Nine Common Cognitive Disorders, and Taking Thoughts Captive

 

                                                                     (Our back yard)

I am interested in connections between Pauline thinking and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The apostle Paul writes:

"Finally, brothers and sisters,

whatever is true,

whatever is noble,

whatever is right,

whatever is pure,

whatever is lovely,

whatever is admirable

-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy

-- think about such things

and the God of peace will be with you."

Philippians 4:8

Examples of Pauline thinking include the "declarations" given by Steve Backlund of Bethel Redding Church, and the identity statements of Neil Anderson. Both are about thinking on identity truths, using verbal repetition.

For example, I am God's child and deeply loved by him. As followers of Jesus, that's true, right? So, why not meditate on that truth so that, as Henri Nouwen says, it might descend from your mind into your heart.

In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt advocate Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as a cure for maladies such as anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, anger, marital conflict, and stress-related disorders. CBT is uncannily similar to Paul's instructions in Philippians 4:8.

CBT treats cognitive distortions, such as "I'm no good," "My world is bleak," and "My future is hopeless." (Lukianoff and Haidt, 36) CBT breaks disempowering feedback cycles between negative beliefs and negative emotions.

They write:

"With repetition, over a period of weeks or months, people can change their schemas and create different, more helpful habitual beliefs (such as "I can handle most challenges" or "I have friends I can trust.")" (Ib., 37) This is remarkably like Backlund's identity declarations. (See also James K. A. Smith's excellent You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit.)

Cognitive distortions empower negative emotions. Put in a Pauline way, repetitive thinking on "whatever is false" distorts our emotions. Lukionoff and Haidt are concerned over our universities and the cognitive distortions they produce in our students. While to my knowledge neither Lukionoff nor Haidt are Christians, they refer to CBT as the "thinking cure." I see the Pauline "thinking cure" of Philippians 4:8 as combating these distortions in ways that are similar to CBT.

They list nine such distortions. Here they are, direct from the book, with my comments on logical fallacies added. (38).

NINE COMMON COGNITIVE DISORDERS PEOPLE LEARN TO RECOGNIZE IN CBT

EMOTIONAL REASONING

Letting your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.

"I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out."

(In logic this is an example of the fallacy of false cause.)

CATASTROPHIZING

Focusing on the worst possible outcome

and seeing it as most likely.

"It would be terrible if I failed."

(This is similar to the slippery slope fallacy in logic.)

OVERGENERALIZING

Perceiving a global pattern of negatives

on the basis of a single incident.

"This generally happens to me.

I seem to fail at a lot of things."

(In logic this is called the fallacy of hasty generalization.)

DICHOTOMOUS THINKING

Also known as "black and white thinking,"

"all or nothing thinking," and "binary thinking."

Viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms.

"I get rejected by everyone," or

"It was a complete waste of time."

(In logic this is called the fallacy of false dichotomy. But note: logic is the reaqlm of binary thinking. Which is good, and true, even beautiful as related to simplicity.)

MIND READING

Assuming that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts.

"He thinks I'm a loser."

LABELING

Assigning global negative traits to yourself or others (often in the service of dichotomous thinking).

"I'm undesirable."

"he's a rotten person."

NEGATIVE FILTERING

You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives.

"Look at all of the people who don't like me."

DISCOUNTING POSITIVES

Claiming that the positive things you or others do are trivial, so that you can maintain a negative judgment.

"That's what wives are supposed to do - so it doesn't count when she's nice to me."

"Those successes were easy, so they don't matter."

BLAMING

Focusing on the other person as the source

of your negative feelings;

you refuse to take responsibility

for changing yourself.

"She's to blame for the way I feel now."

"My parents caused all my problems."

Lukionoff and Haidt claim that universities encourage students to use the distortions listed above. (40)

GOD’S COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY

Meditation on truth transforms the human heart. It breaks lies, and heals.

I have discovered that, when I carry my 3X5 cards with me, on which I have written what God thinks of me, the truths of God slowly descend from my mind into my heart. They become my heart.

