The first motto we adopted for the New Covenant Church of God was “Reaching Out to Hurting People.” That theme proved highly relevant and numerically successful. In a matter of weeks we grew from four to over forty. Everyone was in a Covenant Life Group where we were seeking to discover and fulfill what it truly meant to be the people of God, to “give tangible expression to being the body of Christ.” We started with two groups and soon added another, each led by me. The groups were effective in building a sense of community and in helping people get in touch with their pain but less effective in helping them find healing for deep, longstanding wounds. As pastor and group elder, I threw myself into the task of helping people find the healing provided for them in the atonement. I became a therapist, counseling with a dozen or more people every week. These were not light problems. They included several women trying to find healing from childhood sexual abuse, a young man struggling to come out of homosexuality, others with sexual identity problems, women suffering spousal abuse, dysfunctional families, people getting divorce due to infidelity, families and individuals deeply wounded by pastors and other Christian leaders, etc.
This was rewarding, exhilarating and exhausting. I loved counseling (and still do). I followed a “Rogerian” approach. Carl Rogers developed this method built on the assumption that the individual has the resources within to resolve their inner struggles; they just need a little help. What a person needs is a friend who can help them hear and clarify their own inner processes. The therapist serves as an active listener who reflects back to the client the client’s own words concerning their problem. The counselor attempts to be value neutral, non-directive, and simply help the individual hear their own thoughts. Make no mistake about it, this is hard work. The counselor must listen intensely, trying to accurately interpret the underlying meaning of what is said without adding to it and simultaneously thinking of creative ways to mirror the thoughts back to the client, “What I hear you saying is….” For most people, all they need is a friend to serve as a sounding board.
However, there are wounds and issues that are just too deep for Rogerian therapy. Rogerian therapy works because of the prevenient grace of God at work in all of creation. This preventative grace of God is in every human being arresting the destructive power of sin and serving to preserve and enhance morality, reason, affection, and the capacity for self-improvement. This grace is designed to bring the individual to faith in Christ and knowledge of God; it is not the grace of redemption, regeneration, sanctification, deliverance, or healing. There are some diseases, including some mental and emotional wounds that require intervention. My assumption had been that the Covenant Life Groups and worship services would provide the ministry context for these deeper hurts to find healing. In the context of a caring community, people would risk sharing their inner pain and once it was surfaced it could be addressed through the council and prayers of the group and/or pastoral counseling. What I discovered was (1) some wounds are accompanied by great shame making it too risky to share them even in a small, caring community, and (2) some wounds have festered to the point they have been woven into the psyche of the individual as a spirit of bitterness that takes comfort and vindication in the wound itself.
During those early years of pastoring New Covenant I learned that Rogerian counseling could actually be a stumbling block for discipleship. I can be a little slow to figure some things out, but in his goodness God occasionally gives me a direct word that changes my belief system. One of those words caused me to radically alter my approach to pastoral ministry. For almost two years I had met weekly with a young man who had been saved out of homosexuality but continued to struggle with issues of identity. I became frustrated as I saw him struggle with ungodly desires and fail to make progress in spiritual growth. I was seeking God on his behalf asking why he couldn’t get victory over the underlying hurt that had deeply scarred his self-image. “Father, why can I not get through to him? Why can I not help him find healing and get grounded in Christ?” To my surprise, I heard a non-audible but specific verbal response, “Because I called you to be his pastor and not his therapist.” In an instant I understood my approach to counseling had defined my relationship with him (as with many in our congregation) in a way that prevented me from guiding him into spiritual maturity. I had let it all be about him when it should have been about Christ and Christ’s claim on his life. My role should have been one of nurturing his relationship with Christ by coaching him in spiritual disciplines and calling on him to give an account of his Christian walk. Suddenly, I understood that his healing was tied to his relationship with Christ and it was dependent upon his response to God’s redemptive grace.
At our next meeting I shared with him my desire to focus on his spiritual growth rather than his hurt with his father and the church. I was convinced his real need was to work on his relationship with God. I reminded him that he had already been to some outstanding therapists who were available to help him continue to work on his childhood issues. I wanted to shift our time together to prayer, Bible study and accountability. I will never forget his response, “If you don’t want to talk about the things I want to talk about, I don’t need to talk with you.” A few weeks later he phoned me and opened with “I know you know where I have been going and what I have been doing, if you were any kind of pastor you would have already turned me out of the church.” He refused to get together and talk. I advised him that according to Church of God polity I could not turn him out of the church. I would take his phone call as permission to explain to the church why he should be disfellowshipped. Without hesitation he responded “you do and I’ll sue you. Everything I have ever told you was in confidence.”
