I tried to find the reference to this passage this morning so I could attribute it to the Saint who said it, and I couldn’t locate the exact phrase, so I hope you will forgive me for paraphrasing it. He said that God has ordained that everything which is truly needful and necessary for spiritual growth, and progressing in our prayer, and knowing God, everything which we need to move from sinner to saint is God has given to us freely and in abundance; poverty, solitude, hard work, tears, prayer, Grace, and more. But he also said those things which hinder our spiritual growth and obstruct our prayer, and can throw us off and lead us away from him, these things God has made very difficult to obtain; money, comfort, ease, security, and so on. He said you actually have to work very hard to obtain the things which will poison your relationship with God, while you practically have to do nothing at all to receive the things which can strengthen it. I don’t remember which Saint said it, but I wish I did, because it was one passage that keeps coming back to me.
“But God wants me to be rich!” This seems to be the battle cry, and the main message, of a great many preachers and pastors today. Their “churches” look much more like concert halls, and their congregations number in the tens of thousands. Their sermons often sound more like financial seminars aimed at helping people achieve financial security, personal wealth, and independence. They write book after book teaching people how to feel better about themselves, how to acquire more possessions, and how to satisfy themselves and they do so all because “God wants me to be happy.”
God loves us dearly. There is no question about that. But like a good parent, He wants what is best for His children. He wants them to be healthy, mature properly, have a good education, and enjoy the best He has to give. He also wants to keep them away from anything which can harm them, these include anything which can become addictions, poisons, or those things which can ruin their relationship with Him. In short, like any good parent, He doesn’t want us to do anything which could harm us.
And like most children, we have no real idea what is actually best for us. We want what feels good to us. We want the candy. We want the toys and more of them. We want to be first in everything. If we get a cut we want Him to put a band-aid on it and make it better even if we got it doing what He told us not to do. And we throw temper tantrums when we ask Him, and He says “no.”
Jesus didn’t go around teaching people how to play the stock market, or how to be financially successful. When someone asked to follow Him, He told him to sell everything he had, give the money to the homeless, and then come and follow Him. The New Testament is very clear about Jesus’ own financial state. He was homeless, and He and His disciples were provided for by the financial means of a few women. After Pentecost, it was a regular practice of the Church for its members to sell any property they had and give the proceeds to the Apostles who then distributed the money to anyone who needed it. In the writings of the Fathers, voluntary poverty is always encouraged for Christians to follow as the preferred financial state.
One of these Fathers, Evagrios the Solitary (4th century), wrote passionately about this. He said that the “demon” of avarice is particularly deceitful because it will come in pretending to be concerned about the poor, and then suggest to you that you need to somehow acquire more money and more income so that you can help the poor. But then once you start focusing on that, then it turns your mind away from Christ and on to the matters of acquiring more and more money, and thus the downward spiral continues until you are Christian in name only, and eventually, even this is lost. These Fathers taught to give until you had nothing left, and were poor yourself.
This “prosperity gospel” teaching is nothing short of a demonic heresy designed to pull people away from Jesus Christ, not bring them towards Him. It profoundly contradicts both the teaching and example of our Lord, and perversely does it in His name. It throws the gates of avarice, gluttony, and self-esteem wide open for all the demonic passions to run through and paints a smiley face with a cross on them. It is a trap which leads not to Eternal Life, but a curt “I’m sorry, who are you?” from our Lord.
God gives His good gifts freely. But like the child looking at the plate of broccoli, we don’t always see it that way. We want the bag of candy, and damn the stomach ache and vomiting to follow!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Another Ramble About Demons
If someone insulted you, threatened you, hit you, and tried to hurt you more; would you be angry with them and hold it against them? What if someone was egging them on? What if they were being provoked by someone else, quietly, to do something they might like to do but otherwise restrain themselves from doing it? What if they were mentally imbalanced, and you had a decent relationship with them on their good days? Would you still hold it against them?
I can’t say I don’t believe in demons, both from a doctrinal perspective and from an experiential one. In theology, we talk about fallen spiritual beings who are themselves, for all intents and purposes, psychotic and otherwise insane by definition. They continue to make harmful choices for themselves, and pursue harmful courses of action towards others even after experiencing that such choices will only result in more harm which continues their downward spiral.
In my experiences, I see the fruit of the activity of demons all the time, and experience their attacks on my own heart and mind. I watch, feeling powerless whether I am or not, as people I care about relive past trauma, have their worst fears pounded through their minds, are physically assaulted, and more. I have, more often than I want to, seen this activity in the eyes of certain individuals. It is something about the way the eyes look.
One of the more revealing aspects of the writings of the Philokalia is that the authors constantly refer to these same demons. They make no pretenses as to what they believe to be the sources of the quietly provoking thoughts, images, and fantasies which run through their minds. Such provocations often begin with something relatively benign. A thought, a desire for something simple or even a desire to do something good, but then it turns very quickly into a downward spiral that one must fight to get out of.
There are also figurative demons. These are not literal fallen spirits, but often the effect is no different. These are past traumas, past memories, past beliefs, past hopes, and past fears. These are a product of the person’s own mind and they can do almost as much damage as the psychotic spirit. All too often, they probably work in conjunction, making the spirit’s machinations that much easier.
The person isn’t possessed, but they do assent to the behavior suggested to them quietly, believing that it is something they really want to do. This is heartbreaking to see when it happens. The person doesn’t even realize what’s going on. They are oblivious to it, and if you should address the evil behind it, they will believe you are attacking them and not trying to help them. This is all a part of the twisted game. Demons don’t have to take full possession of a person to bend them to do what they want, they can do it more easily by suggestion, and playing on their fears, their aspirations, and their appetites. The fathers of the Philokalia continuously address three “passions” to constantly guard against: the desire for sensual pleasure, the desire to possess things, and the desire for self-esteem. These three things are referred to as the three main gates which demons use to bend us to do what they want, and the fathers wrote extensively about guarding against them through poverty, humility, and self-control.
It is popular in charismatic and evangelical movements to “cast out demons”. I can’t really comment on the effectiveness of their techniques or tactics. Exorcism is a well established rite within the Church and every division of it, but it generally only focuses on full blown possession, and that state seems to be the only one which traditional exorcism is equipped to deal with. How do you exorcise a person who is not possessed, but who assents to demonic suggestion? What do you do when they still have full control over their free will and choices, and they choose the demonic action unknowing from where the suggestion came?
