“We Three(?) Kings(?) of Orient(?) ...”

... so the beloved Christmas carol begins. Unfortunately, the opening line has at least three historical errors. First, we don’t know the number of men. Second, they weren’t kings. And third, they didn’t travel from the Orient!

Who were these mysterious travelers? And what does their presence mean to the Christmas story? These travelers were “magi”. They were apparently from Mesopotamia or Persia (present day Iraq) and were “priest-sages, extremely well educated for their day, were specialists in medicine, religion, astronomy, astrology, divination, and magic.” Since these practices were strictly forbidden in the Old Testament (Deut.18:11), what are they doing in one of the most holy events in all of history?!

Their testimony (which created quite a stir in Jerusalem) was that they were looking for “the one who has been born king of the Jews” and had come to “worship him.” Wow! How did they get so right what most of God’s people got so wrong? Since these pagan worshipers were genuinely seeking the Truth, God used what they knew (the stars) to guide them to Him.

As I share the gospel with non-Christians, I frequently encourage them to ask God if my message is true or not. If there is a God who truly cares about people finding Him, then he will reveal truth to genuine seekers. Our job, then, isn’t so much to convince people that Jesus is their savior as it is get them to become seekers like the magi. If the Christmas story is true, then God will bring them to the Truth in his time and his way.

The presence of the Magi reminds us that the gospel is for the whole world. Christ came to preach peace to those who were “far away and peace to those who were near.” And sometimes the furthest, the most unlikely are the ones who find the true peace that Jesus offers.

Merry Christmas!

Forgiveness: Part 4

“Forgiveness Doesn’t Whitewash Sin”

Even though Joseph knew that God had used his brothers’ sin to do good, Joseph did not disinfect their sin: You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good. Though Joseph came to understand that God had used his tragedies for good, he was under no illusion that his brothers’ actions were anything but evil. When someone has truly abused you it is important that you don’t sanitize their sin: “Oh, that’s no big deal.” You will never be able to forgive until you have analyzed and acknowledged the full scope of your brother’s sin. (Your analysis may determine that the offense wasn’t as great as you thought it was.)

Nor does a whitewash help the sinner--Joseph’s brothers needed God’s forgiveness even more than their brother’s. Walter Wangerin explains: “It may seem saintly for the wounded party to suffer his pain in silence, and it is surely easier to keep the silence than risk opening wounds; but ... it encourages no change in the sinner.” If I mute your sin and say nothing about it, it may prevent you from dealing with your sin before a Holy God. Jesus told me to remove the tree from my eye so that I can help my brother remove the irritating speck from his eye. Without my truthful but gracious words, the speck might remain.

Furthermore, even though Joseph forgave his brothers and invited them to live near him, forgiveness and reconciliation are separate matters. (The games Joseph played with his grain-seeking brothers may have been designed to see whether he could live near them. Had they changed during the past 20 years?) A wife whose husband has been abusive must forgive him. But it may not be wise to let him back into the house--not all abusers should get their jobs back.

It takes wisdom to know when and how reconciliation should be pursued. Otherwise, the forgiver may simply become a doormat.

Forgiveness: Part 3

“God’s Good Work”

Joseph was enslaved, slandered, imprisoned, and abandoned because of the jealous hatred of his brothers. What had he done to deserve such cruelty? He was merely a spoiled brat who took advantage of his position as Dad's favorite.

But now that his grain-seeking brothers had come to Egypt, he had the opportunity to avenge their wickedness. Joseph eventually chose not to seek revenge. Why not? When Joseph first revealed himself as his brothers' long-lost sibling, three times (Gen.45:4-8) he emphasized God’s baffling control over evil circumstances:

It was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.
God sent me ahead of you to preserve a remnant for you.
It was not you who sent me here, but God.

“God sent me.... God sent me.... God sent me.” Sinful human will combined mysteriously with divine will to save Jacob’s family from a greater tragedy.

Were Joseph’s brothers, then, merely puppets in the hands of an all-powerful God? Were they truly free or under God’s control? The problem is that the Bible doesn’t cast this question in either/or, but in both/and. Man is free and God is in control. How can these both be true? I don’t know. But Joseph could forgive because he saw God bring good from his brothers’ evil.

It may take a long time before we see God’s fingerprints in our suffering. Joseph had no idea why he suffered all those years. But when he watched his brothers bow at his feet, he “remembered his dreams.” What dreams? The dreams of his brothers’ obeisance. (And the dreams his brothers found so offensive.) But now he knew that those dreams had been sent by God. He now knew that God had foreseen these events long ago. He now knew that this whole experience was somehow a part of God’s greater plans.

Many times we must forgive before we discern the good that God will bring from the hurt. Only our faith sustains us, knowing that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him.” If you were sexually abused as a child, God will bring good out of that evil. If you were ignored by a self-absorbed father, God will bring good out of that evil. If you lost your job because a co-worker spitefully and secretly attacked you, God will bring good out of that evil. If a brother cheated you out of your inheritance, God will bring good out of that evil. We serve a God who is bigger than any sin and who will provide everything we truly need to live a joyously productive Christian life.

