Love, Life, and Fulfillment

We've been talking a lot lately about the image of God in humanity, particularly as it plays out in our pursuit of love, life and fulfillment. Along these lines, Krissy has gone and spilled her guts again, and I think her comments are worth reading (I appreciate introspective people). Here's a snippet:

My pet theory leans perhaps a little on the mystical side. I think that we are created for crazy intimate love with God, a union of which sexual inimacy on earth is just a mere shadow of the real.

I have no way to prove this of course, thats why its a theory. But it seems to me that our relationships here, valuable though they are, are not ever going to ultimatly fulfill. We get confused and think they will and we try to suck as much love out of them as possible, but people are not capable of the kind of love we really need or want.

Yeah, you say, but God doesnt seem so fuzzy lovey in much of the Bible and if he loved us than why does bad stuff happen like genocide and natural disaster, war, heartbreak, etc.

Well, i havnt quite worked out that part of the theory yet, but i can say that things here on earth are fucked up, they are not the way they are supposed to be, but they are in the process of being set right because Jesus has come to usher in a new order of things.

Click here to read the whole thing...

Happy Reformation Day

Jollyblogger has written an excellent little piece entitled A Reformation Day Meditation, in honor of today as the 488th anniversary of Martin Luther tacking his 95 theses on the Wittenburg chapel door. Here's a snippet:

The thing I love the most about the reformed tradition is that Christ is preeminent in that the focus is always on what He has done for me.

The fact of the matter is that Romans 7 is the story of my life and while I lived with a focus on what I must do for Christ I slowly lost the joy of my salvation because such a focus can't respond effectively to the Romans 7 struggle. It can only tell you to try harder.

The reformed tradition reminded me that no amount of self-striving on my part could enable me to win the battle against indwelling sin. Salvation and sanctification are by grace, through faith, because of Christ from first to last.

David Powlison says that if we were to take a yellow highlighter and go through the Bible and highlight every command, every verse that says tells us something that we must do, we might highlight 15-20% of the Bible. He admits that he has not done a scientific study of this, he is just estimating. But his point is that he thinks that 80-85% of the Bible is simply story, the story of the great acts of God on behalf of His people.

Powlison says that God seems to have the idea that if His people can just know who He is, it will make all the difference in the world in their lives.

Do your self a favor and go read the whole thing!

Why We Need God

Why do we need a just God? Because of the reality of evil. Real Live Preacher does a fine job of painting the picture...

Rock Balancing & Intelligent Design

How's this for cool art: Bill Dan balances rocks. Take a few minutes and browse his site - some very cool pictures there (although the image quality is a bit grainy on some).

Now ask yourself this - how is it that you can see a picture like this and intuitively tell that it was created; that it didn't just happen? I suspect that just about every single person who sees this image naturally recognizes the hand of an artist, a creative mind - there is symmetry, there is beauty, there is a sense of humor. In short, there is evidence of design.

You see it, you know it, but you would have a heck of a time trying to prove it (or disprove it) scientifically. Because science can tell you the way something is, the way it behaves, but it cannot tell you what something means.

Nevertheless, we can't be help but perceive meaning. Because God designed us that way - God as creator has created us, both to be creative ourselves, but also to recognize the hand of the creator when we see it.

Anyone who spends a little time looking at nature with eyes to see can tell that something more than happenstance is going on there; yet we try and deny it because we have a vested interest in there not being a master designer. Scripture says all creation cries out, and we do hear; the only way around the truth is to suppress it.

I think this is at the bottom of what the Intelligent Design folks are trying to get at (well, some of them any way).

(HT: pastorshaun)

Finding Fulfillment

Ryan's post on Happiness and Molly's post on Friendship got me thinking: where do we find fulfillment. Several nights ago I read these words of C.S. Lewis, and they struck a chord that resonated deeply:

Nothing brought Lewis more enjoyment than sitting around a fire with a group of close friends engaged in good discussion, or taking long walks with them in the English countryside.

"My happiest hours," Lewis wrote, "are spent with three or four old friends in old clothes tramping together and putting up in small pubs - or else sitting up till the small hours in someone's college rooms, talking nonsense, poetry, theology, metaphysics over beer, tea, and pipes. There's no sound I like better than ... laughter" ...

"Friendship is the greatest of worldly goods. Certainly to me it is the chief happiness of life, If I had to give a piece of advice to a young man about a place to live, I think I should say, 'sacrifice almost everything to live where you can be near friends.'

-Nicholi, C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, p115.

This is the kind of life I want to live. But where does one find the time? And how does one make "old friends"? The older I get, the more I feel the weight of life's "busyness" - the more I desire to reorient my routine, to figure out how to actually create the kind of breathing room that relationships require.

