Gender ali | 27 Dec 2005
Are Husbands To Blame?
A guy called Mike at Eternal Perspectives brought Joe Carter’s marriage advice to my attention. It is Joe’s contention that the best person to give marriage advice is a divorced person, whereas Mike thinks that a bizarre way of thinking, and cites the lamentable failure rate of remarriage after divorce. Of course, there is a grain of truth in Joe’s contention, but on the whole I would agree with Mike. [Turns out that Joe's Post was a joke as Mike now notes at his blog]
But what I want to comment on is the very sad situation of some divorced men. For quite a few well-meaning people, when a marriage goes bad, it is the man’s fault. This seems to be Joe’s perspective. For example, here is a quote taken from the post linked to above:
Since my first wife left me for another woman, the idea that I could have been to blame came as a bit of a surprise.
“Let me get this straight,” I said. “You turn gay and it’s my fault the marriage didn’t work out?”
“Keep in mind,” she noted, “that I only lost interest in men after being married to you.”
Touche
Or this one:
The key to working through these differences is learning to compromise. Normally this would mean finding common ground on which you both can agree. In marriage, however, compromise means that you let her get her way. You won’t find that definition in the dictionary but its better that you learn the true meaning now rather than have it explained to you by her divorce lawyer.
Of course, it may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but others are quite serious about this. For instance, Gary Smalley in his book, If Only He Knew. What No Woman Can Resist, puts the following in capital letters surrounded by a box:
IF A COUPLE HAS BEEN MARRIED FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, ANY PERSISTENT DISHARMONY IN THEIR MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP IS USUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE HUSBAND’S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING GENUINE LOVE. (p80)
And as you read further in the book, you can do away with the word, “usually” - he says he’s still looking for his first exception.
And there are others. I could be quite wrong in this instance (of course, I don’t think I am), but I seem to pick up in Glenn Miller’s writings an overwhelming sense of responsibility for his divorce. This may well be justified, but it seems to have developed into a self/male inferiority complex when dealing with anything to do with gender. Another man who believes this is my pastor, who is happily married/never divorced. He believes and tells people that it is the husband’s responsibility to make a marriage work, not the wife’s.
Friends, I’m sorry, I just do not agree.
Are there guys who wreck their marriage because they do not understand their wives or apply genuine love? Absolutely. Do husbands have a responsibility for the health or ill-health of their marriage. Yes. But it is not always the case that primary responsibility falls on them for the state of their marriage.
I believe that marriage reflects Jesus and the Church - and by extension, Jesus and the individual believer. If someone walks away from their relationship with Jesus, is Jesus to blame? No. Has Jesus evidenced a lack of understanding and failed to apply genuine love? No. Then why should husbands necessarily bear responsibility for marriage problems or the break-up of a marriage? Yes, there is a horrifying dearth of responsible men in the world, but this is not a reason to place the ultimate blame on every male divorcee.
Men do not play their part as husbands perfectly - they are not Jesus. Women do not play their part as wives perfectly - they, too, are not Jesus (in relation to the Father). Men often not understand or apply genuine love, and women often do not know how to communicate their disappointment or hurt. There are different areas of strength in men and women, and there are different areas of culpable weakness. Some husbands respond positively to being told they are responsible for the problems in the marriage - usually because in those cases they are. But men are not automatically to blame for the marriage problems any more than Jesus is to blame for those Christians who walk away from Him.
People, - especially you men who are divorcees - stop slapping “Husband To Blame” on every marriage problem that comes your way. Self-flagellation is not a healthy thing.
Kiwi, an Emu and a Chick. ali | 27 Dec 2005
I Love My Wife.
My wife beat me at Scrabble last night.
It was unbelievable. Out of all the letters I picked up, only about 8 of them had a point value above one, and at least half of those had a point value of two. So, it was luck - though she was pretty skilful at times, too.
What made it worse, however, was her gloating. “I’ve got 243. 243, Ali. I’ve got 243. And you’ve got…” and, “Hey, if I win…” about three turns before the end of the game when the result was not in doubt.
Then there was the condescending flattery, “You’re doing really well.”
