source of identity crisis

There is so much being said and written about "identity" in both our culture and our churches. We have "identity politics" and we have "identity in Christ." Of course, the use of identity is used by different people for different emphases, but the fact that IDENTITY is so important in various aspects of society is not unimportant.

The two uses of identity are really not unrelated when we think about it. IDENTITY is one's basic core self concept. All of our core assumptions that frame what we believe and therefore how we think, feel and act flow from who we believe we are. Psychology and sociology have a lot to say about how people perceive their identity. Generally, there are 3 facets of IDENTITY - social formed by our sense of belonging, personal formed by our innate unique characteristics and natural formed by whether we see ourselves as mainly physical or mainly spiritual beings.

Your core assumption about reality and truth specifically flows from your identity. You either assume that the visible physical world (cosmos) is what is real and embodies what is true or the unseen realm in which a supernatural being rules is what is real. Based on which assumption about reality, you will assume truth is either determined by what we observe in the cosmos or by what is revealed to us by the supernatural. It is not too much of a stretch that if you believe what is real is what you can observe by your physical senses, then your identity is essentially found in your human nature and your circumstances. Otherwise, reality for you is that which is eternal, true all the time everywhere, and exists in the invisible realm.

One very common identity crisis occurs when Christians' theology (head knowledge) informs them that their identity is in Christ, but their "heart" or embedded assumptions operates from an identity associated with their human nature OR an identity that is based in a reality found in the physical world and an orientation that truth is determined by physical evidence we can collect and analyze.

Historically some try to resolve this by going to the other extreme and assume the physical world is either evil or an illusion. This flies in the face of the Incarnate Christ and cannot be the answer to the Christian's question - "if the physical world is not REAL (eternal truth and then not worthy of our allegiance), then what is the purpose of it?" That is a good question. Let's see what God says though His mouthpiece Paul:

"For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world (cosmos - ordered system of the physical universe) are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity."

So what has happened? From Adam mankind inherits a fallen human nature biased to assume the cosmos is "reality", not God's invisible Kingdom. It is hard wired into each of us at birth. Martin Luther, as part of the Reformation, said that investigative inquiry to know truth is put in every human. Yes, but the human nature biases this inquiry to see truth as that which can be determined by observation. When we repent (think completely differently) and believe (trust our identity in Christ), we see that truth is determined by inquiry associated with revelation, not observation of the physical world. Although God says He displays His glory in the cosmos (physical world), it's trusting the unseen evidence (faith) of the invisible reality of His kingdom that regenerates and transforms our identity.

Paul says this another way when he reminds us that "we have this treasure in an earthly vessel, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves." Thinking our identity is established by the cross, but actually assuming otherwise, is THE IDENTITY CRISIS with only one solution. We must renew our mind such that our implicit assumption of a Spiritual identity (not physical or circumstantially oriented) supports our explicit knowledge of identity evidenced in Scripture.

Ponder this ......
Human nature assumes the mind is a generator of ideas - that truth is what the mind concludes it is based on what we can reason from what we can see VERSUS the mind of Christ which assumes the mind is a receiver - that truth is disclosed to us reasoned by evidence we cannot see (faith), only to be represented in or modeled by what we can see (purpose of the cosmos).

You might ask, "I know I need to read my Bible more but is there something that can help me also with these human nature core assumptions that hijack my joy, freedom, hope, purpose, and sense of esteem and belonging without me even being aware that this is what is happening?"  

Glad you asked - I have poured the past few years of my life in helping to develop a course that can assist the transformation of core assumptions associated with the two identities. Its found at

http://www.b4worldview.com/ 

What in the "world" is the problem?

Powerful men are falling all around us while millions of women are saying,"me too."The biggest mass shooting in history is a mystery. Marriage is whatever we want it to be. Laws don't seem to matter, unless we want them to. Pastors, theologians, writers and worldview thought leaders like the Colson Center and Barna claim our culture is broken and needs fixing. If we could just go back a few generations when the culture was better, things would be all right.

I DON'T THINK SO!!

Let's ponder this a bit. I am going to make my point and then explain it (I usually do it in reverse but I'd likely lose most people that way.) My point

Social exchange explains why someone does what they do and culture is the criterion that society uses to determine if the exchange is right or wrong. However, social exchange, regardless of  culture, is an obsession of human nature that keeps us from the privileges and provisions of God's Kingdom.

Let's take Harvey W. for example. In his mind if he exchanged with a young woman what he deemed she wanted to get what he wanted, this is a fair exchange and therefore acceptable behavior. That is why he first couldn't understand the uproar and why his defense is, "this is the way it was when I was coming up and the sex was consensual." His claim - it was fair and culture deemed the exchange OK. However, society today says that when the one with power forces another to do something they don't want to, then the exchange is not fair and therefore unacceptable. Exchange explains the behavior, culture rules whether the exchange is right or wrong based on a view of justice.

Take the  Las Vegas shooter. No one can find his motive. The only answer is that he was evil. Consider this possibility. He assumed that certain people deserved to be killed for what they believed so it was necessary for him to act on behalf of those who believed like he did. In his mind this was a "fair exchange." Their death balances out with their belief and enacting justice is his responsibility. However, society says that it is not OK to use power against someone who didn't agree that the exchange was fair. In other words, the actor (shooter) saw a fair exchange but culture did not agree. The actions of the shooter were wrong only because culture finds the exchange is not fair.

So what is going on from God's perspective. "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." Yet, God tells us, "love not the world, nor anything that is in the world." The word for "world" is Kosmos, which means 'an ordered system', specifically relating to the physical universe. This ordered system is controlled by equilibrium, reciprocity, cause and effect, justice. Right or wrong is determined by whether the exchange is fair or not. Culture makes that distinction. Therefore, anything that is in balance is fair and considered OK. BUT, this ordered system is futile and needed redemption.

God sent his son out of His love to provide an alternative, or a solution to this order in the physical world. Nature is subjected to the subjectivity of culture and the futility of equilibrium. Even hurricanes are explained by nature trying to restore equilibrium. So, God tells us to not make this ordered system of exchange our priority. In doing so we miss His solution, a Kingdom we can dwell in that is governed by Grace, unmerited favor, not subject to equilibrium, not based on cause/effect relationships.

Its the ordered system of this world, one based on equilibrium, reciprocity and justice, that is the problem - NOT culture. Culture is merely the referee for which a system of exchange is deemed OK by society. When Paul says, "do not conform to this world. but be transformed," he is now talking about not fashioning our life around (attaching ourselves to) the forces of this age (word for world in this verse), a time in which the natural order is equilibrium. BUT, rather become new by having a mind that sees him/herself as a part of another order, a spiritual Kingdom, the one in which a Sovereign father chooses Grace, unmerited favor, a system of disequilibrium.

So, when you are tempted to believe that the problem is around us (culture), think deeply that the problem may be within us (an attachment to this world). People do things to get or maintain equilibrium with the world around them - culture decides whether the exchange is acceptable (fair) or not.

At least its worth a little pondering ...

Lessons from Lexie

We like to believe that "out of the mouths of babes" comes great wisdom. Babies and small children have yet to condition their thinking to what others want to hear or that fits some politically correct way of thinking. Babies have an unfettered look right into the face of truth. What then can we learn from baby Lexie?



Lexie is a 3 month old baby who lives in foster care. Yes, traumatic situations can occur to people before they even take their first breath. Lexie's mom is a druggie. Who knows who the father is? When Lexie's great grand parents heard of her birth, they were moved to take her in, to give her the best chance at a life that from the "get go" has dealt her a bad hand.

There are at least two points I take from Lexie. One is, what does her young life tell us about "free will"? Second, what does her young life tell us about how our needs get met?

"Free will" - unconstrained choices available to us. What choices have Lexie made about her own life? ZERO. She didn't choose to be born, certainly born to the parents she has. She didn't choose to be born into a life of futility. She didn't choose who would take her in and care for her. She doesn't choose her food or who provides it for her. Soon she will be adopted. That is not her choice.
If "free will" is a fundamental truth about life, someone needs to convince Lexie that she should be doing more choosing. Oh wait, the world will convince her of that soon enough.

"Satisfaction" - the supply for what we need. Does Lexie do anything to get her needs met? I don't think so. She receives the provision and privilege afforded her because her great grand parents have chosen to love her. There is no reason except that she belongs to them. Lexie is satisfied soley by unmerited favor. What she needs is bestowed on her by someone who has the resources and the will to bless her completely.

What are the lessons from Lexie? The life we see in this world provides a picture of what is real in the invisible, spiritual realm. We have lessons, such as those from Lexie, not so we will believe, but to strengthen the evidence (faith) of what God has revealed to us supernaturally - His Spirit to our spirit. 

Lexie is so cute and fun to cuddle with. But more importantly, Lexie, and for that fact, each of us live a life that points us to what is real.

What better to ponder ??????

Questions for the head and the heart

The head and the heart - not always in sync. The head thinks one thing but the heart assumes another. It is a common struggle we all face. Leaders that have integrity have less conflict between their head and heart. Leaders that create followers with integrity must help them resolve conflicts between what they say they believe and what actually influences how they think, feel, and act. Transformation occurs when the heart's messages to the soul matches up with what the head has learned is right.

Psychologists would call the conflict between the head and heart cognitive dissonance. There are significant consequences of dissonance not resolved appropriately, such as abandoning head knowledge or contaminating it to fit what's actually believed in the heart. For Christians this is a particular risk. Often proper doctrine and theology is learned only to be contradicted by human nature inherited from Adam. RC Sproul reminds us "the entire human person, including all of our faculties, was ravaged by the corruption of human nature."

Unless a spotlight is shed on the implicit assumptions of human nature that "war against" what we learn from God's Word, Christians struggle to have "the mind of Christ" inform their thoughts, feelings and actions.

It seems this is what Paul tells us in Romans 7, the iconic cognitive dissonance passage, and Romans 12, "be transformed by renewing the mind."

Sean McDowell recently blogged about the types of questions that lead to transformation. Effective questions for transformation are those that are not quickly answered, are somewhat unexpected and lead us into new territories of thought. Here are just a few specific questions leaders can ask young Christians who are seeking to discover a heart that matches what they have learned from parents, teachers, and church during their formative years.

1.  How can you depend on evidence you cannot see (faith) in a world that values only science to determine what is true?

2.  Does something seem right to you as long as it is fair?

3.  Why are you concerned about rewards and punishment when you have been given unmerited favor?

4.  Why do you protect the status quo when God has invited you to change?

5.  Can you explain how sovereignty actually works?

6.  How can you be humble and get your feelings hurt at the same time?

7.  What makes anything "good"?
  
Laying beneath each of these questions are subtle influences of human nature that cause us to feel differently than we think. "Walking in the flesh" vs "walking in the Spirit" is not a question of salvation, but one of quality of life and testimony for a Christian. Its the difference between a life where the heart matches the head or not. Its light or darkness. Its about pondering questions that lead to transformation.

Blessed is the power of plowing ground with the Spirit by asking the right questions .....

squaring God's election with "all men are created equal"

Have you ever wondered how the doctrine of election and the Declaration that "all men are created equal" can both be true? Now that is a question I have never heard discussed. It's probably in the "too hard" pile. A question we can wait to ask on the other side of eternity. But, if you are a serious ponderer, you must give it go :-)

Let's see what we can do with this.

God's election, clearly found in Scripture but not embraced by all Christians, speaks to God's Sovereign will. He does what He chooses independent of cause and effect. This is a concept outside the realm of our natural thinking. Even a non-Christian perspective is that humans have difficulty accepting randomness, an unexplainable occurrence. Randomness is what Sovereignty looks like. 

Equality is a dominant theme of human nature. Equality somewhat flows from the human obsession with justice. While people see equality as a virtue, there is no universal way equality is understood. People are not equal in obvious ways. Some are taller, smarter, more attractive, faster, etc. Given these differences do not produce the same results, we agree equality is not "sameness". Everyone is not created the same. Thus, the common debate is generally "equality of opportunity" vs "the equality of outcomes." Primarily society grapples with "all men are created equal" as economic policies that affect the distribution of goods and services are developed and enacted. 

Is this what the Founding Fathers meant? Were they proposing an economic system? There is an argument for claiming the Declaration was aimed more at dismissing the class systems that used birth position to determine the worth and destiny of individuals. Birth established privilege for much of history. Maybe they were declaring that there are no divine authorities among humans. There are no Lords and no Ladies. No Gents. Maybe "all men are created equal" was a break from historical views that some people are advantaged simply by birth,

For those that believe the Founding Fathers were taking "all men are created equal" from the Bible, what do we do with the doctrine of election? When Jesus says, "for God so loved the world", is  He not referencing an equality of all individuals? The word "world" here means nations and tribes of the world. Jesus is moving from the Old Covenant with Israel to a covenant that is not dependent on a specific people group. Jesus is declaring the Gospel is not restricted to Jews. Similar to the Founding Fathers, Jesus is claiming one's birth into a given situation is not God's view of that person's value and destiny. 

Jesus also says in His final prayer before the cross, “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me." This referred to the disciples. But Jesus goes on to pray, "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me." In many places in scripture, it is clear that God chooses, He calls whom He wills. He knocked Paul off his horse on his way to persecute Christians. Like the parable of the landowner, He rewards as He chooses. There is no cause and effect. Not even the effects of "all men are created equal". HE IS SOVEREIGN.

In the final analysis each of us must decide if God should be defined by what man thinks or if man should be defined by what God thinks. Which view takes primacy in our understanding? We can never know why God chooses as He does. We just know it is for His glory and not ours. That is what makes Him Sovereign. To force our rationale about the equality of persons denies His Sovereignty. What makes Him worthy of our worship is that even in His sovereignty, He has chosen to favor us. This favor is not based on "equality" of our birth, His favor is not based on anything about us. The only real statement of "equality" in Scripture is that "we all" have fallen short of deserving His favor.

In that way "all men are created equal" is a scary proposition, not one in which we should boast.

That is the way I ponder this question ......  through the lens of Grace

"scientific truth" - an oxymoron

A recent article made headline news when it reported the findings of scientists on climate change. The thrust of the article was that now there is "scientific truth" of man induced climate change, what will a Trump administration do about it?

Now let it be clear, this blog is not about climate change. If truth be known, I am a strong advocate that man should be a good steward of God's creation. The article interested me because it claimed "scientific truth." I would dare say a large percentage of those reading the article would never question that phrase. They would knock each other out debating the conclusions of the article and maybe its purpose, but rarely its assumption that science produces truth.

No reputable scientist would claim science produces truth. I have advanced degrees in both physical and social sciences, well published in academic journals. Science finds statistical evidence that A is likely to cause B given C. Science is limited in many ways. First, it is only probabilistic, or showing a statistical inference. Second, all scientific inquiry is bounded. That is, the findings are limited to certain conditions included in the study.

Third, going in assumptions and methods are always biased. I once heard, "the problem with science is the scientist." For example, in this article the conclusion by the scientists was climate change must be man made because they could find no evidence for any other explanation.


This is VERY FAULTY SCIENCE.

Therefore, I do several things with scientific studies. I take the findings with a grain of salt until I view the assumptions and methods. I do not take it as evidence of truth, but statistical probabilities that two things relate together in a certain way, possibly. Finally, I seek to understand the purpose of the study.

While many people wish to conduct themselves in ways that do not create problems for our environment, many of these same people do not want "climate change" to be used by government as a hammer to control and interfere in their lives. Constitutionalists would claim "inalienable rights". That is, they want to pursue their life outside of government intrusion. There is a concern that science, similar to that presented in this article, is simply a tool to grow government. That's where the disagreement generally is and that is where the public discourse should go. Those that are cynics of climate change science should not challenge science with science. That is ingenious and futile. But rather argue for the way in which society should incorporate the myriad of studies that suggest cause and effect of actions we take on the environment.

Its not that we should avoid or constrain public discourse on issues like climate change, it's that we should be more informed about the methods and tools we use to debate. Science does not determine truth. Let's at least quit bullying others with that claim.

If truth is not determined through observation, how then is it determined?

I'll leave that with you for now as something to ponder ......      

Inalienable rights

 

In declaring their independence, our founding fathers made the statement, "that they (all men) are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This statement attempts to answer the question, "who grants rights?" For if someone has a right, someone had to give it to them. But whom?

This act of men and women at this point in history established the best form of government in the history of the world. The establishment of a government that was ruled by the people as a rule over the people was an enormous departure from what had existed in Western Civilization, although the Greeks created the notion of democracy or "people rule" a thousand years earlier. The notion that "all men are created equal" was to reject that kings and queens were no different than the peasant absent their circumstances. 

"Inalienable rights" has commonly and without question been considered a Biblical concept since God is invoked as the grantor. BUT is it? Is He? Can it be a spiritual head fake? Now questioning whether "inalienable rights" is actually God's view of truth about His Kingdom does not challenge or diminish the amazing experiment in government of our founding fathers. However, Christians, and especially American Christians, should reconcile "inalienable rights" with what Scripture, especially the New Testament, actually claims about God's Kingdom and rights in this world.

First, the declaration says "these truths are self evident". How so and if so, do we find God's truths often "self evident"? What is wise to men is foolishness to God. What seems to be the emphasis for this worldview is the Aristotelian notion that there are natural laws or rights that informs and exist beyond government's laws, therefore not subject to any government's control. Basically, the founding fathers were debunking the prevailing idea of "the divine right of Kings." The source and motivation for this declaration is more about rejecting government as the ultimate authority and source of "rights granting." In a way, this declaration is placing the Sovereignty of God above the institution of government, which is a reasonable conclusion.

But, in doing so, are they declaring "truth" as God has revealed in His word?

I have found nowhere in the New Testament that God has bestowed on us "rights" to anything in this world. In fact, Jesus says the really fortunate are those who are destitute in self-reliance and rejected by this world because of their allegiance to Him. He contrasts the Kingdom of heaven with this world by pointing us to His unmerited provision for us, not our rights we can demand for our benefit. In fact, if we seek everything this world has to offer, our soul loses, not wins. We are told we are pilgrims and sojourners in this world and must "hate" this world's system. This doesn't seem like He is reminding us of our rights. We hear that we are not immune from affliction, but actually we are called to have our deepest emotions align with how Jesus felt as he journeyed to the cross. 

Before you want to "tar and feather" me for patriotic heresy, let me say I love the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I do believe society works better when government belongs to the people, not vice versa. BUT, if we confuse this with God's truths, we operate well beneath His best for us. When we claim our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we miss all of God's wishes for us in His Kingdom. His plan for us is not rights and rewards in this world, but provisions and privileges in the Heavenlies. 

I am afraid "self evident" is a human nature core assumption that truth is determined by what we conclude through observing our situations. It probably is evident from what people witnessed that human kings were not Sovereign. But, if we assume truth is revealed to us by the Creator (the witness of the Holy Spirit) not our observations, we would not assume we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing revealed in His word other than life, liberty and joy is all given to us by Him consistent with his Sovereign will.

Core assumptions are powerful forces in how we think, feel, and act. This is why the b4worldview team developed a transformational learning experience to better understand the core assumptions of Jesus.

Give it a try ..... www.b4worldview.com