Warning: Due to the nature of the book being reviewed (a book on marriage and sex written for adults), this review might be a little mature for some readers. If you don't think you can handle it, don't read it. You have been warned.
There are certain individuals in this world who tend to polarize others. People either love or hate them, and their comments spark heated debates either casting the person as a messenger from God or a spawn of the devil. Presidents and prime ministers tend to fall into this category, as do media celebrities, sports stars, business tycoons, and religious leaders. Especially ones who like the push buttons by making extraordinarily blunt, and sometimes cuttingly sarcastic, remarks.
Such as Mark Driscoll.
So when Driscoll announced that he would be releasing a book on marriage and sex, I saw friends of mine respond with both praise and disgust. I saw “I can't wait to read this,” posts on facebook, as well as “not touching this with a ten foot pole” comments. What happens, you may ask, when a person such as myself, one who does not like picking sides and tends to see everything in shades of grey, decides to read a book written by such a controversial author?
Answer: This book review.
Being the kind of person I am, I have trouble branding this book as “good” or “bad”. Personally, I found some chapters to be more “good” than others. Here’s my take on the book, section by section.
Part 1: Marriage
I really wish the Driscolls hadn’t started this book off with a huge unveiling of their own past marriage problems. While I commend the couple for their honesty, the first chapter seems to cast Grace as the messed-up, sexually frigid wife who has all the issues, and Mark as the poor deprived hero who has to help his wife overcome her messed-up-ness in order for her to have more freedom- and him to have more sex! Seriously, the main issue that they mention in this section, the issue that is messing up their marriage, is the fact that Grace is frigid in bed! One would think that a young marriage would have multiple issues in their first decade of marriage- communication troubles, money problems, etc- but no, in this case, sex is the main thing. Am I the only one who finds that a little odd? There are other oddities in this chapter but I’ll skip over them for the sake of time.
The second chapter in this section is probably my favourite in the whole book. In this chapter there is a lot of talk about remembering to keep your spouse your friend, to have fun together, and to make your friendship a priority. Good stuff all around in this chapter.
The next two chapters- Men and Marriage and The Respectful Wife- are where things sort of fall apart for me. I went into this knowing that I am more egalitarian than the Driscolls, and expecting not to agree with their views in this area. I agree with the ideas put forth that there are some men who need to grow up and take responsibility for their families (though I find that the “tough” and “tender” stereotypes that Driscoll uses could apply to women as well as men- sometimes women need to grow a backbone too!), and with the idea in the chapter for wives that women should treat their husbands in a kind, respectful, non-manipulative way. But I cringe at Driscoll’s assertion that, as head of the household, the man should be the primary one teaching the Bible to his kids, and that the wife should bring her scriptural questions to him. What if the wife has a Bible college degree and a teaching gift, and the husband is more “hands on” than academically inclined and didn’t grow up with the Bible? (Yes, I’m talking about me and Dave.) Don’t get me wrong, I hope that my husband will be involved in our kids’ spiritual lives, and I quite enjoy discussing my questions about our faith with him as he tends to bring a unique angle to them. But if I went to him and asked him to figure out the meaning of something in the Bible that I couldn’t understand, he’d probably look at me like I was on drugs- he knows I’m probably more capable than he is of figuring it out!
I was wondering what angle the Driscolls were going to take on “submission”, and I honestly found their definition to be murky. In the chapter “The Respectful Wife”, Grace states what submission is not, but fails to ever really say what it is. She also states at one point that it’s okay to fight and that wives should speak up when they disagree with their husbands, but in another place one of the options presented for solving a disagreement is that the wife would simply go along with the husband, and if he’s wrong, expect him to take full responsibility for his wrong-ness.
The chapter on repentance and forgiveness was good for the most part, though I disliked their choice of John Wesley and his wife Molly as an illustration on the pitfalls of bitterness- mainly because they made Molly, the wife, to be the one with the problem (sound familiar?) Yes, Molly should not have become as bitter as she did, but John simply did not do his part in the marriage, by the sounds of it.
Part 2: Sex
I agreed with the general premise of the chapter called “Gross, God or Gift”. In fact I found myself wondering if the idea of “sex as gross” which has been almost a constant in church history is the reason that books like this one are being written. Perhaps the years and years of Christians being told that sex is for procreation only and being encouraged to repress their sexuality has resulted in a pendulum-swing- suddenly pastors are talking about sex, writing books about sex, encouraging their married couples to have more sex, and so forth. (I’ll talk more about this in the conclusion.) The bit at the end where Grace discusses her own “sex as gross” views seems a little odd to me- it seems that she feels like God told her to, well, force herself to have sex with her husband regardless of her inhibitions! Now if God actually did tell her that, I’m not going to argue with God. But it seems a bit odd nonetheless.