And even after the game as we got into bed, “Good night, Loser.”
But she did win. Yes, I checked her scoring while she went for a shower. She won. Shocking. Tragic. True.
But somewhere in between losing and going to bed, I realised I love my wife, and I would rather lose every game of Scrabble I played with her than lose her.
Now, I’m telling you - that’s love.
Celebrations ali | 26 Dec 2005
Christmas Is Over.
I feel the need to tip my hat to Christmas, now that it is all over. It’s a nice time and it’s a nice tradition. If Western missionaries went to another culture they would jump at such a God-given opportunity firmly embedded in the culture and use it to tell people the gospel. And that is what many churches do, but I wonder whether Western people are hampered in their use of the Christian season for gospel purposes by themselves being so firmly embedded in the culture of Christmas and all the extraneous cultural add-ons. I really feel I am, which is why I would prefer to call the day Incarnation Day, though, in reality, that would possibly alienate more non-Christians than open hearts.
Suppose that instead of concentrating on a baby in the manger, we go back and explain why the baby is in the manger. And instead of concentrating on the three wise men and the shepherds in the fields, we make them the periphery and major instead on Jesus Himself. Or perhaps if we don’t start from the conception and birth of Jesus and instead begin from the pre-existent Son and emphasise that this is God in the manger. Not that I think there is anything wrong with more traditional starting points, but they are so common that all impact is gone.
What about fresh, more God-centred ways of looking at Christmas. I mean, often when the Christmas story is told, there is a lot about the characters around the baby Jesus, but never any real explanation of Jesus. The wise men worshipped Him - yes! The shepherds left their flocks to go see Him - yes! He is the Saviour and King - yes! But why? What does that mean to us today? Preachers telling non-Christian listeners that they need to worship the baby too; that they need to leave what they’re doing to find Him too; that the baby can be their Saviour and King too, usually do not explain why. They usually do not push home the full plan and the future. Jesus is left in the manger, or he is suddenly and mysteriously transported to a cross with no real explanation as to why and we are left in the past with a cursory application to the present and no reference to the future - as in the consequences for accepting or rejecting the Christmas message.
Anyway, God still uses the time. Now Christmas is over, let’s look for other opportunities to tell people about Jesus.
(Note: I have written two other posts on Christmas here and here.)
Celebrations ali | 15 Dec 2005
Santa talks tough but does he follow through?
No, he doesn’t! When was the last time you heard of a kid not getting Christmas presents from Santa because they had been naughty that year?
“If you’re not good, Santa won’t give you any presents this year!”
Yeah, right. Empty threats, that’s all that is. Santa is a soft touch. Worse, he has his favourites. Notice how the richer a kid is the better the presents? Why would Santa distribute gifts that way unless he’s trying to get in good with the wealthy few? The whole thing is a crock. Santa never follows through on his threats and he perpetuates economic inequality. He’s a fraud, and yet he receives the adulation of millions around the world. Wake up people, you’re being taken for a ride!!!
Compare that with the God of the Bible. On the face of it God and Santa may look the same. Threats of consequences for wrong behaviour, and still we are given gifts despite the way we act. But the difference is found in Jesus. In Him we find the threats made take on a harrowing reality as the consequences of our sins are beaten into His body during His crucifixion. And through the resurrection of Jesus the gifts we are given are beyond the best and freely available to all - young and old, rich and poor. (In fact, it seems that the poor are more often recipients of these gifts because they seem more able to take them.) And all this is made possible through receiving that one Gift - Jesus Christ.
God has integrity; Santa’s never follows through. God gives the best gifts indiscriminately; Santa chooses the rich over the poor. But Santa doesn’t require anything of you and God does - not just at Christmas, but throughout the year. So millions still choose Santa over God. How sad.
Kiwi, an Emu and a Chick. ali | 14 Dec 2005
Time Zones
I have just changed countries for a short period of time, so who knows when posts will come. I will be able to post two more that are in draft form over the next couple of days, but then it may be a week before I get back to it.
Just so you know.
Questions ali | 13 Dec 2005
Is she a Christian?
