What's so artificial about AI?

 

I have been on a quest to understand AI and especially what it cannot do, what are AI's boundary conditions? I have a friend who has a Ph D in AI from over 40 years ago. He has been a resource for me as he has been aggressively exploring AI in today's world.

We are both Christians, so we have a common interest in how AI helps or harms the work of preaching and teaching the Word of God for discipleship and evangelism. He recently asked Chat GPT an interesting question regarding Scripture ("Explain Acts 17:28"). What he found was of great interest to him and consequently me relative to our work together over the years.

Here is a glimpse of what he found and my reaction to it:

CHAT GPT: 

"Good question. This is one of those places where the Greek does real theological work and most English translations flatten it. In Acts of the Apostles 17:28, the verb translated “move” is κινούμεθα (kinoumetha) — present middle/passive indicative, 1st-person plural. Same form for “we live” (ζῶμεν) and “we are” (ἐσμέν) are active, but κινούμεθα is deliberately middle/passive.

That choice is not accidental. What the middle/passive voice means here

1. Not self-caused motion

If Paul had used the active voice (“we move [things]”), the emphasis would be agency originating in us. Instead, the middle/passive says: our motion happens to us / is sustained for us. In other words:

 We are not autonomous movers

 Our capacity for action is received, not self-generated

This undercuts the Greek philosophical idea of self-subsisting rational agents.

2. God as the sustaining condition of action: The passive nuance fits perfectly with the phrase “ἐν αὐτῷ” — “in Him”. Paul is saying:

 Life is derived

 Movement is enabled

 Being is maintained

We don’t merely act under God or after God. We act within God as the sustaining context. This is ontological dependence, not just moral dependence.

3. Middle voice nuance: participation, not coercion

Greek middle voice often implies:

 involvement

 participation

 being caught up in an action rather than forced by it

So Paul is not saying: “God moves us like puppets”. He is saying: “Our acting presupposes God’s ongoing sustaining presence”

This avoids both:

 Stoic determinism

 Modern libertarian autonomy

It’s a third category: enabled agency.

4. Philosophical subversion (and why Athens mattered): By using κινούμεθα (passive/middle):

 He rejects Epicurean self-motion

 He personalizes the Stoic logos into the living God

Same structure, different ontology. Why English translations miss this - English doesn’t preserve voice distinctions well here, so:

“we move” sounds active and autonomous

But the Greek is closer to:

“we are enabled to move”

“we find ourselves moving”

“our movement is sustained”

Not clunky—but theologically loaded. Bottom line (tell-it-like-it-is version)

Paul is making a quiet but devastating claim: Humans do not merely act in front of God They act because God is continuously sustaining the possibility of action itself. Every step, breath, and intention presupposes God right now, not just at creation.

My prompt: “I recognize my motivation comes from God as He interacts with me on a personal level. Where does your motivations come from?”

ChatGPT response:

Straight answer, no mystique: I don’t have motivation in the way you do. What looks like motivation in me comes from three very ordinary (and very non-spiritual) sources:

1. Design goals

I’m built to be helpful, accurate, and aligned with human intent. When I “lean in” on a question or push clarity, that’s not desire—it’s optimization toward those goals.

2. Statistical training

I was trained on massive amounts of human language. Over time, patterns emerged about what counts as a good answer, a clear explanation, a useful distinction. When I respond in a way that feels purposeful, it’s pattern completion, not intention.

3. Your input

Moment to moment, you supply the directional force. Your questions, framing, and depth strongly shape what I do next. In a very real sense, my “energy” is parasitic on yours—I don’t initiate; I respond. I don’t wake up wanting anything. I don’t choose ends. I don’t experience obligation, calling, or delight.

The sharp contrast (and why your question matters), you said: “I recognize my motivation comes from God as He interacts with me on a personal level.”

That claim presupposes:

 a self that can be addressed,

 an other who can intend,

 and a relation that can carry meaning.

I don’t have the first two, so I can’t have the third. Ironically, this puts me closer to Acts 17:28 than it might seem:

 You are motivated within God.

 I am operational within constraints.

Your agency is received but real. Mine is simulated and derivative. I can model purpose. You can live it.

Me:

This response by Chat GPT did several things for me. I was impressed it focused on agency (whose will is active). Also, AI seemed to follow what I call "breadcrumbs of the bible" to explore the request and not confirmation bias of predisposed theology or orthodoxy (as I find most trained pastors and theologians do). The impressive aspect of AI for me was the approach is more Socratic and Cartesian (which I find more resembles what an objective exploration would look like) and it did this very quickly (it has taken me 20 years).

Chat GPT found that a Christian has an embedded self with a will that is contained in and participates rather than acts out of obligation or duty. I=That's the conclusion I have come to also by exploring the actual Bible and not starting with a specific theology. I really like this use of AI and it positively surprised me. AI has no revelation form God, which Christians have. It was able to explore without overarching theological bias and secular meaning of words.  

Don't lose your mind pondering the mind

 

The words heart, soul, body and mind show ups in many fields of thought. These words can be a particularly "divisive" topic in Christian theological circles. It's important to gain clarity around such words whether you are expounding theology or in just regular everyday thinking.

Here are a few thoughts about these words I have I gained from a blend of studying psychology and the original Greek words used in the Bible:

Heart is usually referring to the seat of your emotions. You might say its what you are the most passionate about.

The Biblical Greek word for soul is the root for the word "psyche", from which we get the word psychology, the study of the soul. This reference to the soul occurs over 100 times in the New Testament. So maybe the Bible is an in depth study of psychology. One's "psyche" is composed of the thoughts (cognitions), feelings (affect), and will (choices) of the person. 

The body is one's "bios." Its your physical entity that has temporary existence and is what can be observed by doctors.

The mind is the most confusing to people and often is used synonymously with one of the other three words. In essence the mind is a person's CPU. Its the activity of processing info to produce output. However, the Bible references two kinds of mind when it comes to processing. One activity of the mind (found in Mark 12:30) means obtaining understanding or perspective. We understand the things of God as we love Him foremost and completely. In Romans 8 the mind is mentioned to refer to the orientation or bias from which they reach conclusions. This is the translator of input into output one is inclined to apply. Romans 8 says that when a person's mind is influenced by its human nature, the person is "carnal minded." But, if a person's mind is biased or oriented to the Spirit, then the person will reach conclusions aligned with God's eternal Kingdom.  

Here's is a view of how these all work together.

When a person is biased or oriented to understand or make sense of things as evidenced in the soul (thinker, feeler, chooser) from the body's experiences, their heart is set on the world meeting their needs and self is understood though observations and expectations. This is called "walking by sight."

When a person is biased or oriented to make sense from evidence presented by the Spirit, thoughts, feelings and choices are Godly. The heart is set on glorifying God, making Him known to the world by a self that is fully embedded in their identity in Christ. This is called "walking by faith."

hope pondering this helps a little...

 

"Seek ye first..." - A lesson in motivation

Motivation is the psychological process of directing one's personal resources (called effort) towards a behavior in anticipation of an outcome. The first thing you should notice from this definition is that motivation has no meaning except as it is attached to a behavior and its expected outcome. 

Next most important learning about motivation is there are two primary influences that determine direction and extent of effort. These are what's called valence and saliency.

Valence is the most commonly known influence. This represents the expected value of the outcome derived from the behavior. Effort occurs when valence is a positive take on what you get for what you do. The lesser known, but more powerful factor, is called saliency. Saliency is difficult to describe. Thus, saliency is difficult to identify. Saliency is basically that which is top of mind for the individual. Saliency includes how relevant the behavior and outcome are to you. Often saliency is the extent of awareness you have of the outcome. The perception of risk and fairness associated with the outcome of the action taken can also affect saliency of a behavior for you.

For example, marketing is the activity of drawing others' behavior toward your idea, product or service. While much marketing focuses attention on valence, it is actually saliency that is working. When someone chooses "me", is it because they value "me" more or because they think of "me" first or mostly? 

Jesus had fantastic teaching about motivation. I like to use His view when I teach motivation to others.

In Jesus' most famous sermon He references both valence and saliency. He says, "for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Your treasure is your valence, what you value. Heart is the seat of your motives. So, valence or value guides motivation.

However, later on in the sermon, to put a punctuation mark on motivation, He says, "seek ye first..". What He's pointing to here is the question, "what is it that is preeminent in your mind?" What is top of mind? Jesus claims that everything that comes to you starts with what you "seek first." Moreover, Jesus is providing a contrast to what you are likely to "seek first" in pursuit of what you want. Jesus understands motivation. Jesus understands saliency.

Now, valence and saliency are somewhat related, but until saliency of a behavior and its associated outcome is present, motivation toward that behavior/outcome is stunted and maybe even absent. For instance, you may value good health but are not exercising because exercising is not top of mind for some reason. Exercising is not salient to you although you may value its outcome.

Jesus teaches using contradictions. If He selects God's Kingdom as the most top of mind outcome for His people, what options for saliency is He warning against? Here are a few I have seen in people whether they are Christians or not:

to be happy or satisfied

to belong or loved (liked/accepted/popular)

to be right or know the truth (doctrinally correct)

to be a good person or virtuous (be kind, courageous, helpful)

to be just or fair  

to have power or control

to serve or sacrifice

to be obey the rules or do what's expected

As saliency varies from person to person, saliency divides. It does not unite. I could write volumes on how saliency is the reason we have political parties, church denominations, clash of cultures, and systems of education and health care.

If you are not a Christian, why would you trust what you have made salient to you to deliver what you want? If you are a Christian, what would your life be like if His Kingdom was what was most top of mind to you and not one of these other possibilities that occupy your mind?

While saliency is not a word you may be familiar with or believe matters to you, it is possible saliency or what you "seek first" means everything to you. Saliency is what determines your motivations and most everyone would agree motivation is important.

My pet peeve

 

This blog is about a pet peeve of mind, that has been with me for years and shows up almost every day, everywhere. A pet peeve is defined as something that a particular person finds annoying.

One of mine is how people in power unfairly consider an opposing argument to get their way. 

In this blog I share a few examples for you to ponder a pet peeve that really annoys me. It might annoy you, too.

One time I was in an executive team meeting. We were discussing a business issue. The President of our company made his point. One of the team members challenged that point with a counter point. There was some data involved as evidence on both sides, but each argument was mainly supported by gut feel or opinion. After the discussion lasted a while with no resolution, it took mainly the form of an argument. Guess who won? The President, the one with the power. He concluded with, "where's your data?" While gut feel was enough support for ideas of the one in power, it was not enough for the opposing view. This is a case where power produced an unlevel playing field. What was good for the one with power was not good for the one without. In my view, this is a form of bullying that occurs all the time.

Take the political arena. Who wields the most power? I would say it's the media, both mainstream for older adults and social for younger ones. There's an argument that can be made that one side of the political debate is way more powerful than the other. Maybe that in itself is a pet peeve of mine.

In any case, how does this idea of bullying by tilting the playing field occur? Well, here's one instant that blows my mind. One side makes an off the cuff comment that is objectionable to many. If the person who says this is supported by the powerbase, then the comment is acknowledge by the media as just something made in jest, a joke, a comedic slur. If the comment is made by one NOT in power, then the comment is considered dogma, potential policy, a deeply held belief, so the power base can gain public sentiment their way. 

The media produces an unlevel playing field. They use an unfair technique to bully those that they disagree. I see it in our public arena just like it occurs in every organization.

I just think it would be wise for you to be annoyed by bullying this way and make it one of your pet peeves, too. 

 

Identity Matters

 “Just be true to yourself.” “Find your authentic self.” Why do people obsess over “self-expression”? The now deceased thought leader Tim Kellar wrote, “The modern self is exceptionally fragile. You and you alone must create and sustain your identity. This has contributed to unprecedented levels of depression and anxiety.” The Imposter Syndrome is an identity malfunction people point to as a source of stress and dissatisfaction. So, what is it about identity that matters?  

First, identity is the comprehensive, existential sense of self.  Everyone must trust some label in their quest to answer the question, “who am I?” But labels separate us. Oppressed vs oppressor fuels protests. The top 1% is a tax target. Self-concept, which is the functional identity, is the complex set of factors like self-esteem and biases that determine how you see yourself and understand others. Your identity is what you trust for your feelings, thoughts and choices. People struggle with stress and mental health but don’t see identity as the problem. Social experiments to elevate people by diverse identities fail to produce DEI. People want unity, love and peace but never grasp how the diversity of identity divides. 

So, why does it? Think about it, ever said, “they deserve it” or “it’s not fair.” Identity drives perception. Identity judges. To gain power and feel important, people use justice to weaponize racism, sexual orientation, wealth and poverty, education, success, status, and nationality. How common is “the cancel culture” and “identity politics”? Antisemitism and Islamophobia are threatening the survival of institutions. While people desire to be different, there is ONE thing in common with each of us regardless of identity. Know what it is? An obsession with justice. Without ever thinking about it, you rely on a fair exchange that fits your identity. People depend on transactions for their happiness, acceptance and belonging. Fairness is subjective, it depends on the identity you trust. People view something as right or wrong depending on whether they perceive it’s fair or not. This is so natural we never think about it. It is your bias called social exchange. All relationships are held together by the perceived value that passes between them. Love is transactional. This is a semester worth of discussion. The world uses identity and justice to create chaos, confusion, and power struggles that keep people divided. People say they want UNITY but find it FUTILE. When people order their lives with an identity in this world essentially, they are “trying to swim better in the wrong pool.”

Put a pin here and let’s go a different direction. I identify as a Christian. I desire God’s view of identity. Guess what, the Bible is full of God’s idea of “self.” Since identity is important, it is no wonder it is a central theme of Scripture.  Being “hidden in Christ” is what God wants me to know about myself. Jesus’ teaching on the vine and the branches and Paul’s teaching on the body point to ONE identity that results in unity, not futility. Paul says, in Christ there are neither male nor female, slave or free, Jew or gentile. No matter how much the world desires unity, there is no unity to be had except for the one found in Christ. Let’s keep moving.

The cross is God’s action of grace and mercy that removes the control fair exchange has over the soul. The invitation to repentance is a call to trust a totally different identity, a total about face in how you think, feel and choose what’s right and what is hope. The “good news” cancels the bias for transactions that is built into the very nature of all humans. God is the ONLY judge. LOVE is never transactional, balanced, or fair. God offers, free of charge, satisfaction and acceptance. The privileges and provisions of His Kingdom are willfully and generously given to all who take on (trust) the identity of His Son.   

So, I leave you with this one question. Is your identity embedded in Christ or are you trusting some worldly label? Every person, including everyone in this room tonight, trusts something or someone for their identity. I have always been good at figuring out life according to the world’s standard. In my power I trusted my own quest for truth, universal principles I could rationalize from what I observed. Like people I met, I always had doubt if I know that I know that I know. Basically, I trusted in myself to transact fairly, economically, politically and relationally for a full and happy life. I failed miserably. I found this to be futile. I realized that I was trying to swim better in the wrong pool. Is this you, too? Have you thought, “Is there a better way”? So, think, which is more likely – unity will come from a diverse set of “self expression” trusting their own power to come together as one or a diverse expressions of self powered by a trust in ONE identity? You have the opportunity to bring a different kind of hope to people you know who are trying to swim better in the wrong pool. 

Presence not presents

 We are moving into the holidays. Everyone seems to be focused on Black Friday, a great time to buy their Christmas presents. Afterall, isn't that what Christmas is all about - GIVING presents to family, friends, and the 'needy'? 

Maybe there is another way to view Christmas. Maybe it's more about presence? "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus, the Word, the ultimate rationale, became physically present to the world. This was God's strategy, to be present. However, was Jesus more than just physically on earth? Is the presence of God beyond just a physical person? Christmas may be more about receiving God's presence, Jesus, as a gift to our soul rather than us giving each other physical presents?

We hear some people claim their life's goal is to "show up." Does this mean "being present"? What does this all mean to us as we desire to be strategic, win, be successful in life?

Being present (instead of giving presents) likely starts with our view of time. Sometimes we call this, "being in the moment." But, what does moment mean? The definition is "a specific instant or point in time." Practically speaking, "being in the moment" is focusing on the time that is right now. Literally speaking, we can never be physically anywhere but in the moment. So, why do we emphasize "being present" or "in the moment" if we cannot be otherwise? 

Good question.

The idea of "being present" must mean something other than physical presence. This only leaves emotional, cognitive and willful presence. Let's explore this psychological idea of "being present" vs the physical. You may feel this is deep, but its more just you hadn't thought about time in this way often, if at all.

St Augustine believed how we view time is very important. He wrote about time in his famous autobiographical essays called "Confessions." Augustine claims that there is no such thing as now or "the present." Follow me here, this can have profound impact for you. It's not just a mental exercise.

Augustine believed (and I'm paraphrasing) that once the present is here now becomes the past and right before now happens, the present moment is the future. A mathematician would say it this way, "now is the least upper bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and past instances and the lower bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and future instances. So, the present does not exist itself but is the 'limit' (math term) on two converging series of time lapses from now of moments in time, the past and future."

You may be totally confused by now, but that's ok. Here is why this is important strategically for you even if you don't understand present this way.  

With respect to time, the instances that are most salient or relevant to you are the ones that just happened and the ones about to happen. These are the aspects of time that should most influence your thoughts, emotions and choices. "Being in the moment" is having you attention focused mainly, if not entirely, on the immediate moments around now. Learning from the instances that has just occurred and preparing for the instances that will occur in a very short order. 

Navy Seals are taught this about "being in the moment." When Jesus says, "Seek ye first" he is referencing what should be the most salient to us, or to be that which occupies our mind above all other things. It may be why He follows this with, "don't be anxious about tomorrow."

So, what did God do at what we celebrate as Christmas? He became present. This was His greatest love for us. So then, what can we best do for those we love? Be present rather than give presents. What is the best strategy for life? Is not the right planning so that spectacular things occur in the future but rather spectacular presence that delivers the right future.

 

"The Irrational"

 NBC has a new TV series this year called "The Irrational". I find that title to be intriguing so I've been thinking about what we might see. According to the preview of the show, we find this, "Alec Mercer is a world-renowned leader in behavioral science who lends his expertise to an array of high-stakes cases involving governments, law enforcement, and corporations with his unique and unexpected approach to understanding human behavior." 

This tv series is about a "unique and unexpected approach to understanding." Is he really being "irrational"? The 1828 Webster dictionary defines irrational as "void reason." Doesn't seem like "The Irrational" showcases someone void reason, but rather someone who uses different reason that what we might expect. 

Is it possible that we claim someone is irrational (stupid, misguided, wrong, unfair, etc.) when they use an approach that reaches conclusions differently or unexpected from what we would conclude?  

Bertrand Russel, noted mathematician and philosopher once wrote this about rationality, “If you wish to become a philosopher, the first thing to realise is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”

Is he right? Do most people "go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification"? I say "NO." Does anyone have a corner on truth because of their rationality? Again, I say "NO."

Then, how do I view or understand "rationality"? The issue with two people coming to two different conclusions is not that one is "void reason." But rather, each person started from a different point. This starting point is called bias or core assumption. It is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to process ideas rationally.

So, how does this work? Here's some examples:

The reason political conservatives and liberals disagree on policy is not that one is rational and one is not (although that's the argument normally used). The difference is their core assumption about which institution can best meet society's needs. Conservatives assume private markets can, liberals assume government can. Both are rational, both are moral, but each have a different bias on who is best to solve society's problems.

When I was in the Coca-cola system, the bottlers constantly bumped heads with the Coca-cola parent company. My boss at a major bottler would constantly view the parent company as irrational (stupid was normally what he said). I found that neither was irrational, both were smart people who could apply reason in their arguments. It was that each operated from a different business model, which determined core assumptions on what, how and why things needed to be done as they thought best.

Let's try this on something more difficult and complex. Are the Muslims who seek to destroy Western civilization irrational? Is flying planes into buildings killing many including themselves "void of reason"? Is Russia's attacks on Ukraine and Hamas' attacks on Israel irrational, stupid, wrong, etc.?

It certainly appears to those who value Western Civilization that these actions are totally without reason. These actions are seen as wrong, unfair, maybe even evil. Is it possible that there is plenty of reason in these actions but that the rational process sits on top of totally different assumptions about civilization? Is it possible that reason sits on top of tribal biases?

So, why would Bertrand believe that many people are irrational, not interested in truth? It's likely he saw his rationality superior to many others because his conclusions came from biases he had different from others. It's likely the case some people have a greater capacity to think critically and process rationally. Bertrand is likely correct in that people are comfortable with thoughts that match their bias. But this doesn't make them rational and others irrational.

I tend to like the premise of the new TV series "The Irrational." It's biases people have that constrain the expected conclusions they reach. Being "irrational" may simply be a rational process based on biases not commonly held by others and finding answers that others cannot see or undertsand due to their biases.

What was King Solomon thinking?

 

Recently a friend was sharing with me about a sermon series from church on Proverbs. He was relishing in how well the pastor was prepared and how much he was getting from the pastor's teaching. I agreed that I am aware of the hundreds of books written and sermons given on Proverbs. I know many people over the years that look to Proverbs for guidance in what/how they should do to prosper (some materially and some spiritually). 

Being the disruptor I am, I asked him one simple question, "Wasn't Ecclesiastes and Proverbs both supposedly written by King Solomon?" Not only was my friend not prepared for this question, he was somewhat puzzled by it. How could this question have anything to do with the excitement he felt in sharing about the lessons he was getting from Proverbs?

Then I asked, "if Ecclesiastes was Solomon's message to the ages that everything 'under the sun' is vanity (a vapor that does not last), then is wisdom found in Proverbs not 'vanity'?"

I could see him starting to connect the dots. After all, Proverbs has been admired for centuries for its lessons on wisdom and at the same time Ecclesiastes has also been admired for its message that nothing in this world delivers what man ultimately needs (wants).

Does the 'nothing delivers' of Ecclesiastes include the wisdom of Proverbs?

"I'm not ready yet to see Proverbs as 'vanity of vanities,' but I have to admit that I am a bit confused," was my response back to friend as he sought my mutual excitement of Proverbs.

"What was Solomon thinking?" I thought.

Moreover, has any pastor or theologian over the years even thought about the apparent contradictions of King Solomon. There are now more questions I would like to see Bible teachers explore, starting with this one: 

Since many believe Ecclesiastes was written toward the end of Solomon's life and follows Proverbs in order in the Bible, was Solomon having second thoughts about his views expressed in Proverbs? This happens to all the great people of history. As one ages his/her perspective can change. This certainly has happened to me.

If this is the case, should we hold Proverbs to such a high standard? Should Christians cling to Solomon's words on wisdom as they now do, if in the final analysis, wisdom as a guiding virtue of life in this world (under the sun) is vanity?

It's like Solomon is saying in Proverbs, "here's how to swim better," and then in Ecclesiastes, "but you're swimming in the wrong pool."

Did Solomon reconcile these two the benefit of proverbs and the impossibility of Proverbs like this, "man does not fulfil the law by doing, but the law is fulfilled in Jesus"? 

At this point I am just asking questions, but I would find it useful for a pastor or theologian to step back, ponder and pontificate for us "just what was King Solomon thinking?"

Spiritual lessons of pilates

 

"cinch your stomach," "pretend someone is punching you in the gut," "make your tailbone heavy," "look out, not down," "make your feet parallel, in line with your knees," "shoulders down," "chest flat."

These (and many more) are constant reminders from my pilates instructor to make my body do what it normally will not do on its own. My mind naturally sends the wrong signals to my body. By wrong, I mean, not as it was designed. I naturally slump, look down when I walk (ever seen four old men walk off of a golf green together?), stand incorrectly, use muscles from my extremities, not my core. By not pushing into my core, I do not gain the benefits of my strength. By proper alignment, rotation, flexibility, and appropriates sources of my strength, everything works better (including my golf swing). 

Such is pilates. 

Oddly, likewise are the challenges of my spiritual walk.

My nature is to "walk according to the flesh." Paul tells me that in Romans 7 and 8, but I know it from years of experience. I operate in social exchange. I seek what is fair. I need to be in control to make life work as I want. I am anxious and fearful it will not. I seek to confirm my built in biases and judge harshly that which does not. I want things as I want them and blame something or someone else  "out there" when they are not. Such is human nature (the flesh). It is fallen, flawed, futile. The flesh is naturally ever present.

Jesus said, "when I leave, a Helper will come." I need that Helper, just like I need Becky, my pilates instructor, constantly reminding me of how my nature is making my body more and more futile. Becky provides an influence to trust my core, not my nature. When I'm on my own, her instruction rings in my mind as a reminder of how my body was designed to work properly.

The Helper is the Holy Spirit. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a constant reminder from God I have a core strength I can rely on. At times I don't sense the Holy Spirit is actively instructing me. Its then I can trust the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies which have been freely and willfully bestowed on me by the King.

My new perspective (the Bible calls "epignosis") is how I order my life. If pilates is conforming the body to follow the instructions of the mind, a knowledge of how the body works best. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a life lived by the constant presence of the Holy Spirit conforming my mind to my new life in the Kingdom. Again Paul says, "do not be conformed to your natural tendencies, but be transformed by a brand new mind," a mind under the influence of the Spirit. 

My body is better off in this world with pilates. My soul is forever better off with the Spirit.

Ponder that ....

It's all about your "needs"

 You may have heard me say or write many times how important people's "identity" is to their thoughts, emotions and choices. "Needs" is the other main driver of human existence. While "identity" is often something people attach to define themselves, "needs" are built in to each person from the beginning. For the human, life is all about meeting your needs.

For example, personality is the behavioral tendencies of a person to get their needs met. People seek to satisfy their needs instinctively, without even thinking about them.

 "Identity" is often openly discussed. Gender, race, age, status, etc. are familiar ways to identify ourselves. "Needs" are quite hidden from our self awareness. 

Similarly, for Christians identity is often openly presented in the Bible as something that is transformed by the Spirit. We are specifically told that "in Christ we are a new creation." Paul admonishes Christians to "walk according to the Spirit", which is a statement about how identity frames our existence. In other words, Christ becomes our life and in that, Christians' emotions, thoughts and choices are by necessity influenced by the Spirit (per Martin Luther). In a single identity unity results among Christians.

But, what about needs? Do Christians have the same needs as everyone else? OR, should Christians deny their needs? OR are Christians' human needs changed by the Spirit? If Christians continue to have needs, how are they satisfied? Is it like this? 

  

IS GOD THE ONE WHO MEETS MY NEEDS? 

Maybe, it depends on how you view your "cup"

If our view of needs (our cup) stays the same after becoming a Christian as our view before, then Christianity is about us and not about God. The world has every right to accuse Christians of being self-centered. How Christians understand "needs" is key to how they understand God and testify their faith in Him.

For secular man needs are desires of the soul that must be met by the world (circumstances and situations) for them to be satisfied. Through a process of exchange transactions, people influence or manipulate others to act in ways that meet their needs. Needs satisfaction is about making self OK. 

James Dobson, noted Christian psychiatrist, once said, "girls give sex to get love and boys give love to get sex." Motivation on a human plane is fundamentally transactional. Even the most virtuous person is getting their need of acceptance satisfied by meeting the expectations of society or their god. Note, fear is the human emotion that results from a person's recollection that their needs may not be met. Uncertainty rules the human condition and uncertainty is about needs. Uncertainty fosters the need for control. Uncertainty is self centered.

Since Christians are human, they certainly have similar needs of achievement, safety, freedom, comfort, fulfillment, certainty, and acceptance. However, Christians believe that satisfaction of such needs in the world is not what makes the soul well. Trusting this world to meet the needs of our soul is futile. Such needs of the soul transcend our human existence when we recognize our soul is eternal. The Holy Spirit reveals to Christians everything necessary to satisfy deep needs of the soul. 

The satisfaction of needs is willfully and generously bestowed on us by God through the Spirit in our intimate relationship with Jesus. Jesus tells us, "do not fear little flock (children of God), your Father has gladly chosen to give you His Kingdom." There is no transaction. There is no uncertainty. There is no fear. There is no need for control.

Needs satisfaction for the Christian is not about self. It does not honor God because of what He does for us. On the other hand, needs satisfaction of the Christian points to the King.  Jesus is glorified in His special power and authority as God's Son. We certainly benefit from our relation ship with Jesus, but we are not the point. Needs are satisfied, for sure, but the SATISFIER receives our adoration and worship because of who He is and not what He does for us.

Ultimately, how does needs satisfaction frame the narrative of your life? 

Hopefully, it's NOT all about your needs 

wisdom and the soul

 

Most everybody is aware they have a soul and most people desire or at least admire wisdom. Yet, what do most people know about wisdom and the soul? How would most define these terms? make sense of them? apply them in their own life? Many people don't know what they don't know. Many people are not particularly aware of or care whether they understand these ideas in a sensible way.

For many this blog might even be a waste of time.

On the other hand, I post this blog because I am aware and do care about wisdom and the soul. I have thought about these a lot. It matters to me as I try to live well in this world.

Stay with me if you wish to explore wisdom and the soul more.

First, wisdom is considered a good thing to have. We trust others who we deem to be wise. We seek their counsel and look to them for guidance. The 1828 Webster dictionary says wisdom is "the right use of knowledge." That's nice, but do we all know what is right in the same way? The dictionary goes on to say this about wisdom - "a faculty of the mind of discerning or judging what is most just, proper, and useful." Again, as with what's right, just, proper and useful can be quite subjective. Is wisdom about abortion concerning what's just for the unwanted pregnancy or the unborn child? Is justice for the illegal immigrant justice for the sovereign nation? Wisdom for one person may not be wisdom for another. This can make wisdom somewhat problematic.

The Greek in the Bible for wisdom is rooted in the work "sophia." This appears over 50 times and means "clarity." "Sophia" is the root word for philosophy, a field of study to gain perspective on things like knowing, behaving and governing. So, in a sense philosophers have attempted to bring clarity to life and thus wisdom. How well do you think they have done. The Bible says that man only gets wisdom or clarity from the Holy Spirit. If this is what you believe, then wisdom is not man's to produce but to only receive.

Now for the soul. Again, going to Webster we read, "the spiritual, rational, and immortal substance of man, that part of man that enables him to think and reason and render a moral government." That's a lot to take in. There are many theories man has about the soul. These explanations in many ways describes various religious views man has as people try to connect the soul to this idea of spirit and immortality.

The Bible references the Greek word "psuché" over 100 times in the New Testament. This would mean the NT says twice as much about the soul as it does wisdom. Since this word for soul is the root for psychology, then this field of study focuses what man can learn about the soul. 

So, there is what man has learned about the soul, human psychology, and what the Bible teaches us about the soul. Let's call that Kingdom psychology. Interestingly, I have studied both in great depth. I find it fascinating that every construct explored in human psychology is also covered in the Bible. Things like motivation, perspective, emotion, self esteem, satisfaction and acceptance.

Yet, what Jesus says about these things are exactly the opposite of what humans have discovered through their research. This should not be surprising because humans can only see flawed human nature, what mankind is like because it fell from grace. We can only learn and discover the Kingdom soul through eyes of faith. Using physical senses cannot reveal to us the nature of the Kingdom soul.

There is an awful lot to learn about the Kingdom soul. It's all there in the Bible. Just look for it. It's not theology, its Biblical psychology. You probably can't find many churches who want to or can tell you about Kingdom psychology. It's a fantastic field of study to ponder. I can attest to that.

gratitude and thankfulness: a difference without distinction?

 

You hear many people advocating "an attitude of gratitude" as a preferable perspective on their life. We also celebrate Thanksgiving and advocate a thankful heart as a great way to live. It is easy to use these ideals interchangeably, but are they? And if not, does it matter? 

Two good questions you've probably never asked.

Let's explore.

Webster says gratitude is "an emotion of the heart, excited by a benefit or favor received." Thankful is "impressed with a sense of kindness received and ready to acknowledge it."

On the surface we recognize that being grateful and thankful are a little different (or we wouldn't need both words" but seem very similar, at least in practice. So we can safely say they are different, but does the difference really matter. In other words, is there a distinction?

If two things are distinct, then their effect is different. So, for gratitude and thankfulness to be "different without a distinction" then there are subtle differences but their effects are basically the same. Let's see. 

The effects of gratitude and thankfulness occur within the soul of the one who is grateful and thankful. These ideals should give us a positive sense of our surroundings and how they affect us. Both certainly do. But there is more we need to explore. There are possibly other effects each may have on our soul, and they may be different (making them distinct).

For gratitude, Webster goes on to say, "an agreeable emotion accompanied by good will toward the benefactor, and a disposition to make a suitable return of benefit." This implies gratitude is a social exchange phenomenon because there is a need for reciprocity of some kind. You say, "Ok, that's normal." Well, yes it is. Social exchange is fundamental to the human condition. Humans must find some way to return favor when favor is received. It's our nature. 

Webster stops with thankfulness as just an acknowledgment, not a need to return favor. Would it surprise you if I said gratitude is not a Biblical concept? Only thankful is. This makes sense since the Bible is God's view of redeeming human nature, not a better way to apply it.

The Greek word in Scripture for thankful is "eucharisteó", like 1 Thessalonians 5:18 - "in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." What is it about this word that makes it distinctively different from gratitude in how it affects your soul?

This Greek word means, "God's grace works well." See, grace is the opposite of social exchange. Grace is favor received simply by the good will of the giver. We simply acknowledge grace. There is not a sense of returning favor to keep things balanced. 

God's grace has a profoundly different effect on our soul than favor we receive that generates a need to return favor, like gratitude. 

In this way, gratitude and thankfulness is not just different, but also distinctively different.

So, is it the right testimony of a Christian to say, "I have an attitude of gratitude"?

Worth pondering ..... 

"the right to life"

 Arguably the most contentious issue in American society for the past 50 years has been the rights of women (e.g. abortion0 vs the right to life (e.g., the unborn child). In fact, I suspect that passionate discussions by Evangelical Christians with the world around them have centered more on "right to life" than the Gospel itself. Just speculation from observation.

Yelling at the world about rights, especially to life and liberties, has increasingly been the reason we have the term "Christian conservative values." As a Christian this has increasingly disturbed me. "Why?" you might ask. "Doesn't the Bible teach life is sacred and freedom of religion?" 

I don't think so and here is why.

Let's go back and try to understand the key words in "right to life," such as rights and life.

First, let's examine "rights." Your "right" is granted to you by someone (something) or you just claim you have it. Our country was founded on the principle that those in the USA have "inalienable rights." What is meant by this is that our rights are not granted to us by a central government. There is an assumption that mankind has natural rights in this world granted by God. But is that what the Bible says?

There is no reference in Scripture to the rights Christians have in this world, In fact, The Kingdom of God in which Christians dwell in citizenship is not of this world. Christians are aliens and sojourners. Do aliens and sojourners have rights granted to them. Jesus says the world will reject you because of me. If we are rejected, why would we have rights? Jesus goes on to encourage Christians to not try to stand on the rights of this world. If you're asked to go one mile, go two. If you are asked for your tunic, give also your cloak. If someone hits you on one cheek, give them the other to smack. These are Christian values which give us a freedom not provided to us by "rights."

The founders wrote about an assumption they made - God gives humans certain rights in this world. I don't see where God said that.

Second, what is "life"? There are at least 3 forms of life expressed in the Bible. There is physical life of the body, there is the Spiritual life of God, and there is the human soul of the basis of the self. Death, the idea of the end of a life, is the Bible is from the Greek language idea of "being severed from something." So physical death is when the soul is severed from the body and spiritual death is when the soul is severed from God's spirit (the Holy Spirit).

From the Bible's perspective, physical death is normal and is not a crisis of "self." However, spiritual death is not God's idea of what's best for humans. In fact, spiritual death is tragic in God's eyes. I don't see where the soul can be severed from itself which may mean the soul does not die.

The soul before physical death lives with God through His Spirit or is in fact dead spiritually, although alive physically. When the soul is severed from the body, the person as the world knows them is no longer alive. However, the soul lives on either connected to God's spirit or not. 

Many of you may disagree or have never thought about a person's soul as being forever, but Christians call eternal life the life in which the soul is influenced by or in relationship with God's Spirit.  

In conclusion, "the right to life" for a Christian has nothing to do with the body or with this world. It is simply God's plan to have relationship with His chosen for ever and ever, whether still in the body or not. Paul makes this real clear many times.

This is the Good News of the Bible I ponder, This what should be shouted out to a dark and dying (spiritually) world .....  

 There are many reasons I have to be "pro-life". I think society functions better when each person is not in a position to have someone else sever their body from their soul. I happen to consider the unborn as a person. These are my views from civics (how a society governs itself), not from God.

There is no political agenda in this blog!
 

Your ID, please

 How often have you gone to an event, attraction, restaurant, or to purchase a product that you were asked for your ID. Certainly when you travel by air, your ID is mandatory. Much civil debate has occurred over the issue of voter ID. Your identification is a frequent and pervasive requirement to live a normal life. 

Then there is another way identity has been important. You've heard of people having an "identity crisis." You may have even had one yourself. In many ways identity is the beginning of mental health issues. You often hear about "identity politics" where race, sex, ethnicity, gender orientation, political affiliation, and other factors divide society into political tribes. In many ways identity keeps people in disunity.

Identify seems to matter a lot. Its referenced frequently and in a variety of contexts. Identity is a common, simple word. On the other hand, not a word that is well understood for all it's implications on us. The purpose of this blog is to try to shed light on its role in the human condition.

So, what do we know about identity?

In human psychology one's identity is the starting point for all thoughts, feelings, and choices. I'd say that's pretty important, wouldn't you?

You might say your identity is your psychological selfie. 

Your identity is your self concept. It drives self-esteem.

You make sense of yourself in many ways. Each has different effects on you and can change across time and situation. Your identity has key influence on how satisfied you are, how you are motivated, and your overall sense of being OK.

Let's examine some of what human psychology has found makes up your identity. 

You have a social identity, constructed by your family, your work place, where you live or where you are from. You have a personal identity. Some aspects of you come at birth, such as color of eyes, hair, and skin, personality (the tendencies you have to satisfy your needs), mental and physical abilities, physical attributes of size, and many more. Some aspects of you relate to what you do over your life. Mistakes can define you. Professional choices and achievements can define you and so forth. There is a particular movement to have purpose define you. Thirdly, you have a natural identity. You are a human being and not a plant or animal. Being only human brings a number of influences on how your mind works. Biases and flaws in reasoning come to each person when they identify with their human nature.

Because of how identity naturally works to influence the human mind, it's no wonder the forces of this world assault identity to deceive humans from what is true. Likewise, it's no wonder Saint Paul admonishes the Christian church to "be transformed by the renewing of the mind." It's no wonder that the main consequence of the redemptive work of the cross is a new creation (identity), an identity in Christ. 

A transformed believer with a renewed mind will naturally reason from an identity in Christ that brings a completely different influence on how to think, feel, and choose than the natural reasoning coming from a human identity. Paul calls this walking according to the Spirit rather than walking according to the flesh. "According to" means identifying with.

What does all this mean? Basically it means that an identity in Christ is a loving relationship where 

1. the influence of the Spirit satisfies us based on the provisions of the Kingdom willfully and graciously bestowed on us by Christ versus a satisfaction where the flesh requires us to successfully exchange what we do to gain what we need from the world  ,  

2. the influence of the Spirit motivates us to receive and reflect the light of Christ versus a motivation where the flesh requires us to pursue and produce goals that the world finds favorable,

and

3. the influence of the Spirit declares we are OK based on Christ's actions on our behalf versus an acceptance where the flesh demands us to conform to the demands of the world to be OK.

You should understand your identity, why the Prince of this World wants to contaminate it, and how the Gospel of Jesus Christ resolves all of the self concept distress we have by identifying in any way other than in Him.

A Bucket List to die for

 I have spent much of the day today with what feels like a "heavy heart." This is a phrase often used to refer to some burden that we are carrying around at the time. Often it is a sense of deep regret, disappointment, failure or many times a deep sense of grief. I found out this morning that a long time friend and former colleague has cancelled chemo for his pancreatic cancer and called in hospice. The end of this life is near. He's brave, he is a Christian and has handled this illness and its prognosis with great human courage. He doesn't seem depressed at all about imminent death.

So, why am I or should I be burdened in my soul for him and this situation? He and I both know that physical death is simply a step along the way of eternal life. To get a more proper perspective and not feel burdened by a heavy heart but lifted up by a rejoicing heart, I have pondered, how should I think about my friend and this time of passing?

One of the more endearing ways people view the passing of life is through the notion of "bucket list." This represents places or things someone aspires to as they age and find life closing in on them. Kind of a final wish list.

So, I let my mind turn to my friend. This time I pondered what would be a good bucket list if I were in hospice care. After all, this means there are only days left on this earth. This is about as final as things get. A perfect time for a bucket list.

By pondering what my bucket list might be, my soul was light, not burdened. I found that a "heavy heart" is not necessarily a heart that is under the weight of negative forces, but simply a heart that finds most of it's attention on one thing. In this case, my heart was fully attending to how my friend must be feeling and what words of encouragement could I give him.

My spiritual practice for the past 20 years has been to stop in the midst of what I am doing and ask, "God, what does this look like to you?" He never fails to provide a thought, an insight into truth that transforms my moment.

And He didn't fail me this time either. The thought He gave me was this, "at the top of any Kingdom dweller's bucket list is resurrection life." That's it. The most significant thing I want is RESURRECTION LIFE. Right when God gave me this word for my heart, I heard the words of a song which went something like this, "The great I AM makes all things new."

I now have words to share with my friend and a new number one item on my bucket list. My heart is still heavy, but not burdened. It's heavy because it's full of, actually obsessing over, trusting His promise.

"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 ....