Ah, cat poop, dark roast coffee and political revolution. Now THIS is what bar conversation is supposed to be like.

Aaron: in regards to the dog and the cat poop, why do you care what the dog eats? Dogs do disgusting things, this is one of them.  It is consistent with the dogginess of your dog to eat cat poop, is it not? Are you trying to turn your dog into something he was never meant to be? If The Creator is cool with an animal that eats cat poop, why are you so exercised about it. Perhaps it is you, my friend, who needs to change, who needs to learn to offer to your dog the same unconditional love and acceptance he affords you, no matter what you eat.

All: In regards to the coffee, thank you for the education. I have found myself gravitating toward the medium and even light roasts in recent years, and have harbored secret feelings that such urges were less than manly. Yet again, the fellows of the BHT provide emotional  sustenance for my weary and faltering soul. Thank you.

PWinn & Travis: Politics makes us do strange things, eh?  I would care more about your disagreement if I thought that it mattered which moron we elect as Grand Poobah,  but it doesn’t. My only hope – barring a hurricane that destroys DC, (fingers crossed!) – is that gridlock keeps the feds fighting amongst themselves. The Empire has entered its terminal phase and – if the history of Rome is any guide, (and I think it is) – there ain’t diddly-squat to be done about it. I expect another grand Republic to arise in 1000 or so years. At that time, the Obama/McCain squabble will be seen to be about as meaningful as “who gets to be Caesar in 5th century Rome”.  John H. ought to be able to offer us some insight into how to think about your country once the Empire it once ruled has dissolved.

America was a grand experiment, wasn’t it? Next time, shoot all the bankers FIRST. All of them, every last bloody one of them.

Mr. Site Admin Sir: That banner headline ain’t exactly those most trenchant thing we’ve ever had up there, is it? Sheesh, what a pointy head that Ravi guy is, huh? I wonder what the weather is like on the planet where he lives?

A while back, I said that “saving the environment” largely involves screwing over the third world. I didn’t really have this in mind, but it turns out I was right in more ways than one, although the “green” response to the new Tata Nano is exactly what I predicted. In case you didn’t follow, they’re furious that lower income folks in India can afford cars. All these additional cars will destroy the environment, so they’re demanding that India impose huge taxes on it to prevent all those unwashed masses from having access to the same luxuries they do.

I really cannot bang any sense out of that claim that evangelical notions of justification and sanctification are too “Lutheranized.” It seems to me that most of evangelicaldom has been in a full sprint away from simul justus et peccator. I think it is fair to ask about the practical dimension of the theology of the cross, but I think Fitch has extrapolated from the Law/Gospel distinction to a way of thinking and living that isn’t recognizably Lutheran.

Here is an existential interpretation of simul justus et peccator. More »« Less

Jesse, we have a brand new group on campus, the Orthodox Student Association, that provides a mid-day Moleban service once a week (two priests come to officiate). Almost everyone who attends is in the philosophy department :-)

After the final litany, one of the concluding petitions is “Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” I gave my friend, who is converting from Protestantism, an earful about that. Now I know it’s probably just a shorthand way of asking the Son to heed the intercessions of His mother on our behalf and to save us, but still.

Have a great Synaxis of the Three Hierarchs, by the way. Those are some awesome saints. Of course, in the Reformed world, every day is the Synaxis of the Three Hierarchs (Calvin, Zwingli and Knox).

As for your remarks about assurance, I don’t understand how it can be a non-starter. I do understand that the whole paradigm of salvation as a legal affair goes away, and so you don’t have the worry about standing in God’s law court and being declared in the right. But if there’s not an assurance problem at all, how can there be faith?

Mark, thanks for that link. It is very encouraging, and I am glad that when we contemplate 2m treated, 7m preventions, and 10m cared for, that these are not statistics, but flesh and blood people. The fact that no one noticed the significance of that mother and daughter last night just reinforces my belief that the movement that is called “pro-life” is far too narrow in its concerns.

Yet here is a supremely humane initiative—inconceivable to foreign policy realists—linked to U.S. security concerns. Bush rightly calls it “a reflection of our national interest and the calling of our conscience.”

