From the BlogSubscribe Now

Perceptions of “Dying to Control” from a Local Church Pastor

Posted on August 30, 2013 // Leave a Comment
Bryan Baker

Bryan Baker is the founder of Ministry Logistics and a Local Church Pastor in Big Timber, Montana.

Guest Post by Bryan Baker

Full disclosure requires me to say that I have known Leon for a little over a year. I have also been helping him build his online real estate (i.e. website, blog, and social media presence).

That said, Leon honestly wants my real opinion.

A number of times over the last year I have asked Leon, “Do you really want my opinion?” His response is always the same, “Of course.”

I decided to read Dying to Control before we finalized working together. It was a quick read: Honest, from the gut, thoughtful, and a little edgy.

I am as far from edgy as a person gets. Sometimes edgy is about ticking off mom, dad, the grandparents, and everyone else with a tradition or two. Leon is sincere and every word of the book has been crafted with that sincerity. His edge is good!

I was also nervous about having Leon preach in the church I pastor. I was scared he would get me in trouble.

But I invited him anyway and surprise, no one beat down my door the next day.

People responded with affirmation, understanding, and the question, “Why haven’t we heard this before?”

Here are some of my takeaways from Dying to Control, having Leon preach, and from the discussion group he led.

People are tired of the arguments of yesteryear.

Evolution and human sexuality may be important topics, but so much energy has gone into fighting these battles while the rest of the world has started talking about different things.

Are they important?

I think so, but these conversations aren’t  happening in the same room most people are in. Leon’s story of the evolutionist and creationist having a verbal duke fest is interesting because most of us leave those arguments wondering who won and why we were listening. Most of these discussions are an exercise in futility. Few people leave with a new perspective and most leave more entrenched in their own thinking.

People are excited about things that matter.

Mannequin

photo credit: Urban Woodswalker via photopin cc

People want more from life than window dressing. Mannequins serve a great purpose, but none of us wants to be one. People are tired of living life like we are on display. We know something is wrong. The act of dressing up, looking like we have it all together, and keeping up with the Jones family is nothing more than a facade.

We may not know how to take off our masks, but we know they exist. There is a desire to come out from “behind the tree” as Leon describes it. Our self-made costumes, masks, and personal attempts to hide aren’t working and we know it.

Coming out from behind “the tree” is an exciting invitation! Scary, but exciting.

Genesis 3 is surprisingly relevant for today. Adam and Eve hiding behind the tree is replayed every day.

Last month I saw (heard) a few dozen people asking Leon questions and wrestling with material found in Dying to Control. All of those people were grappling with their own stuff: broken marriages, rebellious kids, addiction, sickness, legalistic religion, and the multiplicity of other human predicaments.

Most people walked away from that conversation saying, “This is good!” And, “I need to think more on what it looks like to come out from behind the tree.” The tree is a metaphor for how all of us tend to hide – hide from God, from our own brokenness, from each other.

Maybe that’s what’s so refreshing about Leon, and Dying to Control.

He’s inviting us to answer God’s question, “Where are you?”

God knows where we are, so it may seem like a stupid question. So maybe the question isn’t for his knowledge, but for ours?

Do we know where  we are?

This is a good question for us to think about.

I spent a week with Leon last month. I think Leon enjoys pushing my buttons, challenging my theology, and critiquing Evangelical Christianity, of which I am a part. But all in all, I agree with him (mostly). And given the chance I will have him preach, teach, and lead discussions again. I have personally benefited from the read, and from his friendship.

His material is relevant for today. The cool thing is, he doesn’t see it as “his material.” He wants us to carry the discussion.

So if the discussion is going to happen, we better help carry it!

There are two things I would like to see happen now.

  1. I would like to see another chapter. The book has nine chapters and it would be great to see another one that summarizes Dying to Control and some next steps. I want him to give that chapter away to us, his readers, for free. Let’s just call it the unwritten chapter and see if he decides to write it. I think there is some uncovered ground yet to be revealed.
  2. I would also like to see a group of people wrestle with the material, ask questions, and maybe even put together some follow-up material or a workbook for others to use in their discussions.

Let me know what you think in the comment section below. Or you could just send Leon an email and let him know what you think. You might even tell him to get rid of the guest post guy!

