Empire of Dirt

Christian Living | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Feb 22 2010

What do King Solomon, the Apostle Paul and Johnny Cash have in common? The answer is that they all lamented the vanity of life. Meaning, they all came to the same conclusion that most of what they had accumulated and accomplished in this life was worthless and unsatisfying. According to Solomon, life in this world is like chasing after the wind and for Paul it is like a pile of refuse. For Cash, it is an empire of dirt.

Solomon, the famous king over Israel, recounted his reflections on the nature of things in his journal called Ecclesiastes, and upon review came to the conclusion that the pursuit of worldly power, pleasure and possession is a wasted pursuit. He, for one, had it all. He had more influence than anyone during his time, he had more amusement to keep him occupied than he could handle, and he had more successes than any king or kingdom before or after him. And yet, Solomon called it all vanity.

Likewise, the Apostle Paul, who once was named Saul after the first king of Israel, had a resume unmatched by his peers, which he recounted in his letter to the Philippians. He was a faithful Hebrew, a respected enforcer, and a well known leader. He had the the reputation and respect that any man during his day would envy. And still, Paul called it all rubbish.

Johnny Cash lived the American illusion. He capitalized on his opportunities and promoted himself to the upper echelon of musical fame. With an unusual combination of authenticity and mystique, he captured the attention and affection of legions of fans, and for a time he lived on top of the world. But finally, he called it all dirt.

Vanity. Rubbish. Dirt. These words are honest and true observations about the nature of things in this world. Generations come and generations go, but only a few seem to peek behind the curtain. Most would rather ignore the warning signs and presume that the show on stage is for real. They would rather suspend their disbelief in life and trust that things will just work out.

However, once in a while, someone is curious and smart enough to peek behind the curtain to find out if it is just smoke and mirrors. And, they find out that it is. There is something behind that curtain, and it is behind there for a reason. The world shrouds the truth because it does not sell very well. The truth is that there is a pile of dirt and it does not smell so nice. And, that is why Solomon, Paul and even Johnny tried to pull the curtain down. Not really so we could see what is behind it but so that we could stop wondering.

You see, something profound happens when you stop wondering if the things of this world are lasting and fulfilling. It is the feeling of liberation not really from the things of this world but from the hope in the things of this world. After all, there might be some fun to be had playing in the pile of dirt, but I doubt anyone is going to want to want to live in it.

The reality is that we become free when we understand what life in this world cannot provide us. When we understand that the things of this world cannot satisfy, then we are finally released to look elsewhere. And, that’s the point Jesus came into the world to make. He said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

And, what is the truth that sets us free? It is as the Scriptures say, “Do not love the world or the things in the world…for all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:15-17).”

So, thanks to Solomon, Paul and Johnny, for pulling down the curtain.

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

Enough Is Enough

Christian Living, giving | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Feb 08 2010

I am currently studying and teaching through the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes and have been reflecting on the essential theme of the journal, which is a challenge to loosen our grip on the world and its grip on us. I have been looking at how the things of this world are transient and unsatisfying and how that realization ought to lead us to the only One who isn’t, Jesus Christ.

Well, in the process of disconnecting from this world and connecting more and more to God’s Son, I have come to look at things a little differently today than I have in the past. What I have been experiencing is an untangling of sorts from the trappings of the world that have captured my attention and energy for many years. And, one of those things that I feel I am being freed from is the snare of ambition.

For some reason I have always been interested in and motivated by success in whatever field I have been engaged. Whether it was in marketing, recruitment, demography, real estate or vocational ministry, I have always been motivated and inspired to drive for more, never settling for the status quo or mediocrity. The downside of that kind of drive is that you never feel settled and are often discontent, and that is something I have always been at odds with in my own life.

All of this is to say that after plumbing the depths of Solomon’s wisdom and meditating on it each day, I have come to a stunning and convicting realization about life here on earth. For me, it is a mystery solved that now just needs to be applied. The epiphany that rocked my world and hopefully will also rock yours too is that I think I have been praying the wrong prayer all along. All of these years, I have been praying for God to give me more…more income, more comfort, more enjoyment, more experience, more influence and more responsibility. More, more, more, and I have a feeling I am not the only one who has been praying this way.

And, here’s the thing. I have been trained to pray this way because that is apparently what ambitious people do. Those we admire seem to pray for more, those who write the books we read usually tell us we should pray for more, and those who teach us often encourage us to ask for more. The central example of this kind of praying perhaps is the best selling The Prayer of Jabez that unabashedly taught us all to ask God to “enlarge our territory” and ask God for more, which oddly enough isn’t really at all what Jesus taught us to do.

In the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew it says that Jesus taught his disciples how to pray saying, “Pray like this: Our Father on heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread…” And, there it is. So simple and yet so profound. Notice that in his instruction Jesus does not tell us to ask for more bread but for enough bread. There is a difference.

Literally, Jesus tells us to ask God each day for enough food to eat, and by implication that includes clothing and shelter for the day. He does not instruct us to ask for more than that. In fact, just a few verses later Jesus tells us not be anxious about our lives, about food, clothing and shelter because God knows what we need and will add them to our lives. Conversely, Jesus adds that needing or asking for more is actually consistent with the lives of nonbelievers and not disciples.

When we read Jesus’ instruction to pray “Give us this day our daily bread” it is logical and helpful to connect this to the bread that God gave to Israel as they wandered in the wilderness. In Exodus 16 we read that God gave manna, or bread from heaven, to the people of Israel as their sole sustenance during their journey to the Promised Land. It says that with the dew of the morning, there came a fine, flaky bread that was more than enough to feed everyone each day. However, there was only enough for that day.

We read that the bread from heaven quickly rotted and melted away if it was not consumed, so God did not give them more than was needed for each day during their exodus. It says that they gathered new manna “morning by morning” or day by day as it was given, and that they did this for the entire 40 years that they wandered! What they learned from this providential experience was an important lesson for them and should also be an important lesson for us. The lesson is that God sovereignly provides for his children, and his superintended provisions are enough.

So, if God always provides enough, then why do we keep asking for more? There is a most interesting biblical passage in Proverbs 30. In verses 7 through 9, it says: “Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say ‘Who is the Lord?’ or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.”

This is a most convicting truth. The author of this Scripture asks God for two things in life. First, he asks God to make him honest. And, second, he asks for God to make him satisfied. Interestingly, he asks God NOT to make him rich or poor, but rather to give him enough. He goes on to say that if God gives him riches, then he will become distracted and will forget God, and if God makes him poor, then he will become a thief and dishonor God. Therefore, he doesn’t want to be either rich or poor…he just wants to be content.

So then, how does all of this relate to us? Well, these Scriptures both explicitly and implicitly show us that we have perhaps been praying the wrong prayers. Rather than asking God to give us more, we should be asking God to give us enough. This means not asking God for more money, more food, more clothes, more space, more luxury or more amusement. Instead this means asking God for just enough of these things to be enjoy the life He has given us and be pleasing to Him while we are here.

In light of all this, I am convinced that asking God for more is not the right prayer. Rather, what we should be asking God for is “enough”. In other words, we should be asking for enough money to live affordably, enough shelter to live comfortably, enough clothes to dress appropriately and enough food to eat moderately. Anything more than that is more than enough and should be considered excess. And, if there is excess, then we really ought to think about giving it away and not keeping it for ourselves.