I no longer do therapeutic pastoral counseling and I avoid the word “confidentiality” stressing instead the need to keep our conversations holy. I meet with persons once or twice to hear their story and try to discern their need. In most cases a couple of sessions are sufficient to help them map out a strategy. Sometimes they choose an accountability partner or let their Covenant Life Group join them in their struggles. If we agree they need to see a counselor I help them find one appropriate to their situation and I ask to meet with them periodically to monitor their spiritual development in the process. In those sessions I am careful to not discuss their counseling sessions so as to not interfere with their therapy. I want to focus on their relationship with God as they move toward inner healing.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Reception of Salvation
As noted in an earlier post I recently participated in the eighth Evangelical-Catholic Dialogue of the United States. The session met October 1-4, 2009 at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, Minnesota.
We produced an Agreed Statement of Convergence on the topic The Reception of Salvation. While the statement is a little awkward in form it represents a strong consensus on the gift of salvation.
By our common faith in Jesus Christ we acknowledge and hold as essential to the gospel these life-giving truths:
In the mercy of God, salvation is offered and received in Jesus Christ. While Evangelicals teach that justification is the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness and Catholics teach that justification entails the infusion of sanctifying grace by which divine righteousness inheres in Christians, both traditions believe that all those who are in Christ are righteous on the basis of Christ’s work for us and that their natures are transformed through the regeneration and sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Thus while our particular doctrinal heritages regarding justification, regeneration, and sanctification differ considerably, the comprehensive picture of these expressions of divine grace, taken collectively, allows us to join together in the following affirmations:
We affirm that due to Adam’s sin, the image of God in human beings has been marred, resulting in estrangement from God.
We affirm that through faith in the saving death and resurrection of Christ, God graciously justifies the ungodly and regenerates them, imparting to them new life in Christ through the Holy Spirit.
We affirm that this new life includes participation in the divine nature, growing conformity to the image of Christ, love which is the bond of perfection, and
freedom from sin’s enslaving power.
We affirm our hope of Christ’s return in power and glory, the resurrection of the body, and the ultimate glorification of those who are in Christ.
We affirm that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the inheritance of all Christians empowering them to bear witness to Christ in service and mission to the greater glory of God.
We affirm that the Holy Spirit, the Master of the interior life, both bears witness to those who are in Christ that they are children of the Father and graciously guides them in spiritual practices so that they may come to the full measure of the stature of Christ.
These spiritual practices include those enjoined by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 6): Prayer—those practices that nurture our communion with God; Fasting—those practices that discipline the self in the following of Christ; and Almsgiving—those practices that direct us in love to our neighbor.
We produced an Agreed Statement of Convergence on the topic The Reception of Salvation. While the statement is a little awkward in form it represents a strong consensus on the gift of salvation.
By our common faith in Jesus Christ we acknowledge and hold as essential to the gospel these life-giving truths:
In the mercy of God, salvation is offered and received in Jesus Christ. While Evangelicals teach that justification is the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness and Catholics teach that justification entails the infusion of sanctifying grace by which divine righteousness inheres in Christians, both traditions believe that all those who are in Christ are righteous on the basis of Christ’s work for us and that their natures are transformed through the regeneration and sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Thus while our particular doctrinal heritages regarding justification, regeneration, and sanctification differ considerably, the comprehensive picture of these expressions of divine grace, taken collectively, allows us to join together in the following affirmations:
We affirm that due to Adam’s sin, the image of God in human beings has been marred, resulting in estrangement from God.
We affirm that through faith in the saving death and resurrection of Christ, God graciously justifies the ungodly and regenerates them, imparting to them new life in Christ through the Holy Spirit.
We affirm that this new life includes participation in the divine nature, growing conformity to the image of Christ, love which is the bond of perfection, and
freedom from sin’s enslaving power.
We affirm our hope of Christ’s return in power and glory, the resurrection of the body, and the ultimate glorification of those who are in Christ.
We affirm that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the inheritance of all Christians empowering them to bear witness to Christ in service and mission to the greater glory of God.
We affirm that the Holy Spirit, the Master of the interior life, both bears witness to those who are in Christ that they are children of the Father and graciously guides them in spiritual practices so that they may come to the full measure of the stature of Christ.