When it comes to questions like "What do I want to do in the future?" or "Where do I want to go?", I find that my answers are changing of late. The center of gravity in my decision making process is increasingly shifting towards the persons (and I use that word intentionally, because it includes God) I want to spend my life with, rather than the places I want to go or the things I want to accomplish.

I'm not saying that my motivations are perfect or even noble - just that they are changing. Perhaps the urgency of age is getting to me. I realize that if I want what Lewis is talking about, I'm going to have to get intentional about pursuing it. Is this the early stages of senility? Or perhaps a glimmer of wisdom?

I find myself increasingly disillusioned with materialism. What I really desire is a reality that can only be found in relationship. And I want that in both life and ministry.

This is affecting how we think about planting a church. We find ourselves looking for team members, not on the basis of their theological orthodoxy or even their skills and gifting (although these things are important) – rather, we find ourselves seeking people with whom we share a deep relational commitment (Lewis would probably say 'a mutual sense of Agape').

We are looking for friends who desire community to join us in a great adventure. Scary? You bet. But this is where the action is, and I have a sneaky suspicion this is where Joy is to be found. This is what the church is meant to be - a community on the edge, living beyond itself, depending on another, and especially on Christ.

At the end of the day, relationships not only bring the most satisfaction in life, they also carry you through the hard times. Of course, relationships with others are never ultimate (in fact, others will always fail you). Nevertheless, relationships can still be very good - the best ones point us to the Ultimate Relater, the only one in whom we can ever find complete satisfaction, the only one who will never leave us nor forsake us.

What surprises me is how many people readily acknowledge their thirst for meaningful relationships, and yet how few are willing to challenge the status quo by reorienting their lives in a different direction.

Many seem to recognize the dangers of being driven by the desire for fame, fortune, career, success. Yet very few seem willing to turn their back on it altogether in order to pursue something more meaningful. Yes we want relationships, but we are reluctant to give up our comforts, our consumerism (the very things that isolate us from others).

At the end of the day maybe we are like Frodo and his Ring - we long to be rid of it, but we are loathe to actually give it up. It is our 'precious'...

Nicholi illustrates the situation well:

I often ask my classes whether or not, from their observations and experience, people around them are happy. Invariably, they answer no.

Invariably, I express surprise. I point out that, compared with most people in the world, they possess everything - youth, health, intelligence, abundant food, clothes, a comfortable place to live, education, a promising future, etc. What in the world cause them to be unhappy?

The typical answer is lack of meaningful relationships.

The students point out that everyone around them appears to be consumed with their success. When I ask what they think their collegues consider success ... the answer is "fame and fortune."

-Nicholi, p98.

If the answer is so obvious, why is meaningful change so seldom realized? Why do so many people go through life feeling unfulfilled? What would it take to shake things up?

I'd love to hear what you think...

Krissy's Life Story (Part 2)

Last week I mentioned Krissy's Life Story - Part 1. Now, for those of you who have been waiting, here's Krissy's Life Story - Part 2. Thanks for sharing, Krissy!

(Just as an fyi - if any one else has a "life story" you'd care to share, I'd be willing to post it or link to it. Come on, open up! We all like stories...)

Friends.

I was thinking earlier today about having a "best friend." When I was a little girl, I used to think it was sad that adults didn't get to have a best friend. When you're a little girl, not only do you have a best friend (or if you don't, you wish you do), but you have half of a heart-shaped necklace that either says "Be Fri" or "st ends." You have someone who sits with you every day at lunch, and when your mom packs you a healthy lunch, she'll share her summer sausage and oreos with you. You have someone who writes you a letter a week when she moves to Illinois, and whom you can visit for two weeks the summer after she moves.

As we grow older, the idea of having a best friend seems to fade away. We think we mature out of it; none of that exclusivistic and childish nonsense about "best friends."

But today I was thinking that we should reclaim titles for our relationships. The reason is that titles carry responsibility. If I don't have a best friend, there's no one whose job description it is to listen to me, support me, be there for me (I'm not thinking of moms here).

Maybe this explains (partly?) the proliferation of the small group concept for churches in America. We've lost that core sense of identity in a group; here is a group of people whose "job description" - for that portion of their lives anyway - is to be your friend, your confidant, your supporter.