In 2 Corinthians 9, for example, we are told that God supplies seed and bread to us and each for different purposes. The seed is for investment and the bread is for consumption, and that means bread is to be kept for ourselves and seed is to be given away to others. Interestingly, God does not promise to give us more bread, only more seed. Paul writes: “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:10). Conspicuously absent from the passage is any promise that God will give us more “bread” to consume for ourselves. Instead, it says that God wants the excess “seed” to be invested in the kingdom to help others. Paul adds: “The ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints, but it also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God” (2 Cor. 9:12).

So, what I have concluded in all this is that many of us, myself included, have probably confused bread and seed. I am quite convinced that we have been eating the seed and not planting it, and the end result is not only a materialistic culture but also a malnourished church. When we start presuming that more wealth means more to spend on ourselves, then we have tragically missed the biblical directive of generosity. Biblical generosity means only keeping for ourselves what we need and giving the rest away joyfully to others.

In my estimation, hoarding in the church is an embarrassingly obvious problem that is not only crippling the credibility of the gospel message but also compromising the mission of the church to care for others. The truth is that there is so much excess wealth sitting around in real estate assets, brokerage accounts and savings plans belonging to Christians that it is extraordinarily shocking that we can’t even take care of our own, let alone take care of others. At a time when the church’s credibility and mission in America is hanging in the balance, it is a shame that so many Christians are sitting on so much.

My point in saying all this is simply to share how I have been disturbed by my own selfishness and embarrassed by the collective selfishness that I see in the church today. As a pastor, I am honestly frustrated with the stunning inconsistency between what the Scriptures say about generosity and contentment and what I see in the everyday lives of so many Christians today. And, what really burdens me is the fact that so many Christians don’t even seem to notice it. They just keep on asking for more and spending it on themselves without ever asking if that kind of personal consumption is consistent with what the Lord desires.

In light of this revelation, my hope is that we would be courageous enough to confront ourselves with this issue and honest enough to talk about what needs to change in ourselves and in the church. Toward that end, I pray that a revolution would occur in the lives of believers everywhere and that we would finally be liberated from the things of this world that capture us like ambition, wealth and success. And, it is my belief that we will finally experience this kind of freedom in life once we learn to no longer ask for more but for enough.

Tags: , , , , ,
4 Comments »

The Immensity of God

Nature of God | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Jan 06 2010

It has been said that math is the only true universal language that can be comprehended by all human beings everywhere because it transcends spoken language and culture. Well, if that is true, then perhaps there is much that can be communicated through even rudimentary mathematical symbols. There are many recognizable mathematical symbols and one of the most recognized around the world is the infinity symbol.

The infinity symbol has been around for 2,000 years. In the first century the Romans used it to represent the number 1,000, which was a substantial number to them. Much later in 1650, however, the English mathematician John Wallis proposed that it stand for infinity, and that is the meaning that stuck then and still remains.

The word “infinity” is most popular today. We use it as a brand name for everything from cars to music speakers. We talk about how teachers have “infinite patience,” how kids have “infinite energy” and how the rich have “infinite resources,” but those statements are really inaccurate. The truth is infinity is a word that actually can only apply to God because only God is inherently infinite! That symbol must be exclusively associated with and attached to God alone because nothing else in the universe is infinite like Him.

The Scriptures tell us that God is both eternal and infinite, and these terms describe different aspects of God’s nature. Eternity is more about time while infinity is more about space. So, perhaps we can think of it this way…eternity would be represented by a line that runs east and west while infinity would be represented by two perpendicular lines with the other running north and south.

When we say God is eternal, we are saying that He transcends time, and when we say God is infinite, we are saying that He transcends space. Therefore, God is not only timeless but also endless, boundless or limitless. And, because He is without end, God is not measurable or quantifiable. Therefore, neither science or math can account for Him and must resort to a symbol as an attempt to capture the evasive concept.

For many centuries, our church fathers had a statement that they regularly invoked in discussions of matters like these. Their default assessment of mind blowing ideas was to declare “Deus Semper Maior”, which translated from the Latin means “God is always greater”. In other words, they resorted to declaring that no matter how hard we try to fathom and sum up the nature of God’s immensity, we will forever fall short of comprehension and description and must therefore surrender to profound mystery.

Interestingly, a scientist named Charles Meisner once had this to say about it: “I do see the design of the universe as essentially a religious question. That is, one should have some kind of respect and awe for the whole business. It’s very magnificent and shouldn’t be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religion although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. He must have looked at what the preachers said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more majesty than they had ever imagined, and they were just not talking about the real thing. My guess is that he simply felt that religions he had run across did not have a proper respect for the Author of the universe.”

So, the real question when it comes to God’s immensity is do we really have a proper respect for the majesty of the Author of the Universe? The Scriptures tell us clearly that we worship a God who is larger and more vast than the entire universe and that awesome truth ought to overwhelm and humble us.

In 1 Kings 8:27 we read “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built?” And, in Jeremiah 23:23-24 it says “‘Am I only a God nearby,’ declares the LORD, ‘and not a God far away? Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the LORD.” Further in Eph. 4:10 it says “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens in order to fill the whole universe.”

So, if it is indeed true that God fills the entire universe, then how big does that make Him? Consider this simple but amazing fact…You can fit one million earths inside of the sun, and the sun is actually a small star. There are other stars in our galaxy that are 800 times larger than the sun. The next closest star beyond the sun is Alpha Centauri, which is four light years away. That means that if you were to drive your car at 60 miles per hour (96 kilometers per hour) to Alpha Centauri, it would take you 30 million years to get there! And get this…There are 200 billion stars in our own Galaxy and there are a 100 billion other galaxies!

The fact is that the universe is so big and our God even bigger that we just cannot even comprehend it. We simply cannot get our limited minds around this limitless concept, and that is why so many bright Christians through the centuries who have dared to contemplate this have willingly surrendered their pride.

Augustine, the ancient scholar and theologian, for example, while puzzling over the immensity of God one day when walking along the beach observed a young boy with a bucket running back and forth pouring water into a little hole. Augustine asked, “What are you doing?” The boy replied, “I’m trying to put the ocean into this hole.” And it was then that Augustine suddenly realized that he had been trying to put an infinite God into his finite mind, which was an impossible and futile task.

My response to my own contemplation of this overwhelming concept has been to wonder a couple of things. First, if God is that big, then how small does that make us? And, secondly, if God is that big, then why does He care so much about people who are so small? The honest truth is that God’s immensity makes me feel tiny, but at the same time, God’s immensity also makes me feel secure. Let me explain why.

When I read King David’s words in Psalm 8, I gained an appreciation for what God’s size has to say about my own. David apparently had the same appreciation and asked the same question when he wrote: “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens…when I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?”

And God’s answer to David’s profound query? “Yet you have made him a little lower that the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; and you have put all things under his feet.” So, the answer to the question about the relative worth of tiny people like us is that we have value because God gave it to us. He made us valuable when he created us and gave us glory, honor and dominion.

And, why did God do this? I mean, why in the world would God be so generous with us? Well, the answer to that question is born out of His immensity. You see, God cares for us because just as He is infinite in his size, God is also infinite in his character. Meaning, God’s immensity doesn’t just describe his stature but also his character. Because God is infinite, whatever God is, God is infinitely. And, this means that God is also infinitely just, generous, merciful and loving!