I know a lady who grew up in a Christian home, but it wasn’t until her early twenties that Christ became real for her. She points to a meeting at her church as the time she became a Christian, and since then, though she knows she could do better, she has lived out her Christianity with sincerity and integrity of heart.
Today, when she’s at work and she’s stressed out or annoyed at someone or something, she prays while she works, “I’m doing this for You, Lord. This is for Your glory,†and the results show it. She treats everyone with incredible grace and her prayers have to be some of the more beautiful prayers I have heard. She is, quite simply, a fantastic example of genuine Christian living.
Now, the problem. For fifteen years she lived with a man and had his children and only got married to him four years ago.
Does this negate her claim to Christianity?
I don’t think so.
For a start, I don’t know what knowledge she had growing up. She comes from a culturally Christian society, but whether Christian morals were taken seriously, I don’t know.
Secondly, she was not promiscuous but stayed with the one man. In essence she was married in all but name. Should she have been married before they lived together? Yes, I think so, but I don’t think failure in this negates her Christianity.
Thirdly, though it may surprise people, I don’t think those sort of sins are as Biblically heinous as we evangelical Christians often make out. Yes, there is a right way about marriage, but I don’t think getting it wrong sets you outside the family of God. Look at Mordecia, a righteous man who married encouraged his cousin to marry a foreign king (against the Mosaic Law) and Esther, a righteous woman who willingly married a foreign man with many wives and concubines.
I am in no way condoning living with someone outside of marriage, but I am saying that it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of Christian faith, or a lack of Christian character. Is the crass materialism of so many Christians in the West necessarily evidence that their faith is not genuine? Is the blatant racism of Christians in South Africa and the Southern States of America necessarily evidence that there is/was no genuine faith? Just what is the evidence of genuine Christian faith?
I think Jesus in a person’s life is the telling factor. Do they confess that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15)? Do they have the Spirit of Jesus in their life (1 John 4:13)? Do they act from the love of Jesus (1 John 4:7)? Then whether they are living with someone outside of marriage, throwing stones at people of another race, ignoring the poor by feathering their nest, even refusing to believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God – the evidence is that their Christianity is genuine.
Celebrations ali | 12 Dec 2005
Incarnation Day
As he wanders further and further from addressing the questions he posed of a couple of days ago, Ali gets caught up in the wonder of Christmas. Christmas…the time of year where radio personalities remind us that the real meaning of Christmas is forgiveness and good family feelings…
[Warning: ramble ahead. Unedited. Interrupted by dinner. Probably will remain that way.]
Ever notice that non-Christians expect everyone to act like Jesus at Christmas? “Come on, give him some money. It’s Christmas.” “Nobody should be alone at Christmas.” “Can’t you forgive her? It is Christmas, after all!” Why? Because Christmas is a time of forgiveness and peace and good-will to all men. But while they may hear that year after year in the Carols they sing, non-Christians have totally missed the point.
Is Christmas a time of forgiveness and peace and good-will to all men? Yes, but it is that because Jesus has come to earth to live and die and be resurrected - that is the only way you’re going to get forgiveness, peace and good-will and it’s the only way you will be able to truly give it to others. Non-Christians want the benefits of living in a Christian community without actually living in a Christian community.
What is more, they base a change of behaviour on a time of year. But how can you decide to be nice and forgiving just because it is a certain time of year? I think many of us can testify to the fact that as much as we would like to spend a joyous, harmonious time with others at Christmas, the reality is that the expectations drive our blood pressures up and the whole period is more stressful than any other time of the year. Trying to generate feelings of good-will and brotherhood with people you may not really know that well; trying to be pleasant to people you actually find incredibly irritating and may not even like; that’s asking a lot of people. And it is exactly that truth that Jesus came to help us with: we cannot be righteous without Him.
So, remember, if you want to be forgiving and spread peace and good-will, don’t try to be empowered by the time of year, be empowered by Jesus Christ, and you will find that you are able to be that way all year.