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I can't think of a snappy conclusion. I'm deeply thankful for the many dear friends who do share my dreams and fears, for the kindred spirits with whom I can talk for hours and hardly notice that time has gone by. I thank the one who has enabled all relationships and who so graciously calls us friend. If you don't have a good friend, tell me: I'll be your friend!

and... be sure to read Christian's comment on Ryan's last post in light of this -- CS Lewis is a model for us all in how much he valued his relationships.

what will make us happy?

are you happy? think about that one for a second. has anyone asked you that recently? do you stop on a daily basis and ask yourself this question...am i happy? i don't. but isn't this what our lives revolve around? even our country's founding document has the word happiness as an "unalienable right."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

i remember something my dad said to me shortly after i became a christian in my teens and i told him that i was going to become a pastor. his answer (and i'm pretty sure my dad was not a christian at the time--dad, if you are reading this, you can comment otherwise) was one that my dad gave us kids numerous times when we talked with him about decisions we had made or were thinking of making. "whatever makes you happy."

so what is happiness and what will provide it for us? money? sex? the perfect family? how many people do you know are truly happy? why is depression so prevalent in our society? if any of these things actually provided happiness, americans should be the happiest people on the planet. the truth, however, is that we are just as depressed as the rest of the world...maybe more so.

i'm really curious for feedback here. is happiness even achievable? is it a fleeting emotion that comes and goes with various circumstances? is it something we should really be consuming our lives with? what makes you happy?

**the symbol at the top is the chinese character for happiness. Taken from here. **

Silliness A Stepping Stone To Substance

Mark Dever spoke about the importance of preaching in chapel today, and he shared this quote by John Piper:

Everybody knows that with the right personality, the right music, the right location, and the right schedule you can grow a church without anybody really knowing what doctrinal commitments sustain it, if any. Church planting specialists generally downplay biblical doctrine in the core values of what makes a church "successful."

The long term effect of this ethos is a weakening of the church that is concealed as long as the crowds are large, the band is loud, the tragedies are few, and persecution is still at the level of preferences.

But more and more this doctrinally-diluted brew of music, drama, life-tips, and marketing seems out of touch with real life in this world, not to mention the next. It tastes like watered down gruel, not a nourishing meal. It simply isn't serious enough. It's too playful and chatty and casual. Its joy just doesn't feel deep enough or heartbroken or well-rooted.

The injustice and persecution and suffering and hellish realities in the world today are so many and so large and so close that I can't help but think that, deep inside, people are longing for something weighty and massive and rooted and stable and eternal. So it seems to me that the trifling with silly sketches and breezy welcome-to-the-den styles on Sunday morning are just out of touch with what matters in life.

Of course, it works. Sort of. Because, in the name of felt needs, it resonates with people's impulse to run from what is most serious and weighty and what makes them most human and what might open the depths of God to their souls. The design is noble. Silliness is a stepping stone to substance. But it's an odd path. And evidence is not ample that many are willing to move beyond fun and simplicity. So the price of minimizing truth-based joy and maximizing atmosphere-based comfort is high.

More and more, it seems to me, the end might be in view. I doubt that a religious ethos with such a feel of entertainment can really survive as Christian for too many more decades. Crises reveal the cracks.

I think Piper's hit the nail square on the head here. We don't need more churches that are "relevant" in the same way that pop media is relevant: funny, witty, entertaining, consumer oriented drivel that shifts our gaze off of the serious to tickle our self-centered appetites.

What we need are churches that are "relevant" in the same way the gospel is relevant: speaking to hardness and suffering of this present life. We need substance, not fluff. We need churches that are committed to the preaching of this kind of Word.

From Freud to Faith

I'm reading an interesting little book by called The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life. The author is a clinical psychiatrist who teaches at Harvard. The premise is pretty straightforward: how do Freud (atheist) and Lewis (atheist-turned-Christian) see life differently? How is it that both look at the same data and come to remarkably different conclusions?

I've found the description of Lewis' conversion particularly interesting. For starters, Lewis begins as a committed atheist:

Beforehand, Lewis had been even more certain of his atheism than was Freud. Freud wavered in his atheism as an undergraduate at the University of Vienna. Lewis, at Oxford, never wavered. He met and liked people in the clergy, but writes, "Though I liked clergyman as I liked bears, I had as little wish to be in the church as in the zoo."

The notion of an Ultimate Authority who might interfere in his life made him feel nauseated... [This is] what I wanted: some area, however small, of which I could say to all other beings, 'This is my business and mine only.'" Lewis recognized in himself a deep-seated wish that God not exist. (81)

Lewis is pretty clear - he didn't go looking for God. So what brought about the change? Lewis is great in this regard, because he's so introspective (he's just as interested in understanding it himself). In his own case, he describes his conversion as lengthy, gradual, and primarily intellectual.

Lewis became aware that all the authors he most admired, both ancient and modern, embraced the spiritual worldview - Plato, Virgil, Dante, Johnson, Spense, Milton, and more modern writers like George MacDonald and G. K. Chesterton. That materialists he read seemed by comparison "a little thin." ...