Therefore, I have found that God’s immensity, though profound and humbling, has much to say about Him and about us. Though it’s very humbling to be contemplating such things, I have also found a great sense of security in understanding that God’s character is truly as infinite as his size. And, because of this realization, I can honestly say this particular mathematical symbol definitely speaks my language.

Tags: , , , ,
No Comments »

Should we really bless the food?

Prayer | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Jan 04 2010

How many times have you prayed or heard someone else pray something like this before eating a meal: “Lord, bless this food to the nourishing and strengthening of our bodies, Amen”? Now, I, for one, am encouraged whenever people care enough to pray before they eat, and by no means do I want to discourage the act of acknowledging the Great Provider whenever we gather around a table for a meal. However, do we ever stop to think about what we are actually praying when we bow our heads over the food?

The reality is that this simple prayer is the common default for so many of us because it is something of a tradition. T.S. Eliot once said, though, that “a tradition without intelligence is not worth having”, and the simple truth is that this particular tradition lacks the biblical intelligence to support it. Let me explain the essential problem with our traditional mealtime prayer.

In the New Testament there are actually two words that are used when Jesus prayed over a meal. The first is the Greek word eulogeo, from which we get our English word eulogy. The term means to “speak well of” or “praise”. The word occurs in Mark 6:41 which says, “Taking the five loaves and the two fish he (Jesus) looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people” (ESV).

Note that in the verse it says Jesus “said a blessing” before He broke the bread. In other words, Jesus was speaking well of or praising, but what exactly was He praising? Was Jesus speaking well of the food or of the Father? In the passage it seems obvious (“He looked up to heaven”) that He was not blessing the food but rather acknowledging His Father. Interestingly, the term eulogeo is also translated as “giving thanks”, so Jesus was therefore giving thanks not to the food but to His Father in heaven.

According to Jewish tradition, before every meal the faithful Jewish man or woman would offer this blessing: “Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the world, who has caused bread to come forth out of the earth.” And, before consuming wine they would offer this similar blessing: “Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the world, who has created the fruit of the vine.” So, Jesus’ thanksgiving or blessing would likely have been similar to this prayer, which is clearly not directed toward the food but toward the One who provided it.

The second word that was used when Jesus prayed over a meal is the Greek term eucharisteo, from which we get our English word eucharist. The term means to “be thankful” or “offer thanks”, and Jesus used this word at the last supper with his disciples. In Matthew 26:26-27 we read: “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks (eulogeo) and broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks (eucharisteo) and offered it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you’” (NIV).

The reality is that it was common for Jews to offer a blessing for each food served during a meal, and Jesus was likely offering the traditional blessings with the bread and wine. And notice that Jesus does not, in either passage, bless the food or wine. Rather Jesus, in both accounts, blesses or give thanks to His Father. So, the principle that we can lift from the biblical and historical evidence is that we should pray before our meals, but we should bless the Father when we do, not the food.

So, how did we Christians end up blessing the food instead of our Father anyway? For most of us it is simply a matter of ingrained tradition or habit, and we have never been educated on it or challenged to even think about the issue before. The confusion over this matter actually started with a mistranslation from Matthew 26:26 in the King James Version that unfortunately continues to make its way into many current translations of the Bible today.

In the KJV it reads “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples.” The problem with this translation is that the word “it” is actually not in the Greek manuscript. And, that is why it is italicized in the KJV. It does not say that Jesus blessed “it” anywhere but rather that He simply “blessed” or “gave thanks”. It really is amazing to think that this one tiny addition to the text has twisted the way millions of people pray before their meals into something that Jesus never intended at all.

When Jesus taught us to pray for our food, or anything else for that matter, He taught us to honor the Father first and foremost. His instructions to us in Matt. 6:9 were “Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” so what Jesus modeled for us is that when we pray before a meal, it is essential that our prayers of thanks be God-centered rather than self-centered, or perhaps we should say food-centered.

Tags: , , ,
2 Comments »

Successful or Faithful?

Success | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Dec 11 2009

88305648Mother Teresa once famously said that God did not call her to be successful but to be faithful, and even though I’ve heard many people repeat that statement over the years, I’m not sure just how many people really believe it. Clearly, she believed it. But, what about the rest of us? As a pastor, I live in a world of church growth fanatics who seem to endlessly strategize and fixate upon how to become successful in building a church ministry.

Generally speaking, ministry success seems to be gauged by how many people attend your church, by how large your ministry budget is, by how “state-of-the-art” your facilities are, or by how many books you’ve written and sold. And, it’s all very easy to draw comparisons and conclude a measure of worth or success from how we, as pastors, stack up against each other in those categories. And to be fair, it’s very human to assess our personal success based on the comparative successes and failures of others. And yet, something about this evaluation process has become progressively more uncomfortable for me.

I’m staring down my 35th year on this earth and have been a pastor for ten years now. After a decade of serving the church, I am at a place where I feel a strange disconnect with the typical church growth model of success. Though I think I can honestly say that I have been groomed for ministry “influence” all of my life and have intentionally pursued it for the last ten years, I am at a place where I now feel rather disillusioned with the status quo. Admittedly it would be easy to say so if I had never tasted any real ministry success, but I think that I have experienced and enjoyed some influence during these past several years and yet even still feel restless. So, it’s not that I’m being openly critical of something that I secretly envy, it’s what I have already actually experienced that has left me wanting.

I suppose some of this restlessness is intrapersonal conflict within myself over my own natural ambition. I feel like I am waged in an internal conflict of sorts over my lifelong desire to make a “maximum impact” on the church and the world, which really is just pastoral code for “recognized success”. Though we tend to shade our language with spiritualized terminology, the truth is that pastors struggle with self-actualization issues just like the rest. Well, I confess that I have struggled for many years contemplating what would finally qualify me for perceived success among my peers. And, what I have found is that the answer to this question is strangely evasive.

What I have observed is that there is no real path to ministry success or model for ministry growth that one can walk down knowing where it leads. The reality is that there is no rhyme or reason to explain who rises up and who goes down the ladder of ministry notoriety. Though it seems that there are certain people who come with the right message at the right time, there is no guarantee when or where that person or his message will get noticed or heard. From what I can see, there really is no explanation except to conclude only that God sees fit to promote certain people at particular times for His own undisclosed purposes.

Honestly, I don’t really understand why some leaders have such loud voices in the church and culture while others don’t. It may simply be that they just speak up more or just that they happen to speak up when people are actually listening. I’m not sure of that and probably never will be. I am quite sure, though, that there are people who have much to say who aren’t being heard and that there are others who have very little to say but are. Just browse the latest shelf of hardbacks in your Christian bookstore and ask yourself whether any of those author’s words will outlive their own generation and then spend a few hours with someone you respect who has much wisdom to share but no invitation to pass it on and you’ll understand what I mean.

Knowing this, the whole experience of life often feels like a chasing after the wind. Once you’ve chased it and not been able to grasp it, you begin to tire and wonder why you are running in the first place. That is where I now am. I’ve been wondering why I’ve been running so hard, and after what anyway? Solomon observed that much of the success we go after in this life is really just vapor, disappearing before we touch it and certainly voided even if we do. Having pursued and tried to touch the vapor, I can honestly say now that it wasn’t worth the chase.  The feeling is a lot like going in circles and ending up in the same place you started, only many times over.

