship gained prominence as faith became re-integrated.

One thing that is essential to remember about the book of Acts is that the earliest Christians did much of what they did with the belief that Jesus was coming back VERY SOON. I mean, they thought he’d be back in a few days or even in a week or so. That’s the major reason the church in Jerusalem grew so big so fast. There were all these people who visited Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, heard the gospel, and chose to not return to normal life. So what do you do when a church of 120 is suddenly infused with 3000 newcomers, many of whom are not locals? There was great hospitality, there was a strong “house to house” culture. People sold property to buy food for all these newcomers.

No one needed to go back home to work, no one needed to keep property, no one needed to worry about going broke because Jesus was coming back possibly this very day! The long term result of this behavior is that the church in Jerusalem eventually did go broke and Paul twice had to run a fundraising campaign to meet the needs of that church.

You see, the first church was an “apocalyptic” community that expected the end of the world to be at any moment. They didn’t work. They met every day, all the time.

However, after years and years, Jesus still hadn’t come back, and the needs of everyday living came back to the forefront of people’s minds. The church, then re-integrated their faith into normal life. They went to work, they worked six days out of the week, they worshiped on Sunday.

Therefore, Sunday worship serves the purpose of giving people a way of keeping faith a part of everyday normal life.

3. Church Services allow certain gifts to be expressed that can’t otherwise.

In the Old Testament, God commanded that there be only one Temple. Before that, there was only one Tabernacle. Having only one place where worship happened meant that the very best of the best craftsmanship could be displayed there. Gold could be abundant in that place. Ornamentation could be more elaborate. Since God gives greater talents in rarer amounts, some talents can only be expressed in large gatherings. Some teaching gifts, music gifts, and leadership gifts are better expressed in larger gatherings. Of course, some gifts are better expressed in small gatherings, but that doesn’t diminish the need for the large gatherings too.

4. Finally, Church Services provide a modern day expression of the “temple courts”

We are told in the early chapters of Acts that the first Christians met from house to house and also in the temple courts. That’s significant because the temple courts served a key role in their society:

• The temple courts were places where Gentiles were also welcome to honor and worship God.
• The temple courts were public places with clear religious significance so that all were welcome, but their presence indicated they were open to spiritual truth.
• The temple courts were large enough to handle large gatherings and to allow the proclamation of the message of Jesus to reach believers and unbelievers alike.

Simply put, the temple courts were the place where Jews, Gentiles, believers and unbelievers together could hear the message of Jesus, worship God, and experience the presence of God.

Home-based groups can’t do all that.

So, back to the question…

After all that, let’s return to the original question.

Question: Considering the behavior of the earliest Christians, why do we do Sunday Worship services at all?

Answer: (1) The earliest Christians began by living an unrealistic communal life based on end-of-the-world beliefs, but as they began to realize the importance of living faithfully in the midst of their everyday world, they established the practice of uniting Sabbath principles with Resurrection celebration. Our Sunday Worship follows that historical tradition for the same historical reasons. (2) Sunday Worship allows people to experience certain spiritual gifts in ways that can’t be experienced through casual “organic” gatherings in smaller settings. (3) Sunday Worship offers the modern church the ability to have a predictable presence in the midst of the culture, welcoming believer and unbeliever alike to hear the message of Jesus and experience the presence of God.

This question was posed to me on facebook recently, so I thought I’d share my answer here as well:

Thanks Jeff. Where would you place, say the apostle Paul on the political spectrum (or could you?):

That’s an interesting question. However, I don’t think it is answerable. Our modern day understanding of Politics is irrelevant in a society that predates Adam Smith, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and the like. There was no such thing as conservative or liberal. There was no such thing as democracy like we know. Perhaps the ancient Greeks in Athens knew something of democracy like we do, but in Paul’s day, Rome was the be all and end all of all things governmental.

Paul certainly would not have known anything along the lines of “economics” either.

However, Paul clearly taught a few things of relevance to the modern day debate:

• Everyone must submit to governing authority.
• Everyone must have a heart for the poor.

• Everyone must eliminate greed.

• Within the church, the truly poor are to be distinguished from the lazy.

• Within the church, the families should take care of their own before burdening the church.

If (and this is a big if) we can extrapolate from Paul’s teaching on the church to an understanding of society as a whole, then we can conclude that Paul advocates for personal responsibility and for a hierarchy of support structures. That is, the state should take care of their own who are not served by the church, the church should take care of their own who are not served by their families, the families should take care of their own who are not able to work. No one should take care of those who are unwilling to work.

Paul would be conservative with regard to the biblically relevant parts of our constitution, he would speak up for personal responsibility and for civil, moral and social justice. But he would likely let people languish if they were simply being lazy.

Therefore, I don’t think there is a place on that map for Paul.

In the process, I have been learning things about the Theory of Evolution that have really interested me. I’ll get to a couple of those things in a moment, but first, let me tell you my perspective on the whole evolution and creation issue.

My Baseline Perspective on Biblical Creation

Two things inform my understanding of the teaching of the Bible regarding the Creation event.

1. Genesis never claims to give us the mechanism of God’s creative process, but there is insight in the grammatical structure of God’s creative commands. They are mostly structured in the passive voice. God commands that something should be done, but doesn’t directly declare the mechanism by which they should be done except in a few cases. In one case, God says, “Let the land produce vegetation” (Ge 1:11). In one case, he says, “Let the land produce living creatures” (Ge 1:24). Finally, in the climax of the scene, God says, “Let us make man” (Ge 1:26). Therefore, it is biblically supported that God gives the power to produce life to the earth itself, but he himself presides over the creation of the first human beings.
2. The days of creation may be literal days or metaphorical days or something in between. For example, they could be put into a framework where the author of the creation story is writing a first-hand account of what he saw during 6 consecutive days of visionary revelation. It’s possible that Moses, on Mount Sinai was given as it were a timelapse video vision of the history of the earth from the perspective of an observer hovering just above the surface of the earth. Nevertheless, the mathematical calculations of the age of the earth and the age of the universe are based on our understanding of the timeline of current-day natural processes (i.e. Carbon 14 decay). It is entirely plausible to me that the creator of the universe could have made everything as it is in six days and on the seventh day “rested” by slowing down the natural processes of the universe to the speed at which we observe them today. Was the universe actually created 13.7 billion years ago? Possibly. I accept that number as a mathematical reality expressing the consistency of scientific discovery even though I also accept that God could have started his creative work 6000 years ago. I am not threatened by the math indicating the earth is 5 billion years old.