It is good to hear a conservative appreciate how the additional $30 billion Bush has requested for PEPFAR is at the same time an investment in national security.

There’s something else going on.

Yes, there certainly is. The criticisms and complaints I’ve been hearing from that corner of the stands are nothing short of Eunomian. (Lurker: now this “sounds familiar”.)

Transactionalism is the most tenacious foe of the gospel. It slithers into our religious feelings and reminds us that the gospel is too good to be true. It makes itself over more than guests on a Fox reality show. For example:

at the moment when we put our childlike faith in Jesus Christ, he became our punishment and our obedience. That is, at that moment he became the obedience required for God to be totally for us.

Sorry, I think I know what the gospel is, but this quote expresses neither the gospel nor justification by faith. I very much appreciate the sentiment, but the quote expresses transactionalism as much as “the Savior is waiting to enter your heart, why don’t you let Him come in? There’s nothing in this world to keep you apart, what is your answer to Him?”

The problem here is one that Josh and others here can knock out of the park. But it comes down to this: in order to marginalize Wright, Piper is describing faith as something we do. And this in turn gets us the goodies. But justification is not something we can obtain, either by faith or by good works. If there is anything about our right-standing before God that we do ourselves, then we’ve got something that is a necessary factor for grace and forgiveness other than what God alone does. What Piper is describing is that some interior renovation must occur in me so that then I can exercise faith and thereby obtain God’s favor. Besides the exchange taking place in the span of my historical life (rather than from before the foundation of the world, i.e., beyond time), the entire process described is theoretical, not biblical. We do something and thereby obligate God to play the part of an agent of economic discharge. In this peon’s opinion, Dr. Piper would do those who look up to him a service if he were more direct and clear about monergism rather than sticking a Wright juju doll under the klieg light so that everyone can watch another sincere man thrash him like a fetish.

For those who need to hear it, these are the words of Derek Webb’s “Wedding Dress”

Michael wrote

I believe God’s agenda is to remove from me all my illusions, even the ones I think I must have to survive.

I have said this about it: God systematically reduces each of us to the point of absolute dependence on Him. I believe that’s about as close to a real operating definition of “sanctification” as we can ever come up with.

Pirate: I too get a kick out of watching Reformed folks try to squirm their way through 2 Peter 2. My son attends an evangelical Christian school that normally tows the Reformed line – especially “once saved, always saved”. I encourage him to consider 2 Peter 2 and Hebrews 10 and throw it out there in class. I’m afraid he got shot down – going into battle unprepared – but at least he’s thinking outside the theological box into which most of his classmates are unknowingly stuffed.

In case you don’t know, the abnormal discourse remark is a compliment of the highest order.

Oh, and thanks for the explanation of the possible connection of sexual immorality to Jewish/Gentile cultural differences. If we wanted to pursue that interpretation further and how it might apply to the idea of “purity clubs”, one might argue that we again live in a culture so foreign to biblical norms that this particular challenge pertaining to sexual immorality could again be appropriately singled out as a requirement. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that common practice among Christians today (such as what most watch on TV or what young women wear to church) would shock pre-Modern Christians.

Maybe a little cranky. Another thing I’ve learned in Comp Studies is that I have an affection for abnormal discourse, and that is a good thing. : ) (You should relate, Michael, for thou art the king of abnormal discourse).

Having said all that about celibacy vows, let me assure you that the likelihood of me starting a purity club is on par with the plausibility of Joel playing drums in the church band. Ain’t happenin. I’m just trying to consider the possibility that the poor sucker who is starting one might actually be operating under a divine mandate.

Here’s my point: whether you want to call it a requirement or a rule or a vow, there are plenty of instances in scripture and in church history of folks being told “here is what you should or shouldn’t do” because you belong to Christ or “this is what you should commit to” because you follow Christ. Yes, this is dangerous and has been repeatedly misused and abused throughout church history, but I’m not gonna jump on the bangwagon that opposes making a vow of celibacy because it supposedly unnecessarily adds to baptism. I’m telling my son “you say you follow Christ” and that girl you’re with belongs to Christ, so you need to commit to keeping the snake in the cage (avoiding sexual immorality)! Its not really that complicated.