Then two events happened in quick succession. First, Lewis read G. K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man, a book that profoundly impressed him with the arguments he later used in his own writings. ... Lewis could not understand his positive reaction to Chesterton's spiritualism. He notes: "My pessimism, my atheism, and my hatred of sentiment would have made him to me the least congenial of all authors ... It would almost seem that Providence ... quite overrules our previous tastes when it decides to bring two minds together ... A young man who wishes to remain a sounds Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."

Then a second event happened that had "a shattering impact." One of the most militant atheists among the Oxford faculty [where Lewis himself was teaching], T. D. Weldon, sat in Lewis's room one evening and remarked that the historical authenticity of the Gospels was surprisingly sound. This deeply disturbed Lewis. He immediately understood the implications...

Lewis remembered an incident that happened several years earlier - on the first day he had arrived at Oxford as a teenager. He left the train station carrying his bags and began to walkin gin the direction of the college, antiticipating his first glimpse of the "fabled cluster of spires and towers" he had heard and dreamed of for so many years.

As he walked and headed out into open country, he could see no signs of the great university. When he turned around, he noticed the majestic college spires and towers on the opposite side of the town and realized he was headed in the wrong direction. Lewis write many years later in his authobiography, "I did not see to what extent this little adventure was an allegory of my whole life."

Lewis writes that he began to feel his "Adversary" - the One he wanted desperately not to exist - closing in on him. He felt hounded. Most of the great writers he admired and many of his closest friends were believers... Lewis wondered if they might be right. He realized he could use his will to "open the door or keep it shut."

He made one of the most fateful decisions in his life. Lewis decided to open his mind and examine the evidence... (83-84)

Lewis quickly realized he knew very little about Christianity, because he knew very little about the Christian Scriptures.

"What I couldn't understand was how the life and death of Someone Else (whoever he was) 2000 years ago could help us in the here and now... My puzzle was the whole doctrine of redemption." So he began reading the New Testament in Greek.

One of the things that always amazes me is how few unbelievers who say they are looking for truth are actually willing to take the time to read the Bible (even in English). Is this just 'intellectual laziness'? Or is it something else? Is this unique to American postmodernism? Or is it simply representative of humanity. I don't know. Lewis, however, was certainly no mental slouch:

As he read the New Testament, he was struck by it. Lewis had spent his life reading ancient manuscripts. As an atheist, he like Freud, considered the New Testament story simply another of the great myths. He knew well the ancient myths and legends - especially Norse mythology - and they moved him deeply. ...

But the Gospels, Lewis noted, did not contain the rich, imaginative writings of these talented, ancient writings. They appeared to be simple eyewitness accounts of historical events, primarily by Jews who were clearly unfamiliar with the great myths of the pagan world around them. Lewis writes, "I was now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste." He observes that they were different from anything else in literature. "If ever myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this."

In his book Miracles, Lewis explains that God sometimes uses myth to foretell what will eventuall occur in history: "...the truth first appears in mythical form, and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate in history." (86)

Very, very interesting. I suspect that not only do many of us not know the Biblical story, but we are frightenly illiterate of the great secular stories as well. We betray our ignorance when we ascribe mythic status to pop culture cotton candy like Star Wars and The Matrix.

Is it any wonder that our hyper consumer-oriented culture has produced a people who are increasingly materialistic, hedonistic, relativistic. I'm afraid that I myself fall into this category more than I'd like to admit. Disciplined thinkers like Lewis seem increasingly alien to our generation.

This post is getting long, so I'll end with Lewis's conclusion:

Lewis noticed that this Person also claimed to forgive sins, to forgive what people did to others. ... "Unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic." ... Even Freud seemed to recognize the uniqueness of this claim... Chesterton pointed out that no great moral teacher ever claimed to be God - not Mohammed, not Micah, not Malachi, or Confucius, or Plato, or Buddha: "Not one of them ever made that claim... and the greater the man is, the less likely he is to make the greatest claim."

Lewis himself expands on Chesterton's point... "If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, 'My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he world first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off... The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question."

[We are left with] only one of three possibilities: he was either deluded, or deliberately attempting to deceive his followers for some ulterior motive, or he was who he claimed to be...

"A man who was merely a man and said the things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic... or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice... You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (88-89)

Ah, that's what I love about Lewis. He sees the heart of the issue clearly and cuts to the chase. May we strive to do likewise...

Krissy's Life Story

For those of you who were completely grossed out by my previous post on pillow fungi - hold that thought for a second and read this: Krissy's life story (part 1). Now ask yourself - "Why is my reaction so different?"

In both cases, we look beneath the surface to discover all kinds of muck - yet fungus is repulsive, whereas there's something powerfully attractive about a story like Krissy's. Why the difference? After all, they're both just life forms at different places on the evolutionary scale, right?

