ONCE AGAIN, FURTHER THOUGHTS SHARED WITH A FRIEND ON FACEBOOK:

Hello again, XXXXXX.  Appreciate your input here.

You’re right, the choices are tough.  When things unravel we’re left with options that aren’t all that pleasant, unfortunately.  Too often in comes down to making moves that just minimize the fallout.  And as you say…some of this ends up in the hands of the one (husband or wife) that is probably least able to see some of the more obvious things for what they are, which has to do with how things got all out of whack to begin with.

One of the dangers in the scenario that we’ve been discussing is that the one who seeks to “protect” the children, etc. may well be missing their own inner-brokenness; the very brokenness that led them to embrace such a relationship at the beginning.  In cases like this, it would be all too easy to place all blame upon the “other” and miss (or be unwilling to accept) one’s own faults.  Again, we are talking here about a particular situation—a typical one—where both spouses are living out an “identity crisis.”  Of course there are exceptions to the ‘shoe fitting’ well upon the foot of either spouse.

Further, I am trying to keep in mind, as I think through all this, that, these are not troubles found in marriages only.  As we can see, a scenario like this one has a way of readily spilling over into the lives of the children.  They (like their parents) are struggling with a ‘first birth’ condition (identity crisis), on top of which the parents (perhaps one or both) have piled further trouble in the way they nurture the child.  All of which, tends to result in the child-now-adult perpetuating many of the same responses they saw demonstrated by their parents.

So, now the child-now-adult ends up re-enacting the foolish ways of their parents, not realizing the root cause is not ultimately their parents but their very own ‘first birth’ condition (identity crisis).

Everyone involved in this scenario has missed this basic problem…identity problem.  Everyone in this scenario ends up perpetuating this one problem, fleshing it out in this way or that.

We could go on and on here observing how THE problem applies to EVERY single relationship, not just marriage, and not just the parent-child one.  Suffice to say, all too often we would rather hide our troubles than face them squarely, and then perhaps find ourselves in a position to really help whomever, without treating them like they were beneath us somehow, without acting like their Lord (master) or Savior (martyr).

FURTHER THOUGHTS SHARED WITH A FRIEND ON FACEBOOK:

I hear you, XXXXXX, and understand the commonly held belief that we are to begin with “loving oneself.”  The challenge is that, in reality, it doesn’t bear out.  Let’s take the drunk-of-a-husband for instance; his problem is that he BEGINS & ENDS with himself, clearly loving himself and his own ways, over his wife, children, etc.

The drunk-of-a-husband demonstrates the destructiveness of “self-love” and its inability to reach the pinnacle of genuinely “loving-others.”  He is trapped in his self-love.  He continues to put hope in himself and/or his using the bottle, which gives a temporal sense of relief that eventually gives way to the harsh reality of how problematic it is to “love-himself-as-is.”

Meanwhile, his nag-of-a-wife continues to grow bitter and more self-righteous, all of which demonstrates the problem of her ongoing “self-love.”  She loves the idea of having to be the one to “fix everything,” as if she is the savior of her husband.  And watch her closely, because she doesn’t stop with him…she ends up doing the same thing to her children, which leads them to run off; and she also does it to her closest friends who either learn how to maintain a safe distance or hide.

“Self-love” is the broken-condition with which we are born.  Self-love = holding as a standard our own interests, at the expense of others.  In the scenario before us, the husband and wife are both selfish, self-RIGHT-eo-US!   The selfish disposition and response of both spouses merely perpetuates the problem.  Unwittingly, they continue to feed off one another, which leads toward devouring one another.  And all the while…they assume it is the other spouse who’s doing them wrong.

All the while, a solution is in the opposite direction from loving oneself!  It’s found in one or both spouses having a self-LESS disposition.  A NEW disposition of self-less-ness is impossible to come by when we consider that this is not how we are first born.  And to make matters worse, we’re instructed from our earliest days that self-love (our first born state) is the way to go.  Thus, the problem–our nature (first born state)–is compounded by the nurture (earliest instructions) we receive.

