"on the other hand"

There is a frequent segment on CNBC financial shows called, "On the Other Hand." Here, John Fortt presents an argument for a popular issue in business. Once it seems he has convinced you of one view on the issue, he stops and says, "on the other hand," as he argues the counter position on the same issue. I find it fascinating in how this approach can disarm divisiveness and conflict. 

I was walking to the stadium today when I passed this sign. In every other week the signed said, "parking $20". I began to ponder. This home had a large yard that could park some 100 cars. It seemed that the owners of this land understood capitalism. Today was Auburn vs Ala football game, the biggest crowd of the year. Maybe for these folks, supply and demand suggested higher prices for parking cars at the game. On the other hand, the demographics of those who lived here suggested they were likely Democrats, who would not see capitalism as a preferred way to operate. Maybe their loyalty to Auburn suggested they wanted to stick it to those Ala fans coming in from out of town by jacking up the prices.

Some say this is a way capitalism is not fair. It takes advantage of those who have no options but to buy. On the other hand, those who support capitalism claim it is fair to charge what the market will bare. It's hard to say which of the two views is the real reason for jacking prices today.

I heard someone say this week that we should never use "but" or "however" when discussing two opposing views on an issue. When we use these terms to introduce our perspective, we are in a sense rejecting the opposing view. This is divisive, maybe even condescending. If we say "on the other hand," we are suggesting simply there is another way to consider the issue. 

While reading the Apple News feed, I saw back to back articles that were discussing important issues of our times. One article was debunking the myth that "if you try hard enough, then you can build the life you want." Many believe our country is the land of opportunity. The author of the article was rejecting that idea by labeling it a myth. The article claims Matt Black's book, "American Geography," however dispels the myth. Every place Black visited that had poverty rates above 20% revealed structural obstacles to success. Black "belies the idea of opportunity." As far as I am concerned, Black did not advance the discussion of this question about opportunity in society because he has a "but" argument and not an "on the other hand" discussion.  

This was the next article. This points out how a Dr. who had sought to solve problems with dementia found himself a patient. He chose to build an "on the other hand" view of the disease as he examined what he saw as a patient and not what he knew as a doctor.

 

Maybe you don't consider the difference between "but" and "on the other hand" to be significant. When I pondered it, I begin to feel that this change in how we advance conflicting ideas might transform much of the discourse in the public arena and maybe even in our business organizations and families.

 

Fear "of" and fear "to"

 We are in a time where an admission of failing mental health (primarily anxiety) is seen as a positive development in someone's life. The culture seems to honor a person who drops out because they admit they suffer from a mental health issue, especially a celebrated athlete of entertainer. I came from a background where we were encouraged to push through anxiety and do what we are committed to do, especially in performance situations. I grew up in a "get over it" world where anxiety was not to be condemned, but was not an acceptable distraction from doing what we should.

Life is full of anxiety, along with its stronger big brother, fear. It's not new. It's not an issue for people because of recent events. Maybe it would be helpful to examine anxiety and fear and identify it's source. Maybe learning to deal with the reasons for anxiety and fear is a better option for our culture than giving in to it and demonstrating tolerance by celebrating it.

The most common source for anxiety is fear OF the future. By definition, the future has not yet occurred and is thus uncertain. The inability to control the future to eliminate uncertainty is part of the futility of being human. Anxious about what might happen grips the human soul and stresses mental health. Fear in the moment, like performance anxiety, is really about controlling the future because the moment is the immediate future until it happens and then it is the past. Guilt and shame from what has happened can stress mental health as an anxiety. Fear about how past failures will affect the soul's uncertainty of its future acceptability is stressful.

So, one view of fear is the fear "OF "the future. This ever present anxiety is most commonly dealt with by therapy centered on a hope or assurance of the future. This is an especially common approach in Christian circles.

A less considered view of anxiety is a fear "to." This is more profound than just a play on two little words. What do I mean by fear "to"?

    

    Let's explore this.

There is a condition of the human soul that is even more pervasive than the desire to control the future to eliminate uncertainty.

What might that be?