These spiritual practices include those enjoined by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 6): Prayer—those practices that nurture our communion with God; Fasting—those practices that discipline the self in the following of Christ; and Almsgiving—those practices that direct us in love to our neighbor.
Monday, October 12, 2009
My Conversation with Wade H. Horton
Wade Horton was one of those larger-than-life figures in the Church of God. He was prominent in World Missions, served as a State Overseer, and as General Overseer from 1962 to 66 and again from 1974 to76. He actually spent a total of 14 years on the Executive Committee of the Church. When I entered the ministry (1973) he was the champion of holiness, the leading “conservative” in the rising battle over the “practical” teachings of the church. I admired him for the passion and clarity with which he preached. Later, my respect increased when he returned to a local church pastorate after his tenure on the Executive Committee ended in 1976 rather than maneuver into a plush political appointment.
In 1984 I moved to Cleveland to serve as Minister of Education at the Westmore Church of God where Brother Horton’s son David was serving as Minister of Music. Shortly thereafter Brother Horton entered full retirement and moved back to Cleveland. A brief time later his other son, Wade, died suddenly. It was during that period of grief I made a couple of pastoral visits to his home and had my only conversations with the giant of our faith.
We were sitting in his living room the day before his son’s funeral when Brother Horton began to speak of his concerns for the Church of God. “They’re going to destroy us. They’re after three things: holiness, the tithe, and our government. They’re after holiness now, watering down the teachings. If they get that they will go after the tithe of tithes next and cripple the church. Then they will go after our centralized government. They won’t stop until they have destroyed the Church.” I didn’t ask who “they” were and he didn’t say. My impression was that he viewed them as misguided rather than malevolent, misguided but destructive none-the-less.
I have thought often about that brief conversation. The General Assembly did re-write the Practical Commitments in a way that maintained their essence but ultimately diminished their influence. Most Church of God members have no idea what we teach about the Christian life. Holiness is no longer central to our shared identity. Last year, the General Assembly set in motion the reduction of local church support for the denomination by one third, forcing major restructuring and redirection in coming years. And, as he predicted, centralized government is now openly being challenged by some.
As Wade Horton sat on his couch grieving the death of his namesake he also grieved the pending death of the church he had loved and served for decades, the church that had been for him the church of God. In his convictions the church of God could not exist without holiness, church order, and shared mission. While I may not agree with him on the particulars, I am convinced Wade H. Horton understood well the patterns and pitfalls set before our movement. His question remains, will the Church of God be the church of God or will we disintegrate into some loose affiliation of congregations void of a passion for world evangelization? To this I add another, has the desire to be the church of God already died and if so could it be we have already ceased to be the church?
In 1984 I moved to Cleveland to serve as Minister of Education at the Westmore Church of God where Brother Horton’s son David was serving as Minister of Music. Shortly thereafter Brother Horton entered full retirement and moved back to Cleveland. A brief time later his other son, Wade, died suddenly. It was during that period of grief I made a couple of pastoral visits to his home and had my only conversations with the giant of our faith.
We were sitting in his living room the day before his son’s funeral when Brother Horton began to speak of his concerns for the Church of God. “They’re going to destroy us. They’re after three things: holiness, the tithe, and our government. They’re after holiness now, watering down the teachings. If they get that they will go after the tithe of tithes next and cripple the church. Then they will go after our centralized government. They won’t stop until they have destroyed the Church.” I didn’t ask who “they” were and he didn’t say. My impression was that he viewed them as misguided rather than malevolent, misguided but destructive none-the-less.
I have thought often about that brief conversation. The General Assembly did re-write the Practical Commitments in a way that maintained their essence but ultimately diminished their influence. Most Church of God members have no idea what we teach about the Christian life. Holiness is no longer central to our shared identity. Last year, the General Assembly set in motion the reduction of local church support for the denomination by one third, forcing major restructuring and redirection in coming years. And, as he predicted, centralized government is now openly being challenged by some.
As Wade Horton sat on his couch grieving the death of his namesake he also grieved the pending death of the church he had loved and served for decades, the church that had been for him the church of God. In his convictions the church of God could not exist without holiness, church order, and shared mission. While I may not agree with him on the particulars, I am convinced Wade H. Horton understood well the patterns and pitfalls set before our movement. His question remains, will the Church of God be the church of God or will we disintegrate into some loose affiliation of congregations void of a passion for world evangelization? To this I add another, has the desire to be the church of God already died and if so could it be we have already ceased to be the church?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Evangelical/Catholic Dialogue
I was in Minneapolis Thursday through Sunday for the Catholic/Evangelical Dialogues (USA only). I enjoy the fellowship and theological discourse.
