Do you think you could walk into your church, get up on stage, and tell everyone about your brokenness? Is this acceptable in our churches? Outside of baptism and testimony times, do we allow ourselves to be this honest with one another? Have we made it taboo to admit our brokenness in the church? Have we become masters at image management in the church?
If I'm honest, I would have to say these are questions I don't really like the answer to. We have a church culture where we do tend to try to hide our brokenness. We think we have to look a certain way and, therefore, manage our image to look exactly that way. And, while some struggles may be okay to admit, there seems to be a line that we don't cross in what we share. To be honest, when I look at these answers, based on my own experience, it saddens me and worries me.
I think there is incredible power that comes when we're honest with one another about our brokenness. And the fact that we are broken is not unique to us - all of us are broken. The ways in which we are broken may be different from others, but the fact remains that we are all broken.
I, quite honestly, think that there is a danger that comes with our trying to look like we have it all together when we come to church. Our brokenness goes unmentioned and God is not allowed in to bring His healing, and in the end our brokenness may cause us a "spectacular" problem that we can't hide even though we would like to.
I wonder if sometimes our unwillingness to admit our brokenness makes our brokenness seem like a bigger deal than it actually is. If it wasn't such a taboo thing to admit, I think we would begin to realize that we're not alone in it and the power that Satan uses to defeat us with it would be broken.
The church should be a place that welcomes broken people with open arms. That allows people to be broken in their midst. And that points broken people to the truth and healing found only in Jesus Christ and our surrender to Him.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
trusting God with your greatest fears
In the last couple months I have been challenged with this question more than a few times:
It's something that has made me really think. First of all, about what my greatest fears on life are. And, then, about whether I would trust God even if they did happen. Those things in life that we tell people we could never survive having them happen to us - if that happened would I still trust God? Would I still go on with life?
A favorite speaker of mine that I was listening to earlier today said that "it's not enough to trust God that that which we fear the most will not happen." I think that is so often what we do. We take what we fear the most and we decide we'll trust God that it won't happen. And, then, if it does happen at some point, we decide that we can't trust God at all. When we live with this thinking, the enemy will constantly threaten us with exactly that fear. He will threaten us with it until we are completely incapacitated by it.
Rather than this, we need to choose to say: "even if _________ (insert one of the things you think you won't survive happening) happens, I will choose to trust God - to trust God that He knows what He's doing and that He will use it for good in the end." That's a radically different way to live than we normally do. And it's a choice we have to make.
When we make this choice we become dangerous to the enemy! He loses any power he had over us!
If the my greatest fear in life happened, would I still trust God?
It's something that has made me really think. First of all, about what my greatest fears on life are. And, then, about whether I would trust God even if they did happen. Those things in life that we tell people we could never survive having them happen to us - if that happened would I still trust God? Would I still go on with life?
A favorite speaker of mine that I was listening to earlier today said that "it's not enough to trust God that that which we fear the most will not happen." I think that is so often what we do. We take what we fear the most and we decide we'll trust God that it won't happen. And, then, if it does happen at some point, we decide that we can't trust God at all. When we live with this thinking, the enemy will constantly threaten us with exactly that fear. He will threaten us with it until we are completely incapacitated by it.
Rather than this, we need to choose to say: "even if _________ (insert one of the things you think you won't survive happening) happens, I will choose to trust God - to trust God that He knows what He's doing and that He will use it for good in the end." That's a radically different way to live than we normally do. And it's a choice we have to make.
When we make this choice we become dangerous to the enemy! He loses any power he had over us!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
legalism . . . or discipline?
Is there actually a difference between being legalistic and being disciplined? I've been thinking about this question for the last couple of days. It was spurred by reading 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 where Paul says:
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."
Paul was talking about making a choice to work for what happened in his life - in his journey with God. He didn't say that doing these things was the way to gain salvation, but he did emphasize the importance of being disciplined.
I think in our culture we often look for the easy way to get something. We don't want to work for it. And we quite easily transfer this same way of looking at things into the spiritual realm as well. In this passage, Paul reminds the Corinthian church of the results of their self-discipline, if they chose to go that route, rather than looking for the easy way to get through.
We do often look down on self-discipline - especially when it comes to the spiritual journey. But it's not necessarily a a bad thing. It can become a bad thing, but in and of itself it's not. Making, or setting aside, time in our days for Bible reading and prayer is a necessary thing and we shouldn't allow anything to get in the way of that. Just as we make time to grow our relationships with our friends, we must do the same in our relationship with God.
I have so often heard people say that they don't schedule things like Bible-reading and prayer because they think that's being legalistic. They say they do those things as they feel led - which is all well and good. But, I have to wonder, knowing my own tendencies, how often that means they actually do those things? I don't think it's the actual making time in our schedules that makes it legalistic. I think it becomes legalistic when we start to look at some one's prayer and Bible-reading times as the means of salvation, rather than a means to grow relationship.
It is incredibly important that we have the self-discipline to train myself to run the race of life as followers of Christ well. This means making time in our schedules to grow our relationship with Christ, so that we can follow in His footsteps as I run.
Having said all this, I would say that, in answer to my opening question, yes, there is a difference between being legalistic and being disciplined. I think the main difference comes because legalism starts to see the things we do as a means of being saved; whereas, discipline means that we are making the necessary time to grow our relationship with our Savior.
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."
Paul was talking about making a choice to work for what happened in his life - in his journey with God. He didn't say that doing these things was the way to gain salvation, but he did emphasize the importance of being disciplined.
I think in our culture we often look for the easy way to get something. We don't want to work for it. And we quite easily transfer this same way of looking at things into the spiritual realm as well. In this passage, Paul reminds the Corinthian church of the results of their self-discipline, if they chose to go that route, rather than looking for the easy way to get through.
We do often look down on self-discipline - especially when it comes to the spiritual journey. But it's not necessarily a a bad thing. It can become a bad thing, but in and of itself it's not. Making, or setting aside, time in our days for Bible reading and prayer is a necessary thing and we shouldn't allow anything to get in the way of that. Just as we make time to grow our relationships with our friends, we must do the same in our relationship with God.
I have so often heard people say that they don't schedule things like Bible-reading and prayer because they think that's being legalistic. They say they do those things as they feel led - which is all well and good. But, I have to wonder, knowing my own tendencies, how often that means they actually do those things? I don't think it's the actual making time in our schedules that makes it legalistic. I think it becomes legalistic when we start to look at some one's prayer and Bible-reading times as the means of salvation, rather than a means to grow relationship.
It is incredibly important that we have the self-discipline to train myself to run the race of life as followers of Christ well. This means making time in our schedules to grow our relationship with Christ, so that we can follow in His footsteps as I run.
Having said all this, I would say that, in answer to my opening question, yes, there is a difference between being legalistic and being disciplined. I think the main difference comes because legalism starts to see the things we do as a means of being saved; whereas, discipline means that we are making the necessary time to grow our relationship with our Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)