Search Results

Matthew Henry’s biblical commentary might be the most widely distributed commentary on the planet. Matthew Henry lived just around the turn of the 18th century and was an upstanding minister and preacher of the Word. His commentary reflects his deeply held piety and concern for the Word being made manifest in the entirety of the lives of the people of God. Few ministers have thought more clearly in applying the truths of God’s word to their times. But even Matthew Henry had his blind spots. In most eighteenth century English speaking churches it was commonplace to have the wealthy in the congregation purchase pews at the front of the church. The pews would be fitted with nameplates and these became their place of residence on Sunday mornings. Contrast this with the words of James 2 where James levels this critique of the first century church: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man.” One couldn’t find or even create a passage that levels a clearer critique against the eighteenth century pew-purchasing system if one tried. But even the sensitive exegete Matthew Henry manages to explain it away. He says, “As places of worship cannot be built or maintained without expense, it may be proper that those who contribute thereto should be accommodated accordingly.” Accomodated accordingly??? How could one interpret James 2 to say that? But I don’t bring this up to attack Matthew Henry. Quite the opposite. I bring this to say: “Woe is me!” If Matthew Henry was this blind to such an obvious cultural flaw, how blind must I be? In how many ways does my own reading of the Bible and appropriation of the faith betray my feeble faith? Brothers and sisters, let us come to the word humbled and stripped of our own foolish assumptions and be remade by our Redeemer’s truth. Let us not be fooled. We have blind spots. Allow the Spirit to attune you to your blind spots and allow the power of the Word of God to make you see where you once were blind.

We’re starting Capital Stewardship Campaign soon. In process of starting the campaign up, I pulled together a Stewardship team. I intentionally tried to bring an eclectic group together: some with people skills, other with administrative skills, others with fundraising experience. The first meeting was fascinating. The few individuals I had invited because of their people skills (they had no fundraising background) were baffled as to why they were there. Over the course of the meeting, the three of them echoed the same sentiment, “Pastor, we trust you that you brought us here, but we’re not sure why. We don’t really have anything to offer the group.” Oh, but they did! Let me shove forward with a final set of suggestions for leading volunteers: 1) Hand-pick your volunteers: having people respond to announcements for volunteer opportunities is a necessary evil. Because of the sheer number of volunteers you require and the fact you won’t know everyone at your church, you need to get volunteers from these blanket announcements. But you won’t get any better volunteers than the ones you hand pick. It can take an inordinate amount of time to call and email people and ask them one-on-one to volunteer. However, you will be blessed many times over by doing so. Those folks on our Stewardship Team that I hand-picked because of their people and networking skills are really the heart and soul of the team. They may not have the know-how when it comes to the nuts and bolts of decision making, but they are, undoubtedly, the engine that makes the team run. I have no doubt you will find this to be the case time and time again in your ministries. 2) Construct teams: this is related to the first piece of advice. It is important that your volunteers aren’t on an island and that you don’t have to provide personal direction for each of your volunteers. Implement a team structure where volunteers can meet, share with one another, encourage one another, and mutually strengthen each other with their different spiritual gifts. 3) Provide care: don’t treat your volunteers like employees. They need and want your pastoral care. Take time to check in with them, encourage them through phone calls, emails, and hand-written letters of thanks. Pray with them. 4) Let them make mistakes: don’t micromanage your volunteers. Spend the time training your volunteers and then let loose to minister. One parting piece of advice for leaders: don’t ever be the reason that things don’t work. There will be ministries that run their course and will die. That is to be expected and natural in the life of any ministry. Just don’t be the reason that viable ministries die. There are innumerable reasons you can be the reason that ministries die: laziness, improper prioritization, or a lack of personal care. Don’t let that be the case.

Buddhism, as a system, requires its adherent to be devoted to exploring a set of principles that will earn him or her an enlightened state that they hope will lead to the end of suffering—a noble and worthwhile goal. Yet on a practical, day-to-day level, many Buddhists inwardly struggle. They feel spiritually empty, as if the practices they engage in provide some temporary satisfaction or guidance, but when over, the emptiness or futility remains. While they pursue the path they are taught the Buddha has lain out, they secretly wonder about the reality of the Buddha’s teachings. Being taught that they will experience many rebirths until finally reaching their objective, they cannot help but wonder, “Will this truly end my suffering? How can I know that what I am doing really works?” Our Buddhist neighbors can discover a different kind of enlightenment—one that can be fully experienced and realized in this life, right now, without the need for what may seem like a tumultuous cycle of rebirth. The World Around Us What is the nature of reality? How can we tell when what we experience is primarily an experience that comes from our own perceptions or is a part of true existence? If our reality is defined by our perceptions, how can we know when our perceptions give us accurate information about the world around us or even our own existence? If our perceptions of reality are problematic, then how do we address the even more important issues involving eternity? To its credit, Buddhism tries to address the questions of reality and perception. Many Buddhists have found meaning and solace in Buddhist teachings (or debate) about the nature of the world around us. At first a person who is unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts may struggle. In fact, many Buddhists themselves struggle with these ideas. Whole schools of competing Buddhist thought have arisen to address the nature of reality. What are the Buddhist ideas about the world around us? • The evidence of reality presented to us by our senses is faulty. Human perception of the world is mistaken,(1) • “Everything is part of an ultimate, impersonal ground of existence which is neither good nor evil,”(2) • Good, evil, truth, and falsehood are mistaken perceptions (or conventions), which have no absolute meaning. These ideas about reality are foundational to Buddhism’s attempt to address humanity’s ultimate problems. Let’s address these issues together and also discover how Jesus Christ addressed these issues in His teaching. First, let’s apply some common sense—and science—to the Buddhist teachings about reality and perception. Sense & Senses As I type these words I see them on my computer screen. By doing this I am making the assumption that you who are reading it are also seeing the same words that I typed. In fact I’m also assuming you have access to a computer, the Internet, can input a website address, find this page, and read this article. You are doing the same thing that thousands of people have done before you, and will after you. All of us share a common set of perceptions that allows us to have a certain degree of unity in our experience of writing and reading—or any other experience. Let’s call this our unity of perception. Sight in an important part of our perceptive abilities. What we see can be pleasurable or frightening. It can foster longing or fear. What we see is also an important part of our learning process and contributes heavily to the assumptions we make together. And—together—is the point I’d like to make. If you sit in a group with a printed version and all read together from the page, you will all read the same thing. Your perception about what words are written, are the same. It is this unity of perception that encourages us that what we are reading really exists, and that by implication, it has a writer who also exists. The same may be said of the world. We have a unity of perception about the world around us. We do not all experience different realities generated by our minds like hallucinations—”self generated sensory experiences.”