This dialogue was interesting and frustrating. The topic was “salvation.” The Evangelical paper was presented by Glen Menzies (Assemblies of God) and the Catholic was presented by Ralph Del Colle. We focused on the central point of division during the reformation, “justification.” The frustrating part is that the evangelical team (there were seven of us) was trying to dialogue out of very diverse traditions while the Catholic team has a well established script of doctrines from which to speak. The 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification issued by Lutherans and the Catholic Church was a starting point but it was the declarations of the Council of Trent that governed the Catholic positions.
The main sticking point is that out of the reformed traditions Evangelicals understand justification as a forensic (legal) act of grace whereby God declares the sinner righteous, i.e., imputes righteousness to the unrighteous. It is a gift from God (grace) and is received by faith alone. Justification is the bases for regeneration and sanctification. For the Catholics justification embraces all of life in Christ and focuses on the transformation of the believer rather than the declaration by God. There is also a sticky point on the concept of “merit,” i.e., in what sense are the saved made worthy of life in the presence of God.
We came up with a brief and I think insightful statement of points of divergence and convergence. I will post it when I get the final copy. However, as a Pentecostal I find the Reformed forensic position somewhat stilted.
This dialogue was interesting and frustrating. The topic was “salvation.” The Evangelical paper was presented by Glen Menzies (Assemblies of God) and the Catholic was presented by Ralph Del Colle. We focused on the central point of division during the reformation, “justification.” The frustrating part is that the evangelical team (there were seven of us) was trying to dialogue out of very diverse traditions while the Catholic team has a well established script of doctrines from which to speak. The 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification issued by Lutherans and the Catholic Church was a starting point but it was the declarations of the Council of Trent that governed the Catholic positions.
The main sticking point is that out of the reformed traditions Evangelicals understand justification as a forensic (legal) act of grace whereby God declares the sinner righteous, i.e., imputes righteousness to the unrighteous. It is a gift from God (grace) and is received by faith alone. Justification is the bases for regeneration and sanctification. For the Catholics justification embraces all of life in Christ and focuses on the transformation of the believer rather than the declaration by God. There is also a sticky point on the concept of “merit,” i.e., in what sense are the saved made worthy of life in the presence of God.
We came up with a brief and I think insightful statement of points of divergence and convergence. I will post it when I get the final copy. However, as a Pentecostal I find the Reformed forensic position somewhat stilted.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Thoughts on War, Peace and Justice
I have a commitment to work for peace and justice. At the very least I feel I must keep those promises of the Kingdom alive in my conversations. The Practical Commitments of the Church of God instruct us to “speak out on clear-cut moral issues.” They add we have an obligation to correct social injustice and protect the sanctity of life.
Love for others and the recognition of the equal worth of all men in the sight of God (Acts 10:34; 17:26) should compel us to take steps to improve the situation of those who are underprivileged, neglected, hungry, homeless and victimized by prejudice, persecution and oppression (Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 3:17). In all of our dealings, we must be sensitive to human needs (Luke 10:30-37; James 1:17) and guard against racial and economic discrimination. Every person should have freedom to worship and participate in the life of the church regardless of race, color, sex, social class or nationality.
God alone confers life (Genesis 1:1-31); therefore, we are responsible to God to care for our physical life and that of others. If the circumstances require, we must be prepared to risk our life in the service of our neighbor (John 15:13); but the general rule is that we must respect our physical life and employ every worthy means to maintain it.
In the early decades of our existence the Church of God was strongly committed to pacifism; members could not “bear arms.” As a result of World War II we shifted our position to one that endorsed personal conscience as grounds for combative service in the military but with wording that specifically supported those who conscientiously objected to bearing arms. In my childhood there was still a strong element of pacifism in the church. My adolescence was bracketed by the war in Viet Nam.
I was filled with the Spirit seven months before my eighteenth birthday and registration for the military draft. My Dad was saved one month before I had to register. I approached the draft with a dilemma of conscience. I did not believe I could serve as a military combatant, but I was convinced that if I registered as a conscientious objector it would be a stumbling block for my father in his walk with God. After much prayer I opted to just register and trust God. I knew everything would be alright.