Can you really be angry with the person who is a victim of both their own choices as well as something else egging them on? What if it was you? As much as I might try to guard myself from such suggestions, I know for a fact that I get little whispers all the time. They play on my fears, they more often play on my ego introducing little fantasies about how great I am or how great I could be. One of the more effective inroads with me is through personal comforts, and wanting to watch certain programs, or read certain books that are benign enough in and of themselves, but distract me long enough for them to take it further. I get angry with myself for my own weakness, but it doesn’t generally change the fact that I’m weak.
Can you really be angry with the person who is weak, seeing that you share the same weakness which gets used against you? Can you be angry with the person who hits you when it could have just as well been you hitting someone else on a different day? Can you really pass judgment on someone who acts on their fears, when you do it just as well?
I see the activity of demons all the time. I see it in people’s eyes, in their actions, and in what they say. I also see these same people going about completely oblivious to that activity in their own lives, ignorant, and, even though complicit, nearly innocent. Can I really be angry at them?
I can’t say I don’t believe in demons, both from a doctrinal perspective and from an experiential one. In theology, we talk about fallen spiritual beings who are themselves, for all intents and purposes, psychotic and otherwise insane by definition. They continue to make harmful choices for themselves, and pursue harmful courses of action towards others even after experiencing that such choices will only result in more harm which continues their downward spiral.
In my experiences, I see the fruit of the activity of demons all the time, and experience their attacks on my own heart and mind. I watch, feeling powerless whether I am or not, as people I care about relive past trauma, have their worst fears pounded through their minds, are physically assaulted, and more. I have, more often than I want to, seen this activity in the eyes of certain individuals. It is something about the way the eyes look.
One of the more revealing aspects of the writings of the Philokalia is that the authors constantly refer to these same demons. They make no pretenses as to what they believe to be the sources of the quietly provoking thoughts, images, and fantasies which run through their minds. Such provocations often begin with something relatively benign. A thought, a desire for something simple or even a desire to do something good, but then it turns very quickly into a downward spiral that one must fight to get out of.
There are also figurative demons. These are not literal fallen spirits, but often the effect is no different. These are past traumas, past memories, past beliefs, past hopes, and past fears. These are a product of the person’s own mind and they can do almost as much damage as the psychotic spirit. All too often, they probably work in conjunction, making the spirit’s machinations that much easier.
The person isn’t possessed, but they do assent to the behavior suggested to them quietly, believing that it is something they really want to do. This is heartbreaking to see when it happens. The person doesn’t even realize what’s going on. They are oblivious to it, and if you should address the evil behind it, they will believe you are attacking them and not trying to help them. This is all a part of the twisted game. Demons don’t have to take full possession of a person to bend them to do what they want, they can do it more easily by suggestion, and playing on their fears, their aspirations, and their appetites. The fathers of the Philokalia continuously address three “passions” to constantly guard against: the desire for sensual pleasure, the desire to possess things, and the desire for self-esteem. These three things are referred to as the three main gates which demons use to bend us to do what they want, and the fathers wrote extensively about guarding against them through poverty, humility, and self-control.
It is popular in charismatic and evangelical movements to “cast out demons”. I can’t really comment on the effectiveness of their techniques or tactics. Exorcism is a well established rite within the Church and every division of it, but it generally only focuses on full blown possession, and that state seems to be the only one which traditional exorcism is equipped to deal with. How do you exorcise a person who is not possessed, but who assents to demonic suggestion? What do you do when they still have full control over their free will and choices, and they choose the demonic action unknowing from where the suggestion came?
Can you really be angry with the person who is a victim of both their own choices as well as something else egging them on? What if it was you? As much as I might try to guard myself from such suggestions, I know for a fact that I get little whispers all the time. They play on my fears, they more often play on my ego introducing little fantasies about how great I am or how great I could be. One of the more effective inroads with me is through personal comforts, and wanting to watch certain programs, or read certain books that are benign enough in and of themselves, but distract me long enough for them to take it further. I get angry with myself for my own weakness, but it doesn’t generally change the fact that I’m weak.
Can you really be angry with the person who is weak, seeing that you share the same weakness which gets used against you? Can you be angry with the person who hits you when it could have just as well been you hitting someone else on a different day? Can you really pass judgment on someone who acts on their fears, when you do it just as well?
I see the activity of demons all the time. I see it in people’s eyes, in their actions, and in what they say. I also see these same people going about completely oblivious to that activity in their own lives, ignorant, and, even though complicit, nearly innocent. Can I really be angry at them?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
A Ramble About "Once Saved, Always Saved"
I don’t think I’ve been particularly vague about what I think of this doctrine. No, I definitely haven’t been vague. Polemic, antagonistic, and rejecting yes; but not vague. Many people would accuse me of falling into heresy or false doctrine, or of the worse sin of being “unbiblical.” What is misunderstood in this post-Reformation era is that nothing could be farther from the truth. I take my stand on this directly from both Holy Scripture and the unbroken, Orthodox teaching of the Church as it has stood since the Apostles.
This teaching is also known as the “Perseverance of the Saints,” and was initially introduced in modern times during the Reformation. In particular, it was promoted by John Calvin and later became an integral part of the Calvinist theology. Today, put in layman’s terms, it simply teaches that all those who have truly put their faith in Christ, “accepted Christ”, can never lose their salvation regardless of what they do or say. They are locked into it.
On the surface, this sounds great, and it is often promoted as a great comfort, and it does sound very comforting. The problem with this teaching, is that it runs contradictory to a number of passages of Sacred Scripture while professing to uphold a number of others, essentially pitting Scripture against Scripture. Furthermore, it requires that the teaching of the Church on salvation since ancient times be thrown out entirely and viewed as somehow heretical. The teaching itself is comparatively very recent (within the last five hundred years), and proponents of it presume that those Saints who lived prior to it either weren’t “saved”, or the salvific mechanism was in place regardless of their understanding of it. The presumption is made that somehow the Gospel was either taught incompletely, or not fully received until the Reformation.
