From the BlogSubscribe Now

Sermon 1: Do You Trust Me?

Posted on September 16, 2013 // Leave a Comment

For the month of September I’ll be the guest speaker/preacher on Sunday mornings at Cypress Bible Church. The five-week series is titled “A Faith That Can Change the World.” Here’s a brief summary of the first sermon:

Do You Trust Me?

What does it mean to have faith? More specifically, what does it mean to have faith in God?

Hebrews 11 is often referred to as the Hall of Faith. This chapter talks about some of the most faithful men and women to have ever walked the earth. What do their faiths have in common? And what do their faiths have in common with the Apostles and people like you and me? If we believe in one genuine faith, then what is the essence of that faith? What does it mean to have faith in God?

To answer this question we need to go back to the beginning, before the faith of Noah, before the faith of Abel. We need to go all the way back to the garden of Eden and look at the relationship that God established with Adam and Eve.

In the Genesis 2 creation story, God is described as the all-mighty Creator, and in forming a man out of the dust of the ground God is portrayed as the Giver of life. God is also portrayed as the Sustainer of life as He created the garden of Eden with its fruit-bearing trees that were good for food and a great river that watered the Ancient Near-Eastern world.

In the middle of the garden God planted two trees–the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. These trees at the center of the garden symbolize God’s central question to all of humankind: Do you trust me? God wants us to trust him, eat from the Tree of Life, and live forever; but if we choose not to trust God, if we choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God promises that we will die.

This question, “Do you trust me?” is the central question of faith. Every person has to make the choice between trusting God as the Giver and Sustainer of life or trusting themselves as the Giver and Sustainer of life. The people in the Hall of Faith–every one of them–was presented with this choice, and they all chose to trust God.

As Christians we also have a choice–we can either find life in Jesus or try to find life on our own. This faith is more than believing Jesus died for our sins so that we can go to heaven; it’s believing that Jesus is our source of life today, tomorrow, and forever more. Trusting Jesus as the Giver and Sustainer of life is the heart of the Christian faith and it’s the heartbeat of a faith that can change the world.

To listen to the sermon, click on the podcast link below.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

An Overlooked Perspective on Millennials Leaving the Church

Posted on August 23, 2013 // 1 Comment

Recent articles written about “Why Millennials are Leaving the Church” and “How to Keep Millennials in the Church” have left me wondering why nobody is interested in my opinion. Well, not necessarily my opinion, but the opinion of my generation—Generation X. We’re the ones born in the 60s and 70s, after the Boomers and before the Millennials. Granted, we’re not the largest generation, and we’re not that boisterous, but there are 80 million of us and we’re quietly reforming the church in America.

My intention here isn’t to whine or pout on behalf of Generation X. I’m not jumping up and down, shouting, “What about me? Pay attention to me!” I’m not demanding a seat at the table. I’m simply one Gen-Xer offering what I think is an overlooked perspective on the issue of Millennials leaving the church.

We’re Not Your Parents

First, I want to say something directly to Millennials. When you complain about evangelical Christians and the church being too political, too judgmental, and unconcerned about social justice, you’re not talking about Generation X. Gen Xers gave up on changing the world through politics long before you were old enough to vote and we’ve been leading the charge for social justice within the church for more than a decade. So the guys on television that claim to represent “evangelical Christians”—yeah, the guys you hate—they don’t represent us either.

So millennials, when you paint the church with broad, condemning strokes, be careful how wildly you wield your brush because you might not be as angry and frustrated with the church as you are with what your parents have done with the church.

Stop Selling Church

Second, I would like to explain why the question, “How do we keep Millennials in the church?” is counterproductive and why the question itself can cause a Millennial to storm off, muttering, “You don’t understand.” Millennials are the first “connected” generation, which means that they are the first generation born into a perpetual stream of media and advertising. As a result, they are able to filter information at a speed and in a fashion like no other generation before them; and therefore, they have the uncanny ability to smell a sales pitch miles away. So when Evans, in her CNN piece says, “Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances,” she’s making a profoundly important statement about how Millennials view the world. For Millennials, words are cheap and seeing is not believing. For Millennials, they have to experience it to believe it. And can you blame them? They were raised to never, ever, trust a stranger, and they grew up at a time when you couldn’t turn on the television without seeing a new update on the latest sex scandal in the church.