So, about evolution

With these two things in mind, I have generally been able to reconcile my belief 100% with the theories of modern evolutionary science. I am not threatened by the claims of Darwinists that natural selection is capable of producing all the biodiversity that we see, and I am not scared by the theory that natural selection is capable of producing the appearance of design and even rudimentary social morality.

However, I have always maintained that human beings were a categorically different thing than all other animals. The account of Genesis 1, the account of Genesis 2, and Jesus’ later confirmation of the historicity of Adam and Eve have led me to believe that humans were specially created by God to be a completely new thing on the planet.

How do I deal with all the “hominid” claims in science like Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, and others? Well, I have always maintained that those animals were highly skilled primates, but categorically different from Adam and Eve and the species we call Homo Sapiens. Humans were formed from the dust of the ground.

Recently, though, I have learned some things that have challenged my thinking regarding the potential link between homo sapiens and other hominid species. Here are a couple of the things I have learned:

• The laryngeal nerve in humans is exactly like that in other mammals and is an example of a confusing design element. The nerve goes from the spine to the larynx (voice box) by traveling all the way down to the heart, looping through the aorta and back up to the larynx. It seems to be an incredibly inefficient design, but a look at the evolutionary “tree of life” gives a clear demonstration of animals where that pathway makes sense (in fish for example). Therefore, humans maintain a characteristic of other animals that in our case (and in the case of all mammals) doesn’t make sense.
• During the development of a human baby in the womb, there is a yolk sack present in the first few weeks of gestation. That sack is empty in human development, but it is exactly the same in many respects as the yolk sack in a reptile’s egg. Finally, humans have the same yolk-producing genes in our DNA as reptiles and birds do, but in our case, they are non-functional.
• Also during fetal development, at roughly the six month mark, human babies develop a thick coat of hair, that later falls off before birth. (I wonder if that’s why Esau was born so hairy?) This development of hair exactly mirrors the development of hair in primates like chimpanzees.

These three things indicate that God did not design Adam and Eve from scratch but that he reused a huge amount of the DNA of existing animals.

That in and of itself is not totally disturbing to me, but it shows me how there is a clear sequential set of developmental steps that connect us to other species on earth.

Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve

So how can I reconcile the evidence of human evolution with the teaching that Adam and Eve were both specially created and also the first human beings?

Here’s my thinking on that:

• God created Adam by taking the best DNA available (hominid DNA) and shaping a being from the material of earth. He may have had a biological parent (and therefore a bellybutton); although, I tend to believe he did not.
• God breathed into Adam the breath of life (Ge 2:7). If he were the biological child of a hominid, this was the transformative moment that changed him from “hominid” to “human.” If he were a completely new biological entity, this was the moment that started his life as a human.
• Anthropology indicates that the first humans began in Africa, but the Bible prefers Mesopotamia as the origin of humanity. It is a conflict unless we recognize that (1) we don’t know where Eden actually was, and (2) Genesis 2:8 tells us that God placed Adam in the garden after he was formed. God did not make Adam in the Garden of Eden.
• After the fall, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and would likely have encountered other hominids. This could explain where Cain got his wife, and this could also explain why God chose to have such similar DNA between humans and other hominids. Finally, it could also explain the strange account in Genesis 6 when “the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.”

Therefore, I find it still plausible that God could have made Adam and Eve from completely new biological material choosing to reuse a huge percentage of existing DNA code, but I am also open to the possibility that Adam at least was the biological child of a soulless hominid but became a “living soul” when God breathed on him the “breath of life.”

What do you think?

Okay, it’s finally time for me to begin tackling this question. The problem is that I don’t really know the answers so this is going to be a general musing with some of my own hunches. Therefore, I’m really interested to know your opinions on it too. Perhaps together, we can figure some of this out.

That is how I started writing this post, but that was two weeks ago, and I still don’t have any really good answer for this question, so I’m posting this now just to let you know I’m still working on it.

I’m going to be reading a book called Surprising Insights from the Unchurched to figure out the major factors leading people outside the world of church to explore the church world in the first place.

As a result, I have a few ideas on why Christians go to church when they go. Please weigh in with your perspective as well.

main reason: obligation

“Church is the right thing to do.”

I think the most prevalent reason Christians attend church services is that they believe church attendance is the right thing to do. Perhaps they were raised to go to church. Perhaps they read my previous post or another article somewhere telling them they should go to church. Perhaps they read the Bible and were convinced themselves of the moral rightness of going to church.

However, that kind of motivation plays out in different frequencies for different people. Paying my taxes is the right thing to do, but I only have to fill out paperwork once a year. Going to church may be the right thing to do, but that doesn’t tell me how often I need to do it. Some people go every week. Some go whenever it’s convenient. Some go on Easter only.

The bottom line is that Christians who go to church do so in large part because they think it’s the right thing to do. From that point of view, the only question for a churchgoing Christian is which church they should attend.

secondary reasons

Christians who are convinced they should go to church are only limited by their schedules and their felt needs regarding which church to attend. If they can find a church that meets their criteria, they’ll attend it (again, frequency is a completely different issue), if they can’t find one church that meets their criteria, they’ll bounce around, and if they can’t find a church that works for them, they’ll still go to church, just even more sporadically than they normally would.