***Please note: I understand the wife here could (should!) be genuinely concerned for her drunk-of-a-husband (or substitute any other vise he’s gripped by…porn, drugs, illicit sex, money, authority, entertainment, etc).  Her problem, in this case-study, is that she sees herself as better (morally or otherwise) and wiser than him, and that his ultimate hope is in HER or at least doing things HER way.  When, in fact, the problem lies much deeper within his soul, just as it does in hers.  Until she can be released from the bondage of her own self-righteousness, etc, she’s of little or no help to him, but is only apt to make things worse.  Once she is released from her first born state, she might then at some point be able to come in humility and patience to his side, helping him as a friend (neighbor) and not as lord and savior.  For the latter is never the place of anyone of us, but One.

A FEW OF MY THOUGHTS, FROM A CONVERSATION OVER ON FACEBOOK:

“It seems to be the case though, that, what we have here is a classic alcoholic husband and rescuing wife, both who are enslaved within a system (mindset/heart-disposition) whose components complement each other all too well.

One typical configuration, of enslavement, is seen in the husband’s combined mis-use of alcohol mixed with a ruling and enslaving love of pleasure.   An escapist pursuit of:

1) a false hope from the pains and frustrations of life;

2) playing the angry and self-righteous judge of his wife’s clinging and dependent ways;

3) the self-crucifying of his periodic remorse;

4) a trust in man which seeks personal validation through acceptance by his bar companions; etc.

Then we have the reciprocal pattern in the wife’s rescuing behavior, a combination of:

1) playing the martyred savior of her husband and family;

2) playing the proud and self-righteous judge of her husband’s iniquity;

3) a trust in man which overvalues the opinions of her friends;

4) a fear of man which generates an inordinate desire for a male’s love and affection as crucial to her survival; etc.

The internal enslavement of both (and consequent behavior, thoughts, and emotions) makes sense within their system of identity. The enslavement of soul is sometimes modeled, taught, and encouraged by the other person(s) involved:

1) her nagging and his anger mirror and magnify each other;

2) his bar buddies and her girl friends reinforce their respective self-righteousness and self-pity.

The outworking of enslavement is sometimes reactive and sometimes compensatory to the other person:

1) he reacts to her nagging with drinking, and

2) she reacts to his drinking by trying to rescue and to change him.

Sadly, the children are swept up in this, later playing either the master (like the husband) and/or the messiah/martyr (like the wife). It gets real ugly when a person grows up playing out both roles! Either way, the ‘once-child-now-adult’ is having to face the crisis they were born with:

1) who they ultimately are; and

2) who they were nurtured by (who their parents, etc. were).

Yet, even those with the best of parents can/do readily find themselves caught up in the same mess, and in this case the parents aren’t even part of the blame, nor is anyone else with whom they interact, necessarily. Why? Because they (like all people!) are born (nature) with an identity crisis. Left to themselves, each and every person has the same fundamental problem: an inherent identity crisis (= alienation from One greater then themselves).

Too often what we receive from others, particularly as adults, is nothing more than a “negative-feedback loop.” Meaning, we are likely seeing a reflection of our own folly even if it comes back at us as an opposite behavior/disposition.

As we push they pull, and vice versa.

[Note: the core principles here are gleaned from an article about idolatry by David Powlison.]

Another good program over at the White Horse Inn, featuring William Willimon: Faulty Translations

Willimon sees “Christianity is kind of like a foreign language that one is not born with,” which sadly “many preachers today are attempting to “translate” …into familiar and comfortable terms that people are used to, but the result, he argues, is that things get “lost in translation.””

Willimon points out the following:

1)       The Gospel is not to be translated as Therapy.

2)       The Gospel is not another Commodity.

3)       The Gospel is not another Life-Style Choice.

4)      The Gospel is not something you are born with.

5)       The Gospel is not User-Friendly.

6)      The Gospel does not make sense to/in this World.

7)       The Gospel creates a different world, with a different focus (i.e., Cross-eyed).

8)      The Gospel creates a counter-culture.