(3) Nor are our perceptions, illusions. “Cognitive illusions come about because the brain is full of prejudices: habits of thought, knee-jerk emotional reactions and automatic orders of perception.(4) “Ah, but wait,” you might say. “Isn’t that part of what Buddhism refers to, cognitive prejudices, etc.?” In some ways, yes. But the idea that our perceptions create an illusion of what the nature of the world is like, must disregard the unity of perception that we all share. This leaves us with one of two choices: Humanity’s unity of perception is itself, illusionary, or our unity of perception provides evidence that our experiences and the world around us are real. Which is the case? Saying that our perception of the shared unity of perception is illusionary is the same as saying our illusion is illusionary—i.e. our we do not experience illusion. It is self-defeating and leaves us only with our second option. Our perceptions are real. In fact, our perceptions are not only real, but our brains naturally anticipate the reality around us allowing us to experience it according to reality. Our brains know that what our senses deliver to it is real. “An act of perception is a lot more than capturing an act of incoming stimulus. It requires a form of expectation, of knowing what is about to confront us, and preparing for it. Without expectations, or constructs through which we perceive our world, our surroundings would be…confusion. Each experience would truly be a new one, rapidly overwhelming us.”(5) Where do those “constructs” come from? From the previous real-world experiences we have had! This does not mean that we do not sometimes have faulty perceptions about the world around us, or our nature. In fact, the very thrust of the argument presented here is that Buddhism is a perceptive filter that presents an illusion about the nature of existence. The Nature of Existence If our perceptions about the world around us are faulty, and there is another truth underneath what we perceive, then, our perceptions about how to live in the world are also colored by our misperceptions. Could this be true? Let’s turn again to our unity of perception. Everyone has some kind of concept of right and wrong, good and evil. We all share common perceptions, that there are certain things that are good, and certain things that are evil. Personal preference and culture permit varying degrees in our agreement over what is right and wrong. But the fact stands that there still remains the concept of good and evil, right and wrong. According to Buddhist thought the issue of what is right and wrong is nothing more than a convention without absolute authority or substance. This teaching, in point of fact, leaves the adherent with the idea that what is good and evil cannot be ultimately defined since good and evil are illisionary. Let’s present it this way: Is a belief in absolute good and evil, a right belief or a wrong belief? If you are under the Buddhist way of thinking that last sentence is a trap in both its construct and its implication. For the Buddhist the question is unanswerable without causing a new set of philosophical problems. If you declare it a “wrong belief,” you are left with a moral dilemma. Under Buddhism, wrong beliefs or perceptions lead to suffering. If this wrong belief leads to suffering, then is not the belief itself evil (morally wrong and not just factually wrong)? Could it not be argued that Siddhartha perceptually recognized the existence of evil when he saw the sick man, poor man, beggar, and the corpse? He lamented the suffering of humanity because he recognized the evil of what he saw. These arguments would seem to indicate the existence of evil, which would be a right belief, meaning that there is something more significantly wrong with humanity than perceptions, ignorance, and suffering.(6) There is More Wrong with Us Than Our Ignorance Buddhism has gotten something right about our existence. We do have a problem with perception. But according to Jesus Christ, our problem is not ignorance about the human condition. Our problem is denial. Christians interpret everything around us through perceptual filters like greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and so on, then we should ask the question: Where do these come from? Jesus taught that such things come from within the human heart. “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”(7) But who is an evil man? What constitutes a person who is evil? During a conversation with a devoutly religious man, Jesus made a surprising statement. While asking about how to attain eternal life, a man called out to Jesus, calling him, “Good teacher.” Jesus responded: “‘No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’ ‘And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” ‘When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”(8) Jesus had two criteria for evil. First, a person who is evil is a person who obeys evil. He or she is a person who engages in morally wrong thoughts, feelings, and actions. The commandments Jesus referred to were Laws given to Israel by God. Engaging in these behaviors, like all behaviors, starts from the heart or mind, and ends with the actual doing of the evil. A person who obeys evil is evil. Second, Jesus provided a criteria for evil that was highly personal and surprising to the man who heard it. “…and come, follow Me.” Jesus regarded the person who willfully rejected him as evil. Why would He do this? Why did Jesus’ criteria for right and wrong have to be so relational? Unlike Buddhism, which presents everything as an “impersonal ground of existence, which is neither good nor evil,” Jesus Christ presented himself as the ultimate standard of personal existence that is, inherently, good. He recognized that in order for man to deal with suffering, he had to deal with his relationships. Notice the commandments that Jesus mentioned. All are committed in relationship with, or to, another person. In fact, all evil is committed within the context of relationship. The same is true about good. There can be no good and no evil without relationship. Under Buddhism the adherent attempts to either remove himself from the world through monasticism, or minimize his attachments. In other words, the devout Buddhist must minimize relationships. Yet doing so will not mitigate evil, because love is only expressed in relationships and only love can conqueror evil. Suffering is therefore, not the real problem for Buddhism, denial is. Because Buddhism is a philosophy of the impersonal, it is only natural that it would deny concepts of good and evil beyond their use as mere conventions. Yet Jesus Christ defined good and evil only in terms of relationship—relationship to others and relationship to Himself. In Buddhism one does not have a relationship with the reality around him since his reality is considered to be an illusion of mistaken perceptions. In comparison, the Bible teaches us that we have not only a relationship with the world around us, but also the people in it, and the God who created it. Our perceptions are real, and given to us by God so that we might “seek him with all our heart.”(9) If God has enabled us to seek Him, then surely He has given us the perceptive ability to recognize His reality. ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Dalai Lama XIV, The Dalai Lama at Harvard, page 36. 2. M. Tsering, Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, page 153. 3. Ibid, page 131. 4. John J. Ratey, M.D., A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the Brain, page 56. 5. What if you argue that the belief itself is not right or wrong? Doing so would imply the nonexistence of the belief, and perhaps even the question. For an argument against such a point, read two paragraphs above. If in doubt, read it with a friend using unity of perception. 😉 6. Matthew 12:35. 7. Luke 18:19-22. 8. Psalm 119:2.

Since moving to Mongolia six years ago I’ve had to give a great deal of though to the issue of Christian unity. In Mongolian culture the idea of unity is very important. In fact, unity if one of Mongolia’s most important value (just behind power). For a society to be healthy it must be unified around a set of principles or a history that defines what that unity looks like. Most importantly, unity is often seen as agreement on important issues—especially controversial ones. However, the idea of Christian unity as presented in the Bible is different from the secular unity that is promoted in culture and politics. This is true not just in Mongolia but also worldwide. Most secular unity is achieved by reaching agreement on common ideas. Those who are not in agreement on those ideas are not unified, or perhaps even viewed as divisive. For some nations, such as those of the Islamic world, a common religious heritage is the driving force for perceived unity. For many in Mongolia unity often revolves around a history—Chinggis Khan, and the unity of the Mongolian tribes into one nation. These are examples of a secular-focused unity. The unity that the Bible prescribes for Christians is very different. It is a unity that transcends ideas and opinions in pursuit of something far greater. The idea of unity in Christ, as presented in the Bible has very little to do with a common set of ideas, and almost nothing to do with agreement on controversial issues. Rather, biblical unity always centers on behavior. Psalm 133:1 declares: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.” Conspicuously absent from Psalm 133 is any reference to philosophical agreement. In fact, I believe it is absent on purpose. The Bible provides the authoritative model of unity for Christians. While many passages touch on the subject, I find it is best modeled in Ephesians 4:2-3 when the Apostle Paul says: “With all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forgiveness to one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” It is no coincidence that the idea of unity is tied to the Holy Spirit and issues of behavior. In fact, in most New Testament passages a Christian’s behavior and the Holy Spirit are linked whenever the topic of unity is approached. And there is another subject not far behind: Truth. Continuing on his theme of unity, Paul later says in Ephesians 4:13-15: “…until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the Head, even Christ.” Biblical unity always looks like this: TRUTH + LOVE = UNITY. Where else does the Scripture provide this model? One book earlier in Galatians 5:22-26 Paul ties the “Fruit of the Spirit” with a life empowered by the Holy Spirit. But earlier in the chapter as he prepares to touch the topic Paul rebukes the Galatians for abandoning the purity of the Gospel message in Galatians 5:7 by saying: “You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?” What “truth” is Paul referring to? He reveals it in Galatians 5:1: “It was for freedom that Christ set you free.” Paul also makes these connections in his famous love chapter in I Corinthians 13 when in verse 6 he notes that love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.” The entire chapter is part of a much larger context from chapters 12 through 14 about how the Holy Spirit expresses Himself through the life of the believer and the church at large. Paul’s focus in these chapters is spiritual unity among people of different motivations, gifts, and talents, based upon the simplicity of Christ’s identity (truth) and expressions of love. The model presented in Colossians 3 is the same, with a much heavier emphasis on personal behavior along with Paul’s note that in Christ there is “no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). The implication, and application, for our modern times is that it doesn’t matter if you are Mongolian, or American, or Chinese, or Russian, Korean, or any other nationality. In Christ such temporary distinctions are to be washed away in favor of a much higher citizenship in the Kingdom of God. Jesus Himself also tied together this notion that TRUTH + LOVE = UNITY. In John 16:13-14 Jesus revealed: “When He, the Spirit of Truth comes He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever he hears He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.” With this important background on the Holy Spirit’s role in revealing truth, Jesus then prays for unity and truth in the very next chapter! “Holy Father keep them in your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are,” (John 17:11) Then in verse 17 he prays, “Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth.” Just before speaking of unity and truth Jesus said in John 16:8-9: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment, concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me.” What is the first truth we must recognize? That we are sinners in need of a Savor—the Lord Jesus. Even the passages in Galatians 5, Colossians 3, and I Corinthians 12-14 demonstrate that we are sinners in need of unity with Christ that comes first by recognizing our sin and embracing Jesus as the only solution to our sin. So while the secular model of unity is based upon heritage, or philosophy, political principles, or some other set of ideas, the biblical model is different—so different as to be foreign to the way the world works. Biblical unity is not a unity of ideas, but a unity of behavior based upon the identity and work of Jesus Christ. Even Paul’s example of marriage in Ephesians 5 and 6 reveals this, as the husband and wife are different, having different motivations and relational desires, but their behavior toward one another unifies them as a family. Christians can have many different ideas and disagree on a wide range of issues. Jesus didn’t say people would know we are His disciples because we agree, rather because of our love for one another. Disagreements don’t need to be wiped away to unify the church—only the sinful behavior that elevates personal opinion to the status of godly conviction and thus dishonors the brother or sister for whom Christ died. TRUTH + LOVE = UNITY.

A few years ago when I was working to re-establish the ministry of Eagle TV in Mongolia, I spent some time looking at the ministry of the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts. While we often think of Paul as a great orator for the fundamental doctrines of the faith, in fact most of the speeches given by Paul as recorded in the book of Acts revolved around or touched on a single topic. Heresy. The Apostle Paul’s first recorded words at the beginning of his ministry were not about Jesus, but a rebuke to a man who misappropriated the name of Jesus for his own purposes. The man was called “Bar-Jesus” in Acts 13:4-12 which literally means, “Son of Jesus.” Paul confronted this man’s heresy in front of many witnesses saying, “Will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?” (13:10) What makes this remarkable is that Luke, the author of the book, could have chosen to write out one of Paul’s many messages about the Messiahship of Jesus, or many proofs from the Old Testament of His identity. Instead, Luke chose Paul’s first recorded words in ministry to be a rebuke of a false teacher. In this period of Paul’s ministry the church was less than 20 years old. That got my attention. You see, I live in Mongolia; and the Mongolian church is less than 20 years old. The early church, just like the Mongolian church, already a recognized leadership of those raised up by the Apostles and their disciples to help guide the young church into maturity. Though most of the Apostles were still alive at this time, many in the church embraced various forms of aberrational or heretical teaching. Much of the New Testament is actually a defense against various heresies including Jewish legalism, antinomianism, and the appropriating of Christianity, or Jesus’ name, into aberrational religious teaching. In fact, in the 11 recorded speeches of Paul in the book of Acts, six of them warn about heresy or teachers who will turn people away from Christ and to themselves, or he is forced to deal with idol worship (13:4-12, 14:8-18, 15:1-29, 16:16-19, 17:22-24, 20:17-36). When reading Paul’s writings in the New Testament the theme of heresy arises time and again. Paul’s fight against early church heresy was a vigorous and a necessary one. Paul saw early on in his ministry the need for a young church, unfamiliar with the history of the Old Testament, to be brought into a full understanding of the Divine nature, Jesus’ exclusivity, and the holiness of a righteous and loving God. To combat against the aberrations or heresies in the young church, Paul focused on two types of heresy: 1. The misuse of the name and reputation of Jesus for the purpose of advancing false religion or material gain, and 2. False teaching that draws believers away from devotion to Christ, and instead draws men to themselves. Paul’s defense against such heretics within the church was simple. He used his own behavior as a guide for the early chuch. Paul noted that he never profited from the sharing of the Gospel with those he tried to reach—implying that false teachers within the church would do just that. For such teachers Christ is a ministry meal ticket. That the author of the book of Acts places such an emphasis on Paul’s fight against heresy should not be brushed aside quickly—especially for for missionaries working with a young national church, or pastors working in a church with many new believers. The newness of faith and excitement of relationship with the eternal God of the universe can often leave the new believer, or new body of believers open to even newer ideas that were never part of God’s plan for his people. A young church, like a young teenager, is not yet mature, but is growing into maturity. It often has many of the marks of a mature person, including strength and passion, but its vigor still awaits the temperament of experience and a practiced hand with the things of God. From the Apostle Paul we learn that a new believer, or a new body of believers, whether a small group or a national church, is susceptible to three carriers of heresy: 1. False Testimony – Diverting attention from Jesus to mere men, 2. False Leaders – Receiving gain instead of providing it, and 3. False Teaching – Diverting truth away from obedience and faith, to slavery and tradition. In each case Paul openly rebuked false testimony as sin, false leaders as sinful, and false teaching as ineffectual against the ravages of sin. By openly and directly exposing heresy within their midst quickly and without hesitation, Paul saved the early young church from traveling down a road that would lead to its demise.

On a recent trip to the States I had the opportunity to teach about how Animism and Buddhism have influenced Mongolian culture. Mongolia, my home for the last six years, is a culture founded upon the ideas prevalent in Animism and Buddhism. This makes perceptions and communications in Mongolia very different from communications and perceptions in the West. The Americans I speak with are fascinated by discussions about Mongolia and its Buddhist foundations. It comes as a great surprise for many to learn, through practical illustrations, how Animism and Buddhism have crafted the basic value system of Mongolians. In all of my talks I present the two most important differences between Buddhism and Christianity—suffering and love. Buddhism fears suffering, Christianity redeems [through] suffering. The whole idea of suffering, desire, and detachment in Buddhism has had an effect on Buddhist societies that most Buddhists themselves do not recognize. Buddhism not only fears suffering, but actually contributes to suffering. By emphasizing detachment and the elimination of personal desire, Buddhism puts an unnatural barrier on relationships that stifles the fullest possible expressions of mercy and sacrificial love. Certainly there is love in Buddhism, but not the kind of love that we see in the demonstration of Jesus Christ on the cross. That is Buddhism’s greatest tragedy. It is from the Scriptures that we understand the fullest possible expression of love cannot be experienced without suffering and sacrifice. Buddhism fails to understand this, and thus it is a system that has an outward expression of love that is void of a truly impassioned heart. Buddhism has love without passion, Christianity loves passionately. Nothing expresses love in the way that Jesus’ sacrifice for us does. Buddhism denies this truth. Buddhists must work for their version of “salvation”—non-existence! Buddhism is a philosophy where the living hope for an eternal death. But Christianity presents the spiritually dead with the hope of a joy-filled, conscious eternity. There are no mediators in Buddhism to stand in for the sake of a person’s eternal destiny. But Christians have the joyful advantage of having salvation freely provided by a God who took their punishment in their place. Buddhism and Islam leave man alone to his own fate. Compare this to Christ who suffered our fate on our behalf, and gave us his fate (eternal life) as our own. Buddhism’s fears cannot compare to this expression of love in Jesus Christ. In II Corinthians 5:18 the Apostle Paul said God “reconciled us to himself through Christ.” In American terms we think of the word “reconcile” as a coming together of people from opposite sides, or perhaps even enemies, to join them together. Mongolians also have the same view. We both think of reconciliation in terms of wiping away differences and making friends of people who are at odds. But the Greek word “reconcile” in this passage has nothing to do with this very modern concept. “Reconcile” in the above passage was a purely financial term used by accountants in the ancient world to describe “an exchange of equal value.” This means that God was not simply trying to make peace with us through Christ by getting us to come to an agreement through compromise. God does not compromise with man! Rather, we can understand II Corinthians 5:18 like this: “In Christ, God exchanged himself for us as if we were of equal value to him.“ There is nothing in Animism or Buddhism that begins to compare to this concept. The One, Holy, All-Powerful, Supreme Creator of the Universe exchanged himself for us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as if we were of equal value to the One. Holy, All-Powerful Supreme Creator of the Universe. No passionless expression in Buddhism can approach or match the full-on, no holds barred, fully-attached, completely committed expression of love found in the person of the Lord Jesus. Neither does Animism have anything that can compare to Christ. The expression of God’s love in Jesus Christ is unmatched anywhere, everywhere, and forever. It is this message that is transforming lives in Mongolia at a rate 8 times faster than the so-called “Buddhist revival” the nation is experiencing. As one former Mongolian Buddhist said to me about why he finally rejected the futility of Buddhism in favor of Christ, “In Buddhism there is no love.” Comparatively speaking, he is correct. Visit www.thomasterry.com

I hate to pray. There. I said it. I know that there are times in my life when I pray that the Lord will confront me with something that needs attention. Why can’t I have the “feel good,” prayers, the “peaceful” prayers, the prayers of “wisdom” and “revelation?” Today I’ve been reading in Colossians, going through its verses again and again until finally this little passage hit me between the eyes: “Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving” – Colossians 4:2. This is not the kind of verse that normally stands out to people. For me the passages that stand out the most are those that describe the majesty, power, or sovereignty of Christ—or passages on ethics and the Fruit of the Spirit. But Colossians 4:2, a simple admonition to prayer? What’s so special about that, that it should take hold of my attention? Maybe its that little word, “Devote.” Ouch. The meaning here is not simply to perform a function regularly, or to be dedicated. The Greek word used for “devote,” is the word, “proskartereo.” It means, as John MacArthur points out, “to be courageously persistent.” Wait a minute. “Courageously persistent” in prayer? Isn’t prayer supposed to give “peace,” “strength,” and so on? What need is there for “courage” in prayer? Since I already had my MacArthur commentary on Colossians opened I read further to see just why Paul uses such a profound word about prayer. MacArthur quotes a 1976 Christianity Today article by Virginia Stem Owens, and it’s a jaw dropper. “Once you start praying there is no guarantee that you won’t find yourself before Pharaoh, shipwrecked on a desert island, or in a lion’s den. This is no cosmic teddy bear we cuddle up to…we must struggle with him as Jacob did at Peniel where he earned his name Isreal—”he who strives with God.” We too must be prepared to say, ‘I will not let you go until you bless me.’ But in this combat with God we must be ready to bear the consequences…’Jacob’s thigh was put out of joint, and he went away lame.’ Awful things happen to people who pray. Their plans are frequently disrupted. The end up in strange places. Abraham ‘went out, not knowing where he was to go’…After Mary’s magnificent prayer she finds herself the pariah of Nazareth society. How tempting to up the stakes, making prayer merely another consumer product. How embarrassing to admit that not only may prayer get you into prison, as it did Jeremiah, but also that while you’re moldering away in a miry pit there, you may have a long list of lamentations and unanswered questions to present to your Lord. How are we going to tell them they may end up lame and vagrant if they grasp hold of this God?” MacArthur continues the theme… “That stands in marked contrast to the glib self-centered prayers of our day. [God] is too often viewed as a sort of automatic teller machine. If we punch in the right code, He’s obligated to deliver what we want. The Lord might well ask the modern church what He asked the rebellious priests of Malachi’s day: ‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my respect?’ – Malachi 1:6 As I thought through the examples provided through the lives of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles I realized that there isn’t a Christian I can think of that I admire that hasn’t struggled in prayer. Every one admired are those to whom God has said hard things—of whom God has required difficulty and suffering. The ones who met God in the ring are the ones who walk away in triumph to do great things. They are the ones who establish the kingdom and who become a living example of their Lord. But the prayers only for personal satisfaction, of peacefulness and calm—these are the prayers to nowhere. Only then does Paul’s admonition to be persistently courageous in prayer make sense. Likewise his following admonition to be alert (you are in a battle!), and be thankful—God uses the man or woman who has struggled with him in prayer.

Anytime two Christians are mad at each other, the church splits. The Body of Christ was supposed to be beautifully and perfectly one (according to Jesus in John 17), but some Christians are like oil and water–they just won’t mix. Some congregations even try to encourage unity by naming themselves “United Methodist” or “United Church of Christ.” At least it’s good advertizing. The folks that don’t see eye to eye will argue doctrine until they’re blue in the face, but nobody wins. It’s always a draw. The more tactful dissidents call it a “parting of the ways.” I think somebody didn’t get their way! I’m not referring to the immutable truths of God’s Word, I’m talking about quibbling over details. A highly-charged room of irritable deacons or elders can be fodder for Satan. That’s why most churches have the good sense to plan potluck suppers before charting the course of the church’s future. Instinctively, the wives of these contrary men know that carbs must be good. I distinctly remember the business meeting where two preschool workers came to blows over whether we should have wooden or aluminum cribs in the nursery. Let’s just say that it got ugly. “Church people” can grow apart because of innuendo-a fancy word for gossip and presupposition. Dysfunctional families always hide their dirty little secrets and act as if everything is hunky-dorey. Healthy congregations handle issues openly and compassionately. The real question is not “if” but “when” a church will split. They all do–and often. Some go down the street and change their name. Some just sit in stony silence and choose to co-exist. And some decide going to church is not worth the pain. So they play soccer on Sundays. We could probably learn a lot from the soccer players. They realize they are on the same team, and in order to win, they must play together toward a common goal. Jesus prayed in John 17:23 “…that all of them may be one, Father, just are you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ” If being one was easy, Jesus would not have prayed that prayer so fervently. However, when people see Christian family members meeting needs, healing hurts and huddling together, they are hungry to know more.

Last week, the Dalai Lama, Buddhism’s spiritual leader made this astounding quote, “Too much attachment towards your children, towards your partner,” was “one of the obstacles or hindrances to peace of mind.” The whole idea of suffering, desire, and detachment in Buddhism has had an effect on Buddhist societies that most Buddhists themselves do not recognize. Buddhism not only fears suffering, but actually contributes to suffering. By emphasizing detachment and the elimination of desire, Buddhism puts an unnatural barrier on relationships that stifles the fullest possible expressions of mercy and sacrificial love. Certainly there is love in Buddhism, but not the kind of love that we see in the demonstration of Christ on the cross. That is Buddhism’s greatest tragedy. The fullest possible expression of love cannot be experienced without suffering and sacrifice. Buddhism fails to understand this, and thus is a system that has an outward expression of love that is void of a truly impassioned heart. Buddhism has love without passion, Islam has passion, but not love, Christianity loves passionately. Nothing expresses love in the way that Jesus’ sacrifice for us does. Buddhism and Islam deny this truth. Buddhists must work for their version of “salvation”—non-existence! Buddhism is a philosophy where the living hope for an eternal death. But Christianity presents the spiritually dead with the hope of a joy-filled, conscious eternity. There are no mediators in Buddhism or Islam to stand in for the sake of a person’s eternal destiny. But Christians have the joyful advantage of having salvation given to them freely by a God who took their punishment in their place.

Christmas is one of those holidays that is often misunderstood. Perhaps it’s because of the way that we have trivialized what the holiday represents. We hang stockings, decorate trees, arrange manger scenes, and give gifts. Of course no one is fooled, it’s the gift giving and receiving that has become the real focus of Christmas. We love to get stuff. And we get joy, happiness, and a lot of squishy good feelings when our loved ones rip off the wrapping to expose our expressions of love. That’s a form of “getting” too. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself; but we are fooling ourselves if we think that benign gift giving and receiving is really representative of what God gave man in Jesus Christ. God’s great gift to man, in point of fact, didn’t happen on that first Christmas. It happened on Good Friday when Jesus was violently crucified for our sins. Had the crucifixion never happened, and the resurrection, then Christmas would be meaningless. The incarnation of Jesus Christ – God becoming a man – was an event so powerful and significant that for 2,000 years man has counted his days and marked his history by the birth of the babe in the manger. While ancient kings the world over were positioning themselves to be worshiped like living deities to their populations and remembered like gods, the real Son of God busied himself with becoming an everyday man. And yet that humble event, regarded as a sweet treasured moment that gives hope to mankind was in fact sending a precious and only Son sentenced to die for the sins of the world. Christmas TV specials, and even church services willingly remember. We focus our Christmas remembrances on the coming of “Immanuel,” the God with us from Isaiah 7:14 and the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace,” of Isaiah 9:6. But the Christmas tradition, that is, the belief that God would send a Savior, appears in the Bible long before Isaiah’s hopeful promises. And in these foundational promises of God, from which even Isaiah’s prophesies spring, the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David was planted in blood. The first prophecy about the coming of Jesus was given, not to man, but to the Evil One, Satan. After persuading Adam and Eve to break God’s law and eat the forbidden fruit, “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle…I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heal” (Genesis 3:14-15). That first promise of a coming Messiah to crush Satan marked the beginning of Satan’s attempt to do to Christ, and to man, what God declared would happen to him. At each stage of biblical history, when God’s promise to send a “seed” unfolded, the Enemy made moves to trample that seed underfoot. At each stage when God gave a promise of the seed of the Savior, separation and death soon followed. Following God’s first promise to Abram of a seed to come after him (Genesis 12:1-3,7), Sari his wife was separated from him by Pharaoh of Egypt, immediately threatening the fulfillment of God’s promise. Immediately after receiving the second promise of a coming seed (Genesis 15:1-5), Hagar the Egyptian was introduced to become Abram’s concubine. She, along with her son Ishmael were a cause of division in the family and Sarah recognized the potential threat to Abraham’s son Isaac – who was to carry the promise of the seed. In Genesis 17:1-8 God made his third promise to Abraham of a coming seed. Shortly thereafter Abraham traveled to Gerar where its king, Abimelech, took Sarah as a concubine. The urgency of the text indicates Sarah was in imminent jeopardy, but God spoke to Abimelech and saved her and his promise, from danger. Just as Abraham his father had a wife that could bare no children, so too Isaac, the child of promise, was given a barren wife. God’s promise of a coming seed seemed in danger again – until He intervened and Rebekah was able to conceive (Genesis 25:21). Immediately after receiving the promise from God about the coming seed, Isaac was driven from his land and his family’s welfare put in jeopardy (Genesis 26). After receiving his father’s blessing in the line of succession, Jacob’s life is threatened by his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41), causing him to flee. When Jacob returned years later with his family, Esau rode out with 400 men to slaughter him. But Jacob’s godly wisdom intervened to change Esau’s heart, and he spared Jacob and his family (Genesis 33:1-16). In II Samuel 7:12-13 God promised to make David a great man and give him a seed to rule on his throne forever. After securing his kingdom and reputation (chapters 8-10), David became lax, took Bathsheba in adultery, and from that point his kingdom and his family endured in chaos, with his sons and servants murdering one another. If not for God’s promise for his lineage to endure, David would have lost all. THE PROMISE OF REDEMPTION HAD A HIGH PRICE Even from these few examples of God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah we can see a pattern. From Adam until Isaac there was a focus on destroying a single family or to separate a single family that possessed the promise of the seed – the coming Savior. The objective was to prevent the birth of a promise-holder, or destroy the lineage. Immediately after each promise was given there was either separation or the threat of death. Beginning with Jacob, Satan attempted to destroy whole families or a nation of people. Inferred in the text is that when multiple children were born to the possessor of the promise, Satan could not learn which particular person was to carry the seed, so he targeted the entire group. We can see an example of this even during the Exodus period. God promised to Abraham that his seed would be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years before being freed (Genesis 15:13-16). 400 years later as the time of God’s promise was at hand, Pharaoh ordered all baby boys killed in hopes of killing the one child that would lead Israel to freedom. This event was mimicked in Palestine when Herod ordered all boys less than two years of age to die in hopes of killing the promised Messiah (Matthew 2:16). Even during the period of Israel’s exile, in Esther 3:7-11, Haman tried to wipe out the Jewish nation – which would have destroyed the fulfillment of God’s promise of the coming Savior. In virtually every case when God made a promise about the coming seed (Christ), that promise was followed by separation or the threat of death. And as the promise was accompanied by violence, so too was its fulfillment. Jesus’ birth was preceded by the promises of salvation from sin (Matthew 1:20-23), and the mantle of David’s kingdom (Luke 1:26-38). Just as the promises held separation and death, so did they also hold the same during Jesus’ birth. His family was forced to separate from the their home and nation, fleeing to Egypt for safety from Herod’s murderous intent (Matthew 2:13-15). At news of Jesus’ birth, but unable to find him, Herod issued sweeping orders to murder all children around Bethlehem aged two and under (Matthew 2:16-18). Separation and death even accompanied the promised infant Jesus into the world. THE HIGH COST OF THE PRECIOUS GIFT At Christmas we give gifts to celebrate the giving of the gift of eternal life in Christ. But when God made promises of a coming Savior, Satan worked separation and death – even at Jesus’ birth. But in God’s foreknowledge and sovereign plan, all of this foreshadowed the reason for Jesus’ coming – redemption from sin reconciling us to God (NON-separation), defeating spiritual death (LIFE in Christ). The birth of Jesus was only the beginning. Jesus’ incarnation culminated in the cross where all of the promises of God were fulfilled – including separation from the Father (Matthew 27:46), and Christ’s death for us. * The promises of God in Christ were accompanied by separation. Satan’s separation is to separate us from God. But Christ’s separation from God at the cross brought us into a right relationship with Him (Romans 6:5-11). * The promises of God, while bringing life, are sometimes accompanied by death, or fulfilled through death, such as Christ’s death on the cross – the reason for Christmas. * All who will attain or live under the promises of God must share in the conditions of both the promises and the fulfillment: Separation from the world – II Corinthians 6:14-17, and death to sin – Romans 6:5-11, Colossians 3:1-3, II Timothy 2:11-13. We can enjoy the holidays, family reunions, gift giving, and feasting on Christmas. But our joyful celebrations can never truly represent the incredible sacrifice that accompanied the promises and the first Christmas. Nor can our celebrations contain the real substance of meaning behind the incarnation of Christ. That comes during the other 364 days of the year as we live out what Christ intended – putting to death the deeds of the sinful nature, and separating ourselves from an evil world system in total dedication to the One and Only True Living God. The words “peace on earth” come from the story of Jesus Christ’s birth in Luke 2:14. The problem is that only half the verse is quoted. The full verse actually reads: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men with whom God is pleased.” The first implication, and later what becomes direct statements in the New Testament is that God is not pleased with most men. The second implication is that God came to earth in the form of a man to do something about it. Let’s drive this home more directly. Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, is about three things: 1. The Incarnation: God became a man in Jesus Christ 2. The Humiliation: God experienced death as a man 3. The Exaltation: God experienced resurrection as a man The fact is that there would be no Christmas without Easter. Easter gives Christmas it’s meaning. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, what would his birth matter to us? His claim to incarnation would be nothing more than unproven words. If Jesus really is God in human flesh, if he really did suffer a humiliating death He could have prevented through the exercise of his deity, and if he really did rise from the dead never to die again, then Christmas is a lot more than “Peace on earth,” and a year-end boost for the economy. It is about the reason for His incarnation in the first place. CHRISTMAS IS ABOUT OUR NEED FOR A SAVIOR Christmas is offensive to some because: 1. The incarnation of Jesus Christ points to man’s need for a Savior 2. The humiliation of Jesus Christ proves man is sinful and in need of a Savior 3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ proves the incarnation and requires submission to that Savior. As long as Christmas was regulated to gift-giving and good feelings, saying “Merry Christmas” wasn’t really a big deal. But as Evangelicals have gained greater influence in the last 20 years, so has the more important historical meaning of the Christmas season. That meaning is written clearly in the text of the Bible (which the same crowd wants kept out of schools). As the meaning of Christmas, and its year long relevance has become clearer in American society, so has the need for some to regulate any reference to it. If its meaning can’t be obscured, then it must be absconded. I leave you with a passage from the Bible about Christmas. It is not a traditional passage about the Christmas season, but it is the passage that gives us the meaning of Christmas in what may be the plainest language. This passage not only explains the meaning of Christmas, but what is expected of us when we understand that meaning. “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason God also highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 NASB) Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – which is also another celebration of Jesus’ birth. 😉

As pastors and church leaders, we often encounter difficult questions from people who are suffering physically, emotionally and spiritually. How would you answer these questions posed to me early in my counseling ministry? If God really loves me, why did my healthy four year old son suddenly die of a brain aneurysm? Where was Jesus when I was being raped? Why didn’t God stop my husband before he had an affair and lost his pastorate? Is it possible that my depression might be the result of a demonic attack? I was ritually abused as a child. Can you help me? I do not trust anyone, including God. Can you help me build trust? When I attend church I get very agitated. I can’t concentrate on what the pastor is saying and the music drives me crazy! What is going on? It was questions like these that motivated me to gain a deeper understanding of the issues many Christians struggle with. Over the course of twenty-eight years of counseling and ministering in a church, a methodology based on our understanding of the scripture emerged. It is this methodology that I discuss and share in this book. It represents the work of many people who served with me and contributed to this process by their experience and spiritual gifts. The healing model discussed in chapter 3 is the result of years of experience and is offered not as “the only way” but as “a way” to understand and organize a ministry to wounded people. It is a model that has been tested and found effective as God has blessed it and used it to help His people. I encourage you to study it with an open mind and ask God to show you how you can be more effective in your ministry to hurting people in your church. I have written this book with the busy pastor in mind. It is organized so that each chapter stands alone and may be read based on its content without having to reference other chapters. You will also note there are chapter summaries available for a quick survey of the content of each. This book presents an apologetic for a strong pastoral care ministry in the local church. The discerning reader will also be aware of the emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in healing, deliverance and restoration. This author sees the church as a spiritual hospital, fully equipped and staffed to facilitate the healing ministry of Jesus. I encourage you to allow your “theology of suffering” to be challenged as you reflect on how it is operationally defined in your own ministry. This author believes that a healthy church is one that cares for its people and that this caring is easily observable among its members. I believe that churches that have strong ministries to help hurting people are ones that are growing in numbers and in influence in their communities. Just as people were drawn to Jesus by His healing ministry so they are still drawn to His church, when we allow the Holy Spirit to lead and empower us, as we minister in Jesus name. I have experienced even the most skeptical and hostile person’s attitude change when they or a member of their family has been helped by the church. Does your church pray for the sick, comfort the grieving, seek freedom for the oppressed, support those in recovery and offer counseling to the confused and discouraged? I believe we can answer the difficult questions that people bring to us. We have the authority of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit to work through us to continue the ministry of our Lord to hurting and wounded people. I pray you have experienced being a facilitator of His love to His people!

The essential step in dealing with conflict is to strengthen the relationship (maintain the connection). Here are the steps you should consider in preparing to address the conflict: prepare your heart, prepare what to say, and prepare for the context. In preparing your heart you have to ask several questions. Have I honestly considered why I am doing this? Have I acknowledged my negative feelings and begun working on resolving them? Have I surrendered any wrong attitudes and motivations to God? Have I asked God to prepare the other person’s heart and help him/her to be willing to find a solution we can live with? Is there anything else I need to talk over with God first? Preparing what to say is also key in conflict resolution. Ask yourself the following questions. Do I have the essential issue clearly in mind, and am I able to clearly state it? Am I prepared to honestly and lovingly share my feelings in this matter? Do I have a clear understanding of what I would like to see happen? You must also prepare the context, or place where the conflict will be discussed. These issues must be considered. Have I decided on the best time to bring up the issue? Have I decided on the best location? You must also evaluate the effectiveness of the discussion. Much can be learned through experience by asking questions. Did I clearly and specificially present the issue? Did I promote or allow for two-way dialogue? Did I appropriately control and express my feelings? Did I avoid attacks, mind reading, prophesying and counter attacks? Did I effectively present ideas for possible solutions? Did I listen well without interrupting, giving feedback and adequate opportunity to express feelings, perceptions and solutions? Did I listen well without interrupting, giving feedback and adequate opportunity to express feelings, perceptions and solutions? Did we find a mutually acceptable solution, resulting in a minimum of unresolved feelings and misunderstandings? If we couldn’t agree, did I do everything possible to preserve our relationship? Have we set up a time for ongoing dialogue, if needed? Other strategies for managing conflict can be utilized. Follow these principles. Deal with conflicts as soon as possible (Ephesians 4:26). Keep to the present (no “gunny sacking” with “You always” and “You never”). Keep to one issue at a time. Use “I” statements, rather than “You” statements. If you need to “vent,” do this with the Lord before engaging with the other person. Don’t attack the person’s character. Propose a tentative solution or ask the other person to think of one. If there’s anger, be prepared to ask for and extend forgiveness. Take an intermission, if needed.