Forgiveness: Part 2

“The Reluctance to Forgive"

When a famine in Canaan became severe, Jacob was forced to send ten of his sons to Egypt to buy life-sustaining grain. (Benjamin, the new favorite, stayed home.) When they arrived, they were given an audience with the architect of Egypt’s surplus of grain. What a twist of fate! The man was none other than their brother, Joseph. When the brothers stood before Joseph, they didn’t recognize an older, Eyptianized Joseph. But Joseph recognized them immediately.

Put yourself in Joseph’s shoes. These are the brothers who conspired to destroy you. Their cruelty was the cause of incredible suffering--sold to slave traders, re-sold to an Egyptian official, falsely accused of rape, imprisoned for that charge, and more. But now your day has come. You have the opportunity and authority to grind these bullies to a pulp. What will you do?

Joseph didn’t seem to know what to do with them so “he pretended to be a stranger and spoke harshly to them.” He accused them of spying and threw them all in prison. Then he released all but Simeon, warning them that Simeon would only be released if they returned with their brother Benjamin. Was Joseph toying with them? punishing them?

The Bible is not like bedtime fairy tales which offer simple problems and simple solutions. Forgiveness for deep hurts is seldom swift or simple—and it wasn’t for Joseph. Why? Because forgiveness often feels like we are letting people get away with something. Joseph didn’t want his brothers “to admit [they] made a mistake, flip an apology in [his] direction like a fifty-cent gratuity, and go on as if [they] had done nothing worse than burping before dessert.”

Like Joseph, we may want others to feel some of our pain:

• The wife who bitterly complains to her husband about his work schedule, knowing that her nagging bothers him. She wants him to share the pain that she and the kids experience from his absence.
• The sharp-tongued co-worker who hangs on to the dagger of bitterness so that he can stick it into his lazy workmate who won’t carry his load.
• A brother who frequently recounts the cruel deeds of an older brother, hoping to embarrass the brother who caused him so much agony as a child.

If we are honest, we often enjoy tormenting those who have tormented us.

Forgiveness: The Only Remedy

Imagine growing up in a large family--you had eleven brothers. But one of your brothers was Dad’s favorite. On one occasion your joyous Dad came home with a brand new, expensive leather coat for the favorite. But then Dad herded the rest of you to Goodwill to pick out your used, winter coats. Now Jacob loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, ... and he made him a richly ornamented robe for him. As a result, you developed ill feelings toward this brother who strutted around the house in his special coat. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him. Now your brother not only flaunted his possession, but he also boasted about his special position. Listen to this dream I had: We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it. Your brother’s arrogance created a growing, smoldering anger in you and your siblings. And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.

Many of us have been deeply wounded by the sins and insensitivity of others. Some of those painful memories hit us with the “blunt impact of a sledgehammer, with enough force to knock [us] loose from the present.” As a result, we would be willing to trade “almost anything for a magic sponge to wipe just a few moments off the tables of time.”

The only way to remove this “nettle in our memory” is through “a surgical procedure called forgiveness. It is not as though forgiving is the remedy of choice among other options. It is the only remedy.” Over the next several posts I plan to use the story of Joseph and his brothers to discuss forgiveness--the only cure for broken hearts.

As the story of Joseph reveals, the abuses in relationships are seldom one-sided. Dad committed the sin of favoritism (which he learned at his mother’s knee) and the sin of indifference (he made feeble attempts to resolve these conflicts). Joseph sinned by flaunting his role as the favorite. Joseph’s brothers sinned by nursing a hatred of Joseph.

All of this produced a cauldron of animosity and bitterness which boiled over into violence. Joseph, who was the most privileged, became the most abused. Thus, this is primarily a story about how he came to forgive his brothers.

Perfect Kids, Part 2

Near the end of Jesus’ ministry two of his disciples came to him with an urgent request. But before they made their request they wanted Jesus to pledge that he would grant their request. Now real­ly--how gullible did they think he was?! How would you respond if your child said: "I have something I desperately want. But before I make my request, you have to promise to give it to me." You would laugh into next year. Even so, Jesus asked them what they wanted: “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

Now put yourself in Jesus’ shoes--you have been with these disciples for 2-3 years, coaching, cajoling, correcting, caring for them. These are the men you chose to carry your eternal message to the ends of the earth. And this childish request came only a few days after Jesus caught the Twelve arguing about who was the greatest among them. Ugh! My response would have been: “You want, what?! Have you learned nothing you bumbling idiots?! How many times have I told you that it is servants who are the greatest in God’s kingdom?!”