Another problem arises in the practical application of this teaching. All too often, the state of one’s eternal salvation is considered settled once they make some kind of public, or even private, profession of faith in Christ. Many times one is asked to “pray the prayer”, or is led in some kind of a prayer. Once the person has accomplished this, they are considered “saved” and the “evangelist” moves on to the next lost soul. All too often the person who was “saved” falls back into the same pattern of life they were in. Ironically, if the behavior becomes somehow too immoral the person’s salvation is then somehow questioned as though their acceptance of Christ didn’t somehow “take”.
In dealing with this topic I know I’m going to have to be very careful because of the tangled mess this teaching has caused, and because of the number of issues involved, and confused. For example, the “faith versus works” controversy often arises in discussing this issue. Also, the issue arises as to whether or not we could ever do something which God couldn’t or wouldn’t forgive. Also, some bring up the argument as to whether or not we could ever lose God’s love, as though this might play into it. Always Holy Scripture is used to justify each and every position, contradictory or not. Always, the ancient teaching of the Church, and it’s interpretation of Holy Scripture, is ignored, and treated as somehow heretical.
So, let’s touch briefly on what the ancient Church had to say about this issue from those documents and writers accepted by the Church as Orthodox:
“We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” (The Epistle of Barnabas written between 70 and 130 AD.)
“Let us therefore repent with the whole heart, so that none of us perish by the way. ... Let us then practice righteousness so that we may be saved unto the end.” (Second Clement, written around 150 AD)
“Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, around 180 AD)
“It is neither the faith, nor the love, nor the hope, nor the endurance of one day; rather, ‘he that endures to the end will be saved.’” (Clement of Alexandria, writing around 195 AD)
“No one is a Christian but he who perseveres to the end.” (Tertullian, Presbyter at Carthage, writing around 197 AD)
“You are still in the world. You are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives. So you must be careful that ... what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement will be consummated in you. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. It is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, ‘Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.’ ... Solomon, Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.” (Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, written around 250 AD)
“As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to him for salvation. For anyone of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated.” (Cyprian’s Treatise on Re-Baptism, written around 257 AD)
“True repentance makes a man cautious and diligent to avoid the faults into which he has once fallen through treachery. No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at some time to slip. Therefore, God, knowing our weakness, out of His compassion has opened a harbor of refuge for man--that the medicine of repentance might aid this necessity to which our frailty is liable.” (Lactantius, Christian tutor writing between 304 and 313 AD)
I could go on, but then this would become a book rather than a Ramble. The teaching and understanding of the Church, even prior to the first Council of Nicea in 325 AD was quite clear and also followed after what Jesus Himself actually said in the Gospels. In short, if, after a person has accepted Christ and been baptized, he continues in his sin and does not repent he will not be saved. The teaching of the Church is also clear that struggling with one’s sin, and making mistakes, and backsliding, and even kicking and screaming are understood to be a part of the process of spiritual maturity. The key here is repentance and confession and turning away from the things you’ve done wrong and turning to God.
In short, our salvation requires our cooperation. What state in which end is far more important than what state in which we begin our faith in Christ. Ezekiel 18:21-30 says:
“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die.
Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.” (ESV)
Another passage to consider is John 15:4-6,
"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (ESV)
Also, 1 John 1:5-10,
"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (ESV)
Where then, if it is possible to fall away, is our hope, our assurance, our comfort? How could anyone feel secure knowing that it was possible to fail? Let me ask this question, why would anyone bother to make progress in their faith if it wasn’t possible to fail?
But, here is our hope in Jesus Christ that if we fall, He will raise us back up. If we sin, He will forgive. But here is also our warning, that if we treat His blood as nothing, and take it for granted, and do not repent of it, He will not open the door for us. He will ask who we are and send us away violently. God is not stupid (as all too often we treat Him). He knows who His friends are, and who they aren’t. He knows with whom He has a solid relationship, and who only pay Him lip-service. He knows those who love Him but are visibly struggling, and those who could care less about Him but appear to have it all together.
Those who profess faith in Christ and then deny Him by their actions will also be denied by Him because, contrary to popular theology, faith and actions are not opposing forces. They are one and the same. It can equally be said that one is saved by both faith alone and one saved by actions alone. Faith is action, and action is faith. You will never act on a belief you do not possess. In the same way, you will never fail to act on a belief you do possess. Whether what you say you believe and what you actually believe are the same thing is another matter entirely and requires deep introspection and complete honesty with yourself and God who is more than willing and capable of helping you in this regard. (Often we want to believe that we believe something, when in fact we believe something quite contrary to what we want to believe we believe. This is, I think, another aspect of the Disorder to which we are all subject that we do not want to be totally honest with ourselves because it could reveal some flaw within us which we do not wish to see, but I digress...)
Our final salvation is not locked down until the day we finally shed this body. Until then, we will fight. We will win some battles against our selves, and lose others. And always God has His hand outstretched to us calling us to learn from those mistakes and failures and return to Him where He can and will lift us up. If we cry out “God have mercy on me, a sinner!” He will hear us, even if it is with our dying breath. If we walk away from Him never to return, even if no one else knows it, He hears those silent footsteps too, and mourns.
This teaching is also known as the “Perseverance of the Saints,” and was initially introduced in modern times during the Reformation. In particular, it was promoted by John Calvin and later became an integral part of the Calvinist theology. Today, put in layman’s terms, it simply teaches that all those who have truly put their faith in Christ, “accepted Christ”, can never lose their salvation regardless of what they do or say. They are locked into it.
On the surface, this sounds great, and it is often promoted as a great comfort, and it does sound very comforting. The problem with this teaching, is that it runs contradictory to a number of passages of Sacred Scripture while professing to uphold a number of others, essentially pitting Scripture against Scripture. Furthermore, it requires that the teaching of the Church on salvation since ancient times be thrown out entirely and viewed as somehow heretical. The teaching itself is comparatively very recent (within the last five hundred years), and proponents of it presume that those Saints who lived prior to it either weren’t “saved”, or the salvific mechanism was in place regardless of their understanding of it. The presumption is made that somehow the Gospel was either taught incompletely, or not fully received until the Reformation.
Another problem arises in the practical application of this teaching. All too often, the state of one’s eternal salvation is considered settled once they make some kind of public, or even private, profession of faith in Christ. Many times one is asked to “pray the prayer”, or is led in some kind of a prayer. Once the person has accomplished this, they are considered “saved” and the “evangelist” moves on to the next lost soul. All too often the person who was “saved” falls back into the same pattern of life they were in. Ironically, if the behavior becomes somehow too immoral the person’s salvation is then somehow questioned as though their acceptance of Christ didn’t somehow “take”.