I think it's all about the image of God in each of us. You see, fungus in pillows sounds really gross until you hold it up next to a real person who has suffered - that throws everything into sharp relief, proper perspective, doesn't it? We somehow know that Krissy is the real story - she is the one who matters here.

Even if we can't explain it, we intuitively recognize her worth and significance, because she has been created in the image of God; fungus has not. At the same time, we also see ourselves in her - she is not that different from us, many of us have had similar experiences, been hurt in similar ways. We intuitively know that there is something fundamentally wrong in this world. Life is not functioning the way it was meant to be. Parents are not supposed to act like hers did, like we ourselves often do. We were meant for better things.

I don't know Krissy. Even though she only lives a couple of blocks away from me, I've never had the chance to meet her (although I'd like too). I only know her from a lone blog comment a couple of months ago, and an email or two since then.

I have no idea whether she is big, tall, skinny, fat, pretty, or ugly. But I do know this - she is beautiful. Not because she has it all together, but because she is human. There is a glory about her because she has been created in God's image and she is beginning to open herself up and reveal what's going on inside. Even more, there is something spiritual going on. I'm not entirely sure of the specifics, but it's obvious that something is happening.

Where am I going with all this? I have no idea. I just know that all our individual stories are part of a grander story, and I find it fascinating to watch it all unfold, to be able to get to know some of my fellow actors in this grand tale, to be able to share our experiences over coffee or beer. I also know that for whatever reason, God uses people like Krissy in our lives, and he uses people like us in hers. I don't understand that, but I'm thankful for it.

Where does it end? I don't know! For now, I'll just have to wait for part 2, and then play it by ear from there...

Pillow Fungi

Uggh! You do not even want to read this... evidently pillows (both new and old) are veritable fungus factories. I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but I thought I'd share it. Sleep well...

Our Identity

This came to me in class today...

As followers of Christ, we must resist the temptation to find our identity in our theology (what we believe) or in our ecclesiology (how we worship). Instead, we need to find our identity in who we are: Christians, a community united to Christ through faith, and to one another as family.

We must constantly remind ourselves: we don't DO church - we ARE the church, and we are called to BE the church - the church is not a building, a program, or even a worship service; the church is a body, a living organism that exemplifies unity in the midst of diversity, that pursues justice while giving grace.

So when we talk about "planting a church" what we really mean is "being a people" - living lives of faith in Christ and service to one another, living with one another, living for one another.

Being "transformed by the Gospel" means learning to image God in every inch of our lives, relationships, and communities. It is 'doing' that flows from 'being'.

A Glimpse of Joy

I'm writing this because I'm really strange. Of course, lot's of people notice that - most are polite enough not to gawk, but a few actually seem interested in understand ing what makes me tick.

For those who do, I've decided to do something utterly foolish (and probably completely boring for the rest of you) - I've decided to offer a glimpse of something that delights me deeply. I'm speaking of language, poetry, imagery, particularly as it's penned by C.S. Lewis.

Lewis is someone who gets it. I can see that simply by reading. Now, lots of people like Lewis these days (and soon he'll be all the rage, just like Tolkien has become of late). But I like Lewis for different reasons than most.

I like Lewis because I think we see the world from a similar perspective (presumptuous, I know).

As an example, here's a passage that I've been reading tonight as I started Lewis' autobiography, Surprised By Joy. Lewis, in describing how his sense of Imagination was awakened mentions 3 key events in his childhood: first, the sight of his brother's toy garden; second, the tale of Beatrix Potter's Squirrel Nutkin; and third, by the poetry of Longfellow:

The third glimpse came through poetry. I had become fond of Longfellow's Saga of King Olaf: fond of it in a casual, shallow way for it's story and its vigorous rhythms. But then, and quite different from such pleasures, and like a voice from far more distant regions, there came a moment when I idly turned the pages of the book and found the unrhymed translation ot Tegner's Drapa and read:

I heard a voice that cried,
Balder the beautiful
Is dead, is dead -

I knew nothing about Balder; but instantly I was uplifted into huge regions of northern sky, I desired with almost sickening intensity something never to be described (except that it is cold, spacious, sever, pale, and remote) and then, as in the other examples, found myself at the very same moment already falling out of that desire and wishing I were back in it.

Many people will undoubtedly find this dull. I read these words and feel something click inside - wow! This moves me! I know what Lewis is speaking about; I can see the image and feel it's weight. This type of thing resonates deeply in my soul, because this is how I look at life. I read things like this and savor them all evening (now if only I could write about it like he does!)

Of course, Lewis seems to anticipate that many will find such a perspective strange.