The next two chapters deal with abuse and pornography, and I had little problem with either. I thought it was good that there are people willing to discuss these subjects openly. My only issue with these chapters is the specific ways in which they choose to address the problems. I have never been abused so I cannot say whether their methods are right or wrong, but it seems that the Driscolls view the best way to deal with abuse involves conjuring up the memories and dealing with each one individually with God and/or a counsellor. Their prescription for dealing with porn is similar. Once again I’m not sure if this is the healthiest way; however this book seems to purport it as the only healthy, “Biblical” way to heal from past issues!
I had a LOT of trouble with the chapter “Selfish Lovers and Servant Lovers”. I could go into his (somewhat questionable) take on Song of Solomon, but that’s not my main concern here- my concern is the overriding message of this chapter. While I certainly agree that it’s selfish and unkind to systematically deprive your spouse of sex, the idea put forth in this chapter goes far beyond that- namely, it seems that the Driscolls believe that to say no to your spouse is always a selfish act, and that when your spouse wants sex, you should always give it to them whether you feel like it or not. (Driscoll doesn’t quite say it this bluntly in the book; however it is certainly implied, and he does state this concept in very black-and-white terms during his teaching series on sex called The Peasant Princess.)
This could cause multiple problems. First of all, one would have no way of knowing whether or not their spouse was truly enjoying their sexual relationship if both spouses felt obligated. I know that for most couples, if one thinks the other one is forcing themselves, it completely ruins the experience. If a couple were to decide to live out their sexual relationship this way, then every time they had sex, they’d each be wondering if the other actually wanted it! Unhealthy? I think so. And secondly, if not only saying no to sex, but saying no to variety is also classified as selfish, then we will find ourselves in deep trouble in light of the next chapter.
The final chapter in the section, entitled “Can We _______?”, was not nearly as scandalous to me as it apparently was to some people (but perhaps that’s because I am young and “live near a major city”). I like the questions that are asked of each act discussed (Is it lawful? Is it helpful? Is it enslaving?) For the most part, I agree with the Driscolls’ assertions on each of the acts mentioned; nonetheless I have an issue with this chapter when combined with the previous one. Let’s say that John and Jane Doe are married and reading this book, and John, after reading this chapter, suddenly speaks up about one of the acts mentioned, and, “hey, I’ve always wanted to try that, and it doesn’t seem like it’s a sin, at least not according to this book, so let’s give it a whirl!” And Jane is not comfortable with the idea of trying out the act, but she decides to keep her mouth shut because she wants to be a “servant lover” (and a submissive wife). You see why this chapter could be troublesome.
Yes, it is advised in this chapter that both spouses feel comfortable with an act before they attempt it; however a couple might feel that the “servant lover” or “submissive wife” principle overrides this. If a couple is clearly and honestly communicating about how they feel about various acts, then this chapter could be beneficial. If they are not, this chapter could be extremely harmful.
Part 3- The Last Day
The principle that one must plan for a great marriage is true. Marriage takes work. However, I have yet to sit down and figure out exactly where I want to be in a few years, and I’m still happy. The detailed planning questionnaire that spouses are supposed to fill out in this section seems a little over the top, especially for someone like me who is more “perceiver” than “judger”. I’ve been told since high school that I have to have a detailed plan for my life- which sounds great, but thus far life has not really gone according to plan. And for me, telling myself that I am going to be *here* in a few years is setting myself up for disappointment. In short, this section and the exercises within it might be beneficial to some couples, but likely not all.
Conclusion
I have to wonder if this book was written in part of break conservative Christians out of the classic prudish, anti-sexual, “we can’t try anything that isn’t in Bible” mold that at least some of them live in. I can certainly see why this might be needed. Growing up in the church, there was an inordinate amount of time spent on prescribing modesty and talking about the evils of fornication, and as a result it’s no small wonder that some Christians struggle with the “sex as gross” idea. Real Marriage tells the Christian couples that it’s okay to be sexy and sexual, attempts to free them from prudishness.
However, I have to wonder if the book takes things too far in the opposite direction. We go from “sex is only to be done when necessary, or it’s selfish,” to “sex should be done whenever the other partner wants it, or it’s selfish.” We go from sexiness being a vice to sexiness being a command. While this book could free a couple from silly legalistic ideas about what is wrong to do in the bedroom, it could also enslave a couple to feelings of sexual obligation.