 

 

Filed Under: Book Review, Guest Post // Tagged: , ,

Awkward Moments in Premarital Counseling (Part 1)

Posted on April 23, 2013 // 7 Comments

(Written by Dying to Control contributor, Mike Ballman)

“I will take Awkward Moments in Premarital Counseling for $500, Alex.”

“The answer is ‘I presume you two are already having sex.”

“That’s easy, Alex, the answer is ‘What is the big fat elephant in the room no one wants to address in the first session of premarital counseling.”

“Correct!”

Throughout my fifteen years of premarital counseling, numbering well over 50 couples, only a fraction of the couples have answered “no” to the question, “Are you two having sex?”  That doesn’t seem that unusual in this day and age unless you consider that the large majority of my counselees grew up in the church and would enthusiastically label themselves evangelicals.  That is significant because a huge tenet of evangelicalism is sexual purity, which includes a strict prohibition of any form of premarital sex. Moreover, the majority of my experience is with the generation that was deluged by such classic sexual purity manifestos as I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Boy Meets Girl and my favorite— I Gave My Word to Stop at Third.  Actually, I am not sure that last one is a real book or something my youth pastor used to say.  Clearly, there is no shortage on teaching or ambiguity about the evangelical message that premarital sex is a no-no.  So why is no one taking this foundational teaching seriously?

I think, to most of my counselees, abstinence is some kind of deep magic that is only for the truly hardcore Christian.  It is a great ideal but no one is really expected to be able to do it—kind of like giving away all your possessions to the poor.

So what does a good evangelical pastor like myself do with this disparity?  The most preferable option for me and my counselees is to ignore the elephant.  However, I could risk losing my evangelical membership card for that one—so that is a not an option.

The textbook answer is to tell the couple that while it is true that the deep magic of abstinence is only possible for a few, all are held to its standard.  But not to fear, atonement is cheap.  If you agree to feel really badly about disappointing me and Jesus and agree to abstain from any further sexual activity until the wedding, all will be forgiven.  While that option is the best for ensuring that all parties keep their evangelical membership in good standing, it seems kind of hollow to me.

The option that I have found most fulfilling with experience and Scripture goes something like this:  why don’t we take a look at how God describes what constitutes marriage in Genesis Chapter 2? “ … a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two of them will become one.”

I go on  to explain that I believe that the act of marrying another consists of three parts:

  1. Leaving your home of origin.
  2. Joining all that you have with another. (living together,  joining finances, sharing future plans, dreams)
  3. The giving of self, all that you are, in sexual intimacy to another.

I then sit and look at the couple in silence as they think through what I have just shared.  Once I see the light go on with one or both of them, I say something like, “do you see what I am getting at here?”

“Are you saying we are already married?”

“Yes, yes, I am.”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

From Procreation to Recreation

Posted on March 8, 2013 // 4 Comments

Human beings have been walking the earth for more than 6,000 years, and as surprising as this may sound to some people, we’ve been having sex for just as long. The idea that sex is wrong, or dirty, or evil is a preposterous notion. Sex is good. It’s pleasurable; it’s inspiring; it’s a decent form of cardiovascular exercise; and if you leave out the whipped cream, it’ll help you lose weight. In a word, sex is awesome!

Given its lengthy and pervasive existence, it shouldn’t be surprising to hear that sex has served a multitude of roles and functions in society. It also shouldn’t be surprising to hear that like every good thing, sex has been misused and abused. Yet, despite its storied history, there is one aspect of sex that has hovered over humanity’s collective conscious—the potential of creating new life. The possibility of pregnancy has consistently given sex a weightiness, a sense of significance, that has transcended the act above merely being a means of experiencing physical ecstasy.

That weightiness, however, began to lift in 1960 when the FDA approved The Pill for contraception. For the first time in 6,000+ years, women were gaining power over pregnancy; and as research and technology improved, so did The Pill’s safety and use, giving birth to a sexual revolution. Today, the evolution from procreation to recreation is complete. As a society we embrace the concept of casual sex and “friends with benefits.” We believe that sex is a recreational activity that we can explore and enjoy with no commitment, with no strings attached, because it’s “just sex.”

Or can we?

Friends with Benefits

In researching the subject of sex and how we view sex, I watched a Hollywood movie this week titled, Friends with Benefits. I’m happy and somewhat sad to report that this film offers a more honest, accurate, and relevant commentary on sex in the 21st century than any sermon or biblical teaching I’ve ever heard on the subject.

In the movie, the two main characters—Jamie and Dylan—decide to add sex to their friendship, thinking that it won’t complicate their relationship. Throughout the film they consistently reassure each other, and themselves, that it’s not a big deal, that it’s “just sex.” But it becomes obvious to everyone around them, and eventually to the two of them as well, that being “friends with benefits” just doesn’t work, and in the end, Jamie and Dylan end up together.

In Friends with Benefits, Hollywood portrays casual sex as a naïve and childish impossibility. Why would Hollywood—you know, the bastion of liberalism and debauchery—do such a thing?

Because everyone who has ever had sex and is not detached from their emotions knows that there’s no such thing as casual sex. Sex is never “just sex.” Call it emotional, mystical, or spiritual—I don’t care—the reality is that you form an intimate bond with every person with whom you’ve ever had sex, and every time you climb into bed with someone new, you bring all those other people with you because you can’t control the thoughts, feelings, and memories that come rushing back. You can’t. They are there with you, forever.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of sex, a big fan. And I’m a fan of The Pill—I very much enjoy having recreational sex with my wife. However, I wish when I was 15-years-old somebody would have sat me down and told me their story, explaining how there’s no such thing as casual sex. And today, in addressing sex outside of marriage, I wish the Church had something more to say then, “Don’t do it” and “stop it.” I wish the Church would offer a relevant, biblical message about what sex is and what it is not.

That’s what I’ll try to do next time in a piece titled, The Two Become One Flesh.

Filed Under: Uncategorized // Tagged: , , ,

Sex, Marriage, and the Church

Posted on March 2, 2013 // 4 Comments

In last week’s post—Can the Church Still Be Relevant—I wrote about how the Church needs to contextualize the Christian faith in 21st century terms if it wants to stay relevant. This week, I want to begin fleshing out what that might look like through a series of posts titled, Sex, Marriage, and the Church.

Sex is a popular subject these days. Television shows like Sex in the City and movies like Pleasantville have brought sex out of the dark and into the light of mainstream culture. What was once a utilitarian act performed for the sake of begetting children is now a recreational activity for everyone (over the age of 18) to discuss, explore, and enjoy. In response to this sexual revolution what is the Church supposed to say? What is the Church supposed to do?

Here’s what the Church is saying: “Don’t have sex outside of marriage, and if you are having sex outside of marriage, stop it.” And here’s what the Church is doing: nothing. The Church’s commentary on sex hasn’t changed or progressed in 2,000 years, and in what appears to be a losing battle, the church is doing less and less to address this epidemic. It’s remarkable to think that instead of engaging one of the most important social and moral issues of our time, the Church occasionally whispers, “You shouldn’t do that,” and has turned a blind eye to sexual promiscuity, except, of course, in the case of homosexual relations.

So what is the Church supposed to do? Should the Church take a stronger position on abstinence and discipline those having sex outside of marriage? Should the Church go in the opposite direction and somehow try to reconcile traditional beliefs with the values of our current culture? Or should the Church mind its own business by continuing its current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

As I mentioned last week, being relevant is not about defending your theology or changing your doctrine; being relevant is about explaining your beliefs in a way that connects with people and the world in which they live. In today’s world, most adults are having sex, most couples engage in intercourse before marriage, and most individuals lose their virginity long before their wedding day. For a priest or a pastor to stand in front of a congregation and say, “Don’t have sex,” is like a principal telling a group of children in detention, “Don’t get in trouble.” It’s too late, it’s already happened. At that point, what people need is a relevant message to help them deal with what’s already been done.

On the issue of sex, the Church doesn’t need to change its position, but it better have more to say about sex outside of marriage than, “Stop it.” The Church needs to reclaim sex—it needs to educate people about how this most intimate of acts transcends physical gratification—and the Church needs to explain how every sexual encounter binds two people together forever. You see, being relevant is about meeting people where they are, in the world in which they live, with a message that has real-life implications. The Church needs to be talking about sex in a relevant way, which is what I’m trying to do in this series on sex, marriage, and the Church.

Join me next time as we look at sex in how it’s evolved From Procreation to Recreation.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

Can the Church Still Be Relevant?