The critical question for me now is what part of the pursuit, if any, is worthwhile? In other words, I’m considering whether the exercise of the run itself has ontological value for me. That is, I’m asking myself about what things I do on the journey that have inherent worth in and of themselves irregardless of whether they ever get recognized or rewarded in this life. And, I’ve discovered that there are a few things for me that give me true joy and satisfaction in midst of the chase. And, because there is value and enjoyment simply in doing these things, my satisfaction is not tied to any success or influence that comes with them. For me, the things that I find to be intrinsically satisfying and worthwhile are studying and teaching God’s Word, sharing life with and serving others, and preserving and contributing to God’s goodness in the world.

I have finally figured out that I would spend my time engaging with the Bible, serving the lost and the least, and working to restore beauty in the world whether I was compensated to do it or not. Meaning, there need be no reward or recognition attached to any of these things for me to be fulfilled by them. And, therefore, I have decided that I intend no longer to invest myself into things that must be framed by success in order to be enjoyed. For me, that means easing back on the throttle of personal ambition and professional success and getting used to the quiet and often obscure road of personal contentment.

Now, this doesn’t mean that I intend to purposely avoid opportunity and invitation to success, it just means that I will no longer seek it. I am more convinced than ever that influence or success is not something that I have any control over and that seeking it is really a meaningless waste of my energy anyway. All things considered, I believe that Mother Teresa was right about the whole thing…success is vanity, but faithfulness isn’t.

Tags: , , , ,
15 Comments »

Defending the Defenseless

Widows & Orphans | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Oct 31 2009

87707206

Did you know that every day in the world 115,000 children are aborted, 58,000 are abducted or run away, 40,000 are orphaned because of AIDS, 25,000 die of starvation and disease and another 3,000 are sold into sex slavery? I don’t know about you, but these figures made my stomach turn within me when I first heard them, and I soon realized that the queasiness inside me was actually a sense of profound disappointment not just in what has happened to the world that I live in but in myself for not noticing it.

Though I have always been moved deeply by stories of suffering, especially among children, I realized that I have not really comprehended and appreciated what is truly happening to kids around the world every day. Though I suspected that there were children who were suffering, I never realized that the problem could really be that serious. But, when we find out that 9 million children are dying every year before reaching their 5th birthday simply because they don’t have access to food and clean water, then we can begin to truly appreciate the fact that what we really have is not so much a social problem but a veritable epidemic of suffering.

And, the question I am left with in light of this is simply: Am I doing anything to help alleviate this suffering? In other words, what am I doing personally to actually help make the world a little bit  safer for its most vulnerable inhabitants? If the most vulnerable do not have the means to speak for or fend for themselves, then the reality is that someone must do it for them. And that means that if I have a voice, then I must use it for those who cannot, and if I have the strength, then I must also summon it for those who do not.

Isaiah 1:17 says “Learn to do good; seek justice; correct oppression; bring justice to the orphans; plead the widow’s cause.” So, the prophet gave us a clarion call to both speak for and defend the least protected of our society. Likewise, James 1:27 says “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” By “visit”, James meant to champion and care for the cause of the most vulnerable around us.

So, what exactly is that “cause”? The cause, as the prophet rightly  said, is justice. The cause, therefore, that we must embrace is seeking justice for the oppressed. And, the way that we seek justice is by speaking and acting on their behalf. What this means is that we are to both call attention to their suffering and intercede to alleviate their suffering.

But, why should this cause be so important to us? The answer is simply because it was important to Jesus. And, if something is important to Jesus, then it should certainly be important to us. One only has to read one chapter of Scripture to gain an appreciation for how strongly Jesus feels about the health and welfare of children. And, that chapter is the 18th chapter of the gospel according to Matthew.

In Matthew 18:3-6 Jesus says: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Jesus clearly told us that whoever “causes” a child to sin should suffer for his offense. And, by his words, it is obvious that Jesus is gravely serious about sinning against kids. He actually adds a jolting statement to shock the listener into appreciating the depths of his frustration over the suffering of little children. So, it is clear from Jesus’ words that it is a sin to harm a child, but would it also be a sin not to help a child? In other words, could not helping a child who is in distress be equally sinful as harming one?

The application for us would be that if we see that a child is suffering and we fail to do anything about it, then would we not be in effect contributing to the sin that is occurring? It’s interesting that when we talk about the abuse of children, we also usually talk about neglect. Whereas abuse is actively harming children by inflicting pain on them, neglect is passively harming children by failing to care for them. And, if we consider neglect to be just as wrong as abuse, then would we not be guilty of neglecting children if we fail to intercede to alleviate their suffering?

James 4:17 tells us that “whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” So, what we’re left with is the simple truth that failing to act is neglect, and neglect is sin. Therefore, it becomes not so much a matter of if I am going to help care for suffering children but how I am going to help them.

The way I see it, there are a few obvious ways that we can invest ourselves into helping to make the world a safer place for children. First, we can invest our voices. That is, we can speak out wherever and whenever we are able. Second, we can invest our time by volunteering to serve in any number of established ministries. Third, we can invest our resources by financially supporting children and the organizations that care for them. And fourth, we can invest our lives by opening our own homes to take in abused or neglected children through foster care or adoption.

The truth is that there are a host of ways that we can get involved in this issue and do the right thing for hurting children. And, choosing not to notice or care is not one of them. I truly believe that this issue matters deeply to God and that we absolutely should make it our business as followers of Jesus to understand what exactly is happening to children and then do something meaningful about it.

Here are some relevant organizations and ministries that you can support and/or get involved in:

www.azhope.com

www.casaforchildren.org

www.cfcare.org

www.childhelp.org

www.compassion.com

www.fh.org

www.helpingmothersandbabies.org

www.ijm.org

www.joy.org

www.littlemiracles.org

www.medsandfoodforkids.org

www.mentorkidsusa.org

www.missingkids.com

www.rememberpoor.org

www.streetlightphx.com

www.visionabolition.org

www.withchildphx.org

www.younglife.org/younglives

Tags: , ,
5 Comments »

Is Birth Control A Sin?

Bio Ethics | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Sep 24 2009

86514104The issue of birth control and family planning is a highly controversial and hotly debated emotional topic within the Church, and the issue has only heated up in recent years as new information has been released about the nature and effects of certain family planning methods. For many couples, the issue is a deeply personal one because of its profound and broad implications not only for their own families but also for the Church at large.  For some, birth control is a matter of personal liberty while for others it is a matter of moral culpability. Either way, taking a position on this particular issue is going to offend someone depending on their perspective, and that is perhaps why most churches and pastors either do not take an official position on the matter or avoid the issue altogether.

For me as a pastor, I consider it a moral obligation on my part to not only carefully think through the issue of birth control from a biblical perspective but also to provide moral and ethical guidance to those who are under my care. Whether I desire to confront this issue or not, the reality is that I am confronted with it because the people I shepherd are dealing with it. Therefore, I will do my best to express in this post my perspective on the issue for the benefit of not only my own personal growth and understanding but also for the benefit of those that I have the opportunity to guide and care for.