In short, there is both healthy and unhealthy advice in this book, as in all books written by human beings. In my own opinion, the unhealthy could easily outweigh the healthy here. If a couple or an individual were to decide to read this book, I’d recommend they read it with a cautious knowledge that the writers, although pastors, are only human, and thus treat their words accordingly.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Following Jesus and Ulterior Motives
One of my favourite chapters in The Beautiful Outlaw is the one where John Eldredge talks about Jesus’ “trueness”. Basically he says that Jesus was free from the opinions of others, free to fully “be himself” without the usual social inhibitions. He contrasts that to humans in general, and how tied up we are in what others think of us.
I know without question that this is true of me; I care WAY too much about what people think of me. Even though I’ve never been a total conformist, I still want people to like me, and like most other people, I can be a chameleon.
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about how much “what others think” have influenced my walk with God. See, reading this book has totally blown my perceptions of Jesus out of the water, and suddenly I find myself wanting to read the stories of Jesus, and wanting to talk to other people about what I am learning about him. And I am finding myself amazed at how different those desires are at this point in my life compared to when I was a bit younger.
See, in my teens I “got into Jesus” partly because I loved him, yes. But being a “Jesus Freak” had perks. It gave me a group of friends who thought similarly to me, it gave me community, a place to belong, and a cause to be passionate about. It sounds terrible, but I find myself thinking that maybe I got into Jesus for the same reasons that other teens get into drugs, or music, or a particular sport- it gave me a community and a purpose. Not that community and purpose are bad- they’re far from it- but I find myself feeling like these ulterior motives in my relationship with God superseded the genuine love I had for him simply because of who he is for a very long time.
As a “Jesus Freak” in my teens, there were rules. You read the Bible and prayed, you told other people about your faith, you went to youth conferences, you spent your free time in church. You kept away from things like “questionable” movies and mainstream music and “immodest” clothing and many other things. I followed the rules because I wanted to be a good Christian, and because I wanted to be accepted among my peers, I think. I walked like all the other Jesus Freaks, because that’s what we did. I was part of the Jesus Freak Clique.
Then I hit my twenties, and things fell apart. My friends began to see things differently from one another, I began to question a lot of my assumptions, and I was confused as anything. For the next several years, my faith began to grow and become more based on genuine love for God, but there was certainly still a need to impress others with it. I would embrace a particular form of Christianity because, in my mind, doing so made me more acceptable to my friends, or possibly more likeable to whatever guy I was into at the time.
Once I settled down in Victoria, I found myself in a spiritual patchwork quilt- many different friends who got along, yet whose experiences of God, theological ideas, and ways of connecting with Him were totally diverse. Of course this was good for me as it forced me to figure out how Mary follows Jesus (as opposed to the next person), but nonetheless I experienced years of frustration, feelings of distance from God, and questioning.
I think I probably still care too much about what others think of my friendship with Jesus. But perhaps I am learning to care more about what Jesus thinks of my friendship with Jesus, lol. I certainly feel like I am getting the hang of understanding who He is, what kind of man walked the earth 2000 years ago. And in the process I am “falling in love” all over again. When I find myself wanting to read the Bible or tell people what I am learning, it is no longer motivated by pressure, by a feeling of “that’s what a good Christian is supposed to do”; instead it’s motivated (I think) by genuine enthusiasm about who Jesus is. And it is NICE to feel at least somewhat freed from those obligations.
So why do you follow Jesus? Is the way that walk based on true understanding of him, or are you doing the things you do because that’s how other Christians are doing them, because doing so will earn you brownie points in the Christian culture? It’s a question worth asking.
I know without question that this is true of me; I care WAY too much about what people think of me. Even though I’ve never been a total conformist, I still want people to like me, and like most other people, I can be a chameleon.
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about how much “what others think” have influenced my walk with God. See, reading this book has totally blown my perceptions of Jesus out of the water, and suddenly I find myself wanting to read the stories of Jesus, and wanting to talk to other people about what I am learning about him. And I am finding myself amazed at how different those desires are at this point in my life compared to when I was a bit younger.
See, in my teens I “got into Jesus” partly because I loved him, yes. But being a “Jesus Freak” had perks. It gave me a group of friends who thought similarly to me, it gave me community, a place to belong, and a cause to be passionate about. It sounds terrible, but I find myself thinking that maybe I got into Jesus for the same reasons that other teens get into drugs, or music, or a particular sport- it gave me a community and a purpose. Not that community and purpose are bad- they’re far from it- but I find myself feeling like these ulterior motives in my relationship with God superseded the genuine love I had for him simply because of who he is for a very long time.
As a “Jesus Freak” in my teens, there were rules. You read the Bible and prayed, you told other people about your faith, you went to youth conferences, you spent your free time in church. You kept away from things like “questionable” movies and mainstream music and “immodest” clothing and many other things. I followed the rules because I wanted to be a good Christian, and because I wanted to be accepted among my peers, I think. I walked like all the other Jesus Freaks, because that’s what we did. I was part of the Jesus Freak Clique.