Posted on February 23, 2013 // Leave a Comment

Whether it’s a student in a classroom, a parishioner in a pew, or a judge on American Idol, everyone seems to be asking the question: “How is this relevant?” Granted, the word itself may be trendy, and the labels “relevant” and “irrelevant” may be a passing fad, but the need to be relevant will never go out of style. Being relevant, however, isn’t about being on the cutting edge, or cool, or entertaining; being relevant is about telling a story or communicating a message that has real-life importance. And in this age of information, where we are confronted by an ever-increasing stream of data, the need to be relevant has never been, well, more relevant.

In recent years, the issue of relevance has been a hot topic in the Church, with clergy and parishioners questioning whether certain long-standing doctrinal positions and points of theology are still relevant. In response, some branches of the Church have altered a few of their positions, others have more vigorously defended all of their beliefs, while still others have obtained Twitter accounts.

The issue of whether or not the Church is still relevant, however, is not primarily determined by doctrine or the effective use of technology; the Church’s relevance is primarily determined by its ability to communicate its beliefs in a way that connects with the current culture. In other words, for the Church to be relevant, it doesn’t need to change or defend its theology, the Church just needs to explain its theology in a way that connects with people and the world in which they live. If the Church wants to continue being relevant, then the Church needs to contextualize the Christian faith, taking into account that in the 21st century:

  1. Our perception of the world has changed;
  2. Our perception of humanity has changed; and
  3. Our perception of God has changed.

Our Perception of the World Has Changed

Over the course of human history our understanding of the material world and how it came into existence has evolved. The current atomic theory—that atoms serve as the fundamental building blocks of nature—is a relatively new worldview and it significantly impacts our understanding of the Christian faith.

Take for example the sacrament of Communion. When a priest or pastor holds up the elements, pronouncing that this is the body and blood of Christ, what is he saying? 21st century people who ask this question want to know what is in his hands, atomically. The answer “We just believe it in faith” avoids the question and referencing a pre-Modern creed or theological statement isn’t helpful because it’s not written from an atomic perspective. The point here is not that the Church needs to offer a bio-chemical statement about what happens to the elements in Communion; the point here is that the Church needs to address 21st century questions in 21st century terms if it wants to stay relevant.

Our Perception of Humanity Has Changed

In recent years our view of humanity has also gone through significant change. We now have a genetic perspective on life, meaning that we see every person as a unique human being, each having his/her own distinct DNA. The implications of this new perspective are far-reaching. Just consider the impact it has on our understanding of human nature. An essential Christian doctrine has been the belief that every human being has a sinful nature that we inherited from the first man—Adam. From a genetic perspective, what does it mean that we have a sinful nature? Where do we look to find the sin that’s within us? And how is sin passed from one generation to the next? Again, I’m not suggesting that the historic Christian faith needs to be altered; what I’m saying is that the faith needs to be contextualized if it’s going to stay relevant.

Our Perception of God Has Changed

For most of human history an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, and virtually every other catastrophic event has been viewed as a supernatural act of God. Today we call these “acts of God” natural disasters. Our ability to rationally explain natural events also diminishes the number of “miracles” we see, because once we can explain an event, we no longer attribute it to God. As a result, we don’t see the hand of God at work around us the way people once did, and the more we progress, the less we will see God and acknowledge our need for God.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So where do we go from here? Given all that’s changed and will continue to change, is it possible for the Church to stay relevant? I think so, but not by trying to be on the cutting edge, or cool, or entertaining. You see, the Church always has the potential to be relevant because regardless of how much we progress as a civilization, we are still imperfect creatures, living in a hostile world, and sometimes God is the only relevant answer.

Filed Under: Uncategorized // Tagged: ,

Stop and Smell the Roses

Posted on February 14, 2013 // Leave a Comment

A few months ago I was eating dinner with my wife and daughters at a local, Italian restaurant when six teenagers walked in. They were wearing formal attire—the three young men were sporting suits and the three young ladies were dressed in gowns, the expensive kind, the kind that women spend months picking out to wear for just one, special night. I watched the hostess walk up and greet the party of six and escort them to their table.

Scenes like this make me smile. I don’t know if it’s because it reminds me of my youth, when I ventured into the world of love and romance, or if it’s something simpler than that. Whatever the reason—it really doesn’t matter—it’s just nice to watch an event like this unfold.

Sometime later, I looked over at their table, curious how the date was progressing. I was surprised by what I saw. They weren’t nervously eating, or talking, or even looking at each other. All six teenagers were feverishly thumbing on their cell phones. I have no idea if they were texting, tweeting, posting, pinning, surfing, or something else-ing. All I know is that they weren’t paying attention to each other. All the excitement, expectation, and preparation for this one, special night, and they were missing it. Sure, they were there together, but each of them was someplace else.

I didn’t know what to think or how to feel; I just had an eerie sense that something wasn’t right. A few seconds later I turned away and never looked back, but the image of them sitting around the table—each in their own world—has stuck in my mind.

Is today’s youth so “plugged-in” that they are unable to focus on where they are and the ones they’re with?

Has the world changed that much?

Back in August, 2001, when my wife was pregnant with our first child, Kirstin, we moved to Utica, NY, where I began my career as a pastor. The church didn’t have a building, so I purchased a cell phone that served as the church’s phone and as a way for people to contact me in case of an emergency. It didn’t take long for that number to be the one people also called when they just wanted to talk. Feeling responsible to love and serve the congregation, I answered the phone every time it rang. It didn’t matter where I was or what I was doing, I always answered the phone, and it rang a lot.

Three years later, I was sitting in bed with Kirstin, playing a game, when surprise, surprise, my phone rang. As I started to reach for the phone, Kirstin beat me to it. She grabbed the phone, stuck it under the sheets, and looked at me with expectant eyes. She might as well have said, “Daddy, for once can you please just pay attention to me.” It broke my heart.

I would like to say that things changed after that. I would like to say that from that point forward whenever I was with my family I let the phone go to voicemail. But I can’t, because I didn’t. Occasionally, I would let the phone ring, but most of the time I thought my job was too important, so I excused myself and answered the call.

I answered the call to love parishioners above the call to love my own family.

The truth is: I’m not all that different than the teenagers I saw at the restaurant a few months ago. I may not be fixated on my phone, caught up in the social media craze, but I still answer my phone more often than I should. I also confess that even when I’m not on the phone, there are times that I’m out to dinner with my family, but my mind is someplace else.

So where do I go from here?

Well, today is Valentine’s Day, and I’m typically not a big fan of Hallmark holidays, but this year I’m going to buy my wife and each of my daughters a bouquet of flowers and a card—not because I have to, but because I love them. They don’t know it, but I’m also going to take them out to dinner and give them my undivided attention, because what’s the point of buying flowers and taking your date out to dinner if you don’t take the time to stop and smell the roses.

Filed Under: Uncategorized // Tagged: , ,

The Introduction to “Dying To Control”

Posted on February 8, 2013 // 1 Comment

A few questions that I’ve received about my book and blog are “What inspired you to write it?”, “What is ‘Dying to Control‘ all about?” and “What are you hoping to accomplish?” In thinking about how to answer these questions, I figured it might be helpful if I posted the book’s introduction. If the following does not answer your questions or if you have any additional questions, please let me know.

 Introduction

Time was beating second after relentless second as I sat, hunkered down in my apartment study, surrounded by the workload of seminary. Mindful of a deadline that would arise shortly after dawn, I fired away at the keyboard, writing a paper on the subject of God’s holiness. Having been exposed to impressions of God from an early age, I described his holiness as I had always envisioned it—a glorious light radiating his absolute power and authority throughout the universe. I defined holiness in terms of purity, perfection, and the absence of sin. Then, as I was explaining why humans cannot enter or even look upon the holy glow of God, something curious happened. Without warning, the words, “Stop writing what you already think!” blew through my mind. Silenced, I sat staring at the bright, square light of the monitor as a calming peace draped over me.

After a while I stood up, picked up my Bible, walked out of the study, sat down on the living room couch, and began reading the story that speaks to why the relationship between God and humankind is so distant—the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 

“Where are you?”Those words caught my eye in a way they never had before, and like a child seeing fireworks for the first time, I gazed at them in fearful delight. Awed and perplexed, I began to wonder: If sin and sinful beings cannot exist in the presence of God, then what was God doing walking in the garden of Eden after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit? And why did God call out, “Where are you?” An all-powerful, all-knowing God certainly would have been aware of what they’d done and where they were hiding. This Genesis story, credited with explaining the expanse between a holy God and a sinful humanity, actually speaks of a God who reaches out to us.