9)      The Gospel can make Life a bit more difficult.

10)    The Gospel is not a word about Glory (God’s making all things glorious now).

11)     The Gospel is a word of Grace (God’s condescension to sinners).

Willimon suggests asking this one question:

“When listening to a sermon, would Christ need to be CRUCIFIED in order to make this sermon work?”

Meaning, if the sermon works without Christ’s birth/godly-life/death/burial/raising/reigning, then, the sermon is not Christian.  It may be informational and/or ethical, but to be fails to be CHRISTIAN (rooted in the New Covenant!) by not preaching Him (1Cor.1.23; 2 Cor.1.19; 2Cor.4.5; Col.1.28; 1Tim.3.16).

Answer by St. John’s (abbreviated):

We are God’s children now…and hoping in Him…purifies us;

…believing in his Son Jesus Christ…is obedience.  (1Jn 3:2,3,23)

We live through Him…believing the love that God has for us

…having confidence for the day of judgment

…having no fear in love…for His perfect love casts out fear.

We love because He first loved us in Christ.  (1Jn 4:9,16-19)

We overcome the world, [flesh and devil]…by being born of God.

The victory?  Our faith…believing that Jesus is the Son of God!  (1Jn 5:4-5)

So then:  Whoever has the Son has Life! (1Jn 5:12)

We are from God!  Not as those living under the power of the evil one.  (1Jn 5:19)

My confidence:  Having faith in Christ, we know ourselves to be alive toward God and neighbor, governed by the Rule of His Spirit, even now.  (mjm)

Something I posted over at Andrew Fuller Study Center:

—————

Clark says: “Baptists were not recognized as Reformed. Why not? Because paedobaptism was regarded as essential to the Reformed faith.”

Okay. And why should I care if this notion of “REFORMED” faith is something I fit into as Clark says I should? Brothers, let Clark have his playpen-understanding of “REFORMED”. Let him kick and scream that we are “have-not’s”. Let him have his corner. Let him make more of “REFORMED” than the essence of Christianity…Christ crucified, our only boast.

Of course we are thankful for the Gospel-awakening that took place during Reformational times. We’d be arrogant if we didn’t appreciate and learn from the unveiling of the Gospel in those days. However, shame on us (!) if we fail to keep our focus upon Christ alone, boasting about Him!

Let’s bear with our brother, Clark, who sees us as misfits, stepchildren, stillborns. He will bear (even so now) the consequence of clinging more tightly to a debatable doctrine, than he does us in Christ.

Let’s bear our brother up in prayer before the Father of all believers.

(((PS…Clark’ demeanor reminds me of my own when I’m peeved at those I once stood with, whom I once thought well of, but afterward see them as betraying me in this way or that.)))

AMAZON BOOK REVIEW:  The Naked Gospel

[The following is my own book review. mjm]

Please, listen closely to all reviews that deem this book as faulty! And, note well, how, what Farley is teaching bears upon the criticisms by others about this book.  Some will say: “The book is off-track!” This is exactly right…The Naked Gospel is far from the garden-variety preaching/teaching we all have been subject to within much of the church.

The Gospel remains a stumbling block for all those who would seek life apart from and not in Christ Jesus, himself.

Our default mode: LAW!

Thank you, Andrew, for laboring to bring to light the Truth of the Gospel…Jesus is Our righteousness, Our life, Our rest, Our Lord! And as Lord…he literally RULES in the lives of those who believe (take Him at his word, that, He is Life!).

I have lived long enough (within the realm of works-righteousness) and alongside others who do the same to see the truth of Scripture confirmed that man is incurably self-righteous (even when it appears “godly”).

Chief Problem: IDOLATRY!

As Christians, we exercise some of the most blatant forms of IDOLATRY. That is, mingling grace (God’s image-making) and works (Our image-making). Failing to give up on our own “image-making” project (fashioning ourselves into God’s image), while missing how it is that God in Christ (the expresses image of God) goes about making us into His image.

Every IMPERATIVE of Scripture is FULFILLED in Christ.
Ultimately, every IMPERATIVE of Scripture is DESCRIPTIVE of the work of Christ “for” and “in” us.