Then I hit my twenties, and things fell apart. My friends began to see things differently from one another, I began to question a lot of my assumptions, and I was confused as anything. For the next several years, my faith began to grow and become more based on genuine love for God, but there was certainly still a need to impress others with it. I would embrace a particular form of Christianity because, in my mind, doing so made me more acceptable to my friends, or possibly more likeable to whatever guy I was into at the time.
Once I settled down in Victoria, I found myself in a spiritual patchwork quilt- many different friends who got along, yet whose experiences of God, theological ideas, and ways of connecting with Him were totally diverse. Of course this was good for me as it forced me to figure out how Mary follows Jesus (as opposed to the next person), but nonetheless I experienced years of frustration, feelings of distance from God, and questioning.
I think I probably still care too much about what others think of my friendship with Jesus. But perhaps I am learning to care more about what Jesus thinks of my friendship with Jesus, lol. I certainly feel like I am getting the hang of understanding who He is, what kind of man walked the earth 2000 years ago. And in the process I am “falling in love” all over again. When I find myself wanting to read the Bible or tell people what I am learning, it is no longer motivated by pressure, by a feeling of “that’s what a good Christian is supposed to do”; instead it’s motivated (I think) by genuine enthusiasm about who Jesus is. And it is NICE to feel at least somewhat freed from those obligations.
So why do you follow Jesus? Is the way that walk based on true understanding of him, or are you doing the things you do because that’s how other Christians are doing them, because doing so will earn you brownie points in the Christian culture? It’s a question worth asking.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Dear teenage self...
I had a crazy "epiphany moment" today- a milestone that for many would seem insignificant, but for me is huge.
As anyone who knows me knows, I have struggled greatly with unnecessary feelings of guilt and condemnation, particularly in the last 8 years or so. One of the biggest accusations that has come at my mind again and again is, "if the teenage version of you could see what you've become, she'd think you were a huge backslider."
And there's certainly some truth to that. After all, in my teen years I was into a rather legalistic form of Christianity, whose version of holiness was avoiding everything "worldly" and spending all my time doing church activities. And now? I watch movies. I listen to mainstream music. Sometimes I use words that would get bleeped out on the radio. I drink alcohol in moderation. I wear spaghetti-strap tank tops and two-piece swimsuits. There are certainly still things I keep away from, but at this point in my life, I tend to base the idea of holiness on attitudes and motivations- I am more concerned if I am being selfish or unkind or arrogant than if I say a four letter word or watch a "questionable" movie. But despite the fact that I believe my actions are justifiable, I have struggled with a fair bit of inappropriate guilt over them, mainly because I am not the person that I thought I would be when I was younger.
So today I stumbled across an old journal that I wrote in back at the end of 2003, which was when all these feelings of guilt started up. I read through the confusion of coming back from discipleship school and hearing different friends go on at me about their pet issues, being confused by their conflicting opinions, and about the immense shame I felt in those days over a few choices that, while unwise, were probably not blatantly sinful. It was a very rough time for me, and I was VERY hard on myself in those days- much more so than I am now. Given my past expereinces and the company I kept, my mindset was understandable, but... still...
And as I read those entries, that familiar thought came back to me: You are not what your younger self wanted you to be. If your teenage self could see you now, she would think you were such a backslider.
And for the first time in my life, I was able to look that thought "in the eye" and say this: You know what? You're right, she would. But maybe my teenage self didn't know what she was talking about.
Yes, my morals in the "grey areas" may not be as stringent as they were in my younger years. But I have certainly grown. My current self is much better at trusting God than my teenage self was. My current self better understands Jesus, knows his heart better than my teenage self did, and probably loves him more, too. And I hope that my current self is more caring, more compassionate, and less selfish than my teenage self. I'm not sure, but I can hope...
So, teenage Mary, thank you for your input, for all your years of condemning words. You have been heard. But guess what? You are wrong. I am not a backslider. I am growing in God, and even though I did not end up where you thought I would, God is bringing good out of my life. I may not have changed the world, but I have made an impact in small ways. I may not keep to your strict moral code of holiness, but I try to listen to God and live my life according to what he tells me. Yes, I have sunk to some lows that you would not have anticipated, but God will bring good from everything that has happened to me. I am not backsliding, I am moving forward. The walk is painful at times, joyful at others. Sometimes I trip, I fall; other times I crawl forward, other times I dance. It is a journey. But I am moving forward with Jesus. And Jesus accepts- and treasures- me right where I am at. Where I am right now is beatiful because I am in the process of becoming more like Jesus.