In dealing with this topic I know I’m going to have to be very careful because of the tangled mess this teaching has caused, and because of the number of issues involved, and confused. For example, the “faith versus works” controversy often arises in discussing this issue. Also, the issue arises as to whether or not we could ever do something which God couldn’t or wouldn’t forgive. Also, some bring up the argument as to whether or not we could ever lose God’s love, as though this might play into it. Always Holy Scripture is used to justify each and every position, contradictory or not. Always, the ancient teaching of the Church, and it’s interpretation of Holy Scripture, is ignored, and treated as somehow heretical.
So, let’s touch briefly on what the ancient Church had to say about this issue from those documents and writers accepted by the Church as Orthodox:
“We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” (The Epistle of Barnabas written between 70 and 130 AD.)
“Let us therefore repent with the whole heart, so that none of us perish by the way. ... Let us then practice righteousness so that we may be saved unto the end.” (Second Clement, written around 150 AD)
“Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, around 180 AD)
“It is neither the faith, nor the love, nor the hope, nor the endurance of one day; rather, ‘he that endures to the end will be saved.’” (Clement of Alexandria, writing around 195 AD)
“No one is a Christian but he who perseveres to the end.” (Tertullian, Presbyter at Carthage, writing around 197 AD)
“You are still in the world. You are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives. So you must be careful that ... what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement will be consummated in you. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. It is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, ‘Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.’ ... Solomon, Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.” (Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, written around 250 AD)
“As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to him for salvation. For anyone of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated.” (Cyprian’s Treatise on Re-Baptism, written around 257 AD)
“True repentance makes a man cautious and diligent to avoid the faults into which he has once fallen through treachery. No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at some time to slip. Therefore, God, knowing our weakness, out of His compassion has opened a harbor of refuge for man--that the medicine of repentance might aid this necessity to which our frailty is liable.” (Lactantius, Christian tutor writing between 304 and 313 AD)
I could go on, but then this would become a book rather than a Ramble. The teaching and understanding of the Church, even prior to the first Council of Nicea in 325 AD was quite clear and also followed after what Jesus Himself actually said in the Gospels. In short, if, after a person has accepted Christ and been baptized, he continues in his sin and does not repent he will not be saved. The teaching of the Church is also clear that struggling with one’s sin, and making mistakes, and backsliding, and even kicking and screaming are understood to be a part of the process of spiritual maturity. The key here is repentance and confession and turning away from the things you’ve done wrong and turning to God.
In short, our salvation requires our cooperation. What state in which end is far more important than what state in which we begin our faith in Christ. Ezekiel 18:21-30 says:
“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die.
Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.” (ESV)
Another passage to consider is John 15:4-6,
"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” (ESV)
Also, 1 John 1:5-10,
"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (ESV)
Where then, if it is possible to fall away, is our hope, our assurance, our comfort? How could anyone feel secure knowing that it was possible to fail? Let me ask this question, why would anyone bother to make progress in their faith if it wasn’t possible to fail?
But, here is our hope in Jesus Christ that if we fall, He will raise us back up. If we sin, He will forgive. But here is also our warning, that if we treat His blood as nothing, and take it for granted, and do not repent of it, He will not open the door for us. He will ask who we are and send us away violently. God is not stupid (as all too often we treat Him). He knows who His friends are, and who they aren’t. He knows with whom He has a solid relationship, and who only pay Him lip-service. He knows those who love Him but are visibly struggling, and those who could care less about Him but appear to have it all together.
Those who profess faith in Christ and then deny Him by their actions will also be denied by Him because, contrary to popular theology, faith and actions are not opposing forces. They are one and the same. It can equally be said that one is saved by both faith alone and one saved by actions alone. Faith is action, and action is faith. You will never act on a belief you do not possess. In the same way, you will never fail to act on a belief you do possess. Whether what you say you believe and what you actually believe are the same thing is another matter entirely and requires deep introspection and complete honesty with yourself and God who is more than willing and capable of helping you in this regard. (Often we want to believe that we believe something, when in fact we believe something quite contrary to what we want to believe we believe. This is, I think, another aspect of the Disorder to which we are all subject that we do not want to be totally honest with ourselves because it could reveal some flaw within us which we do not wish to see, but I digress...)
Our final salvation is not locked down until the day we finally shed this body. Until then, we will fight. We will win some battles against our selves, and lose others. And always God has His hand outstretched to us calling us to learn from those mistakes and failures and return to Him where He can and will lift us up. If we cry out “God have mercy on me, a sinner!” He will hear us, even if it is with our dying breath. If we walk away from Him never to return, even if no one else knows it, He hears those silent footsteps too, and mourns.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What it Means to Be Old Catholic
What does it mean to be “Old Catholic?” I get asked this question in one form or another almost every time I tell someone what Church to which I belong. Usually, I give as short of an answer as possible which goes something like “the Old Catholic Church broke from Rome about a hundred and forty years ago over the issue of papal infallibility.” It's not the most informative of answers, but it's usually the one that doesn't require a more in-depth look at the ugly side of Church history and Church politics which, if most people knew more about, they would probably wish they hadn't asked.
The truth is that the answer to this question isn't a one sentence answer. And it often differs with whoever is answering the question. To some, the Old Catholic Church is one of the most liberal Denominations out there. To others, it is strict adherence to Sacred Tradition and the founding charters of the Old Catholic Church, the Fourteen Theses of the Old Catholic Church and the Declaration of Utrecht.
The most basic statement of Old Catholicism is that we believe what has been believed by all Christians everywhere, at all times, and in every place. We shun innovations in theology and anything which deviates from what the Church as a whole agreed on in ancient times.
To be Old Catholic means that we accept the seven Sacraments of the Church, especially the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Baptism. It means that we profess and champion the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while at the same time refusing any explanations of how that comes to be whether it is transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, or something else entirely. It is a mystery and it will always remain a mystery, as it should.