Gospel ali | 12 Dec 2005
Analogy of the Gospel
To be honest, I thought this a little clumsy, but when I used it in a message not long ago it seemed to be received with favour. So, here is an analogy of how we can understand God loves us through Jesus’ death and resurrection.
A father and son begin a law firm. Through hard work and commitment to quality and integrity the pair build their firm into one of the largest and most prestigious in the city. Their clients range from government officials to the man on the street. One day, the father and son become aware of a section in their company where every junior employee has been using the company name for their own illegal purposes. So the father has his son resign from his position and sends him as a junior employee to that section of the company. He then has all the junior employees in that section arrested - including his son.
When in custody, the son pleads guilty to all the charges and so was brought before the court. His father was the prosecuting lawyer and made sure he was sent to jail for a number of years allowing all the other junior employees to go free on condition that they returned to the law firm and accepted a promotion.
What sense does that make? The junior employees had no claim on the affections of the father. They were employed in his company and they betrayed his trust. It would have meant nothing to him to send them to jail. Yet he sent his own son to take the punishment on condition that they return to the law firm and accept a promotion?
Isn’t that exactly what God has done for us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? We have no claim on the affections of God. We were part of His good creation but we corrupted ourselves. It would have meant nothing to Him to scrap us and start again, yet, because He is love, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to take our punishment on condition that we return to Him and be made new.In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God send His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:9)
Doctrine ali | 10 Dec 2005
Quick heretical thoughts.
Not that my thoughts are heretical - I hope - but thoughts regarding the questions I asked below about heresy.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to write extensively about it today, so I will just make bold statements without any argumentation or scriptural backing and hopefully come back to them.
1. Heresy and false teaching are not necessarily the same.
2. Heresy has to do with the centre of Christianity.
3. The centre of Christianity is Jesus. As long as a group/person has a “correct enough” understanding of Jesus, he can be considered Christian, despite whatever other errors they/he hold to.
4. What is “correct enough” requires some thought and qualification. For example, what amount of revelation is a person exposed to, how long have they been Christians etc. etc. It is not hard and fast. Ultimately it is in God’s hands.
5. Not everyone we consider heretics are necessarily unsaved.
6. Not everyone that should be excommunicated is necessarily unsaved.
7. Christianity is not a matter of just belief, it is a matter of belief, Spirit and love-in-action. Put another way, it’s a matter of thinking, feeling and doing. All of these things need to be present for genuine Christianity to be present.
8. Sometimes what is perceived as heresy is more an imbalance of these things.
9. And so on…
Gospel ali | 08 Dec 2005
Success through weakness.
I know this is an old truth - but what truth isn’t? I guess all I’m doing here is pointing out examples. I’ve already mentioned the individual excesses that men of God seem to have - excesses that He used/uses to do great things. Whether that is a rule that can be applied across the board, I don’t know, but it has four related results that I can see.
First, being able to recognise and acknowledge faults in a man of God helps us escape idolatry - they, too, were/are only men.
Second, the fact that God uses their faults gives glory to Him, rather than to the men themselves.
A third result is an encouragement to us: God can use us in spite of our faults.
A fourth is a caution: God can use others despite their faults.
Now I want to broaden the scope to include other historical illustrations. The first one that jumps to mind is John Wesley’s Arminianism. I’m sorry for anyone who doesn’t agree that it is false doctrine - I do think it is false. And yet, God used this belief to bring many people into the Kingdom. It was because Wesley believed it was people’s own decision that determined their salvation that he was so doggedly evangelistic.
A man well known in NZ (with some international fame) called Barry Smith was an end-times prophecy guy who related current events to Biblical prophecy. He was also an evangelist, and the number of people I have met who became Christians through his eschatology meetings and books and tapes (even if they no longer believe in his eschatology) is astounding! God used his - what I consider false - teachings to help people see that the Bible applied to the here and now.
Another example is that of the ridiculous disagreements over the mode of baptism. Interestingly, the majority of the movements that hold most firmly to immersion are also the movements made up of common people who hold to the uncluttered view that the Bible is the word of God. Is there a connection? I believe so. I believe that the issue of the mode of baptism helped normal people to take the Bible as an authority against more learned men. But I guess that is more a suspicion than a proven fact.