Oh, and teenage Mary, I forgive you for thinking such judgmental thoughts about me. I can't blame you. You're still young, and you have yet to understand the complexity of following Jesus in this beautiful and broken world. One day, you'll understand...
You are forgiven. But nonetheless, you are wrong about me.
That is all.
As anyone who knows me knows, I have struggled greatly with unnecessary feelings of guilt and condemnation, particularly in the last 8 years or so. One of the biggest accusations that has come at my mind again and again is, "if the teenage version of you could see what you've become, she'd think you were a huge backslider."
And there's certainly some truth to that. After all, in my teen years I was into a rather legalistic form of Christianity, whose version of holiness was avoiding everything "worldly" and spending all my time doing church activities. And now? I watch movies. I listen to mainstream music. Sometimes I use words that would get bleeped out on the radio. I drink alcohol in moderation. I wear spaghetti-strap tank tops and two-piece swimsuits. There are certainly still things I keep away from, but at this point in my life, I tend to base the idea of holiness on attitudes and motivations- I am more concerned if I am being selfish or unkind or arrogant than if I say a four letter word or watch a "questionable" movie. But despite the fact that I believe my actions are justifiable, I have struggled with a fair bit of inappropriate guilt over them, mainly because I am not the person that I thought I would be when I was younger.
So today I stumbled across an old journal that I wrote in back at the end of 2003, which was when all these feelings of guilt started up. I read through the confusion of coming back from discipleship school and hearing different friends go on at me about their pet issues, being confused by their conflicting opinions, and about the immense shame I felt in those days over a few choices that, while unwise, were probably not blatantly sinful. It was a very rough time for me, and I was VERY hard on myself in those days- much more so than I am now. Given my past expereinces and the company I kept, my mindset was understandable, but... still...
And as I read those entries, that familiar thought came back to me: You are not what your younger self wanted you to be. If your teenage self could see you now, she would think you were such a backslider.
And for the first time in my life, I was able to look that thought "in the eye" and say this: You know what? You're right, she would. But maybe my teenage self didn't know what she was talking about.
Yes, my morals in the "grey areas" may not be as stringent as they were in my younger years. But I have certainly grown. My current self is much better at trusting God than my teenage self was. My current self better understands Jesus, knows his heart better than my teenage self did, and probably loves him more, too. And I hope that my current self is more caring, more compassionate, and less selfish than my teenage self. I'm not sure, but I can hope...
So, teenage Mary, thank you for your input, for all your years of condemning words. You have been heard. But guess what? You are wrong. I am not a backslider. I am growing in God, and even though I did not end up where you thought I would, God is bringing good out of my life. I may not have changed the world, but I have made an impact in small ways. I may not keep to your strict moral code of holiness, but I try to listen to God and live my life according to what he tells me. Yes, I have sunk to some lows that you would not have anticipated, but God will bring good from everything that has happened to me. I am not backsliding, I am moving forward. The walk is painful at times, joyful at others. Sometimes I trip, I fall; other times I crawl forward, other times I dance. It is a journey. But I am moving forward with Jesus. And Jesus accepts- and treasures- me right where I am at. Where I am right now is beatiful because I am in the process of becoming more like Jesus.
Oh, and teenage Mary, I forgive you for thinking such judgmental thoughts about me. I can't blame you. You're still young, and you have yet to understand the complexity of following Jesus in this beautiful and broken world. One day, you'll understand...
You are forgiven. But nonetheless, you are wrong about me.
That is all.
Just a thought...
When Jesus walked the earth, the people whom he clashed with the most were the religious leaders of his day, because they'd taken God's law (which was meant to allow us to come close to him) and turned it into a dogmatic, legalistic religious system. They were known for making mountains out of molehills, looking down on people, and insisting on outward piety while ignoring heart issues.
Then Jesus left, and his followers, over time, took his teachings and turned them into a dogmatic, legalistic religious system. Today, many people look at the church as a group of people who make mountains out of molehills, look down on people, and insist on outward piety while ignoring heart issues. Of course this is not true of every Christian out there, but nonetheless, this is the reputation that the church has in the world today.
Will we ever learn?
Then Jesus left, and his followers, over time, took his teachings and turned them into a dogmatic, legalistic religious system. Today, many people look at the church as a group of people who make mountains out of molehills, look down on people, and insist on outward piety while ignoring heart issues. Of course this is not true of every Christian out there, but nonetheless, this is the reputation that the church has in the world today.
Will we ever learn?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Beautiful Outlaw
I am currently in the middle of reading a book by John Eldredge called "The Beautiful Outlaw", and it is blowing my mind.