George Barna released some statistics back in 1999 on why people chose the church they chose. I got this chart from churchrelevance.com.

Top 9 Reasons that Church-Attenders Choose a Church (research conducted by the Barna Group in 1999)

• 58% – Doctrine/Theology
• 53% – People Caring for Each Other
• 52% – Preaching
• 45% – Friendliness
• 45% – Children’s Programs
• 43% – Helping the Poor
• 36% – Denomination
• 35% – Like the Pastor
• 26% – Sunday School

Of course, that was over ten years ago. I’d like to see some statistics from the past few years. Nevertheless, this list reinforces the kinds of things Christians have been telling me about their church attendance for years.

If I could summarize what I hear from Christians who regularly go to church:

• Christians want to be “fed” or enlightened. They want the teaching of the church to give them moments of serendipity over the content of the Bible or the practice of their lives. The longer a person is a Christian, though, the more moments like that are in their past, the more “knowledge” they have about the Bible, and the harder it is to provide those serendipity moments for them.
• Christians want to be sure their kids are taken care of. Many Christians fear that their children will grow up without the sense of obligation to the church or even without a personal faith commitment, so they want to make sure they have a positive experience with solid Biblical education.
• Christians want to avoid “hypocrisy” and are generally sick of church infighting. If the church has strong leadership, and the feeling of healthy relationships, they will stay. Otherwise, they are likely to leave.
• Christians want to serve. This is last on the list for most that I talk to, but it is a strong motivator for many. They will seek out churches where they can actively use their gifts. However, I have met many Christians who use this as a mental excuse for their true pursuit of influence and recognition. We still have Pharisees in our churches who say they want to use their gifts when they really want people to honor them for their activity.

final thoughts

Even though the first reason is often the most conscious reason (people tell me all the time, “I know I should go to church more”), the secondary reasons are often the real ones. Christians who go to church believe that the church should be beneficial to them, and they will keep looking for churches until they find the one that fits the bill best.

In our church, people seem to come primarily for my teaching. As a result, it seems clear to me that the people who come to our church are consciously looking for the kind of teaching I provide, and the people who don’t return to our church after visiting are either not looking for my kind of teaching specifically or they have placed a higher priority on something else that our church doesn’t do well enough.

What about you?

So these are my musings, but ultimately, I’m more interested to hear what other people have to say. Why do you go to church? What is your real motive for attending church in general, and what are your specific reasons for attending the church you do attend?

I’ll read every one of your comments!

Today, I continue that discussion.

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25

Why Christians SHOULD Go to Church

The writer of Hebrews gives us two reasons people should go to church and two obstacles that must be overcome.

• We go to church for encouragement
• We go to church because time is running out.
• We must overcome habit.
• We must overcome peer-pressure.

We go to church for encouragement

Instead of “giving up” on the gatherings, the passage calls us to come together to encourage one another. There is something powerful when believers get together. Currently, at my church, I am teaching a series of messages on the fact that the Holy Spirit of God consistently works most powerfully in the context of community. There is great power when Christians gather together, and that power is for the encouragement of us all.

Consider what Paul says about the working of the Spirit:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. — 1 Corinthians 12:7

A major reason we gather is for our mutual encouragement.

We go to church because the time is short.

Of course, this passage was written two thousand years ago, and now we are two thousand years closer to the time when Christ returns. The time is even shorter now!

I see in this line something about the purpose of church gatherings that we don’t hear much about. These gatherings are supposed to be motivational. If the time is short, then we need to get moving! Sitting around wasting time isn’t doing any of us any good. The purpose of church is to be a shot in the arm or a kick in the pants for us to get real and get going with what we say we believe.

I also see here that our gatherings should have some component of strategic thinking as well. If the time is short, then we need to more effectively use the time we have, and quite frankly, we can’t use our time wisely unless we are meeting together to strategize and plan and coordinate our efforts.

Why it’s Hard to Go to Church

The writer of Hebrews also mentions two reasons people don’t go to church. Some people develop a habit of not joining with other Christians while other people get sucked into that habit by observing the behavior of the first group.

These things happen naturally when the first two things are missing. In the absence of strategic thinking and cooperative motivation, people tend to fade away from the meetings and develop a habit of not going. Then, their absence is a reverse encouragement, a kind of peer pressure for other people to also stop going. The habit forms a feedback loop leading people away from church.

Some people have had bad experiences with church, but I would venture to say that the vast majority of Christians who don’t go to church are out of the habit because the church they had attended wasn’t behaving with passion, urgency, and strategic thinking in an encouraging environment.

Test your church

As I think about my own church, I’m convicted to keep us moving forward, to develop an encouraging spirit among our people and to get some strategic thinking going all the time so that we have a greater sense of urgency and momentum. That’s the way to live out Hebrews 10:25 in our day.

What about you? How is your church doing? What can you do to be an encouragement to others and to raise the urgency temperature in your church?

to be continued

Today, I dealt with the question of why people should go to church. Tomorrow, I’ll deal with the psychology of why Christians go to church when they do, and then, I’ll address why non-Christians go to church when they do.

However, just last weekend, I heard a statistic that currently 17% of Americans go to church. I think that means specifically that on any given week, only 17% of Americans attend a religious service. The number of people who attend at least one service a month is surely much higher than that, but still, the number is astounding to me.

If two-thirds of the population feels they have a life-altering relationship with Jesus, why is church attendance so low and apparently going down?

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

— Hebrews 10:25

On first glance, it might seem like this verse is irrelevant to people today. The legalist in me wants to blame people for not being obedient to the Word of God, but of course, I can only blame people for disobedience when those people are mature enough to know better. The new Christians, immature Christians, and non-Christians can never be “blamed” when they disobey.

But how do we teach people who don’t come to our “classes” (i.e. Worship Services)?

Well, I have begun thinking a lot about how the worship-service-as-outreach model might be dying, and so let’s take another look at the verse just quoted.

You can see in the verse that there are two reasons we should emphasize the gathering of believers and one obstacle we must overcome.

• We gather for encouragement.
• We gather because time is running out.
• We struggle against habits.

Over the next couple of days, I’ll be posting my thoughts on why we should go to church, why Christians actually do go to church, and why non-Christians go to church when they do.

The question of Biblical “inerrancy” has been raised a number of times particularly in the past 50 years or so. Before answering this question, I think it’s important to simply highlight what the real issue is.

The Foundation of our Faith

The Bible forms the foundation of the Christian faith, and in fact, in one way or another it forms the foundation for the Jewish faith as well as various Christian sects, so the question of the authority of the Bible is one of the most fundamental questions we can answer. It is essential that we establish whether the Bible is an authoritative document or merely a helpful document or something less.

Real authority requires complete reliability

Another reason this question is so important is that in order for the Bible to be considered authoritative in a person’s life it must be a reliable document. If a friend isn’t trustworthy in what he or she tells you, it’s unlikely you will be willing to take advice from that person.

There are many people who might want to believe that the Bible can have spiritual authority in our lives even if it isn’t completely reliable. I can’t accept that kind of reasoning. If the Bible is unreliable in even the smallest part, then for me, it would bring into question other parts. Ultimately, it would boil down to me making a judgment call on each issue to determine if that particular claim were reliable or not. In other words, the authority would not be the Bible. I, as the final evaluator of the claims, would retain the authority for myself, and the Bible could be at best a motivational document but nothing more.

The question we must answer:

Therefore, since the Bible must be completely reliable in order to have any real authority, the question we must answer for ourselves boils down to this, “How accurate (reliable) is the Bible?”

The possible answers can be summarized in these statements:

• The Bible is completely free of any errors of any kind.
• The Bible as it was originally written was completely free of any errors of any kind.
• The Bible as it was originally written was completely free of any factual errors concerning the intended claims of the authors.
• The Bible as correctly interpreted is free of any errors.
• The Bible, correctly interpreted, is authoritative though not entirely without fault.

These are important distinctions because these statements make all the difference in understanding both what the Bible means to say and what it means for my life today. For example, apparent conflicts between the Bible and science only exist if you adopt the first two statements.

However, if you adopt the final statement, there really is no reason to trust the Bible very much because it depends on the work of the interpreter and also on the presupposition that it could be wrong in some areas.

In brief, the first option is naive and ignores the fact that minor spelling and grammatical errors exist in nearly every copy and/or translation of the Bible.

The final option is of no help because if humans have authority of interpretation and determining what is “right” and what is “wrong” in the Bible, then it loses nearly all of its authority over us.

Which option is mine? Which option is that upheld by our church?

From my personal Doctrinal Statement:

I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, divinely inspired human agents to record special revelation in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. This inspiration is such that the written words of Scripture are fully the words of God and fully the words of the human who penned them. Thus, they reflect the personalities and proclivities of the individual authors but are the completely inerrant communication of God to people. That is, the Scriptures as the authors originally intended them are entirely free from error in all matters to which they pertain. They are the final authority of faith and life (Ro 3:2, 16:25ff.; 2Ti 3:16f.; 2Pe 1:20f.).

From my church’s Doctrinal Statement:

The Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. (Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19-21).

Exile

The kingdom of Judah ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the brightest young people to Babylon. However, Jeremiah had predicted that the exile would last only 70 years, and Isaiah even predicted a king named Cyrus would be the one to return the Jews to their homeland. It turned out that both were exactly right.

The Jewish people spent 70 years in exile, and during that time much of the biblical account revolves around the life of a man named Daniel. Daniel was among the most gifted young kids who were deported. He so impressed the kings that he quickly joined the ranks of the most highly influential individuals in the kingdom.

The Babylonians were conquered by the Medes and they by the Persians, but Daniel remained a key leader regardless of kingdom changes–quite a testimony to the character of Daniel and the power of God.

Return to Jerusalem

After the 70 years were up, Cyrus, king of Persia decreed that the Jewish people should be given the right to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city. He sent them out with his own support and financial resources. The two key leaders during this time were Ezra and Nehemiah. Their stories are recounted in the books named after them. The majority of Ezra’s leadership went toward the rebuilding of the temple while Nehemiah focused his leadership on the rebuilding of the walls around Jerusalem. Both of them, however, were instrumental in sparking the people to return to Jerusalem and to renew their spiritual commitment to God and the law of Moses in the process.

The years of their leadership were marked by spiritual revival and renewal.

Meanwhile in Persia

Not all the Jews returned to the land of Israel, however. Some stayed back in Persia for many reasons, and the book of Esther tells the story of how God used the bravery of a young woman (Esther) to rescue the Jews from potential genocide at the hands of the persian king. Nevertheless, after Esther, we lose track of the Jews who remained in Persia, and in fact, the story of Esther is chronologically the last event to be recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.

To be sure, there are some Jewish writings that claim to be a record of the events bridging the gap between Esther and Jesus, and those writings seem to be historically accurate, but they never claimed to be Scripture and the Jews never treated them with the same kind of reverence and respect as they did the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Prophets

Placing the prophets chronologically in the midst of the historical narrative is at times difficult, and so I’ve reserved discussion of them until now. Additionally, discussing the purpose and message of the prophets is not an easy topic to address because the poetic and metaphorical contents of their message engender debate. Nevertheless, I’m going to deal with what I see are the biggest themes in the prophetic message.

Major themes

There are three categories of prophets in the canon of Hebrew Scripture. Those who operated during the time of the kings are called pre-exilic and those who operated after are called post exilic referring to the exile of the southern kingdom to Babylon.

Regardless of when they wrote, all the prophets spoke of God’s total supremacy over all things and our human need to be fully surrendered to him, but there were major differences in the other topics of prophecy depending on whether the prophet was writing before the exile or after.

Before the exile the prophets mainly focused on proclaiming the coming judgment on any nation that neglected God. Sometimes they would beg for repentance from the people. Sometimes they would speak of a future Day of the Lord when all things would be judged and justice would finally and fully come, but the majority of their prophecies were focused on the fact that God judges individuals and nations, and no one is exempt.

After the exile the prophets spoke mostly of the coming Day of the Lord, speaking of cataclysmic cosmic events and a wonderful time of peace and prosperity for God’s people. However, not all their words focused on the future. They continued to emphasize the need for God’s people to honor him and exercise justice.

Finally, a few of the prophets began to recognize in their prophecies a figure who would embody the fulfillment of all the other prophecies. They were looking for a king like David, a prophet like Moses, and a priest like Aaron. For these prophets, the prophet, priest, and king sometimes coalesced into one individual known as the Messiah which means “Anointed One” in Hebrew, and is translated “Christ” in Greek.

See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. — Isaiah 52:13

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance…

Of course, knowing the Sunday school answer and being okay with it are two different things entirely, but this week, I have gained a new perspective on the question that I thought I would share with you. Here are some significant verses from my devotional reading this week:

Judges 2:20-3:4 (New International Version)

20 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and said, “Because this nation has violated the covenant that I laid down for their forefathers and has not listened to me, 21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. 22 I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the LORD and walk in it as their forefathers did.” 23 The LORD had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.

Judges 3:1 These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan 2 (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience): 3 the five rulers of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites living in the Lebanon mountains from Mount Baal Hermon to Lebo [a] Hamath. 4 They were left to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the LORD’s commands, which he had given their forefathers through Moses. — Judges 2:20-3:4

Three phrases in this passage stood out to me when I read them:

“Because this nation has violated the covenant…”

God had clearly commanded the people of Israel to enter the promised land and to oust all the people who were living there. He had given them three really good reasons. First of all, the land was what God had promised to Abraham, and it was rightfully theirs. Secondly, God was using them to judge the Canaanites for their idolatry and wickedness. Thirdly, God knew that if they Canaanites weren’t totally driven out, they would be a stumbling block to the Israelites forever.

However, the Israelites didn’t do the job all the way. They left certain societies untouched, and they began to adopt the religious practices of those societies. God’s response was much the same as it was in the days of Kadesh Barnea. Back then, God told them, “If you won’t enter the land I give you, then I will prevent you from entering the land for 40 years.” Now, it’s as if God is saying, “If you won’t drive out all the people who live there on my time schedule, I won’t let you drive them out ever. I will let them remain.” As a result, those other nations were a consistent source of frustration, irritation, and distraction for the people of Israel throughout their history.

This clearly indicates that sometimes God allows us to struggle with difficult circumstances because we have failed to act according to his will. Sometimes we waited too long to get our act together with God and now we face the consequences. Sometimes the irritating circumstance you find yourself in is the direct result of God allowing you to taste your own medicine.

“I will use them to test Israel.”

This second phrase actually shows up twice in the passage I quoted above, and it gives us the second reason God will allow us to face trying circumstances. Specifically, God is “testing” us. That is, God will allow us to face difficulties so that he can gauge the temperature of our heart toward him. If we have rosy lives, we could give great lip service to God while practically living like he doesn’t exist.

However, if we face difficulty, that experience of crisis will force us to make a decision. Will I press on with my own way or will I continue to give my life to God? Will I live by faith in him, or will I take matters into my own hands? Will I obey his will even when it doesn’t make sense or will I follow my own path?

Difficulty is always a better testing ground than is success, pleasure, or ease. External peace can mask the rotting soul within, but trials expose the heart to the light and let us see what we are really made of.

Sometimes God lets you go through a difficult time simply because he wants to test you. Like a coach with a stopwatch timing your 40 yard dash, God will sometimes ask you to run an uncomfortable distance at an uncomfortable pace to see where you stand with him.

“…he did this only to teach warfare…”

This phrase is the one that took me off guard. See, the other two phrases fit perfectly well in my worldview of a God who isn’t really wrathful anymore because of Jesus, but who allows us to go through difficult times for different reasons. However, this phrase here indicates that God is a God who values warfare.

Now, of course, we could sanitize this statement and say that it was really only for the ancient Israelites. See, the young people who survived the desert wandering and were part of the initial conquest of Canaan were now old and dying and the next generation was coming up. It seems quite reasonable that they would need to learn warfare, but check this out: If God had driven out all the other peoples, there would be no need to learn warfare, right? Instead, God intentionally allowed the other peoples to remain because he valued the lessons of warfare for his people!

What’s up with that? What could warfare possibly teach us? How could it possibly be good for us?

After reflecting on this for a couple days, I think I have a few answers.

Warfare Teaches Bold Faith

Throughout the book of Judges, you see story after story of someone who was called by God to act on bold faith. Gideon was called to attack the Midianites with only 300 men carrying trumpets and flashlights. There is no life experience that so dramatically teaches people the lesson of trusting God in the face of fearful circumstances as warfare does.

Are you going through a time of struggle now? Perhaps it is God’s will to teach you bold faith as you stand up for him and his word, as you live according to his principles regardless of how it feels.

Warfare Reveals Leadership

Another lesson that seems to only be learned in warfare is the lesson of leadership. As humans, we tend to be overcome with the desire for independently following our own way. However, the most common biblical word describing God and his relationship to humanity is LORD which means that He is in charge of us and not the other way around. Neither are we in charge of ourselves.

Thus, at the core of humanity’s sin problem is a leadership problem. We want to lead ourselves, but God is the only true leader. As a result, then, one step in our spiritual growth is the ability to relinquish leadership to others when appropriate and take it up when that’s appropriate. Warfare puts us in the place where we recognize the need for good, strong leadership and where we either learn to exercise it ourselves for the sake of others or to follow someone else who is appointed to lead us. Whether as leader or follower, you learn leadership in the crucible of warfare.

Are you going through a time of struggle? Perhaps it is God’s will to get you to grasp leadership. Is there a leader to whom you need to learn to submit? Is there a leadership role you have been reluctant to take? Is there a leadership role you have been abusing?

Warfare Is How God Moves the World

God had given the ancient Israelites the task of “cleaning up” Canaan. He was tired of the wickedness of the people who lived there, and just as he brought the flood in the days of Noah, so now he was bringing the Israelites into the land to wipe out the Baal worship and Asherah worship and child sacrifice and other detestable practices. God wanted to eliminate the Canaanite wickedness and chose to use the mechanism of earthly warfare to accomplish his purposes.

God has known for a long time that the process of changing people always involves death. Either they need to die to themselves and begin to live for God or they need to die to the earth and be sent to the grave, but without one of those deaths taking place, each person will remain in a state of selfish pursuit, and the society made of such people will follow the same path. Therefore, in ancient days, God moved the world through earthly warfare, and he moved against the people of Israel as much as he moved on their behalf.

Are you going through a time of struggle? Perhaps God is preparing you to be an earth-shaker. Or perhaps he has a plan to do something big in the world, and part of his greater activity intersects your life. It doesn’t mean he’s mad at you. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about you. But it might mean that you are a simple foot soldier in a bigger battle he’s orchestrating.

Oh, and this “warfare moves the world” concept doesn’t end with the cross. No, in fact, God is still using warfare to move the world, but a lot of the warfare he employs these days is of a spiritual nature. Today, he is moving the world by getting people to die to themselves and give themselves to Jesus, and doing that requires a great deal of warfare in the soul of those people. I’m sure you know stories of the warfare in the heart of a loved one or two. Perhaps you have a story of the struggle in your own heart. But if God is going to move the world by changing hearts, he must have foot soldiers who are equipped to handle that kind of warfare too.

Perhaps your struggle is simply God’s way of giving you the preparation you need to speak into the heart struggle of someone you know.

God’s People Always Face Opposition

Finally, on this warfare concept, I recognize that God’s people have always faced opposition. Sometimes the opposition comes in the form of earthly warfare, physical persecution, economic hardships and more, but we would be missing a great deal if we forget the “spiritual warfare” that is going on around us all the time.

I don’t talk about spiritual warfare that much simply because I’m convinced that in the cross, Jesus has already defeated the powers of hell, making a spectacle of them (Colossians 2:15), making us more than conquerors (Romans 8:37). I believe that Christians need fear nothing because we have overcome the world and it’s power by the power of Jesus himself (1 John 4:4). Nevertheless, I also believe that Christians face a struggle not against flesh and blood but against all kinds of dark powers (Ephesians 6:12).

I also don’t talk about spiritual warfare because those who practice “spiritual warfare” these days often do so with a specific set of techniques and prayer styles that aren’t found in the Bible.

Nevertheless, the Word of God is clear that we have a spiritual struggle on our hands, and we must be prepared to oppose whatever schemes Satan throws our way (Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Corinthians 2:9-11).

Are you going through a trial? Sure it could be the result of a satanic “scheme” against you, but it could also be that God is training you for the kind of warfare that knows how to hold ground against future more stringent attacks.

Conclusion

I was surprised to see these three lines right there in this passage so clearly display the reasons God sometimes chooses to “not drive out” our opposition. We want a God who will pave the way before us, but of course, we want him to pave it on our time schedule. He, however, wants a people who are obedient and who are capable to fight the battles he has planned.

Sometimes he leads us through places of trial and struggle because he wants to test us. Sometimes it’s because we have failed to follow him and are simply facing our due consequences. Sometimes it’s because he is preparing us for “warfare.” But I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the time, it’s a mixture of all three.

For a couple weeks now, I have been dissatisfied with the modern worship songs we’ve been singing in our church. The music is great, the beats are fun, the lyrics are powerful, but honestly, they aren’t very deep.

In particular, the majority of modern rock-style worship music puts God in the second person. Everything is about how great “You” are or about our relationship as humans to “You.” The problem with that kind of music is that it only works for people who have a relationship with God close enough to call him “You.” There are many people for whom God is only “God” or “He” and there are many times in our lives when we need to remember that God is “God” and not just another “You.”

In that light, I put some thoughts together this past week to write a song that would begin to reexamine for myself what a song about God might be like if it just told us about him.

It’s not a great song (please don’t flatter me by telling me it is great). It may have some potential to be rewritten, though. And on that note, I’ll post it here for you to hear if you make me a promise: Only listen if you are willing and ready to offer constructive criticism.

If the melody doesn’t work for you, tell me that. If the lyrics don’t work well, tell me that. If the instrumentation doesn’t work for you, tell me that. If my singing doesn’t work for you… well, you can keep that to yourself. I’m under no delusion that I’m anything special vocally.

Anyway, without further ado, here is “Our God”.

Our God (Second Rough Draft)

The first few chapters are all about counting the people of Israel. This tribe has 60,000 people. That tribe has 40,000 people. With twelve tribes to go through, the lists of numbers and names of people can get tedious.

But once again, God proved himself faithful by showing me something I hadn’t thought of before. In chapter 2, God tells Moses to arrange all the people into their tribal camps around the Tabernacle. We are told which tribes should be on the east, west, north and south, but we are also told who the leaders should be and how many people there are.

Here’s an example:

On the east, toward the sunrise, the divisions of the camp of Judah are to encamp under their standard. The leader of the people of Judah is Nahshon son of Amminadab. His division numbers 74,600. — Numbers 2:3-4

The people are given position leadership and identity. That is, they are told where they should be, who will be their leader, and whom they should consider to be among them (the 74,600 people).

For some time, I have been laboring under the somewhat misguided notion that to be a “simple” church, we had to deemphasize organizational structure. The postmodern (and somewhat ADD) side of me doesn’t like rigid structures anyway, but in many respects, I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I have allowed “simplicity” to be an excuse for failing to actually organize people with specific position, leadership, and identity.

The truth of the matter is that without those three things, there is no group at all.

This has been made more clear to me in the last few weeks. Up until this summer, we have basically been surviving as a church by the fact that one person was doing all the hospitality stuff, one person was doing all the sound stuff, we had a few teams loosely led, and we have a pretty well-organized children’s ministry, but as more people started coming and wanting to get involved, the hospitality team seemed like the most natural early fit, and the influx of new people has revealed a few gaps in our organizational structure.

So, I have been inspired recently to get more focused on organizational issues, and my reading today dovetails perfectly with that. If I can gain from what God showed me this morning, I will be developing greater clarity on the identity, position, and leadership of the different teams in the church.

Hold my feet to the fire; we gotta get this done!

Tonight, our life group skipped our normal routine to watch a documentary purportedly on the relationship between homosexuality and religion called For the Bible Tells Me So However, the documentary was actually on the relationship between homosexuality and the conservative/fundamentalist “Christian right.”

Basically, the title calls to mind the song Jesus Loves Me (which should communicate that God loves us) in contrast to the words of those who would claim homosexuality is an “abomination” simply because “the Bible tells me so.”

Since I have already written a few articles on the topic, I won’t take the time to rehash my position. However, I need to make a couple comments.

The major claims of the film were these:

1. The Bible doesn’t actually oppose homosexuality.
2. Sexual orientation is an inborn condition and cannot be changed.
3. Love and sex go together.
4. Opponents of homosexuality are dangerous to society and should be stopped.

Let me briefly address these claims:

1. “The Bible doesn’t actually oppose homosexuality.”

Basically, the full claim from the movie is that the passages in the Bible addressing homosexuality are not relevant for today because they have been mistranslated, misunderstood, or misapplied. However, I could make the same claim about the way the documentary dealt with the Bible. It’s always possible to reshape the text of the Bible to support a person’s convictions, but there’s one biblical truth that overshadows them all: People are helpless sinners, ignorant of God and his will, and we need the forgiveness and restoration made possible by Jesus’ death on the cross. Our propensity to sin will always lead us to reinterpret what we read in the direction of our greatest comfort. Therefore, the best course of action is the one which involves the least amount of “interpretation” possible.

2. “Sexual orientation is inborn and can’t be changed.”

I partially agree with this statement. I agree that humans have many different temptations. I agree that some people are tempted by drink, some by drugs, some by power, some by heterosexual relations, and some by homosexual relations. I also believe that a person’s predominant temptations are unlikely to change throughout life.

However, regardless of the style or intensity of temptation, we can resist. We are not animals.

3. “Love and sex go together.”

Our society has blended love and sex so closely as to make them indistinguishable (sometimes). Our culture will allow for sex without love (among consenting adults) but can’t imagine love without sex.

Of course, it does not need to be this way, and in fact, it should not be. I find it dangerous to connect the two closely. Many women have fallen for the guy’s request “if you love me, you’ll sleep with me.”

4. “Opponents to homosexuality are dangerous and should be stopped.”

Of course, this is the sentence that scares me the most because it’s easy to replace words:

• Opponents of the President are dangerous and should be stopped.
• Opponents of Free Speech are dangerous and should be stopped.
• Opponents of secular humanism are dangerous and should be stopped.

It scares me because it characterizes me as a member of a class that is dangerous as a whole. It scares me because it labels me as someone worth discriminating against.

Conclusion

I wish this post were more articulate and more carefully written, but I want to get my response out now so the conversation can flow more quickly.

Have any of you seen the film? What did you think?

1. Follow the Rules

Bad communication habits come from everywhere—TV, dysfunctional homes, coping strategies—but that’s no excuse for failing to follow the simple rules of communication.

Rule 1: “I” to speak, “You” to listen.

During the heat of the moment in an argument, we want to say this sentence in slightly different fashion. We want to say:

“I’m talking here! You need to listen!”

However, that’s not what this rule is all about. I simply phrased it that way so it would be easy to remember. This rule actually means that when conversations are difficult and communication skills are weak, it’s even more important to identify who is the “speaker” and who is the “listener.” Then, once we know who is doing what, the speaker has the responsibility to use “I” language and the listener has the responsibility to focus on “you” rather than himself or herself.

• The speaker: “I felt unloved when you said Nichole Kidman was hot.”
• The listener: “You felt unloved when I said that?”

Rule 2: Shift speakers only after understanding.

Similar to Stephen Covey’s “Seek first to understand, then to be understood” this rule declares that the role of speaker and listener is not to be changed until the current speaker feels completely understood.

• The listener: “Did I understand you? Is there anything more?”
• The speaker: “Yeah, I think you got it all. What do you think?”
• The new speaker: “Well, I only meant…”

Rule 3: Specific Timeouts are Unlimited

The basic point of this rule is that either person in the conversation is allowed to declare a timeout at any point in the conversation for any reason so long as the timeout is defined specifically.

• “I’m starting to get mad, and I need to take a timeout for 5 minutes to collect myself.”

Rule 4: Violators lose. Winners dance!

This final rule is focused mostly on the elimination of all hurtful, derogatory, or attacking comments. If one person in the conversation resorts to an accusing word, “You’re such a ——!” or if one of the earlier rules is broken, the guilty person loses immediately.

This doesn’t automatically declare the other person to be right or that the other person’s will should be followed. It just means the other person has the right to declare victory. Additionally, the victory declaration should be loud, ostentatious, and filled with dancing!