There are many more examples of incorrect beliefs actually pushing those who hold them in a good direction. Therefore, I believe that the four above results can also be applied to movements:
1. Being able to recognise faults in a movement helps free us from idolizing that movement (the Reformation, the Great Awakening, the Welsh Revival, the early Church etc).
2. The fact that God used those faults for His good purposes gives Him glory and takes glory away from the movement.
3. Our own movement (or even personal belief system) does not need to become perfect to be used by God (ie. don’t major on minors). This also means that just because God is using our movement - even something specific within our movement - does not mean that it is right. I think that is an important factor to keep in mind. God is incredibly gracious to us and this fact should keep us humble and keep us from trying to get Christianity to “work” mechanically.
4. Be careful of writing off another movement just because you can see such blatant errors and mistakes. (Word of Faith Movement?)
That last point, of course, leads to the questions: How do you deal with heretics and heretical movements today? How was it done in the Bible? How heretical is too heretical?
Might try and answer that tomorrow.
Culture ali | 07 Dec 2005
The Death Penalty
Last week an Australian was executed in Singapore for drug smuggling. Many people consider this horrific. Personally, I think Singapore is right to follow through on itslaws. Whether in this recent case there was cause for clemency, I don’t know for sure. However, though I support the use of the death penalty, when I heard on the radio reports of moving “the body”,emotionally I found it repulsive. And yet…
Here are my questions…
1) Does the lack of death penalty in Australia and New Zealand contribute to the lack of fear of “possible” eternal judgment? In our minds, do we as a society have nothing to hang hell on and so think the worst that can happen to us is not really that bad or permanent?
2) Is the argument that “civilised” countries do not use the death penalty (sorry America) merely man protecting himself against thoughts of the seriousness of sin?
3) Is the anti-death punishment feeling merely part of the “no conequences” philosophy found in the anti-smacking philosophy in child-rearing/schools?
4) Does the lack of the death penalty in Australia/New Zealand cheapen mercy? Instead of thinking that mercy is an undeserved reprieve, it becomes a right that the death penalty takes away.
I don’t like the death penalty - I much prefer mercy - but I think it is something that a state can legitimately use. There are consequences to actions, and Biblically this is one of them.
Questions ali | 06 Dec 2005
Excess = Success?
When the Internet Monk commented that while he really likes the guy, John Piper is a bit too intense and extreme in some areas, something clicked in my brain. (The actual post I’m thinking of has been taken down, but you can find similar comments about Piper on Imonk’s site).Can’t the same be said of virtually everyone God has used in a mighty way in history? Is there a correlation between being extreme in one area of your life and being used by God in a big way? That is, do mighty men of God have extreme tendencies?
Doing a quick mental revision of historical figures (I’m afraid a very limited one) the only person I can think of off-hand that did not show much extremism was Andrew Murray, and even there I may be wrong. (My reading of him was actually the opposite - he encouraged people to live in the freedom Christ gives. He allowed the young men in his congregation to use the church to practice boxing for goodness sake! I doubt many evangelicals would like that today.)
So, is there someone there who can give me examples of historical figures used of God that either prove or disprove my idea ie. that people of God who are used greatly have a tendancy to be extreme in at least one area.
Questions ali | 05 Dec 2005
Is This True?
Here’s a short quote. I want to know if the bit in bold is generally applicable.
Maybe you are at a place in your life where the hopes and dreams you expected to be fulfilled in Jesus are dying or dead. You were excited once, now you are discouraged. What on earth is God doing? Why?
Maybe you are struggling with a problem that seems insurmountable, and you don’t see how you are going to get over it. Where is God in this? Why isn’t He answering?
It’s at times like these that you need to hand on to Jesus. Love Him, despite everything that’s falling apart. Trust God, that though you have absolutely no idea what’s going on, He does. As painful and confusing as it is, Good Friday is only the beginning, and come Sunday, we find out that God does His very best work in the dark.
The reason I ask is that a friend who’s going through a dark time mentioned this line, and since I was the one who wrote the above I thought, “Is it true? Why?”