The book is about the human personality of Jesus, and Eldredge brings out characteristics in Christ that a lot of people wouldn't think of. It's funny, we don't think about Jesus' human personality much; we figure his personality would be "loving" and "joyful"... but really, what do those words mean? They are quite vague. But Eldredge uses words and phrases like "playful", "generous", "cunning", "fierce intention", "scandalous freedom", and "disruptive honesty" to characterize Jesus.
Unfortunately, Christianity has sort of turned Jesus into this mystical, baritone-voiced figure who does NOT come across as playful or cunning or scandalous; but really, if you read the Bible without any of that "religious background", you can see it. Jesus walking on water? Randomly showing up in places after the resurrection? Maybe he was being playful, having some fun with his friends. All the times when the Pharisees try to question him, and he ends up turning it around and stumping them? Definitely cunning. And touching lepers and hangng out with prostitutes and turning water into wine using ceremonial washing jars was pretty scandalous in those days. (Another author, Bruxy Cavey, compared that incident to Jesus walking into a modern church, turning the water in the baptismal tank into wine, and inviting the neighbourhood in for a party!)
These concepts are totally blowing my mind, making me love Jesus all the more. And I am wondering, why don't we talk about these things more? I was in church last Sunday and we were singing our worship songs, and I realized that pretty much all the songs were about the "transcendant" aspects of God- his glory and majesty and greatness and all that. And of course those aspects are true- God is both transcendant and imminent- but nonetheless, we seem to worship God more for his "transcendant" qualities then the fact that he is Emmanuel, God come close to us. And really, for me, words like glory and majesty are hard to picture, hard to grasp. But words like playfulness and cunning and kindness and freedom are much easier for me as a human to understand. And the fact that God would not only become a man, but would choose to reveal himself as a man who was an outlaw, who was playful and fierce, cunning and gentle, honest and generous, humble and scandalous- well, to me, that speaks volumes to me about the kind of God we serve. For me personally, those things say a lot more about the kind of God he is than words like glory and majesty do. Maybe that's part of why God became a man- so we little humans could better understand the kind of God he is.
Once again, don't get me wrong- we need to understand the bigness of God, the power that he possesses. We need to be aware of how great he is- but we also need to be aware- and love- his more "human" characteristics. When you realize that the God of all heaven chose to reveal himself to humanity as a beautiful outlaw... well, how could you not love a God like that??
The book is about the human personality of Jesus, and Eldredge brings out characteristics in Christ that a lot of people wouldn't think of. It's funny, we don't think about Jesus' human personality much; we figure his personality would be "loving" and "joyful"... but really, what do those words mean? They are quite vague. But Eldredge uses words and phrases like "playful", "generous", "cunning", "fierce intention", "scandalous freedom", and "disruptive honesty" to characterize Jesus.
Unfortunately, Christianity has sort of turned Jesus into this mystical, baritone-voiced figure who does NOT come across as playful or cunning or scandalous; but really, if you read the Bible without any of that "religious background", you can see it. Jesus walking on water? Randomly showing up in places after the resurrection? Maybe he was being playful, having some fun with his friends. All the times when the Pharisees try to question him, and he ends up turning it around and stumping them? Definitely cunning. And touching lepers and hangng out with prostitutes and turning water into wine using ceremonial washing jars was pretty scandalous in those days. (Another author, Bruxy Cavey, compared that incident to Jesus walking into a modern church, turning the water in the baptismal tank into wine, and inviting the neighbourhood in for a party!)
These concepts are totally blowing my mind, making me love Jesus all the more. And I am wondering, why don't we talk about these things more? I was in church last Sunday and we were singing our worship songs, and I realized that pretty much all the songs were about the "transcendant" aspects of God- his glory and majesty and greatness and all that. And of course those aspects are true- God is both transcendant and imminent- but nonetheless, we seem to worship God more for his "transcendant" qualities then the fact that he is Emmanuel, God come close to us. And really, for me, words like glory and majesty are hard to picture, hard to grasp. But words like playfulness and cunning and kindness and freedom are much easier for me as a human to understand. And the fact that God would not only become a man, but would choose to reveal himself as a man who was an outlaw, who was playful and fierce, cunning and gentle, honest and generous, humble and scandalous- well, to me, that speaks volumes to me about the kind of God we serve. For me personally, those things say a lot more about the kind of God he is than words like glory and majesty do. Maybe that's part of why God became a man- so we little humans could better understand the kind of God he is.
Once again, don't get me wrong- we need to understand the bigness of God, the power that he possesses. We need to be aware of how great he is- but we also need to be aware- and love- his more "human" characteristics. When you realize that the God of all heaven chose to reveal himself to humanity as a beautiful outlaw... well, how could you not love a God like that??
Friday, November 11, 2011
What is "God's will"?
Okay, so I've been thinking about the question I posed last night on here a fair bit, and I've come to some conclusions about what I think on the matter... however there are a few things I am still quite uncertain about.
So, without further ado...
First of all, I believe that there is a God, that He made us, and that yes, there is a "larger story" going on- a story about the redemption of humanity and God's pursuit of the human heart.
I also believe in free will. I believe that people have the ability to choose how they will live, be it for better or worse. I believe that sometime God does intervene, and that He is capable of redeeming our mistakes, but that often He allows things to play out naturally- people reap the consequences of their actions. I believe that it is our choice whether we participate in the "larger story", and if so, how we go about it.
Thirdly, I believe that God knows what is best for our lives and that He wants us to follow Him...
...but this is where things get a little muddy for me.
Here's the thing. I am beginning to realize what a fatalistic (I think that's the right word) approach I've taken to life over the years. I am beginning to realize that I have the ability to choose how I live, that I can choose to react certain ways or not react those ways, that I can embrace negative mindsets or do what I can to stop them. It may seem weird to you that it would take a person nearly 29 years to figure this out, but I think some of it has to do with my religious upbringing.
I think that one of the ideas that I have heard put forth in my years goes something like this: God has a plan for your life, and as long as you remain surrendered to His will, His plan will all work out. Perhaps this comes from attending a church that tended to "over-spiritualize" things when I was younger, perhaps it comes from my Christian school... who knows?
Now I am not about to argue that God does not call us to do things sometimes. The Bible tells story after story where God asks someone to do something, and they either do or do not cooperate with Him. I also fully agree with the concept that if God truly is asking you to do something, you should, in fact, do it.
But.
I find myself wondering if God has a "will" regarding every single thing that happens in our lives. Does God have a grand, over-arching plan for each of our lives that will only pan out if we do every tiny little thing according to this plan? Or is it a bit more complex (or, perhaps, more simple) than that? I find it amusing, as do most of us, when people ask God what cereal they should eat for breakfast and what route they should take to work. But beyond that, does God actually have a cut-and-dried answer for every situation that arises in our lives? Or might there be some times when He leaves the choice in our hands?
I'll give you an example. When I was 23, I worked at our church for a summer as the church intern. At the end of the summer, my senior pastor offered me the position of the youth coordinator, as they had no one to replace me. I was planning on going back to college.
Now, honestly, I don't recall feeling a strong push in one direction or the other. In the end, I stayed because I was needed, and I'd really grown to like the youth group over the summer. I don't know that God said to me, "you need to stay here, and to go back to Bible college would be the wrong decision." I think if I'd gone back, that would have panned out as well. Of course my life would look far different now- I might not live in Victoria, I almost certainly would have not married Dave, my job situation might be different. But would that have been okay? Most likely.
I wonder if we do ourselves a disservice when we suppose that God has an opinion on our every move in life. Certainly He has an opinion on some things, and it's wise to seek Him on the matters in our lives, but at the same time, He gave us brains for a reason, right? I wonder if we ever approach God, asking Him whether or not we should buy this, or do that, and He responds with something like, "sheesh, kid, can't you make your own decisions sometimes?" I wonder if God sometimes allows- or even encourages- us to choose the path that seems the wisest to us, to "choose our own adventure" if you like, rather than dictating to us what every move should be?
Furthermore, I think that if we imagine that God has an opinion on our every move, we can end up fretting about our choices. I mean, what if it WAS God's will for me to go back to Bible college? If it was, wouldn't it stand to reason that every choice I've made as a result to stay here- from the place I live to the man I married to the friends I've had to the teens whom I've gotten close to- is wrong? And, if that were the case, wouldn't that also mean that a) there is someone else out there who is supposed to be doing my job who got shafted because I am doing it, b) my youth have been shafted for the last 5 years because they had the wrong youth coordinator, c) there's some guy out there who I was supposed to marry who got shafted because I am married to Dave (and same with some girl out there for him), d) someone else who was supposed to live in this basement suite got shafted because we're still here... you get the point. It gets ridiculous.
It's a tricky one. Certainly there are some things that God is pretty cut-and-dried on, and we want to be seeking God's will in our lives. But we might also want to reason that there are times when God essentially says, "it's your call, kid," and allows us to use the brains He has given us and live with the consequences of our choices, be they good or bad.
Thoughts???
So, without further ado...
First of all, I believe that there is a God, that He made us, and that yes, there is a "larger story" going on- a story about the redemption of humanity and God's pursuit of the human heart.
I also believe in free will. I believe that people have the ability to choose how they will live, be it for better or worse. I believe that sometime God does intervene, and that He is capable of redeeming our mistakes, but that often He allows things to play out naturally- people reap the consequences of their actions. I believe that it is our choice whether we participate in the "larger story", and if so, how we go about it.
Thirdly, I believe that God knows what is best for our lives and that He wants us to follow Him...
...but this is where things get a little muddy for me.
Here's the thing. I am beginning to realize what a fatalistic (I think that's the right word) approach I've taken to life over the years. I am beginning to realize that I have the ability to choose how I live, that I can choose to react certain ways or not react those ways, that I can embrace negative mindsets or do what I can to stop them. It may seem weird to you that it would take a person nearly 29 years to figure this out, but I think some of it has to do with my religious upbringing.
I think that one of the ideas that I have heard put forth in my years goes something like this: God has a plan for your life, and as long as you remain surrendered to His will, His plan will all work out. Perhaps this comes from attending a church that tended to "over-spiritualize" things when I was younger, perhaps it comes from my Christian school... who knows?
Now I am not about to argue that God does not call us to do things sometimes. The Bible tells story after story where God asks someone to do something, and they either do or do not cooperate with Him. I also fully agree with the concept that if God truly is asking you to do something, you should, in fact, do it.
But.
I find myself wondering if God has a "will" regarding every single thing that happens in our lives. Does God have a grand, over-arching plan for each of our lives that will only pan out if we do every tiny little thing according to this plan? Or is it a bit more complex (or, perhaps, more simple) than that? I find it amusing, as do most of us, when people ask God what cereal they should eat for breakfast and what route they should take to work. But beyond that, does God actually have a cut-and-dried answer for every situation that arises in our lives? Or might there be some times when He leaves the choice in our hands?
I'll give you an example. When I was 23, I worked at our church for a summer as the church intern. At the end of the summer, my senior pastor offered me the position of the youth coordinator, as they had no one to replace me. I was planning on going back to college.
Now, honestly, I don't recall feeling a strong push in one direction or the other. In the end, I stayed because I was needed, and I'd really grown to like the youth group over the summer. I don't know that God said to me, "you need to stay here, and to go back to Bible college would be the wrong decision." I think if I'd gone back, that would have panned out as well. Of course my life would look far different now- I might not live in Victoria, I almost certainly would have not married Dave, my job situation might be different. But would that have been okay? Most likely.
I wonder if we do ourselves a disservice when we suppose that God has an opinion on our every move in life. Certainly He has an opinion on some things, and it's wise to seek Him on the matters in our lives, but at the same time, He gave us brains for a reason, right? I wonder if we ever approach God, asking Him whether or not we should buy this, or do that, and He responds with something like, "sheesh, kid, can't you make your own decisions sometimes?" I wonder if God sometimes allows- or even encourages- us to choose the path that seems the wisest to us, to "choose our own adventure" if you like, rather than dictating to us what every move should be?
Furthermore, I think that if we imagine that God has an opinion on our every move, we can end up fretting about our choices. I mean, what if it WAS God's will for me to go back to Bible college? If it was, wouldn't it stand to reason that every choice I've made as a result to stay here- from the place I live to the man I married to the friends I've had to the teens whom I've gotten close to- is wrong? And, if that were the case, wouldn't that also mean that a) there is someone else out there who is supposed to be doing my job who got shafted because I am doing it, b) my youth have been shafted for the last 5 years because they had the wrong youth coordinator, c) there's some guy out there who I was supposed to marry who got shafted because I am married to Dave (and same with some girl out there for him), d) someone else who was supposed to live in this basement suite got shafted because we're still here... you get the point. It gets ridiculous.
It's a tricky one. Certainly there are some things that God is pretty cut-and-dried on, and we want to be seeking God's will in our lives. But we might also want to reason that there are times when God essentially says, "it's your call, kid," and allows us to use the brains He has given us and live with the consequences of our choices, be they good or bad.
Thoughts???
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Loaded question of the day
Are the concepts that:
a) we are born into a larger story with roles to fulfill, "callings", or even "destinies" which play into the grand story of life,
and
b) we are free to choose how we live and must make wise and responsible choices, that we have the power to determine how our lives play out,
mutually exclusive? Or is it possible for both of these concepts to be true?
And if so, how?
It seems that the human soul (or mind, if you'd like) craves both the idea of having a purpose and destiny in this world, and the idea of having freedom and empowerment.
Are both possible? Or is it one or the other?
Your thoughts???
a) we are born into a larger story with roles to fulfill, "callings", or even "destinies" which play into the grand story of life,
and
b) we are free to choose how we live and must make wise and responsible choices, that we have the power to determine how our lives play out,
mutually exclusive? Or is it possible for both of these concepts to be true?
And if so, how?
It seems that the human soul (or mind, if you'd like) craves both the idea of having a purpose and destiny in this world, and the idea of having freedom and empowerment.
Are both possible? Or is it one or the other?
Your thoughts???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)