Oh, and I still don’t see how “avoiding sexual immorality” is an issue of table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. Seems more to me like addressing a specific area of behaivor that needed to be addressed.

Kent makes a good point about Acts 15 being about table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, except I don’t see where “avoiding sexual immorality” is primarily an issue of table fellowship. I just think we can be over the top on “requiring nothing beyond baptism”. Heck, I have a feeling that if Paul was posting at the BHT under the pseudonym “AP” and stated that he wanted all women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, that he would get blasted for being a legalist.

Kent: Actually, I’m pretty sure that many of my posts would annoy most Vineyardites as well – so I’m not sure you can blame it on my circumspect status as a Vineyardite. : ) Perhpas it has more to do with my penchant for the role of devil’s advocate. I’m drawn to poke and prod what I perceive to be the vulnerability of a point of view (including my own). If I was posting on a forum filled with a bunch of legalists, I’d probably be perceived as the second coming of Gene Scott!

Michael: In light of your comments below, what do you think of the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28-29? Do you see these requirements as mistaken additions to baptism, or as a legitimate effort to address specific issues with the new Gentile believers as they sought to live out their baptism?

Oh my gosh, that Islam vs. Christianity video is HILARIOUS! So much insight in so few words. Love it.

Jason: Glad it went well for you. I’m not as spiritual as you – I was only gone 2 days. I made the mistake of reading a little of Francis de Sales Introduction to the Devout Life. Early on in the book, he points out that beyond confessing our sins and being forgiven, we need to ask God to remove our affection for sin. So I spent quite a bit of time doing business with God. de Sales is actually quite gentle. C.S. Lewis described the chapter on self denial as a “green, dewy chapter on softness towards oneself”, so my time away was actually very encouraging.

I don’t watch the national news much. This morning at the gym I saw the story on the Tomb about which Michael has been posting. Even the guys on CNN weren’t giving the story much credence. I think its a non-story – just a guy trying to get a headline (he has succeeded). The story will quickly fade away into oblivion. Yawn.

I’m back from the three day silence, solitude and prayer retreat. In a word – AWESOME. In a longer word, I’ll just point to my longer blog entry so as not to bore those who don’t want to know.

In all, the whole weekend, regardless of my intentions for going in the first place, renewed my focus on Christ as the starting place, end result, and center of all things. I’m thankful to my loving bride for letting me leave her at home for several days.

It’s quite amazing how much of the Bible one can read and journal through when there are no distractions. The most interesting thing for me personally was reading and praying through Hebrews and Romans back-to-back. Long time preachers are probably chuckling about my saying this, but they go together so darn well. I’ve also come to have a renewed appreciation for the beauty that is the letter to the Hebrews.

Sharing daily prayers three times a day with the two brothers who joined me was a true blessing. Also, celebrating the Eucharist together before we returned to life was quiet but moving.

Good times, they were. I recommend it to everyone. Still, it’s good to be back.

In catching up, thanks to whoever posted about Sid Meyer. I’m a recovering Civ-II addict. If I had the free time, I’d go back to it in a heartbeat.

Michael, thanks for the link to churchyear.net. That’s saving me from having to visit half-a-dozen sites for the same stuff.

In about two hours, I will be traveling with a small group of men “up North” for a monastic retreat. This will be a great way to get into the beginning days of Lent.

Aside from the time when we come together to pray and share a meal, we will be silent and by ourselves.

Three times a day, we will come together for liturgical prayers (based on the Anglican morning, noonday, and evening daily prayer), followed by a simple meal. On Sunday, our noonday prayer will be replaced by the Eucharist, then we will come home.

The only things we are bringing with us are our Bibles and empty notebooks.

I’ve been looking forward to this for a couple months, but I would ask for prayer from those who are willing: that we would have safe travel (we may be coming back to snow between 4 and 12 inches), that our loved ones would be safe in our absence (we know they are always in God’s hands and not ours), and that we would be faithful to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Be assured that all of you will be prayed for as well. “See” you Sunday.