The reader who finds these three episodes of no interest need read this book no further, for in a sense the central story of my life is about nothing else. For those who are still disposed to proceed I will only underline the quality common to the three experiences; it is that of an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction. I call it Joy...

... Joy (in my sense) has indeed one characteristic, and one only, in common with them [Happiness and Pleasure]; the fact that anyone who has experienced it will want it again.

- Surprised By Joy, p 17-18.

When Lewis speaks of desire and Joy, I know what he has in mind - or at least I think I do - because the imagery he uses stirs me deeply. I love the way he writes, the poetic turn of even simple phrases: "Joy is never in our power and pleasure often is."

Yes it's pithy, but it's also true, and the "logic" that drives him to this conclusion is not logical or rational; it's creational, imaginative, artistic. Lewis has learned to exegete general revelation - both God's creation (the natural) and man's (the arts).

Lewis scans these horizons, discovering signposts that point us to God: Beauty, Desire, Imagination. As a master painter, he works with words rather than oils. I love to read him because the vistas in his mind's eye look a lot like the countryside in my own.

I may be crazy, but at least I won't be alone. Lewis and I will go there together, peering deeply for a glimpse of Joy.

More Sex & The Image of God

A few weeks ago I concluded that, “If we're looking for better sex, we need to start by renovating our imago-dei.” I'd like to pick up where I left off and flesh out some implications.

The basic premise is simple: I think the driving force behind our sexual impulses is creational rather than biological – we strongly desire sex because we are built with a fundamental thirst for intimate relationships. Humanity is relational because the God himself is fundamentally relational (trinity) and we are created in his image. We are creative for the same reasons; God himself is fundamentally creative.

Of course we need to keep in mind that our resemblance to God is analogous, not identical. This is why our creativity is always derivative (whereas God is free to create ex nihilo). This is why we are designed to find our ultimate satisfaction in something outside ourselves (whereas God finds fulfillment in himself).

That may be a hard sell for sinners bent on serving themselves, but it shouldn't surprise us; after all, God has built reminders of our dependence into the fabric of creation – he commands Adam to do something that is impossible on his own: “Be fruitful and multiply.” And along came Eve...

This is where Scripture gets interesting. God says there is something special about this male-female relationship: it's not simply for companionship or even procreation; it's for something far grander, full of wonder, permanence, mutuality, one-flesh mysteriousness (Gen 2:20-25). It goes far beyond the simple satisfaction of mutual orgasms (although good sex is certainly a part of it).

The Apostle Paul picks up this one-flesh imagery in the NT when he addresses husbands, telling us to love our wives as our own bodies, nourishing, cherishing, purifying and perfecting them. Then he makes a startling connection: the ravishing faithfulness of husband-wife unity is meant to be a profound picture how Christ relates to the church (Eph 5:25-33). Wow.

Does Paul really have sex in view here? I think so (although that's not all he has in view). In his culture (and in ours up until about 30 years ago), sex was always seen as something sacred to the marriage relationship – it was the act that “sealed the deal” on the wedding night. Even today, we still realize that having sex with someone fundamentally changes the nature of our relationship. Paul goes further: not only do we have sexual obligations to one another within marriage (1 Cor 7:3), but sex outside of marriage actually stamps an “au-contraire” on our other one-flesh relationships, both with our spouse and with Christ (1 Cor 6:15-19).

So if bad sex breaks relationships, does good sex somehow make them better?

This question is quite revealing – it suggests that we often view sex as an end in and of itself, or as some kind of super-glue that will magically mend an otherwise broken relationship. In reality, it's the other way around – our sexuality images the health of our one-flesh relationships with Christ and our spouse; it reveals the state of the imago-dei in us.

So will renovating the image of God within actually improve my sex life?

It will, but perhaps not in the way we might expect. We need to keep in mind that relationship runs much deeper than sex. Last night at Barnes & Noble I thumbed through a Christian sex book called Sheet Music. Not bad, but I didn't buy the book. It had a lot to say about technique; but it had very little to offer about how to go deeper, to nurture the relationship which sex is supposed to image. I think that is quite telling.

At the end of the day, I suspect that being renewed in the image of Christ will teach us to be satisfied in our sexual calling. If I am single, that means learning to find joy in the discipline of chastity; if I am married, it entails fidelity, delighting in the wife of my youth, learning to how to wrestle with one another rightly, putting her desires before my own.

That last one is particularly difficult for me. I like sex. Lot's of it. But I am learning that what I desire even more is intimacy; I am discovering that what I really long for is an affectionate mutuality which Scripture says can only be found in marriage and in Christ. And I am learning that even marriage is at best a dim reflection of the real thing, that it takes a ton of work and intentionality to actually try and make the sexual relationship reflect the spiritual one.