Over the years I have often reminded congregations the Church of God teaches “nations can and should resolve their differences without going to war.” My posture has always been to question the justice of any given war. I have openly opposed or questioned all of the wars/military actions of my adult lifetime. During the early days of the war in Iraq I identified myself as a pacifist provided I could qualify the definition as being radically committed to the pursuit of peace. I am a pacifist in the sense that I oppose nations going to war. They “can and should” find another way. War should be the very last resort. Further, I have problems with the “just war” theory because it is too often misappropriated to justify wars that are avoidable.
I believe we should be patriotic. We should love our nation and work for its security and well being. I am convinced the United States of America is the greatest nation in the history of humankind. We have been the most just and merciful of all nations. We have sacrificed more for the good of others than any nation. But I also know we must love Christ and His Kingdom more than our country. I am greatly bothered by an idolatrous nationalism, the rampant confusion of the USA with the Kingdom of God. As great as the USA has been, it is also guilty of great sins against our own citizens and other nations. Our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” There can be nothing more American than to question the wisdom of our governmental leaders. To not question our government on something as grave as war is to be less than American and less than Christian.
I am convinced Christians have an obligation to actively promote peace, in personal, societal, national, and international realms; “blessed are the peacemakers.” However, I do not understand radical pacifism to be the only or best approach to peace and justice. I allow there may be times when the exercise of force, even deadly force, may be the appropriate means of promoting peace and justice. Indeed, it may be the only righteous option. I accept, and endorse, the Church of God position on personal conscience dictating the decision to bear arms in times of war. I regret that many of my fellow baby boomers seem to interpret that ruling as a blanket endorsement of combatant service rather than a call for prayerful discernment. If drafted I would have to serve as a non-combatant on grounds of conscience; I could not commit to follow the commands of others to take lives without regard to the justice of the immediate situation. On the other hand, I could use force, even deadly force, to stop an individual from killing or maiming others if the threat was imminent. I recognize there may be logical difficulties in my position.
In theory I can endorse “just war” but only if we understand war can be just only if failure to go to war would be a grave act of injustice. Perhaps stopping the killing fields of Cambodia or the genocide of Rwanda would have qualified. The current situation in Somalia might as well.
These views often place me in the despised middle, too liberal for most conservatives, too conservative for most liberals. Iraq has been especially isolating for me. I opposed the US led invasion of Iraq. I do not fault the Bush Administration for misinformed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Even the French and Germans said they were there. I fault them on the justice of invasion in light of the fact there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq or from within on its own people. On the other hand, during the war I have opposed calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops; that would have been unjust in that it would have created a situation for a civil war with large scale bloodbaths. Once we invaded the country and dismantled its government we had a moral obligation to create an environment conducive for internal peace. Anything less would be unjust.
Coincidentally, we are not well served by the language of “war on terrorism.” Terrorism is an abstract concept (yes, with all too real consequences). It cannot be defeated anymore than the war on poverty, noble as it was, could be won. A war with a concept is too open ended and can too easily be used as a pretext for unjust war with actual people. We should think of ourselves as being at war with specific terrorist groups. Such a war is just and can be won. Nations that openly ally themselves with terrorist groups would thus be accountable for the actions of those groups.
In summary, as a child of God it is my responsibility to work for peace and justice. I can never abdicate that duty. This requires that I call into question all uses of force to suppress the freedom of people and measure the use of force on the scales of justice. It does not require that I condemn all uses of force. For me, to participate in war with all of its ramifications would be to abandon my higher calling of working for peace. It would inevitably put me in conflict between obedience to Caesar and obedience to Christ. Thus, even if I felt the war was just I could only serve as a noncombatant.
That’s the way I see it on Monday, September 21, 2009.
Love for others and the recognition of the equal worth of all men in the sight of God (Acts 10:34; 17:26) should compel us to take steps to improve the situation of those who are underprivileged, neglected, hungry, homeless and victimized by prejudice, persecution and oppression (Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 3:17). In all of our dealings, we must be sensitive to human needs (Luke 10:30-37; James 1:17) and guard against racial and economic discrimination. Every person should have freedom to worship and participate in the life of the church regardless of race, color, sex, social class or nationality.
God alone confers life (Genesis 1:1-31); therefore, we are responsible to God to care for our physical life and that of others. If the circumstances require, we must be prepared to risk our life in the service of our neighbor (John 15:13); but the general rule is that we must respect our physical life and employ every worthy means to maintain it.
In the early decades of our existence the Church of God was strongly committed to pacifism; members could not “bear arms.” As a result of World War II we shifted our position to one that endorsed personal conscience as grounds for combative service in the military but with wording that specifically supported those who conscientiously objected to bearing arms. In my childhood there was still a strong element of pacifism in the church. My adolescence was bracketed by the war in Viet Nam.
I was filled with the Spirit seven months before my eighteenth birthday and registration for the military draft. My Dad was saved one month before I had to register. I approached the draft with a dilemma of conscience. I did not believe I could serve as a military combatant, but I was convinced that if I registered as a conscientious objector it would be a stumbling block for my father in his walk with God. After much prayer I opted to just register and trust God. I knew everything would be alright.
Over the years I have often reminded congregations the Church of God teaches “nations can and should resolve their differences without going to war.” My posture has always been to question the justice of any given war. I have openly opposed or questioned all of the wars/military actions of my adult lifetime. During the early days of the war in Iraq I identified myself as a pacifist provided I could qualify the definition as being radically committed to the pursuit of peace. I am a pacifist in the sense that I oppose nations going to war. They “can and should” find another way. War should be the very last resort. Further, I have problems with the “just war” theory because it is too often misappropriated to justify wars that are avoidable.
I believe we should be patriotic. We should love our nation and work for its security and well being. I am convinced the United States of America is the greatest nation in the history of humankind. We have been the most just and merciful of all nations. We have sacrificed more for the good of others than any nation. But I also know we must love Christ and His Kingdom more than our country. I am greatly bothered by an idolatrous nationalism, the rampant confusion of the USA with the Kingdom of God. As great as the USA has been, it is also guilty of great sins against our own citizens and other nations. Our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” There can be nothing more American than to question the wisdom of our governmental leaders. To not question our government on something as grave as war is to be less than American and less than Christian.
I am convinced Christians have an obligation to actively promote peace, in personal, societal, national, and international realms; “blessed are the peacemakers.” However, I do not understand radical pacifism to be the only or best approach to peace and justice. I allow there may be times when the exercise of force, even deadly force, may be the appropriate means of promoting peace and justice. Indeed, it may be the only righteous option. I accept, and endorse, the Church of God position on personal conscience dictating the decision to bear arms in times of war. I regret that many of my fellow baby boomers seem to interpret that ruling as a blanket endorsement of combatant service rather than a call for prayerful discernment. If drafted I would have to serve as a non-combatant on grounds of conscience; I could not commit to follow the commands of others to take lives without regard to the justice of the immediate situation. On the other hand, I could use force, even deadly force, to stop an individual from killing or maiming others if the threat was imminent. I recognize there may be logical difficulties in my position.
In theory I can endorse “just war” but only if we understand war can be just only if failure to go to war would be a grave act of injustice. Perhaps stopping the killing fields of Cambodia or the genocide of Rwanda would have qualified. The current situation in Somalia might as well.
These views often place me in the despised middle, too liberal for most conservatives, too conservative for most liberals. Iraq has been especially isolating for me. I opposed the US led invasion of Iraq. I do not fault the Bush Administration for misinformed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Even the French and Germans said they were there. I fault them on the justice of invasion in light of the fact there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq or from within on its own people. On the other hand, during the war I have opposed calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops; that would have been unjust in that it would have created a situation for a civil war with large scale bloodbaths. Once we invaded the country and dismantled its government we had a moral obligation to create an environment conducive for internal peace. Anything less would be unjust.
Coincidentally, we are not well served by the language of “war on terrorism.” Terrorism is an abstract concept (yes, with all too real consequences). It cannot be defeated anymore than the war on poverty, noble as it was, could be won. A war with a concept is too open ended and can too easily be used as a pretext for unjust war with actual people. We should think of ourselves as being at war with specific terrorist groups. Such a war is just and can be won. Nations that openly ally themselves with terrorist groups would thus be accountable for the actions of those groups.
In summary, as a child of God it is my responsibility to work for peace and justice. I can never abdicate that duty. This requires that I call into question all uses of force to suppress the freedom of people and measure the use of force on the scales of justice. It does not require that I condemn all uses of force. For me, to participate in war with all of its ramifications would be to abandon my higher calling of working for peace. It would inevitably put me in conflict between obedience to Caesar and obedience to Christ. Thus, even if I felt the war was just I could only serve as a noncombatant.
That’s the way I see it on Monday, September 21, 2009.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Tears: A Biography
I don't think I have posted this before. It comes from a time over two decades ago when God was in a breaking and melting mood.