Did I mention that it is currently 76 degrees and sunny in Little Rock?

Went to a wonderful Anglican Ash Wednesday service today at noon. The worship leader is a good friend of mine and former Pentecostal, Baptiscostal, IHOP, Vineyard worship leader. He led the congregation in a Kevin Prosch song. I grinned to myself. After the service, I remarked to him that that service was certainly one of the few Ash Wednesday services today to feature a song written by Kevin Prosch. He responded from his newfound Anglican perspective: “Kevin Prosch is lent! Thats why a lot of churches never wanted to sing his songs. They are too full of gut wrenching repentance and pain over sin. Lots of churches don’t have any place for that kind of stuff.” How true.

Adam, Kent: It seems we need to ask ourselves what Paul actually meant in 1 Cor. 11 – particularly when he said “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” The best teaching I have ever heard on that subject came from Gordon Fee’s fabulous Commentary on 1 Cor. (As an aside, one of my favorite points about Communion taken from 1 Cor. 11 is the implicit message that something powerful is going on when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper). Fee interprets the entire letter, appropriately I think,  in light of the divisions occurring in the Corinthian church. That perspective certainly seems relevant to 1 Cor. 11. After all, Paul ends his warning about the Supper with the simple motherly plea “when you come together to eat, wait on each other”. So the warning above that Paul is giving is no different than Jesus’ warning to not judge lest we be judged, or to forgive lest we be not forgiven (or James 5:9). This offense of not treating each other right is only amplified when it takes place in the context of the Lord’s Supper, which amplifies the severity of the judgement experienced.

I have known people who did not take the Lord’s Supper because there was somebody present whom they really hated and were (presently) unwilling to forgive. I think that is probably appropriate, and it might be appropriate if any such person exists – especially if they are a brother or sister in Christ. I don’t think that means we have to feel lovey-dovey toward the person or even want to be their friend, but the way of Christ requires that we be willing to forgive. When we are not, we are refusing to give that which has been given to us, which is the ultimate slap in the face of God.

Here is what Fee has to say on the text:

More »« Less

Another practical application that just occurred to me. Just last Sunday a woman in my church asked me if I believed that everything in the Bible was literally true. You know, did God really speak to Balaam through a donkey? Did a snake really speak to Eve? Did the sun really stop moving? Well, I told her that I have always taken all these stories in the Bible to be real stories that actually happened, but I have also come to understand that some folks who take the Bible very seriously do not think every story is literally true. So all in all, I’m not that hung up on the issue. She said she leans toward not taking every story literally.

Here’s the thing – I’m not a scholar. I’ve had very little formal theological training. I’ve not read Barth, and just a little Augustine (I was proud of myself when I read Athanasius on the Incarnation). I’ve read a few Orthodox guys like John Chrysostom, but most of my reading has been limited to contemporary Protestant theologians (NTW, Grudem, Fee) and teachers (Lewis, Peterson, Willard). I can’t hang with the theological heavyweights here at the bar. When people ask me difficult questions about theology to which I don’t have a good answer, I normally tell them I will look into it and get back with them.

However, many times as a pastor I am aware that they are asking the wrong question anyway. This is where many of the Orthodox writers have helped me. It might be interesting to ask whether or not a literal snake spoke to Eve, but the most important question is what is God saying to the Church – and therefore to me – in the story? The spiritual meaning supercedes the literal meaning. Whether or not a snake really talked, the spiritual message is the same. Are we being tempted to ignore God’s rule and do our own thing? If the answer is yes – if I am ignoring God’s rule and doing my own thing – then any chance I have of rightly understanding or interpreting or applying the Scripture is gone out the window anyway. So often – in my experience – those who are most concerned with the technical questions are most in need of actually applying the spiritual message of the scriptures to their own heart (myself included).

Since I kicked off the Haggard comments, I feel obligated to clear up a possible misrepresentation. After all, Ted Haggard is a sinner in need of mercy, like us all, right? I don’t think Haggard has actually made a declaration of being cured. First of all, the information in the Denver Post article came from one of the men overseeing Haggard’s ongoing treatment – not Haggard. Here is an exact quote that gets at the main point:

Among other things, the overseers urged Haggard to enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, Ware said.

Ralph said three weeks of counseling at an undisclosed Arizona treatment center helped Haggard immensely and left Haggard sure of one thing.

“He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

Why Haggard chose to act out in that manner is something Haggard and his advisers are trying to discern, Ralph said.

So I think a fair representation would be to say that Haggard came to a conclusion - perhaps not far from what Jason and Michael have shared – that he’s not a “homosexual”. He simply acted out in this sinful way and he intends, with the help of those overseeing his “recovery”, to engage in a process through which he will deal with it.

Michael: I am interested in reading the story about protestants converting to EO, but the link isn’t working for me.

Kent: I share your categorical dismay. If you are submitting to the uncategorical categorization, then I will follow you into the categoriless abyss.

BUT I’M GOING DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Michael’s 4th question. This discussion doesn’t come up much in my present (meatspace) circumstances, but it has come up in the context of my dealings with “emerging” ministries, and it has been a thought in my own journey.

Having grown up as a Christmas-Easter mainliner, and coming to faith and joining the Evangelical Free church in college, my life in the faith has grown primarily in evangelicalism.

I’ve never had a problem talking about Jesus and the Christian faith with people, but I’ve always had a problem with the “used car salesman” approach to evangelism that seems to be the norm. (Even when presented with good evangelism information, much of what I hear eventually devolves to the cheesy sales metaphor.) This isn’t really a problem I deal with any more, but it was the beginning of the mental disconnect that made me start honestly thinking about what I believe and why.

I’ve never really been enticed to swim the Tiber, though I believe there are many fine Christians over there, along with some real screwballs. (Catholic readers, be not angry with me. I believe there are screwballs everywhere.) I only know a little about the EO, but what I see gives me the same reaction.

The more church history I read, and the more I study the Bible and theology, the more I become a theological mutt. To date, I can tell you that I happily serve in an evangelical church with wonderful people, that my theology fits best with the Anglicans, that I lean Lutheran in my views of communion, though I am open to discussion, and that I affirm the historic creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, etc.).

If I were to be walking any of the roads to the old country, it would be to Canterbury, but I’d have to make some stops in Ireland, and I’m a fan of the early church, as my email address will attest.

Michael, keep talking about the journey. It makes for some good discussion. (if not here, then at our theology pub nights in MN)

Would not…

love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control;

...be considered visual ‘marks’?

Joel, I have observed that spiritual fruit is more likely to result from a daily regimen of adult diaper changes than from the ‘discipline’ of ‘hearing from God’. Also, please clarify my reasoning; If ‘God is good’ because the light stayed green, would it not be axiomatic that had the light turned red that ‘God is bad’?

Jack, professing to be safe they became slaves.

Michael, I use the batch processing functions of Photoshop Elements to downsize and down-save image files for later web publication. Picassa (free from Google) can do the same but I don’t think it’s available for OSX.

Was Apocalypto highly detailed in it’s evisceration scenes or more inferential? All we get for TV is CBS and we’re totally gored out with all of the CSIesque programming.

Finally, I’ve been listening to the EWTN-The Journey Home podcasts per the request of a dear Catholic brother who hopes for a similar story from me. I’ve enjoyed the stories, but frankly (and I’ll tell him this) they confirm my ‘why nots’ regarding RCC involvement. I was listening to an interview this morning with an Anglican Priest who became RCC. A major incongruency; “At some point I simply needed to put aside such issues as ‘justification by faith’ and simply trust in the authority of the Church” vs. a later statement “Protestants right now are more devoted to the charisma of their pastors than they are to the Church”. More »« Less

Loved the Confessions of Emerging Guy article. Very insightful, and well written. I have not read the book by Ken Wilbur to which Brian Ross refers, but find the premise intriguing. Following Wilbur’s line of thinking as presented by Ross, I have often thought that many folks make a similar mistake upon their discovery of the freedom they have through God’s grace. From their place of freedom, they deconstruct the moralistic and pragmatic steps of faith. Like the college professors in Wilbur’s example, these more mature Christians do great damage to the younger Christians who still need to progress through the steps. This retards the progress of the younger Christians. (Another angle on this thought can be seen in the progress of man’s relationship to the law as described by Paul in Romans).