You may or may not have heard the term "metaphysical." The word sounds complex, maybe even scary. It's really not. It's just a fancy word for the unobservable, the invisible. Understanding what we cannot see with our physical eyes has stressed humans from the beginning of time. 

For thousands of years, philosophy has been man's way to explore rational models to understand the unseen. Yet, philosophy fails to establish conviction because it is impossible to prove a metaphysical fact. Everything man knows about the metaphysical is speculation. Trusting what we cannot see is problematic to the soul. The soul is not made to rely on unobservable knowledge.

That's why faith is what God requires of His people. Faith is trusting what we cannot see with our physical eyes. The fear that may be a greater mental health problem for humans is the fear "to" trust what we cannot see. Overcoming the fear "to" trust unseen evidence does not involve therapy, but transformation. For many, both Christians and secular, trusting what they cannot see (which everyone does in some way) lacks an assurance and thus seeks therapy. For some Christians, fear "to" trust the unseen is dispelled by revelation of God Himself to humans by the Holy Spirit.

This may be why fear "to" trust the metaphysical is seldom dealt with well, even when theology or proper beliefs about God are present.

Just some random thoughts on mental health that come to me in my quiet time. I give them to you to ponder .....

Which is it?

 

Are outcomes in life the result of systems of injustice or independent choices of "we the people"?

Although this is quite relevant in public discourse today, this is really an ageless question.

What do I mean and why does it matter?

When I visited Niger West Africa years ago, I found this question to be a matter of life and death. Periodically, drought would come and famine would result because agricultural practices could not produce the food society needed. Food would come form various government's around the world to feed the people. This became a main mission of the United Nations. We were introduced to a missionary from Australia, who knew how to grow food in sub Sahara conditions. He was raised in the Outback. What was his story in West Africa?

He found that tribes would naturally cut trees down as soon as they would grow big enough for firewood. Wood was the major source of energy. The immediate need for energy meant trees never grew to any size. No trees meant serious soil erosion when hot windy days arrived. Instant gratification was the root cause of failed agriculture during droughts, resulting in famine. This missionary convinced some tribal leaders to NOT CUT the trees and let them grow. He would build trenches around the base to hold more water when it did rain. Trees stopped soil erosion and crops grew 10 fold over what the traditional methods were producing. Better choices along the way produced better long term outcomes.

Were the tribes better off over time making better choices about farming or relying on govt aid to rescue them in times of need? This question plays itself out all the time in places not as desperate as Africa.

Recently I read two news articles. One said the govt had failed seniors in the US because Social Security did not provide enough income for many to live as they needed. The other article said that the over 70 crowd in the US had accumulated a record $35 trillion in net worth. Their challenge was how to give it away before they die.

Which is it? Is life for US citizens in their 70's a result of a failed system where govt must respond to fix injustices of an economic system or is it the result of choices people made over many years to build financial security? 

  WHICH IS IT?

Society divides over the answer ... That's why it matters ..... 

Worth some collective pondering I would think...

P.S. The two choices I've discussed here do not take into account people who fall victim of health and peril not of their own making. Certainly society through its government should provide safety nets for people who are true victims. The difficulty comes in distinguishing between those who are the victims of their own choices and those who are not. These two groups often get lumped together and understanding the difference also belongs in collective societal pondering. 

"stand in the way of sinners"

 

"Blessed is the man who does not stand in the way of sinners"

This is a verse from Psalm 1. What do you think it says?

It could mean, "when you see a sinner, get out of their way, let them go along as they please, don't try to stop what they do or change them."

Or, it could mean, "don't anchor or orient your own life the same way a sinner does."

This blog is not about this verse per se. It's not about how you should live or a statement about sinners. But rather, it struck me as I heard it read out loud that understanding what the Bible says is not exactly straightforward or simple.

I hear people say, "I just read the Bible and do what it says." or "truth is what the Bible says."

Those out in the world who are not subscribers of this idea just look at Christians and say, "well, that's your opinion. The Bible can mean whatever you want it to. How can you be sure it means what you think?"

Christians huff and puff and say, "God's word is truth no matter what anyone else believes." That is an accurate position for Christians to take. The problem is interpreting God's Word as expressed in God's words.