Tears
Glistening drops of liquid gold
Announcing stories begging to be told
Cantankerous, salty little drops
Refusing to come, refusing to stop
Each one a prisoner of my heart
Seeking opportunities to start
Wanting to escape from me
Return to their mother the sea
When I was a little child
My heart was tender and mild
Tears were always there
In touch with my every care
I cried when I had a scrape
And when they removed the bandage tape
I cried when I wanted my way
Begging to go or seeking to stay
I cried when I’d said all I could
Longing simply to be understood
I cried when I felt rejected
Hungering to be accepted
Tears were always there
As normal as breathing air
Warm, then cold upon my cheek
Freedom from them I could not seek
All I could do was bury my head
Deep into the spread on my bed
Desperately wanting someone to care
Yet strangely content in my solace there
Ashamed of my childish tears
Overwhelmed by inner fears
Then it happened, how, I can’t explain
I suddenly knew I could refrain
I took control of my inner strife
Discovered a whole new life
When I felt my eyes begin to burn
I held my breath, a simple trick I learned
I assured myself I didn’t have to cry
I could hold it in until I die
Before long it wasn’t even a fight
I had my emotions bottled tight
Latter I discover the trauma of being a “man”
Emotions are essential to being human
I may have locked them in
But what did I really win?
When I stopped my tears and gained control
I closed the windows of my soul
I locked myself inside a cage
Outer peace, inner rage
Only God could set me free
So I gave them all to him, exposed the inner me
Now tears may trickle or come in a flood
They’re a part of me, they’re in my blood
JDJ
December, 1988
Tears
Glistening drops of liquid gold
Announcing stories begging to be told
Cantankerous, salty little drops
Refusing to come, refusing to stop
Each one a prisoner of my heart
Seeking opportunities to start
Wanting to escape from me
Return to their mother the sea
When I was a little child
My heart was tender and mild
Tears were always there
In touch with my every care
I cried when I had a scrape
And when they removed the bandage tape
I cried when I wanted my way
Begging to go or seeking to stay
I cried when I’d said all I could
Longing simply to be understood
I cried when I felt rejected
Hungering to be accepted
Tears were always there
As normal as breathing air
Warm, then cold upon my cheek
Freedom from them I could not seek
All I could do was bury my head
Deep into the spread on my bed
Desperately wanting someone to care
Yet strangely content in my solace there
Ashamed of my childish tears
Overwhelmed by inner fears
Then it happened, how, I can’t explain
I suddenly knew I could refrain
I took control of my inner strife
Discovered a whole new life
When I felt my eyes begin to burn
I held my breath, a simple trick I learned
I assured myself I didn’t have to cry
I could hold it in until I die
Before long it wasn’t even a fight
I had my emotions bottled tight
Latter I discover the trauma of being a “man”
Emotions are essential to being human
I may have locked them in
But what did I really win?
When I stopped my tears and gained control
I closed the windows of my soul
I locked myself inside a cage
Outer peace, inner rage
Only God could set me free
So I gave them all to him, exposed the inner me
Now tears may trickle or come in a flood
They’re a part of me, they’re in my blood
JDJ
December, 1988
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thoughts on Getting Older
“Boys, if I live to be an old woman, I don’t have long to live.” That’s what my great-grandmother Nettles told my father and his brother Woodrow. At the time they were young boys and she was a widower in her early sixties. I heard my dad tell that vignette several times throughout my life. The first few times Great Granny Nettles was still living. She lived to just a few months short of her one hundredth birthday and although I didn’t see her often I remember her well.
She was a Bible loving, foot-washing, loud-singing, shouting, “Hard-shell” Primitive Baptist, one of the elect in a religious world of double predestination. The grand-daughter of an Indian Chief, Billy Bowlegs, she grew up on Billy’s Island in the Okefenokee Swamp. I don’t remember her ever talking to me. I have shadows of recollections of her patting me on the head and saying things about me (“he’s a cotton top” kind of things). Mostly, I remember her as the center of the universe whenever she was present. Everyone seemed to hang on her every word and revolve around her every move. Someone said she never worked a day in her life, at least not after her daughters got old enough to take care of her. Whatever the case, they were devoted to her.
Today is my fifty-sixth birthday (her birthday was this week as well – 143rd I think) and I have reflected on how that comment to my dad has affected me over the years. When I was young it was a humorous story about how even adults could miss judge reality; Dad always chuckled when he told it. “My goodness she’s lived a lifetime since she said that,” I would think. For most of my adult life it has served as an illustration of the stages of human development, integrity vs. despair. Today it serves as a very different point of reference. If I live to be an old man, I don’t have many years to live.