These more mature Christians often attack and despise these earlier steps on which they climbed on the way to maturity; when what they need to do is recognize, appreciate and honor the value of each step. They need to learn to live a whole, integrated life in relation to all of the steps, and in relation to others who for whatever reason are stuck on one of those other steps. Continuing to follow Ross’s thinking, it seems to me that these more mature Christians who are enjoying great freedom in the revelation of God’s grace can even become arrogant in their freedom, and paradoxically very narrow minded and destructive. This is ironic, because God’s grace should produce a heart that is more open and accepting of others, and is able to affirm and recognize value in folks at whatever stage of spiritual life they may be.

I don’t have any doubts that homosexual behaviour is a sin, it seems pretty clear from my non-professional reading of scripture.

If you’ve read McLaren, which I think some are too embarrassed to admit, you’d know that he’s a loving heart-led guy in pastoral ministry that struggled with the negative effect that fundievangelicalism has had on some people he’s ministered to. He’s trying to love the rejected and sometime people doing that struggle with maintaining ‘truth boundaries’; especially when working face-to-face with people that have been abused by the truth. Yes, the truth can be wielded in an abusive manner.

Maybe being a Minnesotan makes me cocky about ‘slippery-slopes’ (especially when there’s snow on the ground), but it does seem that many people interpret ‘passion’ and ‘understanding’ as ‘endorsement’. Besides, if the entire Body of Christ switched over to ‘endorsing’ homosexual behaviour starting tomorrow I doubt that the world ‘as we know it’ would like totally come to an end. In fact there are many to whom homosexuality has more to do with living in opposition than by desire. Gee whiz, people are gossiping their butts off as we speak and the church continues to survive. It’s just that right now this is the ‘battle of the day’ in the everlasting, revenue generating, culture war.

It’s just sin, Jesus took care of that.

I guess I was under the impression that learning to “question with a full ridiculing attack” was one of the central goals of higher education.

Cool, Santa’s finding messages in his inbox this morning.

Sharon, Clinical Supervision via case study is a regular part of my professional life. I find it to be the best skill building/growth experience there is; at least in my line of work…which is much like your line of work at least as regards working with people and their behaviours.

All, I’m including the following photo for no other reason than that I need to share it with others. My pragmatic excuse is that from my sharing somebody may learn a new technique for removing stubborn egg deposits from cooking utensils while camping.

Greg, would I be correct if I understood that you believe that there are ‘healings’ that are dependent upon your faith (what you called ‘faith healings’), and that there are another sort that are non-dependent (what you called ‘divine healings’)?

Also, regarding your statement that you’d not want to pray for ‘Aunt Betty’ without the expectation of God’s willingness…could I surmise from this that you believe that God is always ‘willing’ and that ‘healing’ is available and waiting for those who would ‘claim’ it?

Michael: On the topic of healing, I am a true blue “third-waver”. In other words, I share your concerns about churches like the one you mentioned, and have spent a great deal of time helping folks pick up the pieces who were devastated by spiritual abuse in the name of “faith”. So I agree 100% with your last post. You’ve not understood Wimber if you believe he led people down the same path as Benny Hinn. I’ve spent many hours under his teaching on healing, and it was full of grace, with a strong awareness of the sovereignty of God. I’m not saying that Wimber did not make some significant errors in leadership, but that was not one of them.

My initial understanding on healing came from the “Bapticostals” James Robison, Dudley Hall, and those guys. They made a helpful distinction between faith healing and divine healing. Faith healing is dependent on my faith – therefore I am responsible if I am not healed. Divine healing is dependent upon the sovereignty of God. We pray for it believing, but the results are up to God. We don’t presume. This is a solid distinctive of the Vineyard and other “third wave” churches.

What I hear from several guys on here is throwing out the baby with the bath water. I don’t want to presume that God must heal, but I also don’t want to be one of those people who pray “Oh Lord, if it be your will, heal Aunt Betty”, all the while having absolutely no expectation that God is willing and able to heal.

Ellen: In my experience and understanding, healing of same sex attraction – and the trauma associated with it – is a multi-layered, long term process. And it definitely must include what Kent mentioned in his initial post – a strong, supporting Christian community.

Brian: About same sex attraction, it is important to point out that for some people this has been their reality for as long as they can remember. Not all sexual sin with the same sex falls within this category. The man who is repulsed by the idea of physical affection with a woman, but strongly desires it with a man lives with more than a simple temptation to do bad things with a man. For him, this is about identity – who he is. There are many folks who struggle with this and do not sin, but they long to be free from their confusion and shame. Many of them even long to actually be attracted to the opposite sex. They are not sinning, but they desperately need Jesus to set them free.

And not only is the Holy Spirit “grieved” when you fail to “walk in victory,” but you can’t be “used” by God, or at least not “used” as efficiently, which is apparently really important, because God’s all about “using” people.  Salvation = get healed, walk in victory, and be “used by God.”  And all of that is rooted in something that I have to do after “accepting Christ.”

Now, I’ve got Christ and his cross, but that’s not enough.  Insufficient.  I have to be healed, walk in victory, and be used.

beloved there is nothing more
no more blessings and no more rewards
than the treasure of my body and blood
given freely to all daughters and sons

~ Derek Webb

Brian, thank you. In my experience with ‘healing ministries’, ‘healing’ is something that must be ‘received’ (read ‘achieved’) in order to ‘walk in victory’ (read ‘be like me’). If from those lofty heights you fall, condemnation and incredulity await…and the Holy Spirit is ‘grieved’.

Salvation is simply not interesting enough nor as marketable as it once was; much in the way that superlatives continually need to be replaced by ever greater superlatives, salvation and the gospel message are no longer humongous enough to meet the fabulous and phenomenal requirements of our market-driven felt needs.

Astoundingly, Kent said:

 “Healing” ministries negate the work of Christ on the Cross, by their very nature the declare that His death was insufficient…that we need something more.

And

We don’t need to be healed from sin

Wow. What a couple of statements. Where to start? I’m assuming you’re referring to what is often described as “inner healing”, rather than all forms of healing ministry. I’m assuming you would allow for a sick person to come to the elders of the church, be anointed with oil, and receive the prayer of faith to raise him up. I’m also assuming that we would accept part of that healing prayer experience to include forgiveness of sins, if necessary.

With all of those assumptions, I’m still somewhat befuddled by these statements. Are you saying that any way in which the grace of God is imparted to us in such a way that He changes us negates the work of Christ on the Cross? Because it seems to me that the Holy Spirit uses a variety of grace gifts to touch us and heal us and transform us until Christ is formed in us. Whether it is another praying for me or speaking a word (encouragement, rebuke, prophecy, wisdom, knowledge) to me, the Sacraments being given to me, OR simply encountering God while walking down a road or praying on a roof, these are all basically “healing ministries”, are they not?

Kent, you’re obviously a “behavior mod” over “Freudian approach” guy, and that’s fine. My wife is more of a “behavior mod” kind of therapist. Even though I feel that insight is crucial to effective counseling, I would never say that “behavior mod” negates the work of the Cross of Christ to fortify my position. I can deal with a statement like “endless exploration of past experience as a key to change present behaviour is Freudian not scriptural” – but your other statements seem to me to go too far.

“Healing” ministries negate the work of Christ on the Cross, by their very nature the declare that His death was insufficient…that we need something more. Endless exploration of past experience as a key to change present behaviour is Freudian not scriptural. We choose our behaviours…we may need help (read ‘intimate community’ and ‘pastoral care’) working through our current maladaptive (read ‘sinful’) behavioural habits…but we are not subject to irresistible compulsion; and if Freudian psychological models have proven anything they’ve proven that endless naval gazing only leads to narcissism.

We don’t need to be healed from sin, we need to turn away from it…and sometimes we’re successful at this and sometimes we aren’t…

...which is what it means to have a fallen nature.