The point of this rule is twofold. First, it is our natural human emotion that when we are attacked or when someone breaks a rule, we want to retaliate. Our sense of justice makes us feel as if we need to fight back and win for the cause of righteousness. However, this rule eliminates the need to retaliate, because victory can simply be declared. “I win!”

Secondly, this rule works to defuse the heat of the battle by encouraging silly victory dances. In the ostentatious declaration of victory, the tone of the moment can quickly turn to humor.

2. Build skills with “objective” topics.

The rules above are good for correcting negative communication patterns, but they cannot be learned or applied when the topic of conversation is emotionally heated. Therefore, I encourage couples to begin building these communication skills with “objective” topics.

money

Frankly, one of the most objective topics to discuss is money. I’m constantly amazed at how poor communication skills often dovetail with differing opinions on money when conversations of money should be the most objective conversations a couple can have.

The problem of course, is that too many people talk about money in terms of opinions and feelings rather than facts. The simple truth is that money comes in as hard numbers (even if the income fluctuates month to month, it’s still a single specific number), and it goes out as hard numbers.

Therefore, the simple objective topic is this: Given that we make [a certain amount], how should we split up our money this month, and how will we keep ourselves accountable? Working on a cash only system is a great way to keep money completely objective!

children

Another difficult topic is the topic of raising children, but there are a number of objective facts about child-rearing that even the most strained relationship can handle. Here are a few examples:

1. When is bedtime?
2. What is our bedtime routine?
3. What are the family rules?
4. What are the consequences for breaking the rules?

There are shades of subjectivity in these questions too, but by keeping the conversation objective as much as possible, skills will be developed to handle the more subjective stuff when appropriate. This is a segue to the next tip.

3. Objectivize the Subjective

Early on in communication skills development, it’s easy for conversations to slip into the realm of feelings and accusations when the skills aren’t there to rescue the conversation or take it where it needs to go. Therefore, it’s important to find ways to bring objectivity to what is ordinarily a subjective topic.

rate your day

For example, take the age old question “How was your day?” I have found great success in encouraging couples to objectivize that question this way:

• On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate your day? Why?
• On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate yourself today? Why?

The scale means nothing by itself, but it gives a sense of objectivity to a question that is inherently subjective and opens the doors to communication more easily.

rate your opinions

During moments of subjective conversations and the airing of opinions, it’s quite easy for couples to find themselves on opposite sides of the fence, so to speak. One person says, “Our kids need to have greater discipline.” The other person says, “I think kids need to be given more freedom to be themselves.” Conversations like this easily devolve into accusations of being harsh or being lazy, because with the opinions stated, it seems to be an impasse. However, one simple question can bring some objectivity.

• From 1-10, how strongly do you feel about your position?

appeal to a shared authority

If there remains an impasse after talking through the ratings, the next step is actually not about communication as much as it is understanding the limits of your communication. Sometimes impasses will arise and the only way to deal with it is to appeal to a higher authority. That might mean reading the Bible, but it doesn’t have to. It could also mean appealing to a textbook, a wise counselor, or even for one person in the relationship to defer to the other simply because the other has more experience.

The communication skill regarding this is simply the ability to talk about that shared authority and objectively discuss what that shared authority says about the topic.

Which brings me to my final tip…

4. Talk about God

This last tip follows from the previous one in that God is the ultimate objective reality. Of course, many people subjectivize God and talk about him as if he is something they have created for themselves, but the truth is that God is God is God is God, and only God is God, so he is the only one with any right to tell us about himself. Therefore, our awareness of God is fully objective and written down for us right there in the Bible.

I especially encourage struggling couples to find something in the Bible each day to read and talk about before praying together to end their day.

Conclusion

Communication is a difficult skill to develop mostly because we speak from our hearts far more often than from our heads.

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. — Luke 6:45

However, by following these four tips (including the four rules above) we can stay level-headed as we develop the skills needed to discuss even the more difficult topics of conversation.

Just remember that even the simplest topic of conversation is always personal to the person who is sharing.

Resources

• Communication: Key to Your Marriage
• Building Your Mate’s Self Esteem
• Love Life for Every Married Couple

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

— 1 Corinthians 10:13

In this passage, we are given three promises:

• You are not unique or alone in your temptation. Every temptation or trial (in the Bible, the two words are interchangeable) that you face has been faced by someone else.
• God will only allow you to face a temptation if he knows you can handle it.
• God will always provide you a “way out.”
• The “Way Out” is not an “escape” but a light at the end of a tunnel so “you can stand up under” the temptation.

Are you going through a struggle, a trial, or are you facing temptation. Know this. Whatever you are facing is only in your life because from God’s point of view, you are strong enough for it. If the trial is 100 pounds heavy, God must know that you are capable to lift at least 101 pounds. If the trial is 2 tons, that’s God’s way of telling you that you can handle 2.1 tons!

How big is your trial? That’s God telling you how strong you really are.

I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

— Philippians 4:13

God knows that you and I are able to endure far more than we are generally willing to put up with.

How big is your trial? How strong are you? How strong is your God?

Since I wrote an article on this very topic (see Is There Recovery for the Homosexual?.), I thought it would be good to have a link to this new article here and to add a few comments of my own.

It just seems that the secular world is trying to ignore the truth that SOME people who self-identify as homosexual are able to ADJUST desires or at least find fulfillment outside the homosexual lifestyle.

What if we lived in a society with a VERY vocal and VERY strong lobby promoting the use of smoking? What if in the context of that society, a report was done testing the effectiveness of anti-smoking programs? What kind of news articles would we be reading? “Programs to change smokers to non-smokers don’t work, report says”

It’s the combination of a VERY vocal lobby, a VERY supportive society and the inherent attractiveness of sexual sin that wage war against any “change” programs.

It’s exactly the same as when you read about how “Abstinence Programs Fail Among American Teens.” If the society fully supports something that’s pleasurable, all programs opposing that position will fail more often than not.