So Boomers, if you really want to keep Millennials in the church, then stop wrapping up Jesus like a Christmas present with a pretty bow and stop trying to sell church. Just love. Without an agenda, without an end goal in mind, just love people with reckless abandon, and who knows, you just might be surprised who shows up at your church next week.

Don’t Exchange One Product For Another

Finally, I would like to offer a word of warning to all us church-going Americans. Whether we like it or not, we’re consumers, and in the pursuit of experiencing genuine faith, we have to be careful not to merely exchange one product for another. As a culture we’ve been church hopping and shopping for decades, trying to find the church that fits us just right. But the truth is that the Church, in its purest sense, has never been about a building, a style of worship, or a liturgical form; the Church has always been about a community of Jesus-followers gathering together to worship God and serve one another.

So fellow Christians, I leave you with this: if or when you find the right church, don’t just sit there as though you’ve survived an exhausting pilgrimage across a desert and entered into the Promised Land. Because it does not matter what church you attend, if you’re not actively involved in being the church—loving God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself—then, I promise you, your faith will run dry and before you know it, you’ll be on your way, searching for your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid within the newest church trend.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

Awkward Moments in Premarital Counseling (Part 2)

Posted on July 16, 2013 // Leave a Comment

(Written by Dying to Control contributor, Mike Ballman)

Here’s what happened on the previous episode of Awkward Moments in Premarital Counseling:

I was sitting with a couple in my office, discussing their relationship and their desire to get married. After I explained what I believe it means to be married, I looked at them in silence until I saw the light go on with one of them. At that point I asked, “Do you see what I’m getting at here?”

Then, in season-finale fashion, the episode ended with this surprising exchange:

“Are you saying we are already married?”

“Yes, yes, I am.”

 

In this week’s episode…

Congratulations, You’re Already Married

Did you see what I did there? I simply helped my counselees see that the marriage ceremony, the legal pronouncement of marriage, is not what makes one married in God’s eyes. Rather, it is the three-part act of marrying another – leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh – that constitutes marriage.

The religious and/or legal ceremony is intended to be a public pronouncement of the couple’s desire to seek God’s blessing and guidance as they enter into the act of marriage.  Unfortunately, most couples put the proverbial cart before the horse and fully enter into the act of marrying long before they ask for and seek God’s blessing and guidance.

Since the couple is already engaged in a marital relationship by having left their parents, cleaved to one another, and become one flesh, the traditional premarital mandate – stop having sex until after the wedding ceremony – does not fully address the primary issue at hand.  The primary issue is that the couple in my office is asking me to plan a ceremony to invoke God’s blessing on their marriage when they have already slighted God by fully entering into the act of marriage without his blessing or guidance.  Therefore, it is my job to help them recognize God as the Giver and Sustainer of their marriage rather than as a ceremonial afterthought.

Consequently, much of my “premarital counseling” actually turns out to be marital counseling with a focus on strengthening the marriage that already exists rather than preparing for a future marriage.

Almost invariably at this point in the conversation I see a sense of relief pour over the faces of the couple as if I were a professor canceling a final exam the week of finals.  You see, I think most, if not all, couples know deep down before they ever step into my office that they are already married and that they have left God out of the union — they just need someone to give them permission to acknowledge the trespass and the safety to come clean with God.  As my good friend and co-contributor to Dying to Control, Leon, would say it, “they know they are hiding from God and they need someone to help them come out from hiding and face him.”  After all it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to recognize that if they are already living together, sharing their money and possessions and having sex — the marriage ceremony will be like singing the national anthem after the super bowl.

Now, to the traditionalist Christian still bothered that I would condone sex before the legal ceremony, let me ask you: what if I’m correct? What if marriage isn’t defined by the words, “I do,” but rather, by what has already been done? What if the couple sitting in my office is already married in the eyes of God? What am I supposed to do with this biblical mandate:

4 “The wife’s body does not belong only to her. It also belongs to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong only to him. It also belongs to his wife. 5 You shouldn’t stop giving yourselves to each other except when you both agree to do so. And that should be only to give yourselves time to pray for a while. Then you should come together again. In that way, Satan will not tempt you when you can’t control yourselves.”  I Cor. 7

For those unwed couples I counsel that I think have fully entered into marriage before the ceremony, I’m not going to tell them to separate until the wedding day, and I’m not going to tell them to stop having sex — I am not going to divide what has already been joined together. What I am going to do is explain the essence of marriage and the implications of this passage and leave the decision to them.

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

Two Become One Flesh

Posted on March 16, 2013 // 6 Comments

If you’ve ever heard me teach, you know—sooner or later—I’m going to talk about the story of Adam and Eve. It’s not because I’m obsessed with the story (although I admit that I am); it’s because the account has served as the backbone for much of Western thought and culture, including the subjects of sex and marriage.

In the account of Adam and Eve, we are told, “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This brief statement has served as the model for marriage in the Western world, outlining the union between a man and a woman in a sacred, three-step process.

Leave

The first step in marriage is for a man “to leave” his father and mother, meaning that the man is to exit the protective care of his parents; he is to step out on his own and establish his independence. This leaving is not a severing of the parent-child relationship, but a recognition that the man is no longer under his parent’s authority. Leaving one’s parents is an essential step in getting married, and if you’ve ever watched an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, you’ve seen the conflict and chaos that inevitably occurs when a man refuses “to leave” his mother and father.

Cleave

The second step in marriage is for a man “to cleave” to his wife. The verb that’s used here can be translated as “unite,” “bond,” “cling,” or “cleave,” and conveys the idea of two separate entities being joined together. In the context of Genesis 2, a man is supposed to form a permanent connection to his wife to replace the bond that he previously shared with his parents. This union of a man and a woman is typically recognized and celebrated by the couple’s family and friends through a formal, public ceremony—a wedding—in which the couple makes a lifelong commitment to one another.

Two Become One Flesh

The final step in marriage is for the two to become one flesh, which traditionally occurs on the couple’s wedding night as they consummate their marriage by having intercourse for the first time. Yes, “they will become one flesh” is a euphemism for sex. Now I understand that it’s in vogue these days to say that the two becoming one flesh reflects a oneness more mysterious and wonderful than sex alone, and I realize that such a mystical teaching makes for a transcendent-sounding sermon, but it’s a weak interpretation of the expression that cheapens both sex and marriage.

If you search the Bible to see how this expression is used, you’ll discover that it’s always mentioned in the context of marriage, except in one instance. 1 Corinthians 6:16 states “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that when a man unites himself with a prostitute it means that they had sex. And I don’t think prostitution is the oldest profession because men have an insatiable desire for emotional and spiritual oneness.

The idea of “two becoming one flesh” is a vivid and dramatic image of intercourse. And by saying that it’s more than sex or something other than sex, misses the meaning and purpose of sex. Sex is not merely a physical act for personal gratification. Sex is a holistic experience that engages our mind, body, soul, and spirit, and it’s the ultimate expression of intimacy between a man and a woman, making the two one flesh. That’s why sex between two people forms a lasting bond between them whether they know it or not, whether they want it or not. Sex is never just sex.

So what do we do? As I mentioned in a previous post, in today’s world most adults are having sex, most couples are engaging in intercourse before marriage, and most individuals lose their virginity long before their wedding day. What is a girl supposed to do when her boyfriend dumps her after they have sex for the first time? What is a man supposed to do when he feels guilty for becoming one flesh with more women than he can remember? And what should a pastor say to a couple in pre-marital counseling that has been sexually active for most of their relationship?

Now that we have defined sex and marriage from a biblical perspective, these are some of the real-life situations we will address in the weeks to come.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

We are Adam Lanza

Posted on January 11, 2013 // 1 Comment

A blog entry that I posted three months ago, titled The Illusion of Control, received an unusual number of hits this past week. Curious as to why, I reread the entry.

The post began with a brief summary of the tragedy that occurred in the Washington metropolitan area back in October, 2002, when ten people were killed and three others were seriously wounded by two snipers randomly shooting people in shopping center parking lots and gas stations. Reflecting on that tragedy, I wrote:

“Horrific stories like this one are disturbing. Somewhere deep within our beings, maybe in our souls, we feel a most unsettling angst—one that tends to linger. Death can have this effect on us, particularly in situations where it could have been avoided, or in this case when it is a random, senseless act of violence. It just feels wrong.”

Somewhere in the middle of reading that paragraph I felt a cold chill as my mind migrated north from a parking lot in Washington DC to an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. For weeks now I have been wondering whether I should write something about the massacre that occurred in Sandy Hook on that cold December morning, but honestly, I have been at a loss for words, trying to make sense of yet another “random, senseless act of violence.”

With Sandy Hook Elementary School on my mind, I continued reading my post from three months ago:

Beyond the tragic loss of life, there’s something else about an event like this that disturbs us—the jarring realization that we’re not in control of our lives as much as we’d like to think. The idea that I could be shot while loading groceries into my car reminds me that I do not sustain my own life. Sure, we can avoid dangerous situations and take meticulous care of our bodies, but ultimately we’re not in control. There are countless internal and external variables that could end our lives in an instant. A blood vessel could burst in my brain as I type these words and there would be nothing I could do about it; a drunk driver could hit me head-on before I have a second to react; a tidal wave could wash over my family as we stand helplessly on the beach; and a giant asteroid could be hurling toward Earth, and the only thing we could do would be to count down the seconds until impact. We are at the mercy of the world around us, and we need our bodies to perform countless involuntary functions to keep us alive. That’s part of why hearing a story about madmen randomly shooting people is so troublesome; it’s a shocking reminder that life is fragile and that we do not have ultimate control over our lives. Death, without warning, can visit any one of us at any time.

Reading that paragraph, I realized what it was that I wanted, needed, to write about.

This post is not a commentary on what happened the morning of December 14th, in Newtown, Connecticut; it’s about what’s happening all across the country now. Gun control has taken center stage in public and political discourse. Those in favor of greater gun restrictions have proclaimed the need to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, while those against changing the gun laws have insisted on the need to defend the Constitution and our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Seriously? Do those trying to take the moral high ground of defending the Constitution seriously believe this is a Second Amendment issue? And do those fighting for increased gun control seriously think that they can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again?

Folks, let’s be honest with ourselves; this frenzy over gun control is largely a reaction to our illusion of control being shattered.

In the days after Sandy Hook, social media channels were flooded with concerned parents panicking over whether or not they should send their children back to school (as if the world had just become a dangerous place). And once the issue of gun control was raised, gun advocates started to lose their minds, sensing that their control was being threatened because “Big Brother” might take away their guns and their God-given right to buy and sell semi-automatic weapons.

So, what’s my point?

My point is that we as a society are obsessed with the illusion of control, and when tragedy strikes, we’re more interested in trying to restore that illusion than in honestly assessing and dealing with the problem.

Let’s take the shooting at Sandy Hook for example. We want to believe that access to guns is the problem, and we want to read a moving article like I am Adam Lanza’s Mother and think that addressing mental illness is the solution. Gun control and mental illness may be issues that we need to address, but they are not the foundational problem that’s killing our nation.

The foundational problem in America is that we believe that we are each entitled to control our own destiny and that “nobody has the right to tell me what to do.” In the case of Adam Lanza, we don’t know what motivated him to do what he did on the morning of December 14th, but I am convinced that beneath his motivation was the belief that his actions would somehow place him in a position of power and give him the control that he thought he was entitled to have. I further believe the same is true for the majority of people who have taken matters into their own hands over the past few decades, opening fire in their high schools, places of work, and public venues. The difference between those individual and the rest of society is that they were each detached from their conscience and unable to comprehend the gravity of their actions.

But are we as society any different than Adam Lanza? Have we as a society detached ourselves from our collective conscience and can no longer comprehend the gravity of our actions?

While the rich continue to insist that they’re entitled to keep more of their money, and the poor believe they’re entitled to more public assistance, and the sick feel entitled to unlimited health-care coverage, and the aging expect social security to support them until they die (even if modern technology allows them to live for another 100 years), our nation has dropped off a “fiscal cliff.” We are spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have, and while this is all happening, Republican and Democrats are fighting for control of Congress and the country, more interested in supporting the causes of their campaign donors and getting re-elected than in representing their constituents.

We have lost our collective conscience!

Just think for a moment about what we do on the day after Thanksgiving—the day after giving thanks for all the blessings that we have. On that day—Black Friday—we spend more money than any other day of the year, and we literally trample over each other buying stuff we really don’t need because we think we’re entitled to it. It’s insane! We have become so obsessed with our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we are unable to comprehend the gravity—the insanity—of our actions. So instead of looking the problem in the face when a massacre like Sandy Hook occurs, we kid ourselves into thinking the solution to the problem is as easy as gun control and a national campaign to address mental illness.

Seriously, is that what we really believe?

When will we be honest with ourselves? When will we stop chasing the illusion of control? When will we stop indulging our entitlements at the cost of bankrupting our nation and killing the next generation? And when will we stop trampling and shooting anyone who stands in the way of our controlling our own destiny?

We might not like it, and we might not want to admit it, but we are Adam Lanza.

And we need to get help before it’s too late.

Filed Under: Uncategorized // Tagged: , , , , , ,

Friends Don’t Let Friends Be “That Guy”

Posted on November 9, 2012 // Leave a Comment

Nobody likes “that guy.” You know, “that guy”—the person who breaks social etiquette by saying or doing something awkward, inappropriate, or downright stupid; you know, the guy who drives 55 mph in the left lane when traffic is flowing at 70, the guy who wears enough cologne to make grandma say, “Damn!”, and the drunk guy who gets too loud at a party. Yeah, that guy. Nobody likes “that guy.” In fact, most people don’t even like being friends with that guy; it’s embarrassing.

Unfortunately, all of us, from time to time, are “that guy.” I’ve been “that guy” who holds up traffic at a tollbooth as I desperately search for 50 cents in a change compartment full of pennies; I’ve been “that guy” who makes off-color jokes at a dinner party that makes everyone cringe; and once I was even “that guy” who asked a woman how far along she was in her pregnancy when she wasn’t even pregnant!

Being “that guy” is awful and it feels terrible, which is why we sometimes struggle to admit when we’re being “that guy.” But the only thing worse than being “that guy” is being “that guy” who refuses to admit when he’s being “that guy.”  Now “that guy” is a self-righteous ass; that’s the guy who insists that he didn’t say anything inappropriate, and that’s the guy who never does anything wrong.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can be “that guy.” I sometimes ask, “What did I say?” when I’ve clearly said something I shouldn’t have, and “What did I do?” when I’ve done something wrong. Fortunately, however, there are people in my life who don’t let me get away with it. I have friends who tell me when I’m being “that guy” and insist that I’m being an ass when I try to deny it. I’m grateful for those friends because, without them, I eventually wouldn’t have any friends at all.

I write about “that guy” because ever since the presidential election came to an end, “that guy” has been showing up everywhere—television, radio, and every form of social media—arguing that Romney was the better candidate, the more righteous candidate, and that he should have won the election. Nobody likes “that guy”—the poor sport who every time his team loses has some sort of reason or excuse for why they lost or why they deserved to win. Whether he’s willing to admit it or not, “that guy” is unable to be a gracious loser because he has a superiority complex and, therefore, tends to cry foul and pout like a petulant child when things don’t go his way.

Since the election, however, “that guy” has not only been the poor sport who can’t lose with grace, “that guy” has also been the poor sport who can’t win with class. As much as he might try to restrain himself, “that guy” can’t help but gloat with self-righteous indignation, rubbing the losers’ faces in it.

So here’s the bottom line: in the aftermath of the presidential election, “that guy” is showing up everywhere, and although it’s easier to just keep your distance, if “that guy” is your friend, you might want to let him know that he’s being an ass, because in the end, nobody wants to be friends with “that guy.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

Hurricane Sandy Hits Home

Posted on November 2, 2012 // Leave a Comment

Hurricane Sandy hits home for me—really close to home. I grew up on Sandy Lane, forty minutes from the sandy beaches that hurricane Sandy pounded a few days ago. For me and millions of other people, the Jersey shore is synonymous with summer. Whether your family took day-trips to a local beach or week-long vacations on LBI, the Jersey shore has been a second home for many of us, a home that has been washed away. The boardwalk at Seaside Heights—our teenage playground on cool summer nights—is gone. And now, in the calm after the storm, instead of hearing the click, click, click of wheels spinning on the boardwalk, silence hovers over mile after mile of debris.

We are, however, resilient creatures. Soon the buzz of chainsaws and the rumble of bulldozers will fill the air as we start cleaning up the mess. In a few months the crack of hammers driving nails into plywood will echo up and down the coast. And before we know it, the click, click, click will be back on the boardwalk again. In the end, the Jersey shore will be bigger and better than ever before, and we will unconsciously thumb our noses at the forces of nature, proclaiming our resolve to build and rebuild whatever we want, wherever we want.

This post, though, is not about our resiliency or our ability to transcend our differences and come together for a common cause (although that makes for a nice story). This post is about the small window of time between the end of a disaster and the beginning of recovery—a window through which we catch a glimpse of reality and are reminded of what it means to be human.

You see, in the calm after the storm we stare in disbelief, trying to wrap our minds around the landscape of destruction. In surveying the wreckage we are overwhelmed by the reality of how small we truly are. This realization can be unnerving, causing some to scurry, frantically trying to “fix it,” hoping to regain the illusion of control; while for others, this realization is a helpful reminder that we are only human and that we are never, ever, truly in control. This humbling realization is what causes people to thank God after surviving a natural disaster, and why, for at least a few days, their hugs are a little tighter, their kisses last a little longer, and their words, “I love you,” flow with a little more heart.

So if Hurricane Sandy pounding the Jersey shore hits home for you, I would like to encourage you to visit the coastline sometime in the next few months—before it’s bigger and better—because it will never be the same. And if you’re able to look across the landscape of destruction and get past the unnerving realization of how small you truly are, I promise you’ll gain a renewed sense of what it means to be human: you’ll reminisce about the good times you’ve had there in the past, you’ll be grateful for the life you have today, and you’ll look forward to the memories yet to come.

Filed Under: Uncategorized //

How are We Supposed to Deal with Our Shame?

Posted on October 26, 2012 // 1 Comment

     Do you ever feel ashamed?

     If you’re anything like me, then you may have said or done sometime this week or last Friday night you’re not proud of, and you wish—oh, how you wish—it had never happened.

     Assuming for a moment that you’ve done at least one shameful deed at some point in your life, let me ask you, what did you do with your shame? As Americans, how are we supposed to deal with our shame? In American society we don’t have a social structure or a legal system that addresses shame. The United States is an innocence-guilt culture in which we emphasize personal integrity and individual responsibility. In our culture, it is important for individuals to maintain their innocence, which is why we teach our children it’s never appropriate to lie, cheat, or steal. If someone gets caught breaking the law or has a moral failing that becomes public, that individual is declared guilty and needs to make some form of restitution. However, paying a fine or serving time doesn’t address a person’s shame. A rapist may pay for his guilt in prison, but on the day he’s set free, how does he escape his shame? As for his victim, what is she supposed to do if she, after hearing the guilty verdict, exits the courtroom feeling naked and ashamed? …

     Because American culture is so biased toward an innocence-guilt perspective on life, shame is not just an issue our society struggles to address; shame is an issue our society struggles to recognize. We Americans want to believe there is no reason to be ashamed of ourselves if we haven’t committed a crime, but we don’t have to be guilty of breaking the law to bring shame upon ourselves, our families, and our communities. Furthermore, because guilt and shame feel much the same, when we experience shame, we often mistake those feelings for guilt. Yet guilt and shame are not the same; guilt and shame reflect different offenses.

     Unlike guilt, which is an emotion that individuals feel when they violate a law, shame is an emotion that an entire group feels when one of its members violates a relationship. Therefore, when we as human beings fail to treat one another with respect or when we break the bond of trust in a personal relationship, we bring shame upon ourselves, upon the relationship we violate, and upon the community of people we represent. …

     As Americans, we may live with an innocence-guilt perspective on life, but as human beings we feel the shame of our violated relationships. We can suppress our shame, or we can try to address our shame as if it were guilt, but unlike guilt, we cannot pay for our shame. It doesn’t matter how much or how often we pay, the shame we feel as lingering guilt cannot be paid away.

     So once again I ask, how are we supposed to deal with our shame? …

     In our twenty-first-century world—a world in which our communal existence has been reduced to a wasteland of broken relationships and distrust—we need a faith that not only addresses our guilt but also helps us deal with our shame.

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

What’s at Stake in the Creation vs. Evolution Debate?

Posted on October 23, 2012 // 6 Comments

Looking beneath the surface of the creation vs. evolution debate, this excerpt from chapter 8 brings to light how a noble fight for “truth” may not be so noble after all.

     Have you ever been to a creation vs. evolution debate? In the late twentieth century these spectacles were the heavyweight bouts of America’s culture war. I was lucky enough to attend one of these epic battles back in 1991. The fight was held in a performing arts auditorium at a prestigious liberal arts university. The event was sold out, but fortunately, being from New Jersey, I knew a guy.

     The venue was packed and the crowd went wild when the two opponents were introduced. The man in the red corner, representing the young-earth creationists, had the swagger of a condescending Christian. The man in the blue corner, representing the evolutionists, had the look of an angry atheist. The place was raw with emotion, and when the two combatants met in the middle of the stage to shake hands, you could tell this was going to be one hell of a fight.

     From the opening bell the evolutionist threw his hardest scientific data at the creationist, but the creationist was able to dodge and deflect most of the punches with theistic responses and anecdotal evidence that illustrated the uncertainty of evolutionary science. With each passing round the evolutionist grew more and more frustrated with the creationist’s defense: unless the evolutionist could recreate the Big Bang or form life out of primordial soup, the creationist was not going to throw in the towel; he was not going to concede that the earth was billions of years old or that evolution was a scientific fact.

     Unlike the evolutionist, the creationist didn’t deliver hard, scientific punches. He seemed content to jab at his opponent, exposing the various gaps in the theory of evolution. The hardest scientific data he threw supported the biblical account of a worldwide flood, but it was not much of a punch. Some might have even called it a slap in the face of science.

     After more than two hours of debating, neither man showed any signs of tiring, and neither one had the proof to land a knockout punch. As they stood there toe-to-toe, exchanging blows, the final bell rang, and the moderator stepped in to call an end to the fight. The debate was over.

     So who won?

     Well, it depends on whom you ask. There were no judges, so there was no official decision. When the moderator said good night and the house lights came on, it was time for everyone to leave, but the fight was far from over. As the crowd made its way up the aisles and out the front doors, so did the debate over who won, and no one was going to step in to stop that fight.

     In the end I don’t know if there were any winners in the creation vs. evolution debate, but I can tell you this: there are plenty of angry and condescending people in both camps who insist they’re wearing the title belt of truth.

     Truth? Is that what this was about? Was America’s culture war a fight for truth? Did the creation vs. evolution debate devolve into a verbal street brawl because people were passionate about the truth? In hindsight I don’t think so. There was a time when I believed in the fight for truth, but not anymore.

     Truth—absolute truth—is not something that can be won or lost in a debate. Whether I think life on earth is a product of God’s creation, evolution, alien invasion, or something else does not affect the truth. The truth is simply that—the truth. It is what it is.

     Those involved in the creation vs. evolution debate can insist they’re engaged in a noble fight for truth, but it’s hard to see the endless debate as anything more than a shameless struggle for control. Regardless of what scientific data is brought forward, creationists refuse to give up the “good” fight, praying they’ll win so they can bring creationism back into our public schools. Meanwhile, the evolutionists are just as committed to winning so they can keep creationism (i.e., religion) out of our public schools. Each camp passionately professes to be fighting for the truth, but the prize for winning the creation vs. evolution debate is not the belt of truth. The prize for winning the debate is control over what is printed in textbooks and taught to our children. When you strip away all the hoopla and posturing, the creation vs. evolution debate, like any other debate, is merely a fight to gain control over what is perceived and what is portrayed as the truth.

Take a minute to think about the fights, conflicts, and disagreements you are currently involved in and ask yourself, “What is it that I’m really fighting for?”

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

What Happens When the “Miracle of Life” is No Longer a Miracle?

Posted on October 19, 2012 // Leave a Comment

In today’s world we don’t view the “miracle of life” as being much of a miracle anymore. The microscope has allowed us to unravel the mystery of conception, the pill and abortion have given women power over pregnancy, anesthesia has reduced the pain of childbirth, and modern prenatal and postnatal care have greatly reduced the mortality rates of mother and child. Thanks to modern medicine we have essentially gained control over pregnancy and childbirth, and having done so we no longer need to view God as the Giver of life. Now we can see ourselves as the givers of life, and we can feel justified in deciding when life begins and when life should end.

     Seeing ourselves as the givers of life has significant implications for how we view our children. Instead of viewing them as being created in “the image of God,” we view them as being created in our image. Instead of teaching our children to pursue what God created them to be, we encourage them to be whatever they want to be, and we push and manipulate them to do what we want them to do.

     Yes, we want our children to be healthy for their benefit, but we also want them to be healthy for our benefit. A healthy child makes a more flattering accessory for a mannequin on display than a child who is deformed, handicapped, or retarded.

     If you think I’m being too harsh or overstating my point, consider the ultimate goal of the Human Genome Project. We want to think the goal of mapping human DNA is to eradicate disease and birth defects. That may be a goal, but is it the goal? I think the ultimate goal is immortality. As the givers of life we want the ability to give ourselves eternal life, and if we cannot make ourselves immortal, then the second-best option is to have the ability to create our children in whatever image we desire. If we can successfully identify, reproduce, and splice all the genes needed to form a human being, maybe we can fashion the idols of our dreams. Can you imagine a build-a-baby boutique where we could flip through catalogues of human traits, from eye color to IQ, custom designing our children, with the only limitation being the balance in our checking account?

     Whether we want to believe it or not, this is where we are trying to take technology in the twenty-first century. Although God told Adam, “for dust you are and to dust you will return,” we are unwilling to accept God as the Giver and Sustainer of life—we want to give ourselves eternal life.

     As technology continues to advance in the twenty-first century, offering us more and more control over pregnancy and childbirth, who or what will we trust as the giver of life? Will we spend more time pursuing ageless immortality? Will we commit more energy to living like mannequins on display? Will we try to fashion our children into the idols of our dreams? Or will we become more grateful for the life we have, embrace the limits of our humanity, and love our children as God created them?

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