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not depressed about my age. I am probably more up-beat than I have been in years. I simply have a different perspective on time and age. As I grow older there are fewer uncertainties in my life, making room for more expectations. I think about heaven more than ever. My thoughts of the celestial city are decreasingly material (apartments, streets and gates) and increasingly relational. What a glorious promise that we shall know as we are known.
A few months ago I had an interesting notion. In recent years I have thought more and more about how wonderful it will be to see my loved ones who are already there. One day as I prayed for my children, their husbands and my grandchildren it dawned on me that I will probably have greater joy seeing them in heaven than seeing my loved ones who have gone before me. Perhaps I will have greater joy seeing those I have influenced toward heaven then those who influenced me. For those who helped me I will be thankful and overflowing with joy; heaven will certainly be a reunion with those we love. But life is lived forward; it is by its very nature purposive. We who are in Christ are living toward the glory of God and our contribution to His glory will be our conformity to His image, the lives we have lived, and the persons we have influenced.
A parallel transition in my thinking is that those whom I am influencing toward heaven are before or in front of me. That is, in the continuum of time they are between me and Heaven. I may get there first, but their lives are closer to the return of Christ and the fulness of time. {Then again according to Paul they will not get there before us. The dead in Christ will first rise.) They are not behind me being pulled into eternity. They are before me being nurtured toward God. The significance for me is that my role in life is before me. Regardless of the time allotted to me by God, my life is full if I am journeying with others toward Him. However many years I have before me in this life, may they be measured not in weeks or months or decades, but in the riches I lay up in heaven, riches first planted in the lives of those I am nudging toward God.
In Christ the best is always yet to come.
She was a Bible loving, foot-washing, loud-singing, shouting, “Hard-shell” Primitive Baptist, one of the elect in a religious world of double predestination. The grand-daughter of an Indian Chief, Billy Bowlegs, she grew up on Billy’s Island in the Okefenokee Swamp. I don’t remember her ever talking to me. I have shadows of recollections of her patting me on the head and saying things about me (“he’s a cotton top” kind of things). Mostly, I remember her as the center of the universe whenever she was present. Everyone seemed to hang on her every word and revolve around her every move. Someone said she never worked a day in her life, at least not after her daughters got old enough to take care of her. Whatever the case, they were devoted to her.
Today is my fifty-sixth birthday (her birthday was this week as well – 143rd I think) and I have reflected on how that comment to my dad has affected me over the years. When I was young it was a humorous story about how even adults could miss judge reality; Dad always chuckled when he told it. “My goodness she’s lived a lifetime since she said that,” I would think. For most of my adult life it has served as an illustration of the stages of human development, integrity vs. despair. Today it serves as a very different point of reference. If I live to be an old man, I don’t have many years to live.
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not depressed about my age. I am probably more up-beat than I have been in years. I simply have a different perspective on time and age. As I grow older there are fewer uncertainties in my life, making room for more expectations. I think about heaven more than ever. My thoughts of the celestial city are decreasingly material (apartments, streets and gates) and increasingly relational. What a glorious promise that we shall know as we are known.
A few months ago I had an interesting notion. In recent years I have thought more and more about how wonderful it will be to see my loved ones who are already there. One day as I prayed for my children, their husbands and my grandchildren it dawned on me that I will probably have greater joy seeing them in heaven than seeing my loved ones who have gone before me. Perhaps I will have greater joy seeing those I have influenced toward heaven then those who influenced me. For those who helped me I will be thankful and overflowing with joy; heaven will certainly be a reunion with those we love. But life is lived forward; it is by its very nature purposive. We who are in Christ are living toward the glory of God and our contribution to His glory will be our conformity to His image, the lives we have lived, and the persons we have influenced.
A parallel transition in my thinking is that those whom I am influencing toward heaven are before or in front of me. That is, in the continuum of time they are between me and Heaven. I may get there first, but their lives are closer to the return of Christ and the fulness of time. {Then again according to Paul they will not get there before us. The dead in Christ will first rise.) They are not behind me being pulled into eternity. They are before me being nurtured toward God. The significance for me is that my role in life is before me. Regardless of the time allotted to me by God, my life is full if I am journeying with others toward Him. However many years I have before me in this life, may they be measured not in weeks or months or decades, but in the riches I lay up in heaven, riches first planted in the lives of those I am nudging toward God.
In Christ the best is always yet to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)