But this wasn't Jesus' method. He quietly gathered them around him, gently explaining, again, that this was not how things would be. Though their attitudes were normal among worldly people, he softly and simply reproached them: “Not so with you.” Unfortunately, there is little of this grace in many Christian homes. These parents bark out correction like a hard-nosed CEO: "Cut that out!" "Stop that!" "Don't you ever say that again!” "Can't you ever do anything right?"

Though we obviously can’t abandon standards, we must periodically review those standards. Is it reasonable for

· a 5 year-old to keep his room as spotless as an adult's?
· siblings to always remember to be quiet while the baby sleeps?
· a teen to be home before his curfew 100% of the time?
· a child to never whine about her chores?

Maturity is a slow, snail-like process that needs nurturing.

Faltering kids need gracious and consistent correction. When your exhausted toddler refuses to pick up his toys he may need your help more than he needs a spanking. When a 5 year-old hits his sister because she won’t share her treat, it may be sufficient to remind him that he can’t treat his sister that way. When your angry teen shouts, "You never let me do anything!", the best response may be: "Please change your tone of voice so we can talk about this calmly."

Imperfection is a part of being human. But our response to these imperfections will help or hinder our kids’ progress toward maturity.

"Perfect Kids, Part 1"

Over ten years ago, I wrote:

Though I have been a Christian for over 20 years, I must confess that there are stubborn sins that tenaciously hang on despite laboring with God to remove them. A few of my many short-comings include:

· My compliments are about as frequent as July snow.
· I forget appointments as I am driving to them!
· I make suggestions sound like com­mands.
· I groundlessly justify myself when I should simply apologize.


I won't bore you or embarrass you with a total list of my defects, but you get the point. Am I discouraged by my failings? At times. But normally my flaws don’t crush me because I know that imperfection is a part of being human. As the saying goes, no one is perfect.

So with this insight into human nature, what kind of expec­tations do I have of my three teenage boys? I expect them to ALWAYS remember my instructions. I expect them to speak gracious­ly in ALL circumstances to their brothers. I expect them to ALWAYS be attentive when I speak to them. I expect them NEVER to use their fists to settle an argument. I expect them to NEVER make fun of another child. I expect them to be ALWAYS respectful of me as their father. I expect them to NEVER become angry during a family discussion. And when they fail to meet these "reasona­ble" standards, I bellow at their infirmities: "I am sick and
tired of you talking to your brother like that. Cut it out!"

Before Cathy and I had children, we read several books about parenting. It didn't sound too difficult--we would be perfect parents; our kids would be perfect children. Right? Wrong! Our expectations crashed into reality. And after nearly 2 decades of parenting, we still frequently LOWER our expectations of our boys. They won't always be respectful. They won't always be gracious. They won't always remember their responsibilities. As I hope others will be patient with my failings, I also need to be patient with my children’s failings.

Surviving Our Troubles: First Responses

Impatience may be our most defining national trait. We borrow against future income. We run red lights to save 30 seconds. We fret if a church service runs a few minutes late.

But we aren’t alone. The Israelites were impatient to remove the threat of the violent Assyrians. As a result, their diplomats scurried south to make an alliance with the Egyptians, the only other Super Power. But God was not pleased:

"Woe to the obstinate children," declares the Lord,
to those who carry out plans that are not mine,
forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit,
who go down to Egypt without consulting me;
who look for help to Pharaoh's protection,
... but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the Lord.

Why is my natural response in large and small storms to seek my own counsel first? Why do I wait until the Egyptians disappoint me before I turn to God?

As I was writing this post I became frustrated with how it was being expressed—and then remembered that I had been struggling with words rather than depending on the Word! Amazing--even when I write about dependence I find it difficult to depend.

Rather than rushing to correct a child with a bad attitude, rather than taking the first job offered after being fired, rather than whining to others about how a best friend hurt us, rather than bolting to a new church when a pastor disappoints us, our first response should always be to turn to God.

The great news is that we have a Father who is committed to guiding us down life’s bumpy roads:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. (Prov.3:3,4)

Surviving Our Troubles: “Life’s Imbedded Thorns”

“Life’s Imbedded Thorns”

You think you have problems, listen to the Apostle Paul’s list: He was imprisoned frequently, stoned ruthlessly, flogged repeatedly, and shipwrecked tragically. He lived always on the edge: “in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.” This sounds more like the script from an Indiana Jones movie than the life-story of an itinerant gospel preacher!

Unfortunately, many of us expect the Christian life to be a picnic with a few minor irritations like flies in the potato salad or a few bug bites -- we don’t expect a hungry lion lurking in the bushes. But Paul’s life reminds us that life is a battle against an Enemy who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

Paul was nearly devoured by his “thorn in the flesh.” When he first received the thorn (a physical ailment?), he called it a “messenger of Satan.” But by the time the thorn had worked its way deep into Paul’s soul, it was something he would “boast” about because it taught him that God’s “grace is sufficient,” that God’s “power is made perfect in weakness.” (II Cor.12:7-10) Why won’t God heal a broken relationship with my sibling? remove my financial struggles? restore my child’s health? Not all of my problems are designed to be wholly solved. These thorny problems remain to keep me humble, dependent on God’s power.

God answered Paul’s prayer for relief from suffering with a resounding “NO!” What was Paul’s agenda? He wanted the thorn promptly removed. What was God’s agenda? To leave it firmly imbedded. He leaves painful barbs in our lives to remind us that life is too much, that we are too weak, that our problems are too overwhelming--if we don’t rely on Him.

The Da Vinci Code: Facts vs. Faith?

Dan Brown apparently believes that the historical claims made by Christianity are false. His hero, Robert Langdon, explains: “Every faith is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.” Sophie was troubled by this perspective: “My friends who are devout Christians definitely believe that Christ literally walked on water, literally turned water into wine, and was born of a literal virgin birth.” Though Langdon would never accept the literal truth of those events, believing those lies is not necessarily bad: “Living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people.”

Near the end of the movie, Langdon expressed a similar perspective. Though he didn’t believe the ancient documents could prove that Jesus was anything other than a great man, he told Sophie that when he nearly drowned as a boy, he prayed to Jesus. Langdon’s advice for Sophie was: “What matters is what you believe.” Even though Jesus is probably dust in some unknown grave in Palestine, praying fervently to him will somehow transform reality and you will receive what you ask for.

Is my belief all that matters? Are the historical claims of Christianity meaningless? Not in the least. The object of our faith is much more critical than our faith. If I were to go to any nearby lake tomorrow and attempt to ice skate across it, it wouldn’t matter how much faith I have, I would get very wet! On the other hand, if I go to any of those lakes in January and attempt the same feat, it doesn’t matter if I am quaking in my skates, the foot of ice on the surface of the lake will carry me across the lake. The object (the ice) is far more important than my faith in getting me across the lake.

Christianity is an historical religion. Without its history, we have next to nothing: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

Dan Brown’s treatment of Biblical history denigrates and confuses the faith. Christians believe in a real, risen, reigning Jesus. He alone gives substance and support to our growing faith. Faith in anything else, no matter how deep, will end in disappointment and death.

The Da Vinci Code: Worshiping the Goddess

The fictional Robert Langdon of Harvard claimed that the church successfully waged “a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever.” (p.124) Why would the church want to banish the goddess? Langdon claimed that the church was threatened by the belief that sex was the means “through which [a person] became spiritually whole.” If worshipers could “commune directly with God”, then this “left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God.” The church sought to “demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act” as a way of holding onto its power over people.

Though at times the church came close to demonizing sex, Brown’s flattering view of these fertility religions is worse. What were these pagan religions really like? Goddess worship presented a sickening combination of sex and violence -- Hollywood was not the first to join these two! The famous archaeologist, W.F. Albright, described this female goddess' thirst for blood: “`With might she hewed down the people of the cities, she smote the folk of the sea-coast, she slew the men of the sunrise.’ After filling her temple (it seems) with men, she barred the gates so that none might escape, after which `she hurled chairs at the youths, tables at the warriors, footstools at the men of might.’ The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees -- nay up to her neck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads, while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at butchery is described in even more sadistic language: `Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Astarte was full of exultation.’ Afterwards she was satisfied and washed her hands in human gore.”

Why does it matter that Langdon has these ancient religions so wrong? Because his benign treatment is used to sell sex as a means of salvation. When Langdon told his students that “sex is natural -- a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment,” a perceptive student asked: “Are you saying that instead of going to chapel, we should have more sex?” This is the natural conclusion to this philosophy. And it is a conclusion that leads to all sorts of sexual and even sadistic perversions since this false god can’t ultimately satisfy. Why not an affair? Why not group sex? Why not combine sex with worship?

But the worship of sex always leads to death. When we forsake the worship of the One True God and worship the gifts he has given us, then we begin a downward spiral toward death and destruction.

The Da Vinci Code: Sex, the Path to God?

Sophie Neveu’s grandfather, Jacques Suaniere, was the leader of the goddess worship cult which was part of his work as the grand master of the Priory of Scion. As the grand master he participated in a religious ceremony which included having sexual intercourse with one of the female leaders of the cult. Sophie became alienated from her grandfather when she witnessed this strange and terrifying ceremony as a child.

Though the movie does not make this a major issue, the book has many references to the religion of this feminine goddess. Unfortunately, Dan Brown gives a more favorable depiction of these ancient fertility religions than he does of Christianity. For example, he claimed that the “church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and goddesses, recasting their divine symbols as evil.” (p.37)

What were these religions like and is Brown’s depiction of them accurate? These pagan fertility cults were found in nearly all ancient cultures. This female goddess of fertility had various names (Asherah, Ishtar, Astarte, Ba’alat, etc.) and was thought to be responsible for the fertility of the land. The idea in these religions was that sex was the means of connecting with and receiving blessing from the goddess. The sex ritual that Sophie’s grandfather participated in was like the ancient practice of “Hieros Gamos” (i.e., “holy marriage”) in which the head priestess had sexual intercourse with the head priest or king. Brown claims that this “holy marriage” was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis -- knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis, sex rites had been considered man’s only bridge from earth to heaven. (p.308)

Wow! Brown (through the voice of Harvard professor Robert Langdon) apparently believes that these “joyous rites to celebrate fertility and the Goddess” (p.453) are a means of experiencing God. This is sex as salvation. Sex as a god to be worshipped. Sex as the means of escape from this painful world. Lest anyone think this is mere fiction, Brown assured his fans in the Parade Magazine article that the “sacred feminine” ideas were maintained in the movie script.

But were these pagan rites truly joyous? Did those who worshiped the goddess truly experience God? See the next post.

The Da Vinci Code: An Open-minded Pursuit of Truth?

A recent issue of Parade Magazine reported that Dan Brown hoped the movie about his book, The Da Vinci Code, would be a “quiet invitation to think about faith, religion and history with a fresh, open-minded perspective.” Should we be opened-minded to the possibility that Jesus was married and produced offspring? that Jesus was simply a “mortal prophet”? that nearly everything we have been taught about Jesus is wrong? Certainly! These questions about who Jesus was/is are paramount because of the audacious claims Jesus made about himself. He asserted that he is “the way, the truth and the life” and that “no one comes to the Father except through” him. An open-minded pursuit of the truth about Jesus may be critical in determining where a person spends eternity.

But Dan Brown may not view open-mindedness in the same way that I do. I wonder if his approach isn’t more like G.K. Chesterton’s description of H.G. Wells: “I think he thought the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas, I am incurably convinced we open our minds to shut them on something solid.” Some people are perennial doubters. Their goal seems to be to disbelieve, deride, disparage anything and everything. As a result, they remain lifelong cynics.

In the next few weeks my posts will attempt to unravel some of the claims of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Are Brown’s theories valid? What evidence is there to support his claims? Though the truth of Christianity can never be completely proved, there is a wealth of evidence that should enable us to close our minds on something substantial.

Surviving Our Troubles: Expecting Hardships

How would you like to sign up with two million other travelers for a several-month camping trip through a blistering desert? Oh, and by the way, you will do this without the benefit of modern camping equipment or known food and water sources. Ouch!

God’s people embarked on such a trip after being rescued from the oppressive Egyptians. But a journey that God designed to last about half of a year, became a nightmare that lasted nearly half of a century. During this time, the Israelites were crushed by challenges that were designed to strengthen them.

Why were they staggered by each new hardship? I believe they failed because they believed their hardships were all behind them. They had survived the plagues that devastated Egypt. They had been released from their bondage. They had miraculously crossed the Red Sea. They had seen the dreaded Egyptian army drown in that same sea. And now they were experiencing God’s visible leading in the pillar of fire and the cloud. “Promised land, here we come!”

But their prior troubles were only the birth pangs of trouble. In the desert they predictably ran short of food and water (there were no catering services in the Sinai!). But they also had unexpected problems with their leader (Moses disappeared for 40 days) and with new enemies (e.g., the Amalekites). But whether their adversities could have been anticipated or not, they responded to all of them with robust grumbling and whining. At one point they became so irate and irrational that they contemplated a return to Egypt. (What were they going to do -- re-enlist as slaves?!)

Trouble is as much a part of this life as breathing. Life is filled with financial, relational, emotional, physical, and familial troubles. We think problems are momentary interruptions which will soon pass -- when this conflict at work is resolved or my child’s health improves or I get out of debt then normal, trouble-free living will return. But trouble will dog us throughout this life. Jesus warned us: “In this world you will have trouble.” That’s a promise. Serious conflict in your marriage will be followed by a nagging health problem which will be followed by a layoff from your job which will be followed by a broken relationship with your brother which will be followed by your teen’s poor report card which will be followed by the loss of a best friend ... and on and on.

The Apostle Peter warned his friends: “Do not be surprised at the painful trial your are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.” Problems shouldn’t shock us. They are opportunities to trust God for wisdom and strength to deal with these daily battles.

Surviving Our Troubles, Part 1

Surviving Our Troubles: “Solution Talk”

One day when Jesus was in Jerusalem for one of the Jewish feasts, he took a side trip to the pool of Bethesda -- a pool that purportedly had healing powers. (Tradition said that on occasion an angel would stir the waters and the first one in the water after that stirring would be healed.) As a result of the pool’s reputation and its covered colonnades, it became a gathering place for a “great number of disabled people -- the blind, the lame, and the paralyzed.”

One of the pool’s patrons was a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Standing over the cripple, Jesus asked him: “Do you want to get well?” Jesus’ question -- which deserved a hearty: “Of course!” -- was answered with a weak complaint: “Sir, I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” This man, who was broken in body and in soul, kept returning to the pool out of habit, not out of hope.

Why did Jesus ask such an obvious question? Because not everyone wants to get well. As I was recently waiting in a doctor’s office, I overheard two women try to top each other’s stories from their medical history -- “Well, I had surgery one time and had to stay in the hospital for 3 months!” I could tell that they both relished telling their painful stories. But were they interested in getting well? I’m not sure.
Why don’t sick people want to get well? Because solving problems is hard work. It is easier to whimper over your friend’s rejection than to forgive her and seek reconciliation. It is easier to moan about your fatigue than to develop an exercise program that will restore your energy. It is easier to commiserate with the complainers than to enlist with the committed. It is easier to discard a dying marriage than to learn how to love again. It is easier to stay depressed than to change the thought patterns that feed your sadness. It is easier to criticize the ministries of your church than to join one of those ministries and try to make a difference.

Psychologist and author Mary Pypher’s counseling philosophy is based on “solution talk” rather than “problem talk.” The person who wants to get well is the person who fixes his eyes on solutions: “Lord how should I view this situation differently? What actions can I take to begin solving this problem? Don't let me merely fuss or fret. Show me how to survive this ordeal.”

Stepford Wives

Claire (played by Glenn Close) was a brilliant scientist who murdered her husband and his girlfriend when she caught them in bed together. Horrified by the ugliness of her deed and the world around her, she asked: “What could I do to make the world more beautiful?” Her answer was to turn her dead husband into a robot who then recruited other men who wanted “perfect” wives. Claire believed most women were “over-stressed, over-booked and under-loved” and wanted a “better world where men are men and women are loved and cherished.”

Who wouldn’t want a little less chaos in their world? a trouble-free marriage? a safe world for children? an end to drunken drivers? Claire’s husband, Mike, explained to Joanna (Nicole Kidman) and her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick) the benefits of scientific engineering: “If you could streamline your partner, if you could overhaul every annoying habit and every physical flaw, every moment of whining and nagging and farting in bed, just imagine being able to enjoy your mate only at their best.” Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

But what kind of world would that be? If Stepford is any indication, it is not an appealing world. When Walter was tempted by the appeal of the perfect wife, Joanna asked him: “Is this what you really want? women who behave like slaves?” And then she asked: “These machines, these Stepford wives, can they say “I love you”? When informed that they could say it in 58 languages, Joanna, with pleading eyes, asked Walter: “But do they mean it?” She then planted a passionate kiss on her husband’s lips.

Walter ultimately chose to give his wife her freedom -- believing that a free, though imperfect love, was far-superior to the counterfeit, coerced love of a computer-chip wife.

God had a similar choice to make. He could have created a “Stepford” world where there are no victims or violence, arguing or apathy, criticism or coldness. Instead, He created a world where the pots can complain to the potter, where “the sculptures can spit at the sculptor.” Like Walter, God didn’t want robotic perfection.

William Thompson imagined the questions God pondered while creating us: “What if I veil My Divinity so that the creatures [won’t be] overwhelmed by My overpowering Presence? Will the creatures love Me? Can I be loved by creatures I have not programmed to adore me forever? Can love arise out of freedom?” God, like Walter, took the risk of freedom. He knew that force would never produce love. Our God delights in the passionate embrace of free human beings.

Marital Building Blocks, Part 5

God shouts: “Get naked!” to marriage partners -- “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” At times, this involves the shedding of clothes, but even more the shedding of pretense. This disrobing of our identities can be difficult in the early years of marriage because courtship is often an elaborate game of Hide-and-Seek. If I am trying to win your love, I may apply some makeup to my uglier traits.

Fortunately for us hiders, marriage is designed to strip our masquerades. Mike Mason explains: “One of the hardest things in marriage is the feeling of being watched.” This “constant surveillance ... can wear one down like a bright light shining in the eyes, and that leads inevitably to the crumbling of all defenses, all the customary shams and masquerades of the personality.” Our attempts to hide from each other are about as feeble as a child holding his hands over his eyes and proclaiming: “You can’t find me!”

When our family bought our first hand-held computer game, I became quickly, though unknowingly, addicted. One day I was sitting in the living room chair when Cathy left the house to run some errands. I was so immersed in the game that I lost track of time. When I heard her returning, I glanced at my watch and realized that I had been playing the game for nearly two hours! Of course I didn’t want my wife to see me still playing the game so I quickly stuffed it under my chair and grabbed a book. As I sat there, a stabbing question penetrated my charade: “What are you doing, you big phony?!”

During the early years of my marriage I was asked by friends if I was surprised by what I learned about Cathy. I responded: “Yes, but not nearly as surprised as what I learned about myself.” It is in the everyday interactions of marriage that we see our true selves. Our mates “are mirrors in which we are constrained to see ourselves, not as we would like to be, but as we are.”

It is distressing to have our sins uncovered. Sadly, many people run from one mirror to another not realizing that they are running from themselves as much as they are running from their spouse. God alone can give us the unlikely desire to know the truth about ourselves. And how does he “slip us this bitter pill? Fortunately, the pill is lavishly coated with the mystery we call love” -- which alone “can shield us from the horror or knowing what we are really like.”

Marital Building Blocks, Part 4

There is one word that is conspicuously left out of God’s marriage manual (Genesis 1-3). It is the word “love.” Instead, couples are commanded to “cleave” (NIV: “be united”) to each other. When two marry, they are called to stick together. They are to form a bond that will endure through sickness and in health. It is this "til-death-do-us-part" commitment, rather than romantic feelings of love, that creates the one-flesh unity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

Feelings of love wax and wane. As Mike Mason has written, emotional love won't sustain a marriage for very long: Marriages which are dependent on love fall apart, or at best are in for a stormy time of it. But marriages which consistently look back to their vows, to those wild promises made before God, find a continual source of strength and renewal. It is not passion that stirs me out of a warm bed on a winter night to tend to a sick grandchild while my exhausted wife catches up on sleep. Nor is it passion which motivates me to pay bills or change a dirty diaper (yuk!) or vacuum the house. I do these acts ungrudgingly (or at least I try to do them ungrudgingly!) because I have made a commitment to serve my mate.

But this one flesh relationship does not mean that we don’t need others. Carole Mayhall warns: I have seen too many wives try to force their husbands to meet their every need--a feat no human can do--and in the forcing have destroyed what could have been a beautiful relationship. Both husbands and wives need a variety of relationships to become whole people. No person can meet our every need.

If I am called to meet the needs of my spouse, what are those needs? Wisdom demands that I make her needs a subject of scrutiny. Through the years I have learned that she does not handle the pressure of an impending trip very well with all its extra errands, laundry, and packing added to her normal responsibilities. As a result, she can become a bit irritable. So what does God ask me to do? To stick with her in her grumpiness -- to help with some of her errands, to cut back on my schedule, to not snap back when I become irritated with her irritation!

Cleaving then is a commitment. It is a promise to love and serve your partner whether he becomes bitter or fat or unemployed or argumentative or boring or inattentive or jealous or selfish or ugly or lazy or insensitive or greedy or sickly. We have taken vows before God to love our deeply flawed mates for life. May God give us the grace and the strength to just that.

Marital Building Blocks, Part 3

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, lost his wife when his daughters were young and never remarried. He apparently transferred the emotional bond with his wife to his daughters, becoming very dependent on their devotion. On one occasion a lonely Jefferson wrote to Martha: “I am chilled by my solitude. It makes me wish the more that you and your sister were here to enjoy it. I value the enjoyments of life only in proportion as you participate them with me.” His possessive love was apparently reciprocated. After Martha had been married for nearly a decade she wrote to her father that no “new ties can weaken the first and best of nature.” No wonder Martha’s husband had severe mental problems. He was in competition with his father-in-law for the love of his wife.

God knew that the transition from our biological families to our created families would not be easy. So Genesis guides us in this process: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” One of the very first challenges for newly-weds is to “leave” their birth families. But what does this mean? Mike Mason explains that “marriage is not a joining of two worlds, but an abandoning of two worlds in order that one new one might be formed.” The birth family must no longer be the primary source of affection or advice or aid.

I distinctly remember the first time I became ill after Cathy and I were married. Do you know who I wanted to comfort me? You guessed it. I wanted Mom! She was the one who had nursed me for 20 years. When I was home sick, she would bake me chocolate chip cookies and change my sheets each day and say all the appropriate words: “Oh, I’m sure you feel awful, honey.” Cathy had not had any practice in taking care of a sick person. After a day or two of being sick, her attitude was something like: “Don’t you feel better yet?” We are thankful that we lived nearly 1000 miles from our parents so that we were forced to learn how to care for each other “in sickness and in health.”

Even when the kids have a proper perspective, the parents may try to hang onto their former roles. Parents may be too pushy in telling their kids what jobs to take or how to invest their money or how to discipline their children. I know a young couple whose mother was continually critiquing her married daughter’s large and small choices -- “You’re not going to buy a dog, are you?! That would be foolish since you both work fulltime.” After repeated violations, this young woman’s wise husband went to his mother-in-law and explained as graciously as possible: “You can’t talk to my wife that way.”

Does this mean that parents can’t help their children financially? can’t offer advice? can’t live nearby? Not at all. But they must give them enough space so that they can become their own family, making their own choices.

Marital Building Blocks, Part 2

It is often said that in choosing a mate, “opposites attract.” Sometimes these personality differences can be profound:

Some love cluttered, knick-knacky rooms, while others need bare simplicity. Some people compulsively plan the future, while others take full pleasure in the present. Some must eat lightly but regularly throughout the day, while others eat according to appetite, irregularly. Some crave silence and find it necessary for intimacy, while others have to talk. Some hold to old customs and practices, cherishing pictures, memories, and family re-unions, while others ditch the pat joyfully to risk some new, uncertain thing. (Walter Wangerin)

God said he would create a helper “suitable” for Adam. The Hebrew word for “suitable” means literally “corresponding to.” God’s plan is that these differences compliment, rather than compete against, each other.

I was attracted to Cathy not only because she was cute and confident, but also because she was conscientious. I could always depend on her to be on time, to carry out her responsibilities, to fulfill a promise. On the other hand, Cathy was attracted to me because I am more spontaneous -- after all if you focus too much on being responsible you might miss out on some fun. Why would anyone want to study on the first warm, wind-free day of spring?!

The challenge for couples with these sometimes gaping differences is to learn “to play a duet in the same key, to the same rhythm.” God puts opposites together so that each will learn from the other’s strengths. Cathy had to learn that deadlines are often less important than spending time with a friend, that a tidy house was a lesser priority than a developing child. I had to learn that I couldn’t be responsible without lists and schedules and calendars.

But the lessons aren’t learned easily and the failure to adjust to these differences can erode a marriage. Before we were married, I was impressed and attracted by Cathy’s ability to get things done. But I didn't realize that once we were married she would make me one of her projects -- now she wanted me to get places on time! And Cathy didn’t realize that my spontaneity could devolve into irresponsibility -- household repairs might be placed on indefinite delay. In a good marriage there is a continual process of learning how to profit from each others strengths while not being bankrupted by their weaknesses.

Marital Building Blocks, Part 1

"We-just-don't-love-each-other-anymore" is the most common excuse for ending a marriage. But is a lack of love the primary reason for today's fragile state of marriage? I don’t think so. When God introduced the idea of marriage in Genesis, the word “love” was as scarce as clothes were. There were other ideas which formed the building blocks for a healthy marriage.

First, marriage is designed for companionship. At the conclusion of each day of creation, God wrote an epitaph: “And God saw that it was good. . . . And God saw that is was good. . . . And God saw that it was good.” But even before Adam and Eve’s rebellion, God declared that something was not good: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Though Adam enjoyed intimate fellowship with his Creator in a perfect environment, he was still incomplete. God created us to be social beings who need other people. Marriage is probably our best opportunity to enjoy this companionship.

When Cathy and I were dating we were together constantly -- meeting between classes, sharing meals, attending sporting events, taking long walks, joining a campus Bible study, participating in retreats, etc. Unfortunately, as author Mike Mason points out, most married couples don’t maintain anything close to this type of commitment. Instead, “great amounts of energy are channeled into other concerns, into friendships and social life, into careers, into the raising of offspring, into every conceivable cause except the cause of marriage itself.”

A husband works at an insurance agency while his wife teaches at a public grade school. He hunts and fishes with his buddies while she participates in a book club with her girlfriends. He serves on the finance committee at church while she teaches a girls’ Sunday School class. With such disjointed lives many of these couples drift apart.

Knowing that relationship building demands chunks of time, God gave the following instructions to new husbands: “If a man has married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to his wife.” (Deut.24:5) If marriages are going to be strong and help fulfill our great need for companionship, then husbands and wives must lavish time on each other in significant ways. Cathy and I have attempted to do this by sharing housework and yard work, reading books to each other, ministering to some of the same people, riding bikes together, entertaining in our home, nurturing our grandchildren.

New Format

I am in the process of making some changes on this blog. I will send more information within a week or two.

Leadership, Part 6

Ephesus was apparently filled with wanna-be leaders. But many of them wanted to use their authority to bully others. Committed to “myths”, they had departed from the “sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and become “conceited.” In spite of their inflated view of themselves, Paul’s measure of them was that “they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

These counterfeit leaders were a serious threat to the health of the church. Because of “an unhealthy interest in controversies and arguments,” they left a messy trail of “envy, quarreling, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction”. Paul summed up their influence: “they promote controversies rather than God’s work.” It was such men that caused Paul to state that a leader must not be “quarrelsome.” Unfortunately, these troublemakers are found in most churches. They care more about promoting their own will rather than God’s will. It doesn’t occur to them that God could speak through anyone else. If you work on a ministry team with them, they will relentlessly argue for their position, even secretly lobbying others outside of the meetings. They believe they are in combat with others -- and they aim not to lose! If they don’t get their way, they criticize, whine, and complain about what is happening -- or what is not happening.

The temptation for a godly leader is to battle these phonies with the same weapons they use. But Paul warned: "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. The Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to all, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth." The godly doesn't get dragged into these senseless and harmful arguments but continues to "gently instruct" others in the truth. He knows that God is the only one who can bring these troublemakers to repentance.