Man is innately most comfortable in his own image-making…being as God.

For those who can’t readily swallow naked (non-sugar-coated!) Gospel-Truth (even as a Believer!)…there remains a degree of blindness and deafness to the REALITIES of Christ as fulfillment of all shadows (The Law). We become what we behold! Blind, deaf, and dumb? Or, seeing, hearing, and praising?

Farley’s work here is a great beginning to our continuing to unpack the essence of Christ crucified and risen, the New Creation.

Rev 11:17  We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign.

This alone is reason enough for disciples of Christ to give thanks and take comfort!  His power to ultimately change all things and authority to rule over all things is wondrous, indeed.

Unfortunately, how His present reign is manifest is missed or distorted, leaving genuine followers of Christ mistaken and/or confused about their involvement in His kingdom.

A very worthwhile sermon by Mr. Gordon on the principal meaning of ALL Scripture.

T. David Gordon: What Scripture Principally Teaches…Christ Crucified!

God’s ways work God’s way:

Spirit of God is received by hearing with faith (Gal.3.2);

Spirit of God is supplied by hearing with faith (Gal.3.5);

Spirit of God is received by faith (Gal.3.14);

through the Spirit of God, by faith, we remain focused upon Christ (Gal.5.5);

in this way God sends the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal.4.6);

and it is by this very Spirit we will be made to walk (Gal.5.16),

bearing the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5.22).

So then, by faith, we both live by and walk by the Spirit (Gal.5.25).

Or, as Paul says elsewhere, it is by faith in Christ that the righteous shall live (Gal.3.11).

Having begun (justification) in the Spirit, we continue (sanctification) in the Spirit, and finish (glorification) in the Spirit (Gal.3.3).

Whereas, the Law (striving by/under it) isn’t of faith (Gal.3.12)!!!

Richard Gamble on Civil Religion:

“America’s anointment as the world’s political messiah did not end when demobilized troops returned from Europe in 1919. It did not end with America’s opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, nor with America’s refusal to join the League of Nations. The cumulative product of generations of reflection, experience, and anticipation, the American identity reached too deep and far to have been uprooted in a moment of supposed renunciation. Transcending party politics and most ideological boundaries, nearly all of the language of universality and emancipation, of the “city on a hill” and the world’s rebirth, of light and dark, Messiah and Armageddon, reverberates down to the present moment. Like Woodrow Wilson before them, few modern presidents have been able to resist the allure of America’s global redemptive consciousness. In the 1940s, Franklin Roosevelt planned for a future refounded on four freedoms, freedoms that would prevail “everywhere in the world.” In the fourth of these universal freedoms, freedom from fear, he anticipated a day when “no nation will be in a position to commit and act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the world.”

“In countless speeches from the 1960s through the 1980s, moreover, Ronald Reagan reached back to the earliest metaphors of America’s divine destiny” to reaffirm the nation’s special calling as a “city on a hill.” Combining the Puritan errand with the Enlightenment dream of earthly regeneration, he also embraced Tom Pain’s longing to “begin the world over again.” And on September 11, 2002, George W. Bush, speaking with the colossus of the Statue of Liberty behind him, called America the “hope of all mankind” and appropriated the world of John 1:5 as if they described not just the Incarnation of Christ but the mission of the United States: “And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness will not overcome it.” To one degree or another and with varying motives and consequences, each of these men continued to speak of the United States as if it were the Salvator Mundi, following a pattern of thought that has endured for more than four centuries.”

[HT: DG Hart]

A thought or two regarding Fundamentalism.

A leading characteristic of Fundamentalism would be Dogmatism.  This is really nothing more than a Letter-driven (as opposed to Spirit-driven (Gospel-based and -contextualized)) approach.  Instead of a ‘faith’ in Christ orientation, the Dogmatist’s way is generally one rooted in ‘fear’ – though lip service is paid to the Gospel.  The latter has a way of *driving* sheep (the believer, the local church) this-way-and-that, whereas the former sees the Gospel ministry as one of *guiding* the sheep in the Way (in faith toward Christ…for all of salvation…sanctification included). 