This gets tricky because its our human nature to interpret something in light of what we already believe. Even teachers and pastors do this. Certainly, if Christians are capable of confirming what they already believe, then non Christians always will do this. Thus, Christians are capable of advancing what they believe Scripture says when it may say something very differently. Non believers ask, "How can you be sure?"

It is possible, even rational, to interpret Psalm 1 in 2 ways. The way you first think about what it says is influenced by what you may already believe God is saying.   

So, what is the answer?

It's not what you know that matters but who/what you trust. Unless the Holy Spirit enlightens the reader of God's Word about God's words, he/she will likely view what they read in the Bible as a confirmation of their existing beliefs. Is it possible, maybe even likely, Christians miss the transformative nature of revelation?

what makes a "hardship" hard?

I recently heard some teaching from James 1, one of the most popular scriptures dealing with the believers' response to trials. I was taken by how the teacher naturally and comfortably used the term "hardship" instead of trial. This implied that the idea of trial in James applies to circumstances or situations in life that are difficult. But is that what the word used in scripture for trial really means? Further, what difference does it make if the teacher and student view James 1 as a way to deal with pain and suffering Christians experience?

What happens when we don't see a word as it is meant to be seen? Can subtle error creep in that has profound implications?

Let's see what happens when applying James' word about trials to the church. Is he talking about "hardships" and if so, what makes them HARD?

The Greek word for trial used in scripture is peirasmos. This idea of trials applies to a test or experiment. What is being tested and why?  James 1: 12 says, "blessed is the man who endures trials." This literally means, "How fortunate is the person who is not distracted from their intentional purpose by tests."

What is being tested? Faith

Faith in what?  that one's identity is found in their loving relationship with Jesus and not in their experiences from life on this earth. 

What happens? fortune

Trials are not synonymous with "hardships" as we normally think of hardships. It can be very difficult to pass the test of identifying with situations in our life In this case, trails are "hardships."  But, not for reasons we think. Trials are difficult not because they are situations that are uncomfortable or unfavorable to us. Consider this, isn't it also difficult to pass the test of faith (trial) when situations are great, when we are successful and winning in this world, when we get that promotion we want, or find favor from others from what we do?

Regardless of whether our situations are positive or negative, it is very unnatural to identify with Jesus and His love for us, which is unseen. The world yearns to hijack our identity through our physical circumstances. This is why Jesus says its very difficult, if not impossible, for people to enter God's Kingdom. Man's nature requires he/she relies on (trusts) identifying with how they fit in with the visible world's view of them.

So, it's not error when the Bible teacher uses "hardship" instead of trial when explaining James 1. However, does every hearer of the word get what James is saying. It's highly likely the teacher is not thinking about "hardship" as being hard because of our nature. It's highly unlikely the hardship is independent of how positive or negative the situation we attach to the trial. I would expect that many of the hearers don't see "hardship" independent of circumstances.

This is where error occurs. Why does this matter?

This error is fundamental to why so many church services and Christian counseling are seen more as therapy. This is why so many Christians fail to see the essence of the Gospel. This is why the testimony of the Christian is flickering light, barely noticed by the world. This is why the joy that is set before us feels lacking.

Why is a trial a "hardship? 

Because everything about human nature, even for Christians, wants to identify with their situation in this world and not with the eternal, invisible loving relationship we have with Jesus. 

All situations and circumstances TEST our trust (faith) and fortune lies with the Christian who is not distracted from this relationship by their situation. In summary, trials are "hardships" not because the situation is troublesome, but because we naturally gravitate to identifying with our situations, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

What happens when we don't see a word as it is meant to be? 

It means we need to ponder the word until its true meaning is revealed ....  

Really Rick?

I was recently sent a podcast on Christian leadership. Popular pastor and author Rick Warren was interviewed by Carey Nieuwhof on a variety of relevant topics ranging from current events to Warren's own personal tragedies. This blog is not a critique of Warren or Nieuwhof, but rather an examination of what was said. The perspectives advanced by the podcast exemplifies much of what I find disturbing about narratives being championed by the church and it's heroic leaders of the day, such as Warren, Piper, Keller, and Christian Worldview leaders such as John Stonestreet and Jeff Myers. I repeat, this blog questions what is being said, not the people saying it. 

Are such common and acceptable narratives of "Christian thinking" consistent with Scripture, not on a theological basis but from an application basis? Are there deep seated natural biases (core assumptions) that influence many leaders to convey the Kingdom in ways that reduce the joy and the witness of believers? 

What could I mean by this? Who am I to question such great heroes of the faith? Hang in there and see what I see.

Let's begin with the end in mind. Then I will build my case. First, almost always Christian leaders start with an irrefutable Biblical principle. The theology is sound and their orthodoxy is tested across the years. Its when they get to application, something goes awry. Accurate theology translated through lenses of human nature creates a dissonance or deep, often hidden, contradictions that are subtle but profound. Core assumptions are the deep seated beliefs which frame how people make sense of or orient their thinking in practice. While great effort and thought goes into getting the head knowledge right, little attention or even awareness often exists regarding underlying core assumptions. When Scripture is viewed through built in normal thought patterns sourced in human nature, things of the Kingdom can be misunderstood and misapplied as if it is of this world.  This is the common practice of what is called "natural theology."

I have chosen Rick Warren's answers to Nieuwhof's questions to illustrate this. Again, I am not picking on Warren. I find this dissonance embedded in the teaching of many current Christian leaders. The Reformation was Luther's attempt to disrupt natural theology. Some historians think natural theology began with Thomas Aquinas' Christian philosophies that aligned Aristotle's ideas of man with Holy Scriptures. I believe this is what Paul meant in Romans 12 about renewing (not conforming) the mind, and what Jesus meant by concluding the Sermon on the Mount with the metaphor contrasting foundations of sand vs. rock. Yet, much Reformed Protestant teaching continues the tradition of explaining Kingdom principle's with a "walking according to the flesh" orientation instead of seeing that Kingdom principle's require a whole new set of core assumptions (Paul's idea of "new man"). This is not an issue of salvation, but what comprises the Christian life, or what Paul calls "walking."

First, Warren stated a few fundamental principles he took straight from Scripture. He reminded the listeners that an identity in Christ is the starting point for all Christian life. There's a lot about identity I cannot go into here, but this psychological truth is central to thinking Christianly. Warren also reminded the Christian that God's Kingdom is not of this world. Again, this metaphysical framework is essential in understanding the Christian life. I was excited that this is where Warren started because all application of Christian thought must flow from and be consistent with these core claims.

So, how did Warren answer questions about the current culture wars and his own personal experiences with grief? Did his narratives flow from these core principles of Scripture that comprised his "head knowledge," or did they represent assumptions that dominated his thinking that are different from these Kingdom core principles be began with? Let me share some of what I heard him say and see what you think. But, more importantly, what would resolving this type of dissonance mean to you in your own walk?

 His overarching comment about political and cultural issues was "we have a moral fight." He went on to claim that the church's activities should focus on changing society. Like many other Christian leaders, he focused on the ministry of reconciliation. He supports the idea of fear as being the way society is manipulated to think and act in certain ways. Most of all, Warren associates Jesus' teachings with how he (Warren) unlocks the principles of ministry. He especially focused on empathy, love and trust. He says evangelism starts with looking for people in pain. Ask the question of them, "can I help you in your pain?" He concluded that central to his motivation of ministry is "an account of my leadership" before God.

With regard to what he learned from his own experience of dealing with grief, he describes the steps of denial and anger to a point of healing. He sees how we control our time with God as central to emotional wholeness.

Upon hearing Warren's answers to questions posed to him by Nieuwhof, you likely would think, "yeah, this is pretty good stuff." Of course it feels right. While his two core principles of identity and Kingdom would appeal exclusively to Christians, his application ideas were so consistent with man's natural view of virtuous man that many people would typically respond to the questions as Warren did whether they were Christian or not. So, what's missing? Why would I find fault in Warren's narrative of the Christian life?

The scope of my answer to these questions are way too vast for one blog. In fact, it's central to most every blog I have written. Let me touch on a couple of ideas for you to ponder.

First, for the Christian cultural issues like racism, sexism, and homophobia are not about being virtuous. The Christian life is not about seeking a moral high ground. Its not distinct for Christians to wish for a moral society. The Greek philosophers saw this as endemic in the human condition. Maybe that's why Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. 

The Christian should not focus on inclusion and tolerance of diversity, but union in identity. For example, if either a white or black person focuses on racism, they have defaulted to an identity based on race. The same exists for sex or sexual preferences. The world sees identity as some tangible characteristic of the person that defines their self-concept. The Christian views his/her identity in Christ as defining self. Warren and other Christian leaders tend to default to the world's view of identity in properly dealing with cultural issues associated with diversity. The Christian life is not about a virtuous response to diversity in order to be at peace with one another. The Christian does not see diversity at all. As Paul says, "there is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew, male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus." 

These issues with identity also contaminates Warren's narrative of reconciliation as part of Christian ministry. Jesus clearly calls us to be ambassadors of reconciliation, but a different kind than what Warren expressed. Horizontal reconciliation is a view of how people move beyond their differences and live well with each other in this world. Jesus' point of reconciliation is vertical. The Christian's ministry is man's reconciliation with God, not with each other. Did Warren forget, "For the Kingdom is not of this world"? No, he didn't forget. Likely, his natural bias to this world "secretly" influenced what he really thought about the ministry of reconciliation. There is dissonance between his formal theological claim (which he left at the door) and his application.  

Warren's answers toward grief and service are no different than what human psychologists and scholars of virtue would profess. Psychology begins the grieving process as Warren did, with deep negative emotions of anger and disbelief. Through a healthy process of reappraisal, a grieving person is healed and exits grief with hope. It's true, while Warren and Christian leaders would claim this hope is in Jesus whereas human counseling would find hope elsewhere, the process is the same. The Kingdom approach to grief, fear and other deep negative emotions is the exact opposite. It starts with Kingdom hope revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. An identity in Christ provides us His perfect emotions, so the natural negative emotions are mitigated and retarded to begin with. This is what "partaking in the sufferings of Christ" means. Our emotions start with our identity in Christ, not end there.

With regards to Christian service and accountability, Warren's views, like many other Christian leaders, are outcome oriented. In other words, while he claimed the Kingdom is not of this world, his view of his life and its impact is squarely in this world. This is a common error that results in dissonance.  While the Christian knows in his/her head that the realm they belong to is invisible and eternal and this world is temporal and finite, application tends to be biased to outcomes in this world. An outcome based human nature bias contaminates the Christian's view of accountability to God. God simply asks us for faith in His Son, not impact ion this world. He is plenty capable of taking care of this world as He pleases, and He will one day.

In short, while Warren began his answers with sound theological principles of identity and Kingdom, his narratives of application to current issues in the world never went back to these principles for answers. It's not because he does not believe those core principles, but it's an example of how the influences of the flesh to see things through the lenses of this world are so strong. This is so typical. This is so confusing to the flock.

Pondering this is the reason for this blog ....

  
  

Natural Theology

 "theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation."

 

Why should this topic matter to you? 

Good question. You might answer that it doesn't matter to you, or you don't find it interesting. You may find yourself curious about this topic, and not really know why. You may have heard this term used before by a pastor or bible teacher and you didn't really understand it's relevance.  

There may be some other reason you do or do not wish to learn more about natural theology. I encourage you to at least ask and answer the above question. Then you can quit reading or read on based on your answer.

The first point I'd like to make about natural theology is that concern for it is at the heart of Luther's reformation movement. It's an over simplification to think Luther was only rebuking the Pope, the practice of indulgences and the Catholic church's view of confession. Natural theology grew precipitously from Thomas Aquinas until Luther and more surprising to me, has dominated Protestant orthodoxy since.

The second point I'd wish to offer you is that natural theology is birthed and shaped in human nature. If you believe the doctrine of total depravity (as Luther did), then you would agree with me that "if something I think comes naturally to me from my observations, then it is not what God is saying to me." Luther believed that unless something is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit, it is not of God. In Luther's view, Paul was expounding a revealed theology and discounted a natural theology. This is best represented in Romans 8 where Paul is unpacking the idea of "walking according to the Spirit" vs. "walking according to the flesh (human nature)."

The third point I have found fascinating about this topic is how much Paul's message to the church is a rebuke of Greek philosophy, which came before Christ, and how much Aquinas, as the first western Christian philosopher, based his theology on Aristotle with a nice spin from the Bible. Using cause and effect models and assuming man has the ability to reason God from what he/she observes comes straight from Aristotle and thru the medieval Scholastics exemplified by Aquinas. 

The last point I'll make here (but in no way is the end of this discussion) is that seeking the moral high ground is not what Jesus claims for us in the Gospel. Building a just society flows from mankind's natural obsession with justice and not from Jesus' teaching on righteousness. Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. I'll leave this here since I've blogged often on Christian morality as an oxymoron.

While there are volumes written on natural theology and I could certainly expound more in this blog, I'll end by saying this, 

much of the struggle Christians have on topics such as election, righteousness, suffering, forgiveness, the Trinity, created in the image of God, “free will,” repentance, heaven and earth, civics, economics, prosperity, and such is because natural theology is so prevalent in sermons and bible teaching, even of the most fervent evangelical churches.

You may not know any more about natural theology or its risks than you did before this blog. If you made it this far you should certainly make a point to study this topic until God's grace overwhelms you with how this thinking separates you from Him and makes your testimony off target. My biggest concern is how natural theology may be the root cause or core influence on why church is more of a giant therapy session than worship of the King, why there are many joyless Christians, and why many young Christians abandon their faith as adults.

That's all  ....    

weaponizing "misinformation"

 

Today I heard a news account where Harvard had dismissed a Republican US representative from some Board for spreading "misinformation." Further, students petitioned Harvard to revoke degrees from US Senators who had questioned the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Raising questions about the legitimacy of the election is considered an act of "spreading misinformation." Taking away or "cancelling" those who are spreading misinformation is necessary to maintain democracy, such people claim. But, is this movement gaining momentum today simply a weapon some are using to silence views or ideas that they oppose? Is this actually a threat to democracy?

Are the people in this cartoon being influenced by misinformation? They certainly didn't understand the information they were given. The sign is factual, but the people seem to be misled. Should the makers of the sign be banned from society for misleading the people? What goes on in the world of information? This bog is not at all about the election, but using the context of how people have responded to make a much broader and profound point about society.

Let's look at what "misinformation" is, and then see if it is not a subtle movement of the culture to cancel Christians who walk by faith. You might think I'm intoxicated by conspiracy theories, but hang with me and let's see.

The 1828 Webster dictionary defines "misinformation" as a false account. The definition has been upgraded to include the caveat of "with an intention to mislead." So, today not only does misinformation attempt to advance ideas that are not true, there is a questionable motive attached to the action of spreading the misinformation. By adding motive, those who want to use "misinformation" to control others are not as interested in the issue of truth. They now wish to minimize or eliminate the influence of those who have motives that they judge as intentional deceit.  

This subtle change in the meaning is profound in its implications. Seeking truth has always been a process of challenging untruth. This has never threatened democracy at all but has served to advance the freedom of sharing perspectives so that the right view can be uncovered. This is democracy at its best, according to our founding fathers. 

Today, weaponizing "misinformation" to silence those whose motives are in opposition crosses the line and begins to destroy democracy, not protect it. However, if you are a Christian, there is a greater issue or concern with the advance of "weaponizing misinformation."

This now becomes another tool for the culture to assault people of faith. You see, faith by its very nature is truth that cannot be defended by what we observe. Enemies of God used to try and debate truth questions, such as does God exist? Notice that this type of historical debate has achieved desired results so it isn't of interest anymore to those opposed to God. They have a new approach to discrediting Christianity.

When the motives of Christians are seen as ways to sway the political thinking of liberals, then Christians are viewed as intolerant, elitist, and even unjust. Their message to the world is considered misinformation. Their presence in the world is cancelled. This happens not because of any debate on truth, but because evangelicals' goal is to deceive people as to who and what they should trust.

Faith becomes misinformation.  The world doesn't need to prove the things of God to be untrue. To persuade people to trust something they cannot see shifts control to "those evangelical Christians", who are mean and ugly to others.  The thinks that when Christians use their faith for political purposes, they are deceiving people of the right path their life should take.

Teaching our young people proper Christian worldview and theology is not a bad thing to do, but it's shooting at the wrong target. Weaponizing misinformation doesn't care about truth anymore. While it may appear to attack key tenets of democracy, it is actually the newest form of the ageless fight human nature has against its very Creator. Imagine that! 

Ponder not what you see, but what you see it is .....   

"it's not enough"

My granddaughter Holli did a college writing assignment at Belmont last year. It was an insightful assignment to describe how Hallmark Christmas movies "glamorize" popular ideas, but not always correctly. Topics like grief, love, relationships, angels, Christmas, etc. are often presented in "feel good" ways that miss subtle issues of Christian truth. I offered her a perspective on this assignment that seemed to help her write a very nice paper. Today, I saw another example. Makes for a good blog. 

I'm watching a Hallmark Christmas movie. It's a typical tear jerker. The storyline is a teenager whose family suddenly finds he has a serious heart condition that is threatening his life. He is given only days to live without a transplant. No donor is found. He is getting worse. The mother is an active Christian who relies on her faith. The father has indulged his wife's faith and doesn't typically rock the boat. 

But crisis can change normal family dynamics.

As their son's condition worsens, the wife and mother prays more. The husband and father just hurts more. The son has another heart attack and the doctors give them little hope. The son now only has 24 hours at best unless he gets a heart transplant. No donor has been found. 

You can imagine the plot line from here. After all, it is a Hallmark movie. What caught my attention is not the story as it unfolds, that's pretty predictable. It was the response of the parents at the point of little hope their son will survive. Their response was likewise predictable, and its this predictability that is worth noting.

The mother (wife) said to the father (her husband), "all the tears, all the prayers, all the faith - it wasn't enough." In desperation the father leaves to be alone. He goes to the chapel to make a deal with God. He prays, "I'm willing to believe, please help my son."

These are very typical responses. That's why they show up in a Hallmark movie. These ideas appeal to "good people." So, what's the problem? Why blog this?

Many Christians have as their "go to" Bible verse, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." I just heard a leading Christian teacher and writer reference this verse and then share how he applies it. He, too, sees this verse similarly to these parents in the movie. Trust for them does not eliminate fear and anxiety. Trust is more like the remedy to the stress of fear and anxiety. BUT, scripture tells, "do not fear" and "be anxious for nothing." Why? Fear and anxiety comes to us as circumstances don't meet expectations. Too often Christians see this verse as a circumstantial based trust. It is a trust that God will ultimately deliver desirable outcomes in difficult situations. This view is pervasive among Christians. 

The problem is that too often Christians "lean on their own understanding" of trust."

Biblical trust is source based, not outcome based. In other words, to "trust in the Lord with all your heart" is never strengthened or weakened by what happens in life. Godly trust is a complete vulnerability to God because of who He is, not what we see He does. If Godly trust produces no fear, no anxiety, then why do we need a remedy for fear and anxiety? 

When Jesus says, "Seek first His kingdom and the righteousness you have because of His approval of you and all things will be added to you," What are "all things"? You think He is speaking of your circumstances. He has just got through referencing the blessings (fortune) of the beatitudes. All the provisions and privileges of His eternal realm, not the material benefits of a finite and temporal world. He tells His disciple Thomas, "you believe (trust) because you see, blessed are those who believe (trust) but do not see."

The Hallmark movie glorifies a faith that "needs" God to act a certain way. God needs to do what we think He should do. This is a "feel good" error. God desires for us a faith that does not need Him to "verify."

We generally know this in our head, but our fallen nature can lead us astray. When our natural biases affect our soul, we miss His Kingdom.