When it comes to the underlying issue of family planning, the Bible does not address the topic directly but it does provide wisdom that indirectly relates to the subject at hand. First of all, the Bible does tell us that “children are  a heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3), so we know that children are a gift or reward from God that should be received with gratitude from His Hand. Further, it is implied that more children do also bring an increased reward  as it says “Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them” (Psalm 127:5). At the same time, though the Bible does tell us that children are a reward and that more children enhance that reward, the Bible does not specifically tell us just how many children we all must have. In other words, though there is an acknowledgment of the blessing of children, there is no actual biblical mandate for us that prescribes just how many that should be.

And, though we do not see a clear mandate in Scripture determining the size of our families, we do see a biblical mandate to be good stewards, good stewards of our time, our energy, our resources and even our bodies, among other things. And, we certainly see evidence that we are to be good stewards of our families as well. For example, deacons and elders are prescribed to “manage their children and households well” (1 Timothy 3:4,12) and parents are instructed to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). As well, parents are also told that failure to provide for their relatives “especially for members of their household” (1 Timothy 5:8) is a denial of the faith and an embarrassment to the Church.

Because the Scriptures do mandate stewardship for all of us, we must apply this to the subject at hand. The question we all must be asking when it comes to planning our families is, “What is my stewardship before the Lord in regard to my own family?” In other words, we must consider what the Lord requires of each of us when it comes to the size and the care of our families. We see in Scripture that God entrusts certain gifts and empowers certain abilities to people for their task in life. In the Bible we call these gifts or abilities “talents” which vary from person to person and, by implication, from family to family. We read that God distributes these talents among people with an expectation that we would steward them well, and our stewardship is not related to the number of talents that we have been given. Notice that the emphasis in Matthew 25 is not on how many “talents” each has received but upon how well those “talents” have been managed. The application is that there are different stewardships given to different people depending on God’s expectation for those individuals or families. Therefore, we cannot necessarily presume that all families ought to have the same stewardship in regard to the size of their families.

Due to the fact that there is no prescriptive biblical mandate for all people regarding the size of their families but that there is a prescriptive command to be wise and effective stewards of all things, my conviction is that it is not unbiblical or sinful to plan how many children we ought to have in our families. Therefore, in light of that understanding, I’m not sure that the “right” or “moral” thing to do is to just wing it with our family planning and just presume that “God will provide”. Although there certainly is an expectation that God will provide for our families regardless of their size, I just don’t think throwing all caution to the wind and hoping for the best is really consistent with the concept of biblical stewardship. By this I mean that though we trust in the Lord to protect us while we drive in our cars, we still must wear our seat belts. And, though we trust in the Lord to heal our bodies, we still take our medication. Therefore, though we trust in God to provide for our needs, would we not be presumptuous to assume that we have no responsibility in securing our provision? It’s sort of like cashing a check in advance hoping that funds will somehow be deposited to keep it from bouncing. But, of course, it would be irresponsible for us to write a check without having some confirmation that the funds are indeed available. This simply serves to illustrate the point that I believe that our effective stewardship in all things includes our own responsibility for the effective care of and provision for our families before God, and I believe that God will hold us all accountable as parents for our wisdom or for our foolishness with that entrusted stewardship.

All of this is to say that family planning, in and of itself, is not sinful or unwise. However, the methods used to accomplish our family planning could be. The primary issue surrounding the use of birth control is whether the method prevents conception or destroys it. The general consensus among the Christian community is that life starts at the moment of conception. Though some even within the Church maintain that genuine conception occurs only after the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall, most agree that conception is achieved once the sperm and the egg are joined irregardless of its successful implantation in the womb. This fertilization can actually occur in the fallopian tubes even before the egg settles into the uterus, and this fundamental definition of when life begins plays an instrumental role in our understanding and use of birth control.

Given the agreed upon definition of when exactly life begins, there would therefore be two birth control options that would be considered biblically consistent and morally acceptable for Christians and one that may not be. The first biblically and morally acceptable option would be what is called “natural birth control”. Natural methods of contraception include the calendar-rhythm method, the symptothermal method and the standard days method, which are all used to prevent conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse on days when the wife is likely to be fertile. Natural birth control methods are beneficial in that they are free, require no surgery, involve no chemicals, devices or drugs, and have no side effects, although these methods do require self-discipline and organized planning on the part of the couple.

The second biblically and morally acceptable option is what has been called “non-abortive birth control”. Just as with the natural methods, non-abortive control methods work to influence the timing of conception but by taking additional temporary or permanent measures. Temporary non-abortive birth control methods are generally referred to as barrier methods that permit intercourse but prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Temporary non-abortive methods of contraception for men include condoms and for women include the diaphragm, contraceptive sponges, cervical caps and female condoms. Permanent non-abortive methods include vasectomy for men and tubal ligation or sterilization for women. Though permanent measures can in some cases be reversed if there is a change of heart, one would be wise to carefully consider both the implications of and the reasons for those procedures before pursuing them.

Though both of the aforementioned birth control measures would be considered biblically and morally acceptable,  there is a third and very prevalent method of birth control that may not be. This third method has been called “potentially abortive birth control” because of the risk that fertilized eggs could be unknowingly terminated through their usage. These methods, among others, include IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant and the pill. The most commonly used of these, the birth control pill, which is taken daily by 50-60 million women worldwide making it the most widely prescribed drug in the world, is a categorical term for more than forty types of oral contraceptives that contain estrogen and/or progestin. These hormonal contraceptives are designed to override the female body’s normal cycle and basically “trick” the brain into believing that she is already pregnant, thus preventing the release of an egg from the ovaries.

Until recently, it has been widely understood that the pill always prevents conception by preventing ovulation. However, recent data has revealed that this may in fact not always be true. What has now been suggested is that women who use the pill may actually continue to release eggs through what has been called spontaneous or “breakthrough ovulation.” And, if birth control pills do not always stop ovulation, then it is possible that fertilized eggs are inevitably being chemically aborted by the body. According to medical experts, there are three mechanisms or purposes for the birth control pill. The first mechanism is to inhibit ovulation. The second mechanism is to thicken cervical mucus in order to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg should it be released. And, the third mechanism is to thin the lining of the uterus in order to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The first two mechanisms or purposes of the birth control pill would be considered contraceptive but the third would be considered abortive because it creates an inhospitable environment that will reject an already potentially fertilized egg. So, the concern is that if the first and second mechanisms fail, then it is entirely possible that a fertilized egg would be flushed from the body due to the third mechanism. Some have proposed that this happens up to 50 percent of the time, but it is likely that is much more uncommon than has been suggested. Still, the moral issue remains. If indeed birth control pills do not always prevent conception and if they do actually chemically terminate conception when it occurs, then we definitely have a moral and ethical dilemma on our hands. Furthermore, if birth control pills create the potential for chemical abortion, then IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant certainly would as well.

Simply put, the first two birth control methods are clearly contraceptive in nature and are therefore morally acceptable options, but the third is potentially abortive in that it will disrupt the new life of a fertilized egg and is morally suspect. What no one denies on either side of this debate is that there is a potential for non-intended chemically induced abortions, but what they disagree on is if and how often it really occurs. However, every Christian couple ought to carefully and prayerfully consider whether the potential risk is acceptable or not. The reality is that many Christians and Christian doctors disagree on the acceptable risks surrounding this method, so it seems presumptuous and even inappropriate to universally declare that using the birth control pill is expressly sinful. However, I do think that Christian couples ought to be better informed about the abortive risks of birth control pills so that they can study the matter fully for themselves and prayerfully consider according to their own conscience and leading of the Holy Spirit whether they take that chance or not.