This is a Henri Nouwen idea, a James K. A. Smith idea, a Dallas Willard idea, and a Pauline idea. Philippians 4:8-9 reads: 

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

I view this as a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, supernaturally empowered by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, mind-of-Christ Behavioral Therapy.

"Cognitive" - how we think; what we set our mind on. 

"Behavioral" - what we do; how we live and experience life. 

"Therapy" - from the Greek word therapeuo, which means "to heal."

What is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?

"Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a common type of talk therapy (psychotherapy). You work with a mental health counselor (psychotherapist or therapist) in a structured way, attending a limited number of sessions. CBT helps you become aware of inaccurate or negative thinking so you can view challenging situations more clearly and respond to them in a more effective way.

CBT can be a helpful tool in treating mental health disorders, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or an eating disorder. But not everyone who benefits from CBT has a mental health condition. It can be an effective tool to help anyone learn how to better manage stressful life situations." (From the Mayo Clinic.)

When we add the Holy Spirit to this, we have an effective therapy that transforms and heals. I'm calling this God's Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This involves two biblical concepts: 

1) Intentionally think on (meditate on) whatever is true, right, noble, lovely, and admirable. 

2) Take captive whatever is false, wrong, ignoble, unlovely, and unworthy of praise. 

Paul writes: 

We do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 

Defeat falsehoods by intentionally meditating on God's truths. The Holy Spirit champions and empowers this. We are promised that "the God of peace" will be with us. This means an invasion of peace into our hearts. God's truths, which you mentally acknowledge, become your heart, your way of being, your way of seeing things, and even seeing yourself. Our thoughts become "obedient to Christ." All this is healing, transforming, and liberating.

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity: The Myth and Ideology of "Progress"

 

 

(I'm re-posting this for a friend. For a more complete presentation, see my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity.

For the meaning of 'deconstruction' (because it is NOT what you think it is), see HERE.

You can throw some 'ex-vangelicalism' into this mix too.

And, sprinkle some liberalism over the entire thing.

Garnish with postmodernism.)

ABOUT ME

I am a husband (to Linda, since 1973). A father. A father-in-law. A grandfather! A pastor (since 1970). A professor (taught at several seminaries around the world). A philosopher, and a theologian. (PhD, Northwestern University, in Philosophical Theology, 1986).

I have studied people, and biblical and theological issues, and culture, for over fifty years. I am a constant reader and observer. 

A final note before I begin this first post. I have read, as a theologian myself, several of the theologians who are usually associated with progressive Christianity. (Postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, linguistic semantics and philosophy of language [my dissertation was in this area], and, yes, political progressivism.) Some of them have written books and articles that I have benefitted from. But then, along the way, some of them turned away from some core beliefs that I see as important to our faith. Some of them were "deconverted" from evangelical Christianity. That has saddened me. 

There are many theologians and biblical scholars, such as myself, who have not departed from what we see as essential. We could never be "exvangelicals." This is not out of ignorance. We are familiar with, and have wrestled with, all the questions progressivists raise. And wow! We see things differently. Which means: we disagree with each other. Which means: we think each other is wrong about some things. (For example, see Brian McLaren's vicious disagreement with The Nashville Statement, where he even brings in the KKK, implicating the 24,000+ theologians and biblical scholars, and even Francis Chan, J. I. Packer, and people like me, who agree with the Statement.)

For a more complete repudiation of progressive Christianity see my recent book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity. 

Blessings!

John Piippo

Redeemer Fellowship Church, Monroe, MI

johnpiippo@msn.com

***

The term 'progressive,' as a modifier linked with 'Christianity', is misleading, even false.

“Progressive” is not a word that fits into a Christian eschatological worldview.

Humanity, throughout history, has not morally and spiritually progressed.

The term "progressive" implies some kind of advancing, a moving forward towards some goal. My understanding of Christianity is that, while individuals and even communities can improve morally and spiritually (= Christ's character being formed in them), there will be nothing morally new under the sun until Christ returns.

This is because of the human sin problem. Every new generation has to deal with this. The next generation, and the generations beyond that, will not have progressed beyond this. (Note: I read one self-identifying progressive who thought humanity has progressed and will further advance so much that we can question whether or not we even need a Savior.)

Let's look more closely at the idea of "progress." Progress only makes sense in relation to a "goal." Such as: "I have made progress in my weight loss strategy. I am closer to my goal weight of 180 pounds." 

There are countless examples of this kind of progress. Someone’s goal is to play guitar like Eddie Van Halen. They take lessons. They practice. They are improving. They are making progress towards this goal.

“Progressive” implies “advancement”; “moving forward.” Towards some goal.

Someone else is constructing a house. Today they began digging the foundation. Next week they pour the cement. They are making progress toward the goal of building a house. That can be good. (It depends on what the house is used for.)

But "progress," in itself, is not always good. For example, I am overweight. My doctor has advised me to lose twenty pounds. But instead, my goal is to gain even more weight. This morning I step on the scale, and see I gained ten pounds over the holidays. Progress! Let us all cheer, and celebrate and affirm John's story! But, arguably, that’s not a progressive story to be celebrated. (FYI – I did not gain ten pounds over the holidays!)

Someone else researches the internet. Their goal is to build a bomb that will destroy buildings in downtown Nashville. Today they began constructing the bomb. They are making progress. They are moving forward. They are advancing toward their goal. Remember that 'forward' and 'backward' only make sense in relation to a goal.

What is the goal of progressive Christianity? And who sets this goal? In reading the literature of those who self-identify as progressive Christians, it’s not always clear to me that it is Christ. Perhaps, the goal for humanity is Love? For a Jesus-follower, it’s true that love is great, and greater than faith and hope. But I see the goal of history as Christ, not Love. Love is not greater than Christ. (See here.) 

My understanding of Christianity is that, in the lifetime of every person, the goal is the formation of the character of Christ in us, individually and collectively. As I read and talk with some who refer to themselves as progressive Christians, I hear them elevating Love and Desire-fulfillment to heights that should be reserved only for Christ. (For Desire-fulfillment as a "progressive" idea, and how this has come about historically, see especially Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.)

I see every generation of humanity as having a sin problem, which can only be addressed by the cross of Christ. My studies and observations indicate that humanity has not progressed, and will not progress, beyond that. And, my sense is that some progressive Christians are not thrilled about talking of sin. Affirmation? Yes! Desire-fulfillment? Yes! Sin? Meh...

I do not see the word 'progressive' as being part of what N.T. Wright describes as the "five act play" that is the Bible. Yes, in eternity we shall be like Jesus. But, in this present age, we are not progressing morally and spiritually. I view it as phenomenally difficult to demonstrate moral progress, over the years. Have we gotten better? Are we getting better?  The term “progressive” implies that we are. 

Yes, I know that Steven Pinker thinks that humanity, over time, has gotten kinder and gentler. I, and many others who have reacted to Pinker, do not. (See here.) Violence has declined, says Pinker, because humanity is getting less and less violent. 

This reminds me of what was perhaps the height of progressive optimism, in the early twentieth century. The Enlightenment belief was that human reason was now progressing to make a better world. And then came World War 1. And theologian Karl Barth was moved to write his commentary on Romans, with its teaching that all humanity sins and falls short of the glory of God. And then, Germany changed (progressed?) from a democratic republic in 1932 to a racist tyranny in 1934. And then, according atheist and scholar David Berlinski, the 20^th century progressed into being the most murderous, violent in human history. (See Berlinski, The Devil’s Disciple: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. See also footnote [1] below.)

But… we have massively progressed technologically, right? Correct. But it is still humans who use and wield technological artifacts. A hammer is a piece of technology. Its appearance advanced us, assisting in doing things like building furniture and ships and homes and you name it. But the human being holding the hammer could also use it to hurt and destroy. I see morally unadvanced, non-progressed humanity as still doing that, only with greatly advanced artifacts with massive destructive capabilities.

I don’t think progress is necessarily good, in itself. When you hear the word "progressive" you should not automatically think "positive." Yes, we seem programmed to think that way. But truthfully, it all depends on the goal. And here is where the word “progressive” is of no help to me, because it functions as a euphemism that should not be attached as a modifier to the term 'Christianity'.  

I know the word "progressive" is politically popular. But I don't like it, because I see it as mythical at best. Jeffrey Burton Russell, in Exposing Myths About Christianity, writes:

“The predominant superstition of our times is Progress. Belief in lower-case ‘progress’ is reasonable, for progress can be made toward definable goals in specific fields, such as electrical engineering, plumbing or surgery. But people often believe in upper-case Progress, as in “The Progress of Humanity.” This is a superstition. Upper-case Progress implies moving toward an undefined capital-G Goal.”

One of the myths about Christianity that Russell exposes is that progress was something Jesus was trying to bring about. Scholar Terry Eagelton calls this the “ideology of Progress.” Russell writes that “the natural goodness of humanity is an illusion based neither in history nor biology, and the empty center of most Progressivism is the delusion that radical evil does not exist. Progressivism can become utopianism, which always sacrifices liberty for its ends, as Stalin did. Those who deny evil will be overtaken by it.”

Ahhh... the natural goodness of humanity. What an anti-Hobbes idea! What an anti-Freud idea! And, what an anti-Christ belief. From such a belief comes the ideology of affirmation. But, I ask, who in their right Christological mind could believe that Christ came, not to rescue us out of bondage to sin, but to affirm us?

Progressive Christianity is too utopian for me. Many, including me, believe that we are “regressing” in our humanity. To call progressive Christianity too utopian is to locate its roots in Hegel and Marx, who both thought humanity was inexorably progressing, but who disagreed on the engine driving the progression, as well as the goal or outcome.  Anyone want to join me in a "Regressive Christianity" movement?

Again, if the goal of life is to embrace the Lordship of Christ and have his character formed in us, I think one can view our time as one of regression, division, and polarization. In fact, I, and many others, see progressive Christianity as divisive (e.g., I am aware of some young people who identify as progressive Christians and tie this in with their newfound belief that the Old Testament is just a bunch of made-up stories. I'll say more about this in my third post.) 

Is humanity progressing? Or regressing? Or decadent and stagnant? (See New York Times writer Ross Douthat's recent The Decadent Society.) You need to know this has always been a topic of discussion among scholars. The answers are not obvious. If we are talking about moral and spiritual development or regression, it is far from obvious that some kind of progressive movement is actually happening. I submit to you that it is not. And I can see, without much effort, that progressive Christianity is aiding the regression. (See footnote [2] below.)

In all this I am saying that I could never refer to myself as a progressive Christian because it commits a mistake… a category mistake… when the two words are placed next to each other. This is not a matter of mere semantics. The kingdom of God, said Jesus, was "not of this world." Therefore, the kingdom of God was not the end-result of an ever-progressive earthly kingdom.

I have a suggestion. I began following Jim Wallis in the early 1970s, when he began publishing what was to become the magazine Sojourners. Wallis is one who is often cited as a "progressive" Christian. But in the Times interview, Wallace says he would rather be called a "follower of Jesus."

Me too.

It's time to get rid of the term "progressive Christianity." And self-refer as "follower of Jesus." This would lead to interesting discussions, to include the morality of Jesus (see here, e.g.) and the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament. Some progressive Christians, many of them unthinkingly, are on the "dismiss the Old Testament" bandwagon. Let's just focus on Jesus." The problem is, when you focus on Jesus, you see Jesus as not dismissing an authoritative Old Testament.  

Finally, in the term “progressive Christianity,” the word ‘progressive’ is a modifier. It modifies the word ‘Christianity.’ ‘Progressive’ is a euphemism. It puts a happy spin on Christianity. It also feels like a judgment on those who are not “progressive.” which provides another reason as to why I could never call myself a progressive Christian.

[1] On atheism (esp. atheistic existentialism) there is no goal in life. Thus, humanity is not progressing towards anything, nor is it regressing away from anything. Nor is it decadent. This leads to things like Theatre of the Absurd, and Camus’s Sysiphus, and Becket’s Waiting for Godot.

[2] For an interesting, illuminating article on whether or not humanity is "progressing," see atheist John Gray's excellent review of The Evolution of Moral Progress: A Biocultural Theory, by Alan Buchanon and Russell Powell. 

An Argument for the Existence of the Soul

  

                                                                                      (NYC)

One of my Cru campus ministry leaders, when I was an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University, was Stewart Goetz (along with William Lane Craig). I am so thankful God placed me in such a high-powered intellectual environment. (Add John Peterson to this environment, too.) 

Stu is a brilliant theistic philosopher, the author of many publications, to include his commentary and critique on metaphysical physicalism in Naturalism. 

J. P. Moreland cites Stu's argument for the existence of the soul. Here it is.

"Stewart Goetz has advanced the following type of argument for the nonphysical nature of the self, which I have modified:

(1) I am essentially an indivisible, simple spiritual substance. 

(2) Any physical body is essentially a divisible or complex entity (any physical body has spatial extension or separable parts). 

(3) The law of identity pertains (if x is identical to y, then whatever is true of x is true of y, and vice versa). 

(4) Therefore, I am not identical with my (or any) physical body. 

(5) If I am not identical with a physical body, then I am a soul. 

(6) Therefore, I am a soul."

From Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters (pp. 118-119). 

I'll be presenting this argument in my Faith Bible Seminary class in October.

Living for a Fullness That Is Beyond Ourselves

Bangkok

Miroslav Volf's A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good is a beautiful read! Chapter 1 is worth the price of the entire book - on the nature of "prophetic religion," with the double-movement of "ascent" and "descent," both of which are needed, and needed in a certain way. 

In Ch. 2 Volf writes of the meaning of labor, of work. Volf ties work in with the existential matters of life's meaning and purpose. 

"There are many possible ways of construing the meaning of work. One purpose that immediately comes to mind is to put bread on the table—and a car into the garage or an art object into the living room, some may add. 

Put more abstractly, the purpose of work is to take care of the needs of the person who does it... But when we consider taking care of ourselves as the main purpose of work, we unwittingly get stuck on the spinning wheel of dissatisfaction. 

What we possess always lags behind what we desire, and so we become victims of Lewis Carroll’s curse, “Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.” 

In our quiet moments, we know that we want our lives to have weight and substance and to grow toward some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves. Our own selves, and especially the pleasures of our own selves, are insufficient to give meaning to our lives. When the meaning of work is reduced to the well-being of the working self, the result is a feeling of melancholy and unfulfillment, even in the midst of apparent success." (Kindle Location 639)

The antidote to the "rat race" and boredom of work is to live for "some kind of fullness that lies beyond ourselves."

For example, live for this cause.

Top Ten Books (My List)

Special Mention

• Almost any book by Dallas Willard.
• Almost any book by Flannery O'Connor.

The Historically Christian View of Marriage: Part 1 (Preston Sprinkle)

Part 2 is HERE. ("Arguments Against the Historic Christian View")

To Abide in Christ Is to Trust Him

(Store in Soho, NYC)

This quote is from my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

***

Abiding is a type of trusting. 

I bought a new chair for my home office. I had the previous chair for twenty years. I trusted it. I knew it would hold me. Therefore, I had no anxiety about it. It would be contradictory to say, “I trust the chair I’m sitting in, but am afraid it won’t hold me.” 

To abide in Christ is to trust him. I “put my trust in the Lord.” Which means, 

• If God was a chef, I would eat his cooking. 
• If God was a shepherd, I would listen for his voice and follow. 
• If God was a rock, I would stand on him. 
• If God was a fortress, I would make my home in him. 
• If God was a river, and I a tree, I would send my roots to him. 
• If God was a vine, and I a branch, I would attach myself to him. 
• If God was a fire, I would be consumed by him. 
• If God was water, I would drink of him.
• If I was a cup, I would be filled to overflowing by him. 
• If God was a hidden treasure, I would seek him. 
• If God was a word, I would read him. 
• If God was my Lord, I would obey him. 
• If God was a chair, I would sit on him. 

I would do these things every day… after day… after day. 

There is a cumulative effect that results from a lifetime of trusting in God. A psychological confidence, a certitude, emerges. It is like the confidence I had because of sitting in the same chair for twenty years, and finding that, through it all, it still holds.

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

 

Self-Contradictory Statements (e.g., subjective relativism)

                                                              (Downtown Monroe)

In my Logic classes at MCCC one of the teachings was on the irrationality of subjective relativism and cultural relativism. This is a handout I gave students, to illustrate. 

LOGIC: SELF-CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

My brother is an only child.

John is a bachelor and his wife’s name is Linda.

There is no such thing as truth.

             1. There is no such thing as truth.

             2. Therefore, premise 1 is not true.

 All the statements I make are false.

             1. All S are F.

             2. Premise 1 is S.

             3. Therefore, Premise 1 is F.

1. We cannot know truth.

2. Statement 1 is true.

All human behavior is determined.

            1. All human behavior is determined.

             2. Making statements is an example of human behavior.

             3. Premise 1 is a statement.

                  4. Premise 1 is determined.

                  5. Therefore whoever believes Premise 1 is determined to believe Premise 1.

I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

1.    I only believe things that you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

2.    I believe statement 1.

3.    Therefore, I believe something that cannot be

 seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled.

There is no such thing as free will.

             1. There is no such thing as free will.

          2. Statement 1 was not freely chosen. 

           3. Any person who believes Statement 1 does not freely believe Statement 1, but was causally determined to believe Statement 1.

           4. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that Statement 1 is true.

*****

PERHAPS THE MOST FAMOUS 20TH-CENTURY 

PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMPLE OF SELF-CONTRADICTION

IS "THE VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE."

The "verification principle." (VP)

             1. A statement is true IFF (if and only if) it : a) can be empirically verified; 

             or b) is mathematical (tautological). (This is called the VP.) 

            2. The VP is a statement. 

             3. The VP itself can be neither a) empirically verified; 

              nor is it b) mathematical (tautological; redundant; definitional ).

            4. There the VP is false (by its own criteria).

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "Most propositions and

questions which have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but

senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only

state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers

result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language."

All truth is relative.

                1. All truth is relative to individual knowing subjects.

            2. Statement 1 is true.

            3. Statement 1 is relative (and thus, by definition, is not 

            universally applicable).

            4.  Therefore Statement 1 is false.

Which is absurd.

Heaven, the Soul, and the Afterlife (Chinese)

 I'll teach this four-session intensive course in October, for Faith Bible Seminary.

Be Quick to Listen, Be Slow to Text

 

                                                                    (Lake Michigan)

I don't use social media or texting to share negative things, or work out interpersonal conflict. For such things Face-to-Face is best.

When face-to-face, first listen. Understand before opening your mouth. Be a slow cooker, not a microwave.

Henri Nouwen writes:

"When you write a very angry letter to a friend who has hurt you deeply, don't send it! Let the letter sit on your table for a few days and read it over a number of times. Then ask yourself: "Will this letter bring life to me and my friend? Will it bring healing, will it bring a blessing?" You don't have to ignore the fact that you are deeply hurt. You don't have to hide from your friend that you feel offended. But you can respond in a way that makes healing and forgiveness possible and opens the door for new life. Rewrite the letter if you think it does not bring life, and send it with a prayer for your friend." (Bread for the Journey)

Be quick to listen, slow to text. 

***

MY BOOKS ARE...

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

Encounters with the Holy Spirit

31 Letters to the Church on Praying 

The Great Invasion: Thirty-one Days of Christmas

The Real Strength of a Church

 

(Pear tree, in my neighbor's back yard.)

Americans measure success metrically. Churches that have conformed to American culture do the same. The American success questions are:

How big is your building?

How many attend on Sunday mornings?

How large is your budget?

Many pastors evaluate their ministry metrically. At times, I've succumbed to that too.

The problem with this is: metrics do not indicate the real strength of a church. Remember the early church. No buildings. Small group meetings in homes. Virtually no budget. Little infrastructure to maintain. Non-programmatic. Costs no money to be a disciple. A band of praying people who have learned to abide in Christ. Think of the church, today, in China.

In John 14-16 Jesus tells his disciples that the key to his ministry is that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him. He instructs them to live in him. To abide, to dwell, to "remain" (Greek meno) in him. To be like a branch that is constantly attached to Jesus, the Vine. Then, and only then, will they "bear much fruit."

The indicator of church strength is its fruit-bearing capacity.

Disconnected branches bear no fruit. (Jesus says this.)

The real strength of a church is its connected branches. 

My task, as a pastor, is to equip God's people for the works of ministry. The beginning of this is helping people get connected. Without that, bad things happen (no real fruit). Jesus says, "Toss those branches into the bonfire."

Pastors - would you rather have a small group of connected branches, or a pile of disconnected people? Maybe just twelve? Twelve connected branches could change the world, right? They could change your community.

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #5: Fear Speaking Badly of Others Made in God's Image

 

(Frost on my car window)

Have you ever met a Christian who never spoke badly of another person? I have met a few.

Apparently, Bill Johnson is one of those. Thank you, C.H., for posting this.

"In a recent meeting, someone said to Bill Johnson, "I notice that you never talk about people. You never talk badly about people. And I'm just wondering what's going on in your heart? How did you discipline yourself to NEVER speak negatively of other people, even people who are sometimes a pain?"
Bill, with tears running down his cheeks, said, "I fear Jesus in them. That I would speak badly about someone made in the image of God, that is so valued by God that Jesus died for them. And that I would portray them as something less valuable than that. I fear how God would deal with a person who would betray the people made in his image."

***
See...

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #1 - Love Others

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #2 - Never Mock People

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #3: The Other Is Not Your Enemy

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #4: Never Insult a Brother or Sister

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #4: Never Insult a Brother or Sister

                                                                       (New York City)

When Linda and I were campus pastors at Michigan State University, we were teaching Matthew 5:21-24 to our students. In the midst of the discussion, one of our students, Naomi, who was from Malawi, said: "If we followed the words of Jesus here very few of us would be worshiping today. We would all get up and leave, go to the brothers and sisters we were demeaning, and ask for forgiveness."

²¹ “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, 

and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 

²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry 

with a brother or sister 

will be subject to judgment. 

Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 

‘Raca,’ 

is answerable to the court. 

And anyone who says, ‘

You fool!’ 

will be in danger of the fire of hell.

²³ “Therefore, 

if you are offering your gift at the altar 

and there remember 

that your brother or sister 

has something against you,

²⁴ leave your gift there in front of the altar. 

First go 

and be reconciled to them; 

then come and offer your gift.

"Raca" is an Aramaic term of abuse. It means "idiot." (See R.T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 120)

Anyone who calls a brother or sister in Christ an idiot is answerable to the Sanhedrin. (Greek synedrion.) France writes: "Jesus here threatens ultimate divine judgment on anger, even as expressed in everyday insults." (Ib.) 

If I call someone an idiot am I really relegated to the garbage heap where Israel's rubbish was burned? No. Jesus is using exaggeration, as he often does, to make a point. (This is called Semitic hyperbole.) But the point is important. This is "an injunction to submit our thoughts about other people, as well as the words they give rise to, to God's penetrating scrutiny... We cannot worship God with grudges unsettled."

Anger is no excuse for insulting people. It is non-redemptive and alienating.

If you are a Jesus-follower, and you ridicule a brother or sister, your worship is inauthentic, and unacceptable to God.

***
See...

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #1 - Love Others

Guidelines for Civil Discourse: #2 - Never Mock People

Guidelines for Civil Discourse - #3: The Other Is Not Your Enemy