To be Old Catholic means that we venerate, look up to, those saints who have gone before us, especially Mary, the mother of God. Why? Because when all is said and done, these are family who have already won the race, and now watch us run ours, praying for us, and encouraging us onwards with their examples. We hold up Mary because she was a prime example of faith and obedience to God both in agreeing to the conception of His Son, and in following Him right up to the cross. According to Church Tradition and history, she was an active and known part of the Church right up to her death, and after her death her body was not left on earth to rot. We do not worship human beings, but we look to their examples, and as family ask them to pray fr us.
To be Old Catholic means that we believe that the Holy Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in the original autographs.
To be Old Catholic means that we worship corporately in a liturgical manner which agrees in form with the liturgical worship with which the Church has always celebrated from the earliest times up until the present day, thus you are likely to hear the Roman Rite, the Anglican Rite, the Eastern Orthodox Rite, or some combination thereof in an Old Catholic Mass.
To be Old Catholic means that we accept that all men have fallen through our ancestor Adam, but that the image of God was defaced, not destroyed. It means that we profess that it is only through Jesus Christ that anyone can be delivered from their fallen state.
To be Old Catholic means that we make no presumption on our final salvation, but believe and profess that Jesus Christ died for our sins and those of the whole world, and He is capable of saving even us if we are willing to repent and cooperate with Him. Eternal Life is a relationship with God, and every relationship takes working together to maintain it. (This is a difficult concept for many Protestants to understand and accept because of the Protestant “once saved always saved” doctrine. Such a doctrine was never found in the ancient Church and wasn’t taught until the Protestant Reformation.)
To be Old Catholic means that we maintain the equilateral, autonomous authority of the local Bishop over the clergy and parishes under his care. We reject the imposition of any one Bishop’s authority over another Bishop, and thus reject the claims to universal authority of the Bishop of Rome. We accept the universal authority of the Ecumenical Church Councils which were held in the first millennium, and were decision made by representatives of the entire Church equally where matters of doctrine, faith, and practice were concerned. To this end, being Old Catholic means that we accept the three great creeds of the Church: Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostolic, and reject any additions to these which were not agreed upon by the entire Church in Council (such as the “filioque” clause added some hundred years after the Council of Constantinople finalized it).
To be Old Catholic means that we maintain valid lines of Apostolic Succession which can be traced back to the Apostles.
To be Old Catholic means that we profess, maintain, and defend the Sacred Tradition of the Church as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Liturgies, the Sacred Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Lines of Apostolic Succession.
But what does it mean to me?
To me, being Old Catholic means that I claim spiritual lineage, and valid holy orders, from St. Ignatius of Antioch, from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, from St. Peter the Apostle as well as St. Peter of Damascus. That I look to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Cassian, St. John Crysostom, and the writings of the holy fathers of the Church for the first thousand years of the Church in order to understand what the faith of Jesus Christ is, how it should be lived and practiced, and what the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is instead of pastors and theologians who lived within the last couple of centuries. It means that I look to the early writings, the Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Ecumenical Councils of the Church when she was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in practice to outline and define the limits of Christian orthodoxy.
It means that I am theologically Eastern Orthodox without being accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. It means that I am a Western Rites Catholic while being denounced as illicit by the Roman Catholic. It means that I am looked on with disdain by the Mainline Protestant for being too Catholic, and as a heretic by the Evangelical for the same. It means rejecting the Reformation doctrines outright, while not catering to either the Roman delusions of grandeur, or succumbing to the isolationism of the Eastern Orthodox.
It means that while other denominations celebrate worship in liturgy and song in vast cathedrals with thousands of congregants, I say Mass quietly with just myself, my family, and our Lord. It means I watch while pastors in other ministries take in salaries of forty thousand a year or more, while I draw a near minimum wage income from outside employment so I can minister in whatever way the Lord would have me do so to whomever He brings me.
Being Old Catholic means listening to what our brothers and sisters had to say who persevered in the faith long before us, and also recognizing that they are still family now and as family love and support not only me, but all the rest of our brothers and sisters and want us to succeed. It means honoring the Mother of God as such without confusing honor with worship. It means faith in the body and blood of Jesus Christ without trying to explain how the bread and wine become such. Being Old Catholic means to me that I have the peace of knowing that I stand connected with those brothers and sisters who gave their lives for their faith in that very same faith unaltered for nearly two thousand years, and knowing that I often must stand alone. It means not having to “re-discover” how the early Church did things, because the Old Catholic still does them more or less the same way.
Most of all, being Old Catholic is about that unbroken faith. That faith and practice which stands unaltered by the flow and ebb of theological fads and innovations. The faith which stands in spite of the attempts to twist and shape it to whatever this or that teacher or preacher wants to turn it into. It means remembering why the priest wears black, and what the white collar stands for and putting both into practice with as much Grace as God gives even if no one else around me does.
Old Catholic means just that. Old Catholic. The kind of Catholic before the splits, and schisms, and divisions, and denominations, and break aways. The kind of Catholic when the Church was “the Church” and not some fractured mess ruined by human ego and politics. Perhaps a better term would be ancient Catholic, or pre-schism Catholic, or “Catholic before the Roman Church made off with the word 'Catholic'”. A particular favorite, and slightly more explanatory is “Western Rites Orthodox”, but then that has to be explained in more detail, too.
Being Old Catholic means that I believe in Jesus Christ with my actions as well as my words. It means that I aspire to deification and union with God while being well aware that I deserve Gehenna. It means that I care about all those who would be my enemies or do me harm, and give back Jesus when I am abused and mistreated. It means that I renounce everything in principle even if I must use it in practice, and count it as trash anyway, so that I may know Him free from distraction if that might be possible.
This is not a technical definition, and as I said, it is likely you will hear something different from someone else. But this is what being Old Catholic means to me.
The truth is that the answer to this question isn't a one sentence answer. And it often differs with whoever is answering the question. To some, the Old Catholic Church is one of the most liberal Denominations out there. To others, it is strict adherence to Sacred Tradition and the founding charters of the Old Catholic Church, the Fourteen Theses of the Old Catholic Church and the Declaration of Utrecht.
The most basic statement of Old Catholicism is that we believe what has been believed by all Christians everywhere, at all times, and in every place. We shun innovations in theology and anything which deviates from what the Church as a whole agreed on in ancient times.
To be Old Catholic means that we accept the seven Sacraments of the Church, especially the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Baptism. It means that we profess and champion the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while at the same time refusing any explanations of how that comes to be whether it is transsubstantiation, consubstantiation, or something else entirely. It is a mystery and it will always remain a mystery, as it should.