The bottom line is that the central issue with the family planning debate is not if we should plan but how we should plan our families. Though some couples will choose not to make any plans, most can and will choose to do so. And, for those who do plan their family, my sincere hope is that they would not only carefully discuss, pray over and think through the issue but that they would also solicit medical and spiritual guidance from their doctor and pastor as they decide what method and approach is right and best for their family.

Tags: , , ,
11 Comments »

A Pastor’s Perspective On The Shack

Books | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Sep 09 2009

the-shack1As a pastor I have been asked many times over what I think about the best-selling book The Shack. So, a few months ago I picked up a copy to read it for myself and have been ruminating over its subject matter ever since. Clearly there has been much controversy generated over this book not only because it has sold so many copies but especially because it deals squarely with our understanding of a central theme of our Christian faith.

The subject of the Trinity is something we hold dear as Christians but have also had to hold our understanding of it loosely because the nature of the Triune God is in many ways too mysterious and too profound for our limited minds to grasp. Though we have some clear sense of the nature of one God in three Persons, there is much left to mystery over this plural relationship as Scripture does not thoroughly explain it and our minds cannot well comprehend it. Unfortunately, all of the analogies that have been assigned to this triune relationship have been found wanting so we are left having to use a bit of an imagination to fill in the blank areas.  And, therein lies the problem with the The Shack, let alone any investigation into or explanation of the Godhead.

Though there is much to be appreciated about this book, its attempt to “fill in the blanks” or explain the triune relationship of the Godhead falls short and perhaps only muddies the waters further for those who are sincerely desiring and pursuing to appreciate this divine concept. Some say that the author’s handling of the subject is so misguided that the material would fall into the heresy category and should be considered at very best Christian fiction. Though there are warranted concerns over some critical misconceptions within the book, I’m not sure that I would brush off the book simply as heresy or fiction.

Heresy as we have treated it throughout history seems to be either perpetrated by those who purposely intend to mislead others with false doctrines or by those who are too tragically incompetent in their understanding and expression of their beliefs to be taken seriously. I’m not convinced that the author of this book is either. It seems to me that he wrote the book with a sincere desire to explain some of the missing or confounding elements of the Trinity to his children (as he has stated that he wrote the book for his own children and not for the general public) and that his attempts to do so are not carelessly irresponsible because he appears to at least have a genuine appreciation for the sanctity of the Triune Godhead. So, I am writing this not to generate additional controversy but to apply a reasoned evaluation of what I perceive to be both strengths and weaknesses of this popular book.

First, let me say what I appreciate about the author’s attempt to grapple with the ever mysterious issue at hand. Whereas many have been either too fearful or too cautious to approach the matter in the past, the author of The Shack wades confidently into the issue in a way that we have rarely if ever seen. Never before in my life have I read any attempt to “incarnate” all three members of the Trinity in such a personal way, and though I consider the attempt to be quite risky, I am actually grateful for the way the author attempts to realize the relational attributes of the Godhead.

In particular, I appreciate the fact that he “puts a face” on the Holy Spirit so that we can appreciate His personhood and not just His divinity. Though we know the Spirit is without flesh, I see his attempt to put a body on the Spirit as helpful for those of us who long to know the Holy Spirit in a more personal way. For many of us, the Holy Spirit is the long ignored member of the Trinity who feels the most distant despite the fact that He happens to be the closest to us. So, I, for one, am grateful for this particular aspect of this book because it draws me closer to the Person dwelling inside.

And, along the same vein, I also appreciate the fact that the author successfully shows the reader many of the relational attributes of the Godhead that have too often been obscured and unexplained. For example, the sincere love and regard that each member of the Trinity has for one another is a beautiful and wonderful concept that so few of us truly comprehend or have even dared to explore even though it is modeled throughout Scripture.

As well, the loving relationship among the three has enormous implications for us in regard to our own relationships as it shows the very foundation and pattern of God’s design. We can learn much from the Godhead about how we ought to relate to one another as husbands and wives, as parents and children, and even as friends. The author of The Shack gives us a revealing and moving picture of this love and regard not just among the three but between the main character and the Godhead as well. So, I genuinely appreciate the portrait of relationships that the author has painted with his words in this book and have benefited personally from his insights.

At the same time, as a pastor and as a Christian, I want to be thoughtful and reasoned in my approach to everything making sure that I exercise wisdom and discernment in all things, so I do have some reservations about the book that concern me and are worth outlining in this post. For one, I fear that the author has erred in his attempts to “incarnate” all three members of the Trinity in two significant ways.

First, his attempts to “put a face” on the Father seem dangerously close if not over the line of doing the very thing Scripture expressly forbids us from doing. That is, God’s Word clearly tells us that the Father is spirit and that we must not fashion any images that would contain him. The Father has never looked favorably on attempts to explain or convey His presence in physical forms, especially in the form of a man or woman other than His Son. Because the Father is spirit and essentially unexplainable and uncontainable, His presence cannot and should not be incarnated into a human form as this constitutes idolatry and a violation of God’s expressed command.

Second, I think the author is mistaken in his choice to present the Father in the form of a woman, not that the Father does not “mother” as well as father us with masculine and feminine qualities, but it is significant that Scripture, as well as Jesus and His apostles, never refer to the Father as “mother”. Though I appreciate the author’s attempts to emphasize the Father’s feminine qualities, I think he errs in ignoring the fact that God always has revealed himself and expects us to relate to him as Father, not as Mother. If God had intended to be both to us, then He would have said so.

In my estimation, to personify the Father as a woman is to unnecessarily cloud the issue further for those of us who are already trying to reconcile a Father who is equally as good at being feminine as being masculine. As well, today there is much confusion over gender roles and distinctions and the Bible is clear about God’s intentions for roles and responsibilities both for men and for women, and this attempt on the part of the author may serve to further blur those distinctions. What we know throughout Scripture is that God wants for men to be men and for women to be women, and His intention is not for us to try to be or do anything different. So, given the unbiblical gender bending movement already taking hold within our culture today, I think the author’s choice is unwise and unhelpful.

Furthermore, I would add that there is one more critical blunder that the author makes in his book that ought to concern informed Christians. As he reveals the interrelationships of the Father, Son and Spirit, he seems to present a mutually submissive picture of the three. Though there is indeed evidence for mutual submission between the Son and Spirit in Scripture, we do not see evidence of mutual submission between the Father and the Son or Spirit. In other words, there is a clear hierarchy within the Godhead that is emphasized and illustrated in Scripture repeatedly in which the Son and Spirit submit to the Father but that the Father does not submit to the Spirit or the Son. Yes, the father does love and even defer to the Son and Spirit in certain circumstances, but He never gives up His place as Father among the Trinity, which always comes with constant reverence and honor from the other two.

As we read through the Bible, we see multiple examples of the Son submitting His will to the Father’s and we see the Spirit submitting His will to the Son’s, but we never see the Father ever submitting His will to either. Therefore, it is an inaccurate portrayal and ultimately a distortion of the Trinity to present them as three equals without distinction, and I think this is perhaps the author’s biggest and most costly blunder in The Shack.

The reason why this mistake is so profound and expensive is because it has incredible implications on our understanding of the biblical issue of submission both in marriage and in the church. After all, if there is no submission within the Trinity, then one could argue that there ought to be no submission in marriage or in the church either, and that is quite simply why this error is the fundamental problem with the book. The essential issue is that it undermines a critical aspect of God’s revelation about Himself and distorts His ultimate design for all of humanity.

Because of the aforementioned concerns regarding the premise and material of the book, I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. Though I do appreciate the spirit in which it is composed and the beautiful portrayals of loving relationships within its pages, it is my conviction that because of the fundamental errors in the portrayal of the Godhead and the enormous potential for broad negative impact on Christendom, I cannot recommend it to the church at large.

In my estimation, The Shack is an interesting and entertaining read for astute and discerning Christians who already have a formed and sound theology of the Trinity, but I am primarily concerned for the those who are inclined to form or reform their rudimentary understanding of the Trinity based upon their own experiences with and interpretations of this book.

Tags:
No Comments »

Do You Feel God’s Pleasure?

Faith | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Aug 19 2009

77293928In Hebrews 11:6 it says that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” It’s interesting, I think, that for many Christians, they are satisfied with knowing God, or rather perhaps content with the idea that God knows them. But, it is really something more to not just be known by God but also to be pleasing to Him. When is the last time you thought about whether God is really pleased with you? By that, I’m not asking if you have considered whether God loves you and accepts you, because there should be no doubt that God loves and accepts all of His children; rather, I am asking whether you have thought about if God really takes pleasure in you? That is, do you wonder if God smiles when he thinks about you and if His heart swells up with joy when He watches you?

Eric Liddell, the Scottish runner, is famous for once saying “God made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure.” Apparently, when Liddell competed, He could sense God’s happiness about what he was doing. And yet, the pleasure that he sensed was not so much in the fact that he was able to run fast but rather that he was fulfilling the purpose for which God had created him. In other words, the source of the pleasure for his Maker was in his child being the very man that God had intended him to be. Hence, the divine pleasure was not in watching his child perform but in seeing him fulfill his superintended calling.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it means to bring God pleasure. Because God is not like us, because His ways and thoughts are so much higher than ours, I’m not sure that God feels “pleasure” in the same way that we do. And, if He does, then I’m fairly sure that He feels it much more profoundly than we ever could. Though we feel pleasure perhaps when we see our children succeed, our sense of satisfaction is tainted by our own ambition and selfishness, whereas God’s pleasure as our Holy Father is probably entirely different. His pleasure is not marred or compromised by anything insincere or impure, so God’s sense of personal pleasure must be not only much deeper than ours but also much more intense. So, when God is pleased, I’m therefore not surprised that His children can not only sense it but also even feel it.

God’s pleasure undoubtedly sends supernatural shock waves through the universe that can be sensed by the spiritually sensitive human hearts of His children, and if they are looking and care to know, they may even feel it. At the same time, I wonder how many of God’s children go about their lives without ever stopping to look up at their Father’s face to see if perhaps He just might be smiling on them. What a sad story for God to be pleased in His child and for the child not to even notice.

Well, I think that I didn’t notice God’s smiles for many years in my life. Although God had probably at times smiled in my direction, I was too busy or too distracted to notice Him. Although I knew that God cared about me and loved me, I didn’t really think about whether He actually liked me. I wonder how many times God was saddened after He took pleasure in me and I failed to take note of it, and I have reflected on how my life might be different had I cared or noticed His joy all of these years. Perhaps you have wondered about these things too or maybe you are just now wondering for the first time.

It was only within the last couple of years that I have begun to look for God’s face to see if there might be a smile on it. And, what I found is that when I looked for signs of His pleasure in my life, I started to really notice that He smiled on me most often when I was engaged in one particular activity. For many years, I have preached God’s Word in various churches, with various groups, and in various places, but it wasn’t until I started preaching every week to the same group of people that I began to sense something that I hadn’t really noticed before.

What I sensed as I prepared and delivered God’s Word week in and week out was an ever increasing inward feeling of God’s satisfaction with me. Although the week to week teaching has sometimes felt tedious and even fruitless at times, I have realized more and more that it is anything but that. What I have been about doing in preaching is not giving talks or speeches to entertain and inspire people but rather living out the purpose for which God has created me. What I started to sense and have even begun to feel in my spirit when I preach is that God is happy when I am teaching. It’s not so much a sense that God is pleased when I teach well but rather than He is pleased that I am fulfilling the purpose for which He has created me. And, knowing that I’ve made God happy makes me happy.

Now, for several years, I didn’t actually apply myself to doing what God had in fact created me to do, and though there was enjoyment and reward in doing other tasks and pursuing other goals, I never felt God’s pleasure in doing those things as I do when I preach God’s Word. And, knowing that now, I would not have spent so much time doing anything other than that which brings my Father the most pleasure because there is no greater joy in this life than in feeling that you are doing the very thing that God put you on this earth to do.

So, what has God put you on this earth to do? It may not be preaching God’s Word but rather competing in sports, making music, creating art, selling insurance, designing buildings, or teaching kindergarten. It really doesn’t matter what it is so much as knowing that you are doing the very thing God has created you to do. The joy and the fulfillment is in sensing God’s pleasure when you are actually doing whatever it is that you do.

At the same time, if you cannot sense God’s pleasure in your heart when you go about your work, then perhaps you are not fulfilling the calling for which you were designed. Even if you enjoy it and are richly rewarded for your tasks, those successes are trivial and vain if they do not bring God’s  pleasure and your awareness of it. Real fulfillment in this life is in doing the very thing that you know brings your God the most joy.

So, what is it that you do that you feel in your heart makes God smile? What is it that you do, and when you do it, you can feel God’s pleasure? If you can’t answer that question, then it means that either you are not doing what God created you to do or you haven’t taken the time to notice that you are.

So, how will you know if God is smiling on you? Quite simply, if God is not smiling on what you are doing, then you will likely feel an unsatisfied restlessness that compels you to always be wondering about what else you should be doing. And yet, if you have that feeling that you are settled in your calling and that this is the way you want to invest the rest of your life, then stop and look up at the Father’s face once in a while because He may just be smiling on you.

Tags: , ,
2 Comments »

The Emerging Church Controversy

Church | Posted by Kent DelHousaye
Jul 16 2009

candlesMany people know that in my previous ministry in Santa Cruz, California that I had the opportunity to pastor with two well-known and respected men in the evangelical world. The one, Chip Ingram, was gaining widespread influence through his growing radio ministry, and the other, Dan Kimball, through his writing and networking with emerging church ministry pioneers. Both men led large, progressive congregations on the same church campus yet with widely disparate styles, philosophies and ministry demographics. The morning services under Chip’s leadership were full of young families and urban professionals while the evening services under Dan’s guidance were full of college students and mostly hip single young adults. And I? I had the unique responsibility of ministering alongside both of them with one foot anchored in modern ministry and the other in postmodern.

During my tenure at that church, I found it initially challenging to be ministerially ambidextrous with one hand in traditional ministry and the other in an “emerging church” ministry but I gained a level of insight and experience through that time that I think perhaps uniquely qualifies me to address the increasingly controversial issue of the emerging church.

First of all, let me say that I find that many who critique the emerging model often draw their conclusions and make their evaluations either based on hearsay knowledge or from some pages in a book they read or an article they downloaded. Very few, if any, critics to my knowledge have had any personal experience or extended interaction and observation on which to base their criticisms, which I believe actually undermines their credibility in speaking to this issue. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to share my own perspective based on personal experience, interaction and observation which I have gained through having ministered as a pastor in both traditional and emerging contexts. And, the reason that I want to share my view on this issue is to set the record straight where there is misunderstanding and misplaced blame regarding the brooding controversy that has developed and spread in the last few years.

To be honest, when I arrived in Santa Cruz for my first ministry assignment after graduating from seminary and being ordained in 2001, I was quite frankly overwhelmed by the disparity of the style and philosophy between the traditional ministry that occurred on Sunday mornings and the very non-traditional ministry that happened on Sunday nights. Sunday mornings actually seemed very familiar to me as it included the typical contemporary worship, perfunctory announcements, and dynamic teaching. Everyone dressed casually and looked normal much like the church I had come from in Scottsdale. The Sunday nights, however, were shockingly different. Yes, there was worship, but lots more of it and the music was louder, longer and better than I had ever experienced. There were hundreds of college and post-college aged people that filled the place and most of them sported tattoos, earings, euro-fashion clothes and funky hairstyles. The room was set up very differently, with tables mixed in with the chairs, as well as icons and candles spread around the room, and the teaching was less inspirational and seemed more relational. There was a pervading tone in the room that was more open, curious and apologetic and there were sacred spaces set aside for prayer and solitude, and it all took place in a darkened environment that felt more spiritual and mysterious than what I was used to. All this is to say that I was taken aback at first by the stark differences I observed and it actually took me some time to not just understand what was taking place but also to appreciate it.

In time, I naturally grew accustomed to the stylistic differences between the two congregations and adapted to ministering comfortably in both of them. What I learned in the process is that though the philosophies and styles of mornings and evenings were substantially different, their commitment to quality and substance was not. What I observed during my time there was that both men I served with were equally committed to upholding orthodox truth only communicating it in very different ways. And, they both did it effectively.

Now, during my time in Santa Cruz, the pastor of the evening gathering was interacting with a network of pioneering young pastors around the country and starting to speak at conferences with them about this new creative approach to ministry they called “The Emerging Church”. And, I had the opportunity to participate in some of those interactions and see for myself first hand what other young pastors were saying and doing about reaching out more effectively to our postmodern culture. And, what I surfaced out of those early dialogues and conferences were certain values that included among others a commitment to fostering dialogue with the surrounding culture, a desire to re-evaluate common church practices and traditions, an openness to consider different philosophical and/or theological viewpoints or persuasions, and a passion for the inclusion of arts, music and culture into worship.

Now, I recall during that time period appreciating the kinds of questions that were being asked and agreed with most of the values that they had established. However, there were some in those conversations who felt compelled to go further and question more than just styles and philosophies choosing to challenge some long established orthodox theological and biblical doctrine regarding such issues as the exclusivity of the gospel, the nature of the atonement of Christ, the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the moral and ethical commands pertaining to sexuality. Ultimately because of this compromise on the part of a few involved, the movement ultimately fractured into two, one larger conservative segment that was committed to upholding doctrine and the other smaller one challenging it. What developed ultimately is a conservative stream committed to biblical and theological truth and the other a liberal stream of the movement seemingly bent toward pluralism and existentialism.

What occurred in the emerging/emergent dialogue in the last several years is really no different than what has probably occurred in every generational movement that tries to “do church differently” for their own time.  The liberal segment splinters off and joins mainline denominations while the conservative segment stays and occupies its rightful place in mainstream evangelical denominations. In time, for the conservative segment, the coined verbiage for their movement will fade and though they will have their own methods and styles of ministry in their ministry context they will be the ones to carry on the orthodox truths complete and intact for the next generation. And, there are many young pastors and leaders associated with this movement who are absolutely committed to doing this for theirs.

Now, all of this is to say that there have been many unfair and unkind sweeping generalizations made against this entire movement by a small but vocal group of people hurling false accusations against any leader or pastor who makes any stylistic or philosophical changes in their churches or ministries that reflect “emerging” values. It doesn’t matter to them that those values are merely stylistic or philosophical in nature and not biblical or theological; they dismiss anything that even looks different to them as harmful and heretical simply because of an illegitimate fear that has been instilled into them by overt watch-dog organizations and groups that bill themselves as “discernment ministries”. These so-called “discernment” groups are often just one person who has a bone to pick with just about everyone who does things differently, and even if their intentions were originally right in trying to protect the church from liberal influence, their tactics end up stoking illegitimate fears among God’s people and tarnishing the reputations of many faithful leaders. Although some of their criticism may be warranted for a small contingent of outspoken liberals, most of it unfortunately is levied categorically against the entire movement and ends up hurting the good guys too.

Their sweeping over-generalizations and stereotypical labels though perhaps primarily directed at the liberal segment of the movement have been used to attack any pastor or leader who dares to suggest fostering constructive dialogue with the surrounding culture, who questions common antiquated church traditions or customs, who is willing to even consider and at least interact with different theological viewpoints and persuasions, or who desires to incorporate the arts into life and worship.

Unfortunately, these so-called “discernment ministries” often want to plant seeds of doubt and fear into people’s minds about their own church whenever they see any stylistic changes happening by implying that those changes are an indication that their church may well be going down “a slippery slope” toward some mystical heresy. Now, this kind of alarmist mentality only serves to turn well intentioned people into paranoid watchdogs who look under every rock and around every corner for evidence of “the slide”. And, to their discredit, along with those who may deserve it, they also defame many upstanding organizations, schools, ministries, churches, pastors, authors, and leaders simply because of their supposed associations or connections. This is, in my estimation, harmful and not helpful for the Church today as it not only harms reputations but also hamstrings ministry by plaguing any efforts to be innovative and creative in designing effective ministry.

My plea to the church is that people, especially the “discerning” ones, do their homework and check the reliability and credibility of their sources before drawing premature or inaccurate conclusions about movements, ministries or leaders and think carefully and wisely before openly slandering God’s anointed. Now, if there is clear and substantive evidence of biblical or theological unfaithfulness, then it would be appropriate to lovingly call that person into account, but if there isn’t, then there is the risk of sinning not just against God’s servants but also against His redemptive mission in the world.

If I sound serious about this, it’s because I am and have been meaning to write on this for some time. The truth is that I am quite tired of and sufficiently annoyed by the ridiculous assumptions and accusations levied against faithful godly leaders by so called “discerning” Christians who quite honestly by their words and their behavior prove that they do not know what they are talking about. They neither attempt to know or even care to find out if what they are hearing or presuming is true or not. I am actually quite disturbed that supposed Christians would so callously and arrogantly  attempt to defame the name and tarnish the reputation of their leaders so easily and think that they will not be held accountable for their words.

For the record, I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with Emergent Village and the church that I pastor is not on a “slippery slope” toward anything but hopefully Christlikeness and glory. Any church that I pastor will by nature be creative and innovative in its approach because I believe that styles and approaches can and should change as needed in order to sufficiently engage and redeem our culture. I believe that the message of the gospel is unchanging but that the way in which it is presented is not. And, if there are people who doubt my fidelity and integrity to biblical truth simply because of my practical ingenuity in delivering it, then it ought to be obvious that they lack the gift that they think they possess.. they lack discernment.

Tags: , , , , ,
12 Comments »