Here’s what I’m getting at… anything that is said/done in the name of Christ that isn’t consciously and intentionally – rooted and grounded in the Gospel – is something other than a Gospel ministry, no matter how “moral”/”biblical” it sounds.  Ours is not to be “biblical” but “Christian” and I think we can be found standing in the former without possessing the latter necessarily.  We are not then to be found in Moses seat (Mt.23.2).  Subscription to “biblical norms” does not mean one is clinging in faith to Christ for each and every aspect of salvation…including His growing us up grace and knowledge of Him (i.e., sanctification, godliness). 

Paul puts it this way…there are those of us who “have the form (appearance) of godliness, but essentially deny its power” (2Tim.3.5).  For godliness is not ours to strive after as some commodity on the shelf that is just there for our taking, but the very working of God in us a faith and love, that, consistently beholds Christ’s righteousness/godliness (1Tim.1.4), and are thereby sovereignly and progressively brought into the likeness of His Image (2Cor.3.18).  In this way, Paul thought of Christ as our sanctification (1Cor.1.30).  The Gospel itself (the truth about Christ’s incarnation, righteousness, death, resurrection, and ascension…His doing not ours) is the only thing whereby God brings about the peaceable fruits of righteousness among His people (Phil.1.11; Col.1.6).

In other words, the Flesh can strive in form and yet never connect to the Source…Christ crucified and risen (Rom.8.3-15).  How we answer the following betrays our actual stance toward God and our brother:  “Are disciples of Christ made by 1) inputting the right commands, or are they 2) fashioned by beholding (Christ’s glory in the scandal of the Cross) and thereby found living in the Way?”

As I’ve said before…fundamentalism is readily found wherever people are finding their hope to be in their law-keeping and not Christ’s (even where we don’t do this in regards to justification, but more so sanctification). This is true of even we who claim to embrace the doctrines of grace.  A sounder grasp of the relationship of the Law/Gospel (particularly what the two have to do with Christ himself) genuinely and lastingly keeps things in a Christian perspective.

Just two cents worth.

Essentially, anything that poses as the Gospel or its equivelent is simply unbelief.  The Gospel stands completely on its own and needs nothing but the cross/resurrection of Jesus Christ to substantiate it.  Only the Gospel is gospel…and everything else…is something other. 

Related thoughts:

“Any cultural or political agenda embellished with such authority is a manifestation of “works righteousness” and ipso facto an act of apostasy. This theological proposition, over and beyond all prudential moral judgments, “hits” in all directions of the ideological spectrum; it “hits” the center as much as the left or the right. “Different gospels” lurk all across the spectrum. No value or institutional system, past or present or future, is to be identified with the gospel. The mission of the church is not to legitimate any status quo or any putative alteration of the status quo. The “okay world” of bourgeois America stands under judgment, in the light of the gospel, as does every other human society. Democracy or capitalism or the particular family arrangements of middle-class culture are not to be identified with the Christian life, and neither is any alternative political, economic, or cultural system. The vocation of the church is to proclaim the gospel, not to defend the American way of life, not to “build socialism,” not even to “build a just society” – because, quite apart from the fact that we don’t really know what this is, all our notions of justice are fallible and finally marred by sin. The “works righteousness” in all these “different gospels” lies precisely in the insinuation that, if only we do this or refrain from doing that, we will be saved, “justified.” But, as Paul tells us, “by works of the law shall no one be justified.” [Berger, “Different Gospels: The Social Sources of Apostasy,” Erasmus Lecture, January 22, 1987]“

Here is a link to a very edifying sermon by Geoff Volker. 

Geoff helps us nail-down the nature/cause of Christian obedience!  (:

Believer!  You ARE an “incurable-God-lover”.  Amen.

LINK:

Leading of the Spirit – Rom.8.14 by Geoff Volker

<embed src=”http://blip.tv/play/AYGiwCIC” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”390″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed>