In the relatively short time that I have been in ministry, I have come to the conclusion that most men, even (especially?) Christian men have either endured and fought through or are presently engaged in some type of sexual sin. I no longer assume that a man is not involved in some type of sexual bondage that is detrimental to his life. I now assume that he is. Why do so many men struggle in this way?
In this video John Piper explains that the desire for sexual "titillation" for both men and women is a natural thing. However, what we do with that desire is the issue. The good news is that through the love of Jesus we possess the power to overcome all temptations. What temptation are you dealing with today? No matter how evil it may seem to you or how wrapped up in it you are, know that if you have Jesus in your life, through Him you can conquer anything and mortify any sin that has taken hold of your life.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Twitter Feed
About Me
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Hits
15 comments:
much needed post...very applicable to so many.
Chief - your post is far too simplistic. Healing from from one's enslavement to sexual disorders in a culture of consumption requires far more than "having [the power of] Jesus in your life."
I "had Jesus" for all 13 years of my own personal entanglement with addiction.
Every one of the men in my support group "had Jesus" and most of them are still gripped daily by their addictions, shame, and despair. In many cases these men continue to be violated by obsessively rigid, moralistic, and meritocratic theologies. The men and women who struggle need more than a religious slogan.
"Out of the Shadows" by Patrick Carnes is an excellent starting point for those suffering the shame, regret, and hopelessness of sexual addiction as well as a resource for people interested in demystifying sexual addiction and bringing it out from under the cultural veil of shame and secrecy.
Nathan,
Thanks for the book suggestion. I understand where you are coming from with your comment. However, I do not feel comfortable saying that the Jesus' power is too simplistic. Perhaps I worded it too simplistically, but His power to overcome is not.
You are sort of missing what I'm saying. You error when you insinuate that "having Jesus" is the cure to any perversion. By perversion I mean to say idolatry. And, imo, the nature of all sin is idolatry. So, "having Jesus" is not a cure for any sin. If language is at all important (and I would argue it is) then you can't "have" Jesus at all. To "have" something connotes ownership and Jesus is a person to whom we relate. Not a possession we own.
But, I am not saying Jesus is not important. I am only conveying what Dan Allender has already said:
"The labor of life is to begin to understand why Jesus is the core of what it is our souls were most meant to need. If what we give one another is other than Jesus then I don’t know what it fully means to be a "Christian" therapist, but the things that get said in the name of Jesus, often from my standpoint seldom connect to the heart of Jesus. You can be a Christian counselor and do wonderful work as a prayer healer. I think you can deal with the demonic and be a Christian therapist. I think there are many elements to being a good Christian therapist, but let me say this now and hopefully it will get clearer through the semester. To be a good Christian therapist, seldom do you talk about Jesus. It is not because you have forgotten that Jesus is the one who is most worth talking about and it is not because Jesus has become relegated to a secondary/tertiary, higher/lower level in helping people in the process of coming to truth. You will talk about Jesus as you do good therapy, but you will talk about so much more about so many other things before you will come to talk about Jesus. It doesn’t mean that you talk about therapy for 90% and then go, “JESUS.” It does mean that the way you talk about Jesus will fit very few categories of what people understand to be Jesus and you talk about Jesus in a way in which most people can say, “You’ve not talked about Jesus.” [Why?] because Jesus disrupts and He heals and the healing is more disrupting than the disruptions."
So, when you say Jesus has the power to heal, what you may rather say is, Jesus will disrupt your life to the point that all the things you've clung to as your source of comfort and hope will begin to crumble apart. They will seem empty and lonely and absurd. But your brain will crave them continuously and just as continuously the good news of liberation and freedom and life will call you towards Jesus. It will disrupt you and ruin you and you will die. Because, the good news is this, those who die, live and those who are last are first. Not in some disconnected hereafter. NOW! In the land of the living with the God of the living.
Nathan,
I agree with most of what you are saying. Although, I do think you are making too much of out of the "have" in the phrase "have" Jesus.
What I was trying to portray in my relatively short commentary on the video, is that with Jesus all addictions, etc. can be cured. Without Jesus, they can't. Rehabilitation is more than just behavior modification - it is heart renewal that can only be found in a regenerate person's life - that person who 'has' Jesus - or more specifically the Holy Spirit
Yeah, I can see what you were trying to illicit. I disagree with you, but know the train of thought well.
My concern for the church, and subsequently why I think every brief use of language is theologically important, is that the dominant expression of Christianity is defined as getting right with Jesus by learning and affirming correct dogma with a payoff of reoriented desires from negative addictions towards the purity of "positive" ones. Meanwhile, the stuff that got Jesus killed (wealth redistribution, downward mobility, unconditional acceptance of the marginalized etc.) is increasingly absent from theological discussions.
The subversive Jesus movement has been replaced with a docile faith that colludes with political power brokers and renders the gospel socially irrelevant. It becomes little more than a individual, therapeutic trinket that encourages "right" belief and "right" behavior to get heaven in the afterlife. The focus is to get people to heaven rather than acknowledge and respond to the living hell right here and now.
Prophets and poets expose this idolatry. http://www.amiribaraka.com/Dope.mp3
If Amiri is too harsh you may want to avoid Isaiah.
Nathan - You said:
"the dominant expression of Christianity is defined as getting right with Jesus by learning and affirming correct dogma with a payoff of reoriented desires from negative addictions towards the purity of "positive" ones."
I would agree with most of that definition, although it seems to written as if what its defining is negative. I would say that "getting right" with God is the heart of the Gospel. How would you define "the Gospel"?
You also said, "Meanwhile, the stuff that got Jesus killed (wealth redistribution, downward mobility, unconditional acceptance of the marginalized etc.) is increasingly absent from theological discussions.
I would say that, humanly speaking, the main thing that 'got Jesus killed' is the fact that he claimed to be God. For instance, if you look at Matthew, after Jesus claims to be God's son, and asserts himself as sitting at God's right hand, the high priest tears his robe (which was forbidden for him to do) and has him arrested. This arrest leads to his crucifixion.
So, while the acts that you mentioned above disturbed the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus claim to be divine ultimately got him killed.
Divinely speaking, what got him killed was that the Father ordained Jesus' death as His way of reconciling His people back to Himself and rescuing them from their sin, which if left unforgiven, would lead to eternal death.
You said, "The subversive Jesus movement has been replaced with a docile faith that colludes with political power brokers and renders the gospel socially irrelevant."
I would not call this type of faith docile. Also, I don't see how this type of faith is socially irrelevant. If anything, it is perfectly relevant.
Lastly you said, "It becomes little more than a individual, therapeutic trinket that encourages "right" belief and "right" behavior to get heaven in the afterlife. The focus is to get people to heaven rather than acknowledge and respond to the living hell right here and now."
I think the Gospel is relevant both for salvation from sin and the living hell right here and now. I don't think you can divorce the two.
With all that said, my two questions to you are:
1. What is your definition of The Gospel?
and
2. What do you think was Jesus' purpose in coming to the earth?
It seems to me that the "good news", indeed, the best news is this: the kingdom of God is at hand.
To answer your question fully though requires more than I've just given.
The slogans "Son of God", "Lord of Lords", "King of Kings", even divine insemination and virgin births: these were honors bestowed upon the Roman ruler Caesar. They were plastered on city gateways and royal decrees as well as immortalized in poetry, song, sculpture, and artifacts throughout the Roman empire.
Jesus begins his ministry, in the Markan account, with a simple message, "Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand". God's kingdom, as Jesus shows us is nothing like the kingdoms of this world where might makes right, war makes "peace", money means power, and power means the ability to oppress.
While in utero, Mary's Song (Luke 1:46-55) announces the fulfillment of God's mission in the person of Jesus. She exclaims, God will scatter the arrogant, boot out
the politicians, and re-order the economy so that the poor thrive and the wealthy learn
humility. Through Christ, the kingdom of God is embodied. Health and vigor and imagination and new life here and now.
Jesus, imo, was not killed because he claimed divinity. It was that he claimed a status reserved for Caesar and he refused to act like the religious leaders thought their King would. The false prophets before him and after him made similar claims w/o imperial crucifixion. No, Jesus was killed because he brought down religious, political and economic rulers and raised the lowly to honored status.
His death was the result of treason, and it was this charge the masses spewed at him. The religious leaders colluded with empire to crucify the one true king. But, the resurrection is the last word of God's story. In the resurrection God pronounces liberation, freedom and resurrection to all. Fear not death. Fear not empire. Fear not religious zealots and moral fundamentalists.
And this is the GREAT NEWS of the incarnation, the resurrection and pentecost: WE ALL, like Mary, carry Christ in us. Therefore, we are able, without fear, to carry Christ through our bodies, our intellect, our imagination, creativity, our courage and
our compassion out into the PUBLIC world and not only PROCLAIM God has done a new thing, God is doing a new thing, God will do a new thing but we can also, without fear, roll up our sleeves and PARTICIPATE in the renewal of world groaning for redemption.
Or, maybe not...
My hope for the nature of the gospel can easily become its own form of dogma. Wisdom, I believe, counsels us to reflect and reshape and start anew as our experience and relationships evolve...daily.
I feel like we are getting off track, but I do want to ask you to clarify a few things (I won't chase the rabbit and go into the fact that multiple times Jesus claimed divinity...)
In two sentences or less, give me your definition of
The Gospel
Who Jesus is
How you answer those questions (in the concise form of 1-2 sentences) will tell me a lot about your beliefs.
What exactly would the 1-2 sentence exercise tell you about my beliefs?
Or, more potently, what will your discernment of my beliefs tell you about ME?
Won't know until I read it.
You may not know how you will respond because you do not yet know the CONTENT of my answers, but you know very well how you will respond based on whether or not my beliefs match your own.
You've placed yourself in a position of power as the judge of my beliefs. One gets the feeling that you not only know how you will respond but that you also KNOW the truth, and therefore have the right to ask the question. But, even more than knowing the truth, one gets the feelings that you believe your life exemplifies the truth. You embody it and therefore are able to judge whether others meet your standard.
Unfortunately, beliefs won't give us any insight about each other. I could tell you the answers you seek. I hold my own Masters degree in theological studies.
But, the CONTENT of our lives is not in our beliefs. The CONTENT of our lives is our actions and the way we relate to ourselves and others.
We can say we believe in the resurrection. We believe the virgin birth. We believe Jesus died on the cross as an atonement of our sins. We believe that through belief in Him we will not be punished but receive eternal life. We believe Jesus was fully God and fully human. We believe he never sinned, etc. etc. etc.
The Priest in Luke 10 had all the right answers and expressed belief in the right doctrines and creeds, but it was the Samaritan who trusted (embodied) the story.
The GOOD NEWS is that we can trust the story.
The CONTENT of our faith is how we carry Christ in us through our bodies, our intellect, our imagination, creativity, our courage and our compassion OUT into the PUBLIC world to PROCLAIM God has done, is doing, will do a new thing and we are empowered to roll up our sleeves and PARTICIPATE in the renewal of world groaning for redemption.
You should know theologians are never concise! The biblical text protects itself from precision and conformity.
And finally, a quote "God does not, then, want to put people into little boxes and keep them safe and sound. It is, after all, possible to be so sound that you’re sound asleep. I am not in favor of unsoundness; but soundness means health, and health means growth, and growth means life and vigor and new directions. The little boxes in which you put people and keep them under control are called coffins." - Wright
"The CONTENT of our lives is our actions and the way we relate to ourselves and others."
You seem awfully quick to make definitive statements about my beliefs and thoughts but when I question you about yours you get defensive claiming that I hold some type of self-proclaimed superiority.
How are you relating to ME in this discussion? What is your motivation in starting this conversation? What exactly are you trying to say?
My purpose has been well stated throughout. Having a personal relationship with Jesus is not a cure to sexual struggles. The conversation has progressed because at the heart of this common fallacy is bad theology.
I have no problem making definitive statements Chief. I've made scores of them throughout our exchange. I'm just not going to narrow my position on the gospel and the identity of Jesus to 1-2 sentences so that you can decide whatever it is you hope to decide about my beliefs. I think it is a futile exercise.
I'm strongly disagreeing with your views on sexual perversions and Christology. That is how I am relating to you. I'm confronting your published opinions and offering your readers another alternative. And, yes, I believe my alternative is better and offers more holistic and lasting recovery from sexual disorders and many other idolatries.
I make this definitive statement because I experience these struggles firsthand, have gone through extensive treatment and am more than happy to actually discuss the actual realities of the situation rather than speak in religious platitudes.
If you would like to relate with ME, which has never been the exercise, then I say we start a new post on your blog and have a real conversation about our own personal struggles with sexual disorders. We can let your parishioners know that being honest and real will not get them shamed and shunned. Then we can talk about the frequency of these thoughts and actions even as followers of Christ, and how the church has played both positive and negative role on our sexuality. We could open the forum up for anonymous questions or spin it off into a confidential group setting at your church. I could join by gchat video.
Would you like to do it Chief? I'm seriously on board. Because I'm tired of seeing the church touch only the fringes of an issue that is destroying the very fabric of our humanity.
What do ya say? Let me know!
Nathan,
I've been trying not to take offense to your last comment (as well as previous ones). So far you've accused me of:
1 - bad theology
2 - having a simplistic view of the power of Jesus and sanctification
3 - confronting a tough issue by being naive and offering simple 'religious platitudes'
4 - my view (albeit orthodox) of Jesus in general
That's not the best way to make friends with fellow believers in Christ! ;-)
You should know that your approach, while passionate, is combative with a heavy touch of arrogance - especially in the written form. I affirm your interest in trying to help those that have been 'addicted' to pornography and other sexual problems. It's a real issue and you rightly state that it is destroying people everywhere.
My ultimate plea is that people do not look for deliverance from this issue ultimately from 'therapy,' or accountability partners or sheer will - these are indeed helpful but the cornerstone for freedom from this issue has to be the forgiveness and power to heal of Jesus and not ourselves. Anything less is moralistic behavior modification.
I have no intention in starting a new blog post on this issue with you. However, I also share the desire that no one should ever feel shamed and shunned by their sexual problems. Unfortunately, that's not the case. When sin is in control of our lives we will feel shame - that shame coupled with God's forgiveness, is a good thing because it leads us to repentance.
But to suggest that if I do not accept your views then I am shunning and pointing the finger to those that have these problems is also offensive.
I'm tired of seeing the church touch the fringes of this issue as well, but I like my ultimate approach better than yours. Thanks for your passionate views, however. You've given many much to think about.
Post a Comment