I didn’t know this God, or at least I didn’t understand the complexity of this God. The God of my Catholic upbringing would have yelled, “I know where you are! I know what you did! Come out and receive your just punishment!” The God of my Protestant faith would have retreated to the purity of heaven to begin bridging the chasm between a holy God and a sinful humanity. Why was I taught that sin could not exist in the presence of God? How had I missed God’s invitation in verse 9 for so many years?

As I watched the foundation of my Christian faith detonate, I marveled at the glorious display. For the first time I was seeing God in color. The blinding white light of a punitive dictator who torments us for our sin had given way to a colorful array, and the silhouette of God as an alienated friend who must overcome the cosmic law that sinful beings cannot exist in his presence faded to black.

 *************************

 Since those dawning hours on September 23, 1998, my life has been consumed with studying, teaching, and experiencing the implications of Genesis 3. This book is a product of that journey. Written through the lens of Adam and Eve, Dying to Control is a reflective commentary on twentieth- and twenty-first-century American culture.

To appreciate this book, you don’t have to consider the garden of Eden drama to be a historical account; all that’s necessary is that you’re willing to consider the possibility that the story offers some insight into humanity’s conflict with God and one another. For too long now the debate between the scientific and religious communities over the historical merits of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden has divided and distracted people from the story itself. Arguments over issues such as whether serpents ever walked or talked have grown old and have little bearing on the meaning and relevance of the account.

To illustrate my point, consider the story of the Three Little Pigs. Imagine if someone dismissed the tale because pigs do not build houses and wolves cannot blow them down. In response to the dismissal, imagine someone else trying to validate the story by providing scientific evidence suggesting that pigs may have at one time walked on two legs, had opposable thumbs, and had a brain mass capable of architectural design. Can you hear the ensuing debate over the intellectual potential of pigs and the lung capacity of wolves? None of which, by the way, would have any bearing on the moral of the story. In the end, with each side fighting to win the debate, the message of the Three Little Pigs would be lost.

To be clear, I’m not equating the story of the Three Little Pigs with the story of Adam and Eve. Rather, I’m drawing a comparison that illustrates our society’s absurd treatment of the garden of Eden drama. I find it hard to believe that those who argue against the historicity of the story simply dismiss the account as a mythical tale that offers little or no insight into our human condition. I also find it hard to believe that those who argue for the historicity of the story continue to focus their attention on protecting their position against attack and dissent. The garden of Eden drama—one of the oldest and most widely cherished stories in human history—has been misused and abused in the battleground of America’s culture war.

Today, across America, you’ll find religious enclaves still fighting this war. Consumed by their self-preserving causes, these communities of truth fighters adhere to a theology of a God who blows down houses when we don’t live by his rules. Deafened by the noise of warfare, these communities don’t hear, but rather fear, the engaging words of God: “Where are you?”

*************************

Where are you?

Like Adam and Eve, we all hide among the trees when we’re afraid. We congregate there with those who view the world in similar ways and welcome what they see of us. We hide and gather with like-minded people because we fear the world seeing the naked truth of who we are and what we think and the shameful deeds we’ve done. We fear being exposed, for once we are truly known, we realize we must face an even greater fear—the fear of rejection.

To avoid living in fear, we grope for control of our lives and surroundings. Desperate to gain control of our world and our eternal destinies, we hijack anything that might give us the power needed to exert our will. Again and again, however, in our attempts to preserve and promote self we end up killing ourselves and one another. This sad irony has been an underlying theme in human history.

So, what do we do? In a world bleeding with religious conflict, in a world coughing from pollution, in a world starving for nourishment and love, what do we do?

Lasting solutions begin with making honest evaluations of ourselves as individuals and as members of families, neighborhoods, nations, and the world community. Instead of covering our humanity, we need to interact with and seek to understand one another in the midst of our humanity. Only after we stop hiding and blaming others for the woes of our world will we be able to own and address the shame we have each brought upon the human race.

My hope for humankind in the twenty-first century is that we will emerge from the shadows of shame to experience freedom from our obsession with control. This is the kind of freedom the world needs—a freedom that releases unconditional love and compassion.

My hope for this book is that it will stimulate self-reflection and dialogue that will draw people out of hiding to experience life with one another. I also hope this book will contribute to the theological framework of the next generation of Christians who believe they have a God-given responsibility to participate in restoring an Eden-like beauty to every dark corner of our world.

In the end we have a choice—individually and collectively. We can continue fighting for control by ignoring, denying, deflecting, rationalizing, and whitewashing the truth of who we are and what we think and the shameful deeds we do—or with open and outstretched hands we can submit to one another.

Fight or submit—that is the choice set before us. That is the dilemma of dying to control.

Filed Under: Book Excerpts // Tagged: , , , , ,

Just Another Manic Sunday

Posted on February 1, 2013 // Leave a Comment

It’s Sunday, and the morning routine is much the same as any other day, except for one inexplicable difference: the force of Murphy’s Law—whatever can go wrong will go wrong—is strongest on Sunday mornings.

It starts with everyone being slow to get out of bed. It happens every Sunday, but each time it seems to come as a surprise and creates the time pressure of being fifteen minutes behind schedule.

Not long after, son pushes his little sister. Sister hits her head on the kitchen table. Ten minutes of wiping away of tears, hugs, and a spanking for son create another delay. The family is now twenty-five minutes behind schedule.

Dad jumps into the shower only to step on a yellow rubber ducky that mom didn’t put away after bathing daughter the night before. Dad slips, catches himself, but feels a twinge in his hamstring and aggravates a shoulder injury he first suffered during his high school athletic career, when a boy feels no pain and answers the call, “Suck it up!” Twenty years later, dad feels the pain as it spurs into anger towards his wife.

“Son of a…! There’s no soap!”

Dad, unable to suck up his pain, sucks up his anger. He finishes his shampoo shower and continues his morning routine with one arm and a limp, saying as little as possible.

Mom, seeing dad hobble into the bedroom, asks if everything is okay. Dad’s glare communicates more than either of them want to discuss.

Mom returns to pulling up her pantyhose, but wouldn’t you know it, they get a run and, of course, they are her last pair.

Dad’s limp and mom’s wardrobe malfunction combine for another eight-minute delay. If you do the math, the family is now thirty-three minutes behind schedule, but somehow, somewhere, Murphy showed up and the family is an hour behind.

“I guess we’ll have to go to the second service…again,” Dad mutters. The words and tone suggest that the delay is Moms’ fault—it’s always Mom’s fault.

Eventually they finish getting ready, load up the car, and go—the Average family is on their way to church. The ride is silent. Daughter rubs the bump on her head as she plots her revenge. Son stews over the spanking he received, knowing that his mother hit him in anger, making her a hypocrite and no better than himself for pushing his sister. Mom thinks about what she will wear to church next week given that she had to put on next week’s outfit today. And dad sucks up his bubbling anger, but after having to stop at five red lights, can’t hold back any longer and erupts, “Un-freaking-believable!”

The Average family finally makes it to church with a few minutes to spare, and mom and dad put on their happy faces as they exchange pleasantries with the people they pass on their way to the sanctuary.

“Hello, how are you doing?”

“Good. How are you doing?”

“Good.”

This exchange is repeated over and over, again and again, week after week.

As son and daughter get older, they begin to resent the very notion of going to church. They wonder, “What’s the point?” and dream of being old enough to stay home. But until then, it’s just another manic Sunday.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

In Search of More Heroes

Posted on January 25, 2013 // Leave a Comment

We love our heroes. Whether they are warriors like Sir William Wallace, humanitarians like Mother Teresa, or civil rights activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we are captivated by those that reach beyond reason, risking their lives, for the good of humanity. And when we look through history, we find heroes in every society—men and women who sacrificed their own well-being in hopes of bringing freedom and opportunity to the people they loved.

Now even though heroes come in all shapes and sizes, we often have an idealized image of what a hero should be like; we call that hero a superhero. What’s fascinating about America’s quintessential superhero is how much he has evolved in just one generation. Thirty years ago our superhero of superheroes was Superman. Superman was an incredible specimen, with strength, power, and natural ability beyond human imagination. And Superman’s human persona—Clark Kent—was a man of impeccable character: humble, gentle, quiet, innocent, pure, and perfect in seemingly every conceivable way. Without blemish or flaw, Hollywood portrayed Superman as a Christ-like figure, coming to earth from another world to save the human race.

Thirty years later, Hollywood has brought a new super superhero to town; we call him Iron Man. Unlike Superman, Iron Man’s strength, power, and ability are not natural; they are a product of human innovation. And Iron Man’s human persona—John Stark—isn’t the nicest guy. To be honest, John Stark is a bit of an ass. He’s arrogant and self-righteous, forceful and loud, and he’s prone to get drunk on alcohol and women. Iron Man is imperfect in seemingly every conceivable way.

So, what’s the deal? Why is Iron Man portrayed as the kind of guy you would never let your daughter date?

Over the past few years, I’ve read and heard Christian leaders and critics of culture lament how our standards of moral excellence have diminished as a society and how that’s evident in Hollywood confusing good with evil by portraying even our greatest superheroes as morally suspect. These same Christian leaders and critics then go on to lament how this lack of morality is reflective of the next generation—a generation that has lost its moral compass and is no longer interested in the things of God, calling church irrelevant.

Holy cow, Batman! Is that really their conclusion, that the next generation is drawn to imperfect superheroes like Iron Man because it has lost its moral compass? Seriously, have they read the Bible?

Beside Jesus himself, is there any other biblical hero that isn’t morally suspect? Just consider a few of the more famous biblical heroes: Noah liked his wine and got passed-out drunk; Abraham pimped his wife and slept with her maidservant; Jacob deceived his father in order to steal his older brother’s blessing; Moses murdered a man and hid the body; and David took another man’s wife, got her pregnant, and then sent the man on a suicide mission. Which of these heroes would you let your daughter date?

You see, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and all the other great men and women of faith are not heroes because of their moral excellence; they’re heroes because each of them defied reason and lived by faith, risking their lives in order to bring freedom and opportunity to the people they loved, the people God loved.

Maybe the problem with the next generation isn’t that they’ve lost their moral compass or that they’ve become disinterested in God. Maybe the next generation has simply become disinterested in a faith that places more emphasis on moral excellence than on bringing freedom and opportunity to people in need. Maybe the next generation needs more heroes—men and women who neither hide nor flaunt their moral imperfections, but honestly and openly struggle with their flawed humanity as they sacrifice their lives for the people they love, for the people God loves.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

Confessions of a Self-Proclaimed “Control Freak”

Posted on January 21, 2013 // Leave a Comment

Two weeks ago I invited people familiar with “Dying to Control” to share their personal stories of life-change. The following submission is a revealing account of one person’s current struggle and her hopes of experiencing more freedom than she’s ever experienced before. I hope you enjoy her story.

“So I have been thinking a lot lately about some stuff.  God usually has to hit me over the head with “stuff” before it begins to sink in.  I have been struggling a lot lately with my relationship with my wonderful and favorite oldest daughter (I have two daughters, one favorite oldest and one favorite youngest) who is 12.  For some time now she has been emerging into this “teenager” believing she has all the right answers and knows more than those around her.  She also is emerging into this young lady who wants freedom and thinks that her parents are too “strict” – she doesn’t even begin to understand that term!  Anyway, as I have been thinking about our interactions and fights lately it makes me sad that I have this need to continue to engage in this “struggle”.  I have been trying to understand the “why” to my actions.  I have the most amazing husband/partner in this life together that keeps “trying” to remind me that I am supposed to be the “mature” one emotionally, physically and spiritually and I need to just relax and we will all get through this stage!  I have had some amazing teaching in the last 10 years about loving others and God and having a relationship and not a contract where I get goods and services and that ends it.  I need to be engaging in life together with people and not trying to “control” everything.  I have never thought of myself as a control freak, but when I really look at even saying that I am not a control freak, that makes me a control freak.   I hope that this is all beginning to sink into my brain where I can honestly say I don’t “need” to be in control.  I don’t “need” to have all the right answers, and most importantly I don’t “need” to self-protect myself.  What I “need” is to stop blaming others for their behaviors and actions toward me.  What I “need” is to stop “needing” to be right in every conversation, especially with my 12 year old.  What I “need” is to live the life that God has called me to live and let Him control every aspect of it.  What I “need” is to respond in love when someone attacks me.  What I “need” is to not be defensive when someone points out that I have “issues” I need to work on.  What I “need” is to remember all of this when the flesh starts to take over and I feel threatened.  I am going to continue to fight with my 12 year old daughter, I am going to continue to feel ashamed and want to hide behind the tree when I feel threatened.  That stuff is not going to go away, but if I can remember to look back on how God has freed me from the bondage of being in control, being self-protective, and blaming others last week or last month or even yesterday then maybe today that freedom will come a lot quicker and I can let go a lot sooner.”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized //