Exploring the Well

Wandering the savage garden...

Archives for April 2012

Trust

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

We are called to trust in the Lord for all things (Proverbs 3:5), but it’s one of the hardest things we are called to do, mostly because of the nature of what trust is, and who we are, and how we trust those around us.

Begging your indulgence, here’s a story, one you’re probably familiar with, and then a changed version to illustrate a point about trust.

It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Here’s take one.

A shepherd boy is tending his flocks above his village and decides to play a joke. So he calls down to the village, saying, “Wolf! Wolf! There’s a wolf attacking my flock!”

The villagers all gather their weapons, and rush up the hill to where the shepherd boy laughs at them for falling for his joke. They grumble at him, and go back to their work in the village.

The next day the boy decides to play another joke. So he calls down to the village, saying, “Wolf, wolf!” The villagers gather their weapons and rush up the hill, only to be laughed at again. They yell at him for wasting their time again and go back to the village.

The next day the boy is tending his flock, until he sees an actual wolf attacking his sheep. He screams, “Wolf! A wolf is actually here! Help!” — yet the villagers hear, and say among themselves, “That rascal is trying to fool us yet again,” and stay where they were, while the wolf destroys the flock and the boy is ruined.

Old story, yes. So let’s see if it changes any with some variations. I’ll emphasize the changes so the story’s easier to skim.

A shepherd boy is tending his flocks above his village and decides to play a joke. So he calls down to the village, saying, “Wolf! Wolf! There’s a wolf attacking my flock!”

The villagers all gather their weapons, and rush up the hill to where the shepherd boy laughs at them for falling for his joke. They grumble at him, and go back to their work in the village.

Two months pass. A wolf actually attacks his flock, and when he calls the villagers, they fend off the wolf. A week after that, the boy decides to play another joke. So he calls down to the village, saying, “Wolf, wolf!” The villagers gather their weapons and rush up the hill, only to be laughed at again. They yell at him for wasting their time again and go back to the village.

Another month passes.

Then one day the boy is tending his flock, until he sees an actual wolf attacking his sheep. He screams, “Wolf! A wolf is actually here! Help!” — yet the villagers hear, and say among themselves, “That rascal is trying to fool us yet again,” and stay where they were, while the wolf destroys the flock and the boy is ruined.

The villagers are justified in their response, here, no matter what the response is. If they actually charge up the hill, they’re justified, because after all, he has called them when it was necessary – but they’re also justified in not rushing up the hill, because he’s broken their trust.

The difference between the stories is time. In the first story, it’s rapid-fire. In the second, there’s a period of trustworthiness between his “calling wolf.”

He’s not trustworthy in any case – it’s just a matter of risk and reward as to whether the villagers should respond or not.

So how does this apply for us?

Well, it’s painfully easy for us to do the exact same thing. (I know; I’ve done it.) While perhaps we obey the Commandment not to lie (“You shall not bear false witness,” Exodus 20:16), trust is more than not telling the truth – trust is acting in such a way that our motives are known and acted upon consistently and reliably. It means not only saying what is true, but acting upon it.

The sad part is that our relationship to God is based on our human relationships. It shouldn’t be – God isn’t like us, so we should see Him in different lights, but for better or for worse, we usually see God as we saw our earthly fathers, which is usually something we have to struggle to overcome.

Rebuilding trust isn’t easy. It takes a lot of work and patience. Once trust is broken, you have to do a number of things, including:

  1. Never lie.
  2. Include your feelings – it’s not enough just to recite cold facts, but you have to include the secondary minutiae. I’m very bad about this, myself.
  3. Be patient, because rebuilding trust isn’t a matter of doing trustworthy things once.
  4. Be consistent.

(A good place to start might be “How to Build Trust,” from WikiHow. My list has four elements; theirs has nineteen. Theirs is better.)

Being trustworthy is the best way to learn to trust others, because you learn to identify the things that make people trustworthy.

Trusting others is the way to understand how to truly trust in God. Again, God’s not subservient to man, nor is this ‘right’ – but it’s what we, as humans, do.

My relationship with God is perceived through the light of how I felt about my father – so I see God as clinical and demanding. Yet God is greater than this.

My wife’s relationship with God is based on her feelings about her family – and as her family has not protected her, her trust is easily threatened. (Yet she’s a wonderful Christian and a wonderful person.)

My children’s relationship with God is based, for better or for worse, on how they see me.

Therefore, there’s a lot of reasonable pressure on me to act in a trustworthy fashion, that they might be able to trust in God more easily and more completely than I do, that they might act more within the will of God than I have.

So it is for all of us. We are to act in such a way that those who do not know God can come to know Him through us, and those who do know God are blessed through us. If we do not act in such ways as to gather and deserve their trust, we hurt them and their relationship to both us and God.

Shalom.

Originally posted on January 1, 2012.

Where should we be willing to go?

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

I was having a short discussion with someone this morning when I was warned that a group of people were not real Christians, but claimed to be; the assertion was that they were “wicked.”

Fair enough. I don’t have enough observation under my belt to determine if that’s true or not, but the statement made me think about where it was proper for us, as Christians, to go.

After all, one imagines good Christians to be unwilling to ride with Hell’s Angels; good Christians don’t listen to rock and roll, good Christians do this, good Christians don’t do that.

I find this view of Christian life to be limited and ineffective. It’s not as simple as “Christians act like…”

Paul said, in Philippians 1:27, that we are to live in such a way that those who do not know God can see Him in us.

Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. (NASV)

How can those who don’t know Christ see us if we are not where they are? They’re not coming to church to observe us; they’re living their lives where they are.

We’re to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-14, another set of verses I had to look up). How can we enrich those around us if we declare ourselves separate in all things?

To me, I see the following groups:

  • Those who do not believe and act accordingly.
  • Those who claim to be believers, yet are not and do not act like Christians.
  • Those who are believers, yet do not act accordingly.
  • Those who are believers, and act appropriately.

I definitely try to be in the last group, because I find those people inspirational to be around, but realistically, I think nearly all Christians are in the third group (those who believe yet do not always do right), and those who aren’t are probably in the second group (those who claim to believe but do not.)

We should never sin deliberately. Romans 6:15 says:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (NASV)

Yet 1 Corinthians 8 has a lot to say about what is and is not sin for those who are under grace. Paul is using the analogy of food … well, okay, he was talking about food, but it’s more broadly applicable as well, when looking at Hebrews and Romans as well.

The point he was trying to make was this: sin is not “obeying the rules.” Sin is “disobeying the Holy Spirit,” separating oneself from God. What is sin for you may not be sin for me. It probably is, but you don’t know that, nor do I know if what is sin for me is sin for you.

So, then. Where should we be willing to go?

Depending on the strength of our faith and our relationship with Christ: anywhere.

That means I can go to a skate park and hang – and be fully within the will of Christ, because there’s nothing there that separates me from God. I can obey Philippians 1:27 there, and act such that those who do not know Christ can see Him in me.

I can ride motorcycles with the Hell’s Angels, and be fully within the will of Christ. I can obey Philippians 1:27 there, and act such that those who do not know Christ can see Him in me.

I can listen to Tool, and be fully within the will of Christ (although Tool’s anti-religious stance makes it harder than it could be sometimes; I don’t listen to some of their music because I cannot edify Christ through it.)

I suppose some Christians could go to a strip club and be within the will of Christ, if their faith and will is strong enough to enter and not sin; I don’t think I’m that strong. (Plus, let’s be honest: those are some of the saddest places on the face of the earth.) If they were able to go and stand as witnesses for Christ – a very tall order, but within the realm of possibility – then yes, I’d say even a strip club might be appropriate for Christians. Not me – I have no idea how I would be able to act in such a way that those in a strip club would be able to see Christ in me there. But I can’t say it can’t be done – all things are possible in Christ.

So should I avoid people or situations because I think that the people there aren’t always edifying Christ? No. I should not. I should examine the circumstances and try to act in such a way that those who do not know Christ can see His effect on me, and maybe God through that can call them to Himself.

This isn’t to say that those who do avoid situations are wrong – remember, it’s about what they can and cannot endure. It’s not wrong for me to avoid strip clubs, because such places would strain my ability to not sin. (Plus, my wife would have a cow.)

But I should go where Christ leads me, wherever that may be. If that’s a bar, then so be it; I should try to follow Christ in all things. (He hasn’t asked me to go to any bars, thank you.) If that’s a foreign country to witness for Him as a missionary, so be it. (Again, I have not been so called.)

God is greater than everything in His creation, good and bad. I should always try to bring the good to everything around me, including those things that need His touch most.

Shalom.

Originally published on December 28, 2011.

Once Saved, Always Saved

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Someone recently pointed out that they didn’t agree with a given church’s stance on “once saved, always saved,” the thought that once one has accepted Jesus Christ, one is forever “with Him,” regardless of future actions.

They were pointing out, as an example, Hebrews 6:4-8, where Paul writes:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. (NIV)

The key phrases here are “It is impossible for those who’ve tasted the goodness of the word of God and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance.”

That’s a heck of a statement. Does it mean that one who accepts Christ, denies Christ, and then repents is lost?

I don’t think so; Peter denied Christ and certainly was numbered among the saints.

So what does “falling away” mean?

I don’t know. The Bible speaks of an unforgivable sin, but doesn’t really clarify exactly what it is. (One is “blaspheming the Holy Spirit,” but even there, there’s room; what is blaspheming? Plenty of Christians come to Christ after saying there is no God, or that God is ridiculous, or claiming other gods.)

Here’s how I see it.

We are all sinners. (“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”)

Through God’s grace, He accepted a substitutionary sacrifice for propitiation of our sins, such that we could be redeemed. At one period, this was through sacrifice of animals, using their blood to cover the sins of Man.

Jesus was born as the Son of God (and God-made-man), and died for us as the perfect atonement for all who accept His death as propitiation for their sins. With this sacrifice of a perfect innocent whose blood covers all, the animal sacrifice was abolished and salvation comes through Jesus and Jesus alone.

To me, there’s no sin such that Jesus’ death was not enough to cover it. Jesus never said “Sorry, you can’t join Me in Heaven” such that the one spoken to literally had no choice. (It was more like “If you follow Me, you will be with Me; if not, well…”)

If you think of salvation as a series of states (a finite state machine), you have a graph that looks like this:

I don’t see how Man – if he’s unable to save himself – can sin such that there’s a loop in this graph. We don’t control our salvation at its start – God saves us, we don’t save ourselves. If we can damn ourselves, then we are able to have more power than the Bible says we should have.

I understand those who feel that there’s a way to lose your salvation – but to me, if that’s possible, then we lose our salvation immediately after gaining it, through our sin and failure. (We’re covered by the blood, redeemed, not perfect in and of ourselves.)

The Role of Forward Momentum

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

This morning, I caught myself thinking that if you traced the motion of a leaf on the wind, you’d end up with something approximating the face of God.

More rationally, you’d end up with a bunch of squiggly lines, but then again, who are we to say that’s not a valid representation of the Most High?

It’s not a traditional representation, after all, of anything that relates to God. We think of God in the abstract. Most Jews don’t think of God as a concrete image at all, because of the injunction against graven images, so even the squiggly line might be out of bounds, if it’s considered an image of the Holy One.

But tradition is a huge thing in today’s Christianity, more than it should be.

There’s a huge movement in the church today to “revert,” to do what the original Christian church did; meeting in houses, fellowshipping in small groups. Less formal services, more direct communication among believers; it’s a model that you follow when your church has no money and no space.

Now that churches do have money and space, it’s not as necessary; we also have a professional leadership (seminaries train pastors, and we see “lay pastors” as different than, well, “actual pastors.”) Pastors no longer always know everyone in their congregation; the congregations are too large for “successful churches.” Productions are elaborate; services are more like performances.

This is our forward momentum now, this is our tradition.

The move towards small groups in today’s church is an oddity – a welcome one, but an oddity. Small groups enable believers (or, well, anyone) to minister directly to others, to connect with them directly, in ways the larger church cannot.

For example, in my small group (“life group,” or “study group,” or – in our case – “Truth Project group,” which deserves to be mentioned on its own in another post), one member recently found that his employment situation was unstable, and I had a death in my family – but neither of these things have a place in the larger church environment.

But in the small group, it’s natural and proper for those things to be shared and prayed over, commiserated with and understood. The result is that everyone feels closer and connected, and the Spirit of God is closer to each of us.

Yet this is something that’s both very old (in that it’s how the church existed in its second phase) and very new (in that churches are just now starting to encourage this kind of connection again.)

(Why “second phase?” Because the really early church was a collection of Jews, who met in the synagogue, who happened to think that the Messiah had come. The more traditional, non-Messianic Jews kicked them out, and they ended up meeting in homes. Thus, “second phase.”)

Forward momentum has a huge role in our lives, not only cultural but religious momentum informs everything. It creates our assumptions and it informs everything we think and do; much of how you believe and what you believe has to do with a sort of “belief trajectory” that incorporates everything you’ve experienced.

Thus, for me I carry the cultural mores and traditions that say who Moses was, and who Elijah was, and who Jesus was, even though the histories and descriptions we have from the Bible draw much less information than we have. These traditions and mores affect very much what and how I believe.

You, also, do the same thing; chances are very strong that there is some common ground in the traditions (because the same seed cultures created all of our modern cultures) but the differences inform everything we do.

The main thing for me to remember in all this is that momentum is good because it exists; the willingness to revert or try new things is also good, but the measure of propriety is how much any change glorifies God.

Shalom.

Originally posted on December 27, 2011.