It's not a matter of technique – it's a matter of re-orienting the desires of my heart to be a giver rather than a consumer, a servant rather than a king.

And that is a huge challenge, because even mature Christians still struggle with selfish desires. By its very nature sex seems to highlight these tensions – in most cases, the desire for sex begins as an urge or craving for our own gratification; how does that fit with dying to yourself and serving your spouse when you are on fire and she is not?

There is certainly an element of mystery here. At the same time, real one-anothering is possible in sex, and it's tremendously satisfying to find yourselves actually making progress in areas that have been sore spots for years.

Real one-flesh sex is a wondrous thing – physically, emotionally, and relationally. But the intimacy that makes these things possible it is even better. In our own marriage, we are discovering that the more we focus on modeling the imago-dei within us, the better we express our sexuality with one another.

Of course it's sometimes hard to measure our progress when we're still not sure of the ideal we should be aiming for, but maybe that's part of God's intention too – to leave plenty of room for exploring, not to find some new position, but to continually improve the orientation of our hearts, that we might better image Christ even (especially!) in the act of sex.

Rhythm of Life

This is absolutely hilarious (assuming you can appreciate Guinness). I believe this is only airing over in the UK thus far... [HT: MS]

If the main site is slow, you can try a mirrored copy here.

How Free Is Free?

How free is free, anyway? I'm talking about 'freedom of speech' here - the idea that someone should be able to speak their mind without fear of intimidation or repercussions. Are we really free to say what believe? Or is there an unwritten code of content to which we must adhere?

Noah Riner, the '06 Student Body President at Dartmouth College, came out of the closet the other day - not to say that he was gay, but rather to say that (gasp): "The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us." In other words, Jesus is the answer to our character problems.

Sound interesting? It should. Here's the whole thing [taken from here]:

Editor’s Note: Student Body President Noah Riner ‘06 spoke to the incoming class of ‘09 at today’s Convocation.

You’ve been told that you are a special class. A quick look at the statistics confirms that claim: quite simply, you are the smartest and most diverse group of freshmen to set foot on the Dartmouth campus. You have more potential than all of the other classes. You really are special.

But it isn’t enough to be special. It isn’t enough to be talented, to be beautiful, to be smart. Generations of amazing students have come before you, and have sat in your seats. Some have been good, some have been bad. All have been special.

In fact, there’s quite a long list of very special, very corrupt people who have graduated from Dartmouth. William Walter Remington, Class of 1939, started out as a Boy Scout and a choirboy and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He ended up as a Soviet spy, was convicted of perjury and beaten to death in prison.

Daniel Mason ‘93 was just about to graduate from Boston Medical School when he shot two men – killing one – after a parking dispute.

Just a few weeks ago, I read in the D about PJ Halas, Class of 1998. His great uncle George founded the Chicago Bears, and PJ lived up to the family name, co-captaining the basketball team his senior year at Dartmouth and coaching at a high school team following graduation. He was also a history teacher, and, this summer, he was arrested for sexually assualting a 15-year-old student.

These stories demonstrate that it takes more than a Dartmouth degree to build character.

As former Dartmouth President John Sloan Dickey said, at Dartmouth our business is learning. And I’ll have to agree with the motto of Faber College, featured in the movie Animal House, “Knowledge is Good.” But if all we get from this place is knowledge, we’ve missed something. There’s one subject that you won’t learn about in class, one topic that orientation didn’t cover, and that your UGA won’t mention: character.

What is the purpose of our education? Why are we at Dartmouth?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

“But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society…. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”

We hear very little about character in our classrooms, yet, as Dr. King suggests, the real problem in the world is not a lack of education.

For example, in the past few weeks we’ve seen some pretty revealing things happening on the Gulf Coast in the wake of hurricane Katrina. We’ve seen acts of selfless heroism and millions around the country have united to help the refugees.

On the other hand, we’ve been disgusted by the looting, violence, and raping that took place even in the supposed refuge areas. In a time of crisis and death, people were paddling around in rafts, stealing TV’s and VCR’s. How could Americans go so low?

My purpose in mentioning the horrible things done by certain people on the Gulf Coast isn’t to condemn just them; rather it’s to condemn all of us. Supposedly, character is what you do when no one is looking, but I’m afraid to say all the things I’ve done when no one was looking. Cheating, stealing, lusting, you name it - How different are we? It’s easy to say that we’ve never gone that far: never stolen that much; never lusted so much that we’d rape; and the people we’ve cheated, they were rich anyway.

Let’s be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven’t been given such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same.

The Times of London once asked readers for comments on what was wrong with the world. British author, G. K. Chesterton responded simply: “Dear Sir, I am.”

Not many of us have the same clarity that Chesterton had. Just days after Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the Gulf Coast, politicians and pundits were distributing more blame than aid. It’s so easy to see the faults of others, but so difficult to see our own. In the words of Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” He knew the right thing to do. He knew the cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That’s character.

Jesus is a good example of character, but He’s also much more than that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums, looters, and me.

It’s so easy to focus on the defects of others and ignore my own. But I need saving as much as they do.

Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us.

In the words of Bono:

[I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s—- and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question.

You want the best undergraduate education in the world, and you’ve come to the right place to get that. But there’s more to college than achievement. With Martin Luther King, we must dream of a nation – and a college – where people are not judged by the superficial, “but by the content of their character.”

Thus, as you begin your four years here, you’ve got to come to some conclusions about your own character because you won’t get it by just going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?

So how are the good folks at Dartmouth responding, especially those who pledge their allegience to diversity, tolerance, and the right to say what you think? Al Mohler has a nice summary. There's probably a lot more stuff out there, but I haven't had time to go looking.

My question is - what do you think? I'd especially like to hear from those of you who find Noah Riner's comments disturbing. Specifically, I'd love to hear why - what bugs you? does he really have a right to say these types of things? Look forward to hearing what you have to say...

(HT: Jim Largent)

Last Night in Montana

My brother sent me this photo of the sunset in Manhattan, MT last night. And then Molly had the nerve to post these photos of the snow in Billings yesterday.

Has me longing for broader places where the wind never stops whispering and cold comes early in the Autumn...

Duck Hunting in Montana

For all you folks who keep asking us things like, "What's it like to live in Montana?" or "Why do you like to hunt and fish and shoot things anyway?" my brother Jake has just posted a piece about opening day of duck season that might help shed some light on the situation. Check it out, it's hilarious!

Mining Secrets for the Imago-Dei

Hey folks! I need your help!

We've been talking a lot in class lately about how mankind was created in God's image. We're not just looking at the biblical / theological data; we're also trying to understand what that looks like in people's lives. My assignment for this coming week is to see how real people think about the image of God in man.

I suspect that few of us sit around pondering questions like this, but I'll bet that most of us do think deeply about life - about things we love, or hate, or fear the most. Interestingly, we often tend to keep these deep thoughts hidden from others. Secrets can be a wonderful window into the human soul, revealing what we think about God and ourselves...

So I'd like to try mining some secrets, and that's where you come in. Here's how you can help me:

1. take a few minutes and look at Post Secret. This is a fascinating little site where people anonymously send in postcards that reveal a deep dark secret they've never told anyone. Look closely and you can learn a lot about what makes people tick.
   
   
2. pick one postcard that moves you the most (either in a Yesss! or Nooo! sort of way). Right-click on the postcard image and copy the link location (or, if you don't know how to do that, just jot down the text).
   
   
3. leave a brief anonymous comment on this post telling me:
   a) which postcard you selected (link or text)
   b) why (ie. what grabbed you about this particular card)
   c) (opt) what you think it reveals about the author's heart
   
   
4. (opt) email this link to a friend or two and invite them to participate as well. If you are a blogger, please consider linking to this post or "tagging" some of your blogster friends to participate.
   

That's it! Your responses will help me gather data about how people think about God and about themselves. If I get enough feedback, then I'll try and write some kind of summary next Wednesday or Thursday.

Thanks for all your help!

Donald Miller & Blue Like Jazz

Want to know more about Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz? There's a very interesting article here - not just about him, but also about the emergent church movement that seems to have latched on to the types of things he's saying.

The article's a bit old (Feb 2005), but if you are interested in these things, it's definitely worth reading (it's authored by a non-Christian who writes for his hometown newspaper, so you get a nice, real-world local perspective). You probably won't agree with everything Miller says (I don't), but before we criticize, we would do well to consider this closing snippet on the last page:

At Starbucks, after I close my notebook, Miller looks at me. "So you've been talking to people, working on your stories," he says. "Has anyone explained to you what the Gospel is?"

I say, no, not in so many words.

"I could give you the sales pitch," he says. "Because maybe, who knows, 10 years down the road…"

Then Miller proceeds, in the most low-key and friendly way, to explain that God loves me, wants to have a relationship with me-and, for that matter, everyone. The relationship was damaged in the Garden, but Christ came to earth to fix it. The invitation, Miller says, is always open.

"That's one of the hardest things to do, to share your faith," Miller says when he's done. "I mean, especially with a journalist, someone you know could just hang you out to dry.

"So that's it," he says. "Plus, you have to vote Republican. Did I mention that?"

That to me is very, very impressive. Miller sharing his faith with the reporter who is just there to get his story, and the reporter actually writing positively about it. How many non-Christians would say the same of us?