To be Old Catholic means that we venerate, look up to, those saints who have gone before us, especially Mary, the mother of God. Why? Because when all is said and done, these are family who have already won the race, and now watch us run ours, praying for us, and encouraging us onwards with their examples. We hold up Mary because she was a prime example of faith and obedience to God both in agreeing to the conception of His Son, and in following Him right up to the cross. According to Church Tradition and history, she was an active and known part of the Church right up to her death, and after her death her body was not left on earth to rot. We do not worship human beings, but we look to their examples, and as family ask them to pray fr us.
To be Old Catholic means that we believe that the Holy Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in the original autographs.
To be Old Catholic means that we worship corporately in a liturgical manner which agrees in form with the liturgical worship with which the Church has always celebrated from the earliest times up until the present day, thus you are likely to hear the Roman Rite, the Anglican Rite, the Eastern Orthodox Rite, or some combination thereof in an Old Catholic Mass.
To be Old Catholic means that we accept that all men have fallen through our ancestor Adam, but that the image of God was defaced, not destroyed. It means that we profess that it is only through Jesus Christ that anyone can be delivered from their fallen state.
To be Old Catholic means that we make no presumption on our final salvation, but believe and profess that Jesus Christ died for our sins and those of the whole world, and He is capable of saving even us if we are willing to repent and cooperate with Him. Eternal Life is a relationship with God, and every relationship takes working together to maintain it. (This is a difficult concept for many Protestants to understand and accept because of the Protestant “once saved always saved” doctrine. Such a doctrine was never found in the ancient Church and wasn’t taught until the Protestant Reformation.)
To be Old Catholic means that we maintain the equilateral, autonomous authority of the local Bishop over the clergy and parishes under his care. We reject the imposition of any one Bishop’s authority over another Bishop, and thus reject the claims to universal authority of the Bishop of Rome. We accept the universal authority of the Ecumenical Church Councils which were held in the first millennium, and were decision made by representatives of the entire Church equally where matters of doctrine, faith, and practice were concerned. To this end, being Old Catholic means that we accept the three great creeds of the Church: Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostolic, and reject any additions to these which were not agreed upon by the entire Church in Council (such as the “filioque” clause added some hundred years after the Council of Constantinople finalized it).
To be Old Catholic means that we maintain valid lines of Apostolic Succession which can be traced back to the Apostles.
To be Old Catholic means that we profess, maintain, and defend the Sacred Tradition of the Church as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Liturgies, the Sacred Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Lines of Apostolic Succession.
But what does it mean to me?
To me, being Old Catholic means that I claim spiritual lineage, and valid holy orders, from St. Ignatius of Antioch, from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, from St. Peter the Apostle as well as St. Peter of Damascus. That I look to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Cassian, St. John Crysostom, and the writings of the holy fathers of the Church for the first thousand years of the Church in order to understand what the faith of Jesus Christ is, how it should be lived and practiced, and what the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is instead of pastors and theologians who lived within the last couple of centuries. It means that I look to the early writings, the Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Ecumenical Councils of the Church when she was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in practice to outline and define the limits of Christian orthodoxy.
It means that I am theologically Eastern Orthodox without being accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. It means that I am a Western Rites Catholic while being denounced as illicit by the Roman Catholic. It means that I am looked on with disdain by the Mainline Protestant for being too Catholic, and as a heretic by the Evangelical for the same. It means rejecting the Reformation doctrines outright, while not catering to either the Roman delusions of grandeur, or succumbing to the isolationism of the Eastern Orthodox.
It means that while other denominations celebrate worship in liturgy and song in vast cathedrals with thousands of congregants, I say Mass quietly with just myself, my family, and our Lord. It means I watch while pastors in other ministries take in salaries of forty thousand a year or more, while I draw a near minimum wage income from outside employment so I can minister in whatever way the Lord would have me do so to whomever He brings me.
Being Old Catholic means listening to what our brothers and sisters had to say who persevered in the faith long before us, and also recognizing that they are still family now and as family love and support not only me, but all the rest of our brothers and sisters and want us to succeed. It means honoring the Mother of God as such without confusing honor with worship. It means faith in the body and blood of Jesus Christ without trying to explain how the bread and wine become such. Being Old Catholic means to me that I have the peace of knowing that I stand connected with those brothers and sisters who gave their lives for their faith in that very same faith unaltered for nearly two thousand years, and knowing that I often must stand alone. It means not having to “re-discover” how the early Church did things, because the Old Catholic still does them more or less the same way.
Most of all, being Old Catholic is about that unbroken faith. That faith and practice which stands unaltered by the flow and ebb of theological fads and innovations. The faith which stands in spite of the attempts to twist and shape it to whatever this or that teacher or preacher wants to turn it into. It means remembering why the priest wears black, and what the white collar stands for and putting both into practice with as much Grace as God gives even if no one else around me does.
Old Catholic means just that. Old Catholic. The kind of Catholic before the splits, and schisms, and divisions, and denominations, and break aways. The kind of Catholic when the Church was “the Church” and not some fractured mess ruined by human ego and politics. Perhaps a better term would be ancient Catholic, or pre-schism Catholic, or “Catholic before the Roman Church made off with the word 'Catholic'”. A particular favorite, and slightly more explanatory is “Western Rites Orthodox”, but then that has to be explained in more detail, too.
Being Old Catholic means that I believe in Jesus Christ with my actions as well as my words. It means that I aspire to deification and union with God while being well aware that I deserve Gehenna. It means that I care about all those who would be my enemies or do me harm, and give back Jesus when I am abused and mistreated. It means that I renounce everything in principle even if I must use it in practice, and count it as trash anyway, so that I may know Him free from distraction if that might be possible.
This is not a technical definition, and as I said, it is likely you will hear something different from someone else. But this is what being Old Catholic means to me.
Monday, November 8, 2010
A Ramble About Counseling
I’ve done a fair amount of counseling over the last twenty years. Oddly enough, I’ve never really been a professional counselor. I’ve never really gotten paid for it, and it always seems to happen when I least expect it, in just those right moments. Near as I can tell, it’s my own peculiar “charism”, otherwise known as a spiritual gift. I know it’s not a natural one, because every time I’ve found myself in a counseling situation thinking I was prepared and could handle it, I couldn’t have been more wrong. Those situations still make me twitch when I think about them.
I’ve never been naturally suited to counseling, but it’s never really been much of a choice for me either. It happens in those moments when Grace takes over and says “Sit down, buckle up, shut your mouth, and hold on!” It started when I was in high school, and over the years I’ve learned more and more to keep my proverbial mouth shut, even as I hear words and ideas flowing from my literal mouth that weren’t my own thoughts to begin with; and begin to know, understand, and see things about the person which I couldn’t possibly have known, and often don’t remember after the fact. More often than not, I learn just as much from what comes out of my mouth as the person I’m counseling does, and wish I could remember more of it.
In any counseling situation, I’ve learned more and more to say less and less. Often, the best thing I can do, as those situations have taught me, is to say nothing and just listen as well as I can. I’ve often heard that you need to take the person where they’re at. As I’ve been around and near more professional counselors in the last few years, I’ve made the observation that that is too simplistic of a way to put it.
There are three ways to take someone where they’re at: 1)where the person believes himself to be at, 2)where you, the counselor, believe the person to be at, and 3)where the person is actually at. It complicates it further in that each interaction between two or more people changes each person in either a large or small way so that where they were at prior to speaking to you is different from where they are at when speaking to you which is also different from where they are at after speaking to you. It’s much like trying to measure both the speed and the position of a sub-atomic particle. You can measure the speed accurately, or you can measure the position accurately, but never both because just the fact you are trying to measure it changes the measurement. People are much the same way.
I found the best way to guage a person is to say nothing, give no input, and just let them talk. Let them tell you where they’re at. After they do so, make no judgments about where they think they’re at. Most often, I’ve come to realize, there’s absolutely nothing I can say which can actually make a person see things the way I do. I’ve argued my case before. I’ve tried to persuade. It never works, especially if a person is convinced that they are a certain way and life is a certain way. More often then not, attempts to persuade only cause the person to reinforce their own view of things against the view I am trying to superimpose.
The person you are trying to counsel is never going to be coming from the same place you are at. They may be coming from similar places, they may have had similar experiences. But they are not you. Attempting to approach them with “common sense” almost always fails because common sense is relative to the person who believes it should be common.
In many ways, the person we are now is made up of the experiences we have had from birth, as well as the choices to which those experiences have led. No one, from creation until now, has had the exact same set of experiences. No one has the exact same brain chemistry. No one makes their choices in exactly the same manner.
I often get the sense, as I watch other people giving counsel, that, as they initially begin to listen to the person, they know or believe they know where the person is actually at, even if the person is telling them something completely different from the counselor’s conclusion. While it is true that counselors often get told about a reality which doesn’t exist, it is equally true that such a reality often exists in the person’s mind and is how they are perceiving the world. In such a case, it occurs to me that the perceived reality must be really listened to and taken into serious consideration when given counsel, even if the counselor does not perceive it as reality.
Often, what any one person takes as reality is very different from what another person perceives as reality. This is why we have Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Buddhists, Creationists and Evolutionists, and so on. This is why we have so many differing points of view, because the experiences and choices which we have made and encountered have “programmed” us to perceive reality in different and opposing ways, even if it is the same reality we are perceiving.
All too often, it seems to me, counseling is used as a tool to try and get the other person to see things the way the counselor sees them, because, of course, the counselor sees them in the “right way”. Or, the counselor is the one in his “right mind”. All too often, the counseling session is used to pass judgment on the other person’s perception of reality.
It is true that one person’s perception of reality may lead that person into harming themselves or others. Do we intervene then? Are they really causing harm to themselves or another person? What is the rule to go by in deciding whether or not to intervene, and who’s to say we’re right in doing so? These are all questions, I think, which really need to be contemplated.
Ultimately, the only one who can really change a person’s life is that person himself. Others would argue here that God is the one who changes lives. Again, it is a matter of perception. God goes out of His way to arrange our experiences in such a way to where we will make the choices He favors as healthy ones (as He is the only One qualified to decide what Reality actually is and where a person is actually at). But when it comes right down to it, we still have to make those choices. God can throw everything at a person imaginable, He can rain Grace down on that person in unimaginable torrents, but that person still has to make the choice to go this way or that. God won’t do it for him. Even if He’s capable of forcing him to choose one or the other He won’t do it. It’s that person’s choice to continue to accept his perceived reality, or allow a change in that perceived reality towards what God is telling that person is Reality.
I have become convinced that there is nothing I can say or do with a person which will change their life. Nor should I ever dupe myself into thinking that I can (sadly, I’ve done just that before, it wasn’t pretty). My interaction with them might cause a change in direction, as all interactions must, but the person must make those choices for themselves. It must be their choice whether they decide life is fair or unfair, they’re ugly or pretty, smart or stupid, priceless or worthless, and they will decide that based on their experiences both old and new, long past and recent, including the conversation they hold with me whether I say anything or not.
I’ve never been naturally suited to counseling, but it’s never really been much of a choice for me either. It happens in those moments when Grace takes over and says “Sit down, buckle up, shut your mouth, and hold on!” It started when I was in high school, and over the years I’ve learned more and more to keep my proverbial mouth shut, even as I hear words and ideas flowing from my literal mouth that weren’t my own thoughts to begin with; and begin to know, understand, and see things about the person which I couldn’t possibly have known, and often don’t remember after the fact. More often than not, I learn just as much from what comes out of my mouth as the person I’m counseling does, and wish I could remember more of it.
In any counseling situation, I’ve learned more and more to say less and less. Often, the best thing I can do, as those situations have taught me, is to say nothing and just listen as well as I can. I’ve often heard that you need to take the person where they’re at. As I’ve been around and near more professional counselors in the last few years, I’ve made the observation that that is too simplistic of a way to put it.
There are three ways to take someone where they’re at: 1)where the person believes himself to be at, 2)where you, the counselor, believe the person to be at, and 3)where the person is actually at. It complicates it further in that each interaction between two or more people changes each person in either a large or small way so that where they were at prior to speaking to you is different from where they are at when speaking to you which is also different from where they are at after speaking to you. It’s much like trying to measure both the speed and the position of a sub-atomic particle. You can measure the speed accurately, or you can measure the position accurately, but never both because just the fact you are trying to measure it changes the measurement. People are much the same way.
I found the best way to guage a person is to say nothing, give no input, and just let them talk. Let them tell you where they’re at. After they do so, make no judgments about where they think they’re at. Most often, I’ve come to realize, there’s absolutely nothing I can say which can actually make a person see things the way I do. I’ve argued my case before. I’ve tried to persuade. It never works, especially if a person is convinced that they are a certain way and life is a certain way. More often then not, attempts to persuade only cause the person to reinforce their own view of things against the view I am trying to superimpose.
The person you are trying to counsel is never going to be coming from the same place you are at. They may be coming from similar places, they may have had similar experiences. But they are not you. Attempting to approach them with “common sense” almost always fails because common sense is relative to the person who believes it should be common.
In many ways, the person we are now is made up of the experiences we have had from birth, as well as the choices to which those experiences have led. No one, from creation until now, has had the exact same set of experiences. No one has the exact same brain chemistry. No one makes their choices in exactly the same manner.
I often get the sense, as I watch other people giving counsel, that, as they initially begin to listen to the person, they know or believe they know where the person is actually at, even if the person is telling them something completely different from the counselor’s conclusion. While it is true that counselors often get told about a reality which doesn’t exist, it is equally true that such a reality often exists in the person’s mind and is how they are perceiving the world. In such a case, it occurs to me that the perceived reality must be really listened to and taken into serious consideration when given counsel, even if the counselor does not perceive it as reality.
Often, what any one person takes as reality is very different from what another person perceives as reality. This is why we have Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Buddhists, Creationists and Evolutionists, and so on. This is why we have so many differing points of view, because the experiences and choices which we have made and encountered have “programmed” us to perceive reality in different and opposing ways, even if it is the same reality we are perceiving.
All too often, it seems to me, counseling is used as a tool to try and get the other person to see things the way the counselor sees them, because, of course, the counselor sees them in the “right way”. Or, the counselor is the one in his “right mind”. All too often, the counseling session is used to pass judgment on the other person’s perception of reality.
It is true that one person’s perception of reality may lead that person into harming themselves or others. Do we intervene then? Are they really causing harm to themselves or another person? What is the rule to go by in deciding whether or not to intervene, and who’s to say we’re right in doing so? These are all questions, I think, which really need to be contemplated.
Ultimately, the only one who can really change a person’s life is that person himself. Others would argue here that God is the one who changes lives. Again, it is a matter of perception. God goes out of His way to arrange our experiences in such a way to where we will make the choices He favors as healthy ones (as He is the only One qualified to decide what Reality actually is and where a person is actually at). But when it comes right down to it, we still have to make those choices. God can throw everything at a person imaginable, He can rain Grace down on that person in unimaginable torrents, but that person still has to make the choice to go this way or that. God won’t do it for him. Even if He’s capable of forcing him to choose one or the other He won’t do it. It’s that person’s choice to continue to accept his perceived reality, or allow a change in that perceived reality towards what God is telling that person is Reality.
I have become convinced that there is nothing I can say or do with a person which will change their life. Nor should I ever dupe myself into thinking that I can (sadly, I’ve done just that before, it wasn’t pretty). My interaction with them might cause a change in direction, as all interactions must, but the person must make those choices for themselves. It must be their choice whether they decide life is fair or unfair, they’re ugly or pretty, smart or stupid, priceless or worthless, and they will decide that based on their experiences both old and new, long past and recent, including the conversation they hold with me whether I say anything or not.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A Ramble About Freedom in Christ
This is probably going to be a short Ramble. I'm sitting in a lazy-boy with my laptop and my back is absolutely killing me.
There is a lot of talk about having freedom in Christ among the various Churches and in various sermons. But, as I was thinking about it this morning during prayer, I don't think it means what a lot of people take it as.
First, Freedom in Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with doing whatever you want and getting away with it. often, the message comes across as freedom in Christ being equated with freedom from law, from discipline, from consequences, etc. But nowhere does it ever teach this concept in the New Testament, in fact it teaches quite the contrary as St. Paul writes in Romans 6, "Should we continue to sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not, how can we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
Freedom in Christ is about freedom from self, freedom from the slavery to possessions, the slavery to one's passions and carnal inclinations, it's about the world being crucified to you, and you to the world. The person who is still enslaved to his porn habit, the person who can't stop smoking because his body demands it, the person who feels like he always has to have more and more, the person who loves to get up on stage and hear people clap for him--these people haven't found freedom in Christ, they are still slaves to their own disorder and will be so until they embrace the death of the cross.
Freedom comes at a price. This is the lesson of American history. That price is almost always paid in blood, as well as sweat and tears. Freedom in Christ is no different. He paid it in blood so that we don't have to be enslaved to ourselves but that we might live for Him who died for us. In order to truly realize that freedom in Him we have to do the hard work of abandoning ourselves, letting go of all those things which enslave us, and embracing His death as our own. Then, and only then, will we truly experience that freedom.
There is a lot of talk about having freedom in Christ among the various Churches and in various sermons. But, as I was thinking about it this morning during prayer, I don't think it means what a lot of people take it as.
First, Freedom in Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with doing whatever you want and getting away with it. often, the message comes across as freedom in Christ being equated with freedom from law, from discipline, from consequences, etc. But nowhere does it ever teach this concept in the New Testament, in fact it teaches quite the contrary as St. Paul writes in Romans 6, "Should we continue to sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not, how can we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
Freedom in Christ is about freedom from self, freedom from the slavery to possessions, the slavery to one's passions and carnal inclinations, it's about the world being crucified to you, and you to the world. The person who is still enslaved to his porn habit, the person who can't stop smoking because his body demands it, the person who feels like he always has to have more and more, the person who loves to get up on stage and hear people clap for him--these people haven't found freedom in Christ, they are still slaves to their own disorder and will be so until they embrace the death of the cross.
Freedom comes at a price. This is the lesson of American history. That price is almost always paid in blood, as well as sweat and tears. Freedom in Christ is no different. He paid it in blood so that we don't have to be enslaved to ourselves but that we might live for Him who died for us. In order to truly realize that freedom in Him we have to do the hard work of abandoning ourselves, letting go of all those things which enslave us, and embracing His death as our own. Then, and only then, will we truly experience that freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)