With us...

God with us.  That is the Christmas message.  Pure and simple.  We are not alone.  No matter what happens.  Whatever the doctor says.  Whatever the diagnosis.  Even if the boss says, "Fired!" Or the mate says, "Divorce!"  When you are feeling the most lonely, you are never alone.  Someone is here with you.  Is here for you.  Is right beside you.  Understands you.  Understands what you're going through.  Listens to you.  Longs to be with you.  Loves you beyond words.  God with us.  Never forget it.  It's not a December message.  It's a Forever message.  Never alone.

What Kind of Love?

The current debates going on among believers regarding both abortion rights and the SCOTUS decision regarding same-sex marriage remind me of my years as counselor to parents attempting to discover the most effective parenting style with which to approach their children.

Granted, many of the debaters on both sides of these issues remind me of the authoritarian parents I would meet in my counseling office: headstrong, opinionated, demanding, sometimes abusive, militant, loud, and at least bordering on violent.  Even when those parents produced compliance, it usually was with a price: deep, long-lasting wounds residing in the child's heart.  Many of the yellers and screamers on both sides of these issues remind me of those kinds of parents.  Even if they get what they are wanting, the wounds remaining will taint the "victory".

Most, of the argumentation, however, I think, falls into a debate as to what kind of love will give Jesus the victory in the midst of all of this.  Both want to see Jesus win.  Both realize that the authoritarian approach is NOT- nor will it ever be- the answer.  However, even removing authoritarianism from the table, the debate remains rather intense.

One group feels that a permissive approach to these issues and the people involved is the best way to win one for Jesus in the ongoing dialogue.  A permissive parent, in my old counseling days would do anything- ANYTHING- to protect his child from ANY form of challenge or correction that might do him harm.  Hovering over the child like a helicopter, they would attack anyone who might utter what they perceived to be a negative word to "Little Joey"- teachers, coaches, neighbors, friends, other kids' parents- no one was off limits.  To "Little Joey", however, these parents never uttered a corrective word- not one- for fear that they might do harm to his "Little Self-Esteem".  So "Little Joey" grew up "loved" by these parent's definition.  By the way, I usually saw these parents in my counseling office about the time "Little Joey" turned 15, and as I listened to their description of their life-long parenting style with "Little Joey" and then heard what all trouble Joey was in at that moment, I wanted so badly to mimic Dr. Phil and ask, "So, how'd that work out for you?"  But I didn't.  I cared too much for them to say something like that.  But, it was obvious to both them and me, that permissive parenting had NOT worked as beautifully as they'd hoped.

Some arguing that love is the answer to both the abortion issue and the SCOTUS decision SEEM to be advocating a permissive style of love.  Perhaps they are NOT meaning to come across like that.  AND, it must be noted, that to an authoritarian parent, authoritative parenting appears to be permissive; whereas to a permissive parent, authoritative parenting appears to be authoritarian.  SO, genuine authoritative love- which is the type of love I personally feel is the answer to today's crises- gets lost in the rhetoric because it gets bad press from BOTH extremes.

These permissive love advocates (or so they at times seem) appear to be protectively hovering over both Planned Parenthood and LGBT proponents to protect them from the ravages of militant Christendom.  That's understandable IF it is truly authoritarian (militant) Christendom they are attempting to protect them from.  But to ALL Christians, they SEEM to be saying "Just shut up about all of this!  These poor souls have been hurt enough by us Christians through the centuries (perhaps some truth to that: burned clinics, gay bashing) and we need to protect their delicate sensibilities at this point by remaining silent and allowing them to see Jesus in us."   So, these folks hover over those involved in abortions and same-sex marriages like helicopters, attempting to protect them from "mean old" Christians who would dare say one negative word regarding their behavioral choices.  No authoritative love advocate in America would disagree with that goal: let's allow them to see Jesus in us.  The only question is how best to do that.

As I've said, I personally believe that an authoritative love (as opposed to an authoritarian love or a permissive love) is the only type of love that will EVER allow Jesus to come out the real winner in all of this.  What were authoritative parents like?  Well, I seldom saw them in my office because their style of parenting was working for them. So I had to observe them and their interaction with their kids.  It usually looked like this.  There was a LOT of love- visible, obvious, unselfish, vulnerable love at its best- laughter, tears, hugging, playing, encouraging.  BUT, there were those moments when  warnings were called for, and, when those moments occurred, warnings were given- unashamedly given for the good of the child.  And there were those moments when responsibility on the part of the child was expected, when parameters were set, when consequences for violations were allowed, when corrective measures were taken, when disciplines were administered.  Healthy boundaries, set in the context of genuine love seems to work well in the area of parenting.  I can't understand why that kind of love might not work well in dealing with issues such as those on the political table in America today.

Yet, the hue and cry, even among many young Christians today seems to be a cry that permissive love is the only love that will win the world for Jesus.  So, the University system in California now has on its application six possible choices for sex of its applicant- 6!  The two choices (male and female) of old no longer suffice.  And, just in case they might have missed anyone, one choice is OTHER.  AND same-sex restrooms and changing rooms are being mandated in that university system now to accommodate LGBT concerns.  That's the problem with permissive love.  It quickly licenses what looks a lot like insanity, be it in child rearing or in attempting to employ only permissive love throughout society in order to allow Jesus to be seen.

I am an advocate for love- not war!  I believe there's been more than enough militant rhetoric on both sides of all of these issues to last a lifetime.  BUT, when I speak of love, I'm talking about a love so profound, so deep, so vulnerable, so honest, so genuine, that both sides can understand that, yes, warnings will be given, expectations of acceptable behavior will be voiced (by both sides), corrections can be recommended in the context of genuine concern, responsibilities can be imposed for the good of all, and common decency, humility, and responsibility can be expected to be a part of the moral and ethical maturity which is necessary to keep any nation afloat.  I think that as long as many Christians hover like helicopters over both same-sex and abortion proponents to protect them from their fellow Christians who, in deepest love, have things to say that might be good to be heard, Jesus will NOT come out the winner in all of this- even if we fool ourselves into thinking that he has. When the "Little Joey" of today, becomes age 15, I'm afraid we'll realize that authoritative love may well have been the better choice.

Musings of an Old Man

Let me say at the outset, if you care to argue with things written here, feel free.  But, PLEASE go write your own blog to do so.  Thank you.

How did we get where we are.  If you will, allow this one old man to provide the perspective of one who has lived through the things discussed here.

The 1980's and part of the 1990's in America were dominated by what I call here the Social Morality Movement. The emphasis was upon such perceived moral issues as homosexuality and abortion.  Those on the left cried out, "There's more to morality than sex and its "consequences"!"  Their cry was for admission by the "right" that questions of morality more important than those being focused upon were such things as greed, materialism, corruption, rape of the planet, and ignoring the plight of the poor and needy throughout the nation and the world.  The"right" gained power and, with it, a haughty spirit perhaps that caused it to seem that they were refusing to heed the warnings of the left altogether.  The irony being that during these years, more religiously-based non-profits to aid the poor and needy throughout the nation and the world were established than during any two decades in our history.  And many of those were set up by the "right" who, according to the "left" were not listening to their insistence that morality is broader based than merely two "pet" projects. In practical action, the "right" proved to have as much concern for the plight of the poor as the left. Their only plea was, "Let's remove this responsibility from the government and allow each community to rally to their own needs.  And, in case after case, they did.  Patriotism was at an all-time high during these years as was community-based, privately-funded projects to promote the welfare of its citizenry.  I know.  I was a part of one of those free, low-fee, no-fee clinics that reached out to help hurting people without a dime of government funding.

But, since 9/11, and especially since the war that followed that horrific day, things have changed in America.  The momentary patriotism that rose to a crescendo on that fateful day quickly gave way to a sentiment that feels almost anti-American and a massive movement that I call here the Social Justice Movement (as opposed to the previously mentioned Social Morality Movement).  The hue and cry of this newest dominant approach in our society is that the ONLY moral issues that matter any more are matters regarding greed, materialism, corruption, rape of the planet, and ignoring the plight of the poor and needy throughout the world.  The same kind of condescending haughtiness that seemed to dominate much of the "right" in their power days now has transferred to the "left".  I'm not saying that the "right" is no longer mean-spirited at times.  They are.  I'm simply saying that the way it seems to work in America is that whatever philosophy happens to be in power tends to become condescendingly haughty.  And this haughtiness in the "power" camp brings out the mean-spiritedness in the "out-of-power" camp.  So, we bicker. And we've figured out how the power grid works in our nation.  It's all about the nine individuals making up our Supreme Court.  That's ultimately what EVERY presidential election is about these days.  It's not about the presidential office itself.  It stopped being about that many years ago.  It is about the Supreme Court appointments that will come from whatever  person is elected to America's "highest" office.  In most significant rulings, past and present, ONE vote by a Justice appointed by a President of the opposite party would have made ALL the difference in our history.  SO, gazillions of dollars that could be used to legitimately help the poor are, instead poured into attempting to elect one of a hundred candidates that come closest to supporting the appointment of the type of Supreme Court Justice that each American would want making THE most important decisions in our land.  

Here's the thing.  Those warnings that the powerful "right" uttered in what was probably too mean-spirited a way in the 1980's and 1990's- those warnings have and ARE coming to pass.  Fifty-five million abortions and counting- with current revelations publicly displaying for the first time in recent days the true dastardly, haughty, unfeeling (regarding the unborn) manner in which the butchery has been occurring all these years- just like the "right" attempted to warn.  A complete redefinition of marriage as mankind has recognized and defined it for millenniums.  A growing social disdain for celebrating masculinity and femininity in favor of a massive movement to merge the sexes and teach children that the blending is the "heroic" social choice.  Just like the "right" warned.  Granted, perhaps their spirit was unjustifiably haughty during their "power" years; however, that does not detract from the truth of their predictions and warnings.  We're living what they feared.

Some today are disturbed by what they call the Americanization of the church.  I, too, feel that the church has allowed itself to be molded by its culture- ON BOTH "LEFT" AND "RIGHT"!  A product of the patriotism of the 1980's and 1990's was the church's acceptance of "prosperity theology"- a dastardly teaching that could not even be preached in any third world country because, at its heart lies the belief that health and wealth await any TRUE believer.  Only in a capitalistic, financially viable nation could such a doctrine become the heart of its teaching.  So, yes. I agree the powerful "right" of those days allowed itself as a church to be molded by its culture.  However, my concern, as an old man, is what seems to me to be a haughty, condescending spirit on the now in-power "left".  Even among young believers, the rhetoric sounds a great deal like anti-American rhetoric.  Yes, our allegiance is primarily to King Jesus.  And, yes, our primary citizenry is in Kingdom living.  However, throughout Scripture, Kingdom subjects were encouraged to participate and offer positive contributions in the countries in which they found themselves.  Whether the powers-that-be were Babylon or Assyria or Persia or Rome, believers were encouraged to settle down, establish families, work hard, provide for their families, pray much- even for the leaders in power in countries engaging in things that believers found to be distasteful.

And, in these countries, they often found themselves at odds with the prevailing culture.  And, when push came to serve, they stood firm.  They would not stop praying.  They would not bow to culture's idols on either the right or the left.  And the result was lion's dens and fiery furnaces.  But, ultimately, God was in the fray with them.  And they were the victors.  Yes, they preached against greed and materialism and maltreatment of the down-and-outers of society.  But they also preached against sexual immorality, against nations behaving like stallions in heat, against following the god Molech, where infants were sacrificed for the "good" of society and against the Ashera poles (phallic symbols) which had become the chief religious symbols of societies gone sexually insane.  Their approach was balanced in ways that we haven't seen in America in a LONG time.  They called sin, SIN.  And their call to repentance was equally powerful.  And I'm not just describing Old Testament prophets here.  Jesus loved the woman at the well and the woman taken in adultery as no other man had- and because of his love, their lives were changed forever.  However, in both of those cases, Jesus did not refrain from calling sin, SIN.  "Go and sin no more." And the early church celebrated the positive transformations that occurred in people's moral and ethical lives as a result of accepting Jesus- "and such WERE some of you!"  It's not that these early believers became "perfect" overnight, but it was that they showed a willingness to call sin, SIN, confess it, develop a paradigm shift (repentance) regarding it, recognizing it for the imposter that sin is and always will be, and opening themselves up to the forgiveness and salvation that can be found only in Jesus.

Today, with the pressures of the political left dominating the "theology"- yes, "theology"- of the younger generations,  the word sin can only be uttered if referring to greed, corruption, ignoring the plight of the poor and downtrodden in this country and throughout the world.  I agree that those sins need to be acknowledged and addressed.  However, if you want to anger that generation, dare to suggest that sexual sins explicitly addressed in Scripture need to be acknowledged as sin and brought to the cross for forgiveness.  To say such things in our culture are considered callous hysterics, carried on by lunatics who are "out of touch" with the times.  Which proves my point.  "The times" are being allowed to mold and shape the theology of the church.  It happened in the 1980's and 1990's and it is happening again today.  Then it was the "right". Now it is the "left".  It is now considered Christian to be at least a bit anti-American.  Flag waving is considered passé. Respect for those who have fought and served in our military is probably at the lowest point it has been since the end of the Viet Nam conflict.  And, if you're even thinking about voting for ANYONE other than Hillary in the next election, according to this generation of believers, you need to have your head examined.  After all, the reasoning goes, IF anyone else gets into power, the Supreme Court could shift ("God forbid!" they shout) and such rulings as abortion and same-sex marriage could be reversed.

BUT, they say, the believer's interest should be in Kingdom business- not politics.  But what about when Kingdom business IS politics?  What about when Daniel, Joseph, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, and Nehemiah are placed in positions of power? What do they do? How do they act?  They serve.  They contribute to the society in which they find themselves.  They pray.  They, in fact, won't stop praying no matter Who tries to tell them to stop.  They never lose their heart for home (Zion) and when called upon to defend a worthwhile cause, they take up arms to do so (Nehemiah), but they stand firmly to help their society be a more moral, ethical nation, full of integrity.  If that calls for their railing against greed and corruption, they do it.  If it calls for speaking out against sexual immorality, they do it.  Their hearts are to call people to God and the amazing life that only He can provide.  But they know that a heart refusing to admit sin will never be open to the salvation God so graciously offers.

And therein, lies our problem. Each generation wants to define sin by its own standards.  Each side of the political spectrum does, too.  The problem is: what we need is a revival of repentance in our nation that brings our hearts to God.  We need to repent with one voice.  We need to repent of greed and corruption, and callousness toward the poor an hurting.  We need to repent of our sexual immorality, including but not limited to, our in-your-face homosexual agendas and militant transgenderism.  And when we all, with one voice, can and will cry out, "God have mercy upon us, for we have sinned!"  He will hear our cries and he will heal our land.

The irony is that the stated reasons given by such Islamic extremist movements as ISIS for desiring to destroy us is our sin.  Our greed? Yes.  Our corruption? Yes.  Our materialism.  Yes.  Our callousness toward suffering throughout the world? Yes.  But also our sexual immorality.  The way our citizenry flaunt their sexuality and not only embrace, but even evangelize regarding homosexuality and such as lifestyles to be accepted throughout the world (Remember the last Olympics, when our participants turned it into a platform to stand FOR homosexuality in Russia, not having the decency to acknowledge that perhaps each nation has a right to make its own moral/ethical decisions regarding such topics as this).  For those things, we have become the targets of Islamic extremists.  Ironically, even the 9/11 terrorists watched American porn hours before boarding the planes they used for jihad.  Sin knows no boundaries.

Our choice: will we finally, with ONE VOICE confess, repent, and beg God's forgiveness (which He is dying to give!) for ALL sin- not just the politically correct definition of sin of the current in-power regime. Or will we, instead, set ourselves up for ISIS to do the cleansing for us.  The choice is ours and the time is NOW.  Even so, come Lord Jesus!

I know before I write even a word of what I'm feeling led to post here that many- especially of the young- will automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm being "right wing" bigoted and fundamentalist hard-nosed.  Nothing I can say will dissuade them that this is not just another "Republican" post, ranting on about "nothing" while corporate greed and corruption, worldwide poverty and trafficking, and environmental "rape" goes unnoticed and unaddressed by the "religious right".  I can only say that I was addressing many of these "newly discovered" worldwide concerns of theirs long before many of today's advocates were born.  I, too, am deeply concerned about each of those things, and have dedicated a lifetime trying to address them, not just with words, but with meaningful action. I have tried to put my money and my sweat where my mouth is on each of these and many other such issues.  I have avoided political posturing like the plague.

However, why is it inappropriate for me to be bothered by the unplugging of the microphone for a young valedictorian, headed for the military academy, because he had dared to mention his faith as part of his life story in his graduation address.  I realize that the school system had an "unplug" policy.  I've also read their policy (Have you?) and it is designed to avoid vulgarity, personal attacks upon school officials or fellow students, anything off-color or distasteful or any rabble rousing tactics.  It is designed to encourage the speakers to highlight their life story, hopes and dreams for the future.  The ONLY possible infraction of this young man was violating the phrase "infringe upon the rights of others".  I guess that's why he was unplugged.  Nothing else in their policy fit anything he said or did.

My question: What about the valedictorian's right to talk about his life, his hopes and dreams as the school encourages?  If he does it sensitively, in kindness, not condescendingly nor gratuitously, does he not have rights to be considered, too?  When one set of rights conflict with another set of rights, are we, as a nation, at a place now where the Christian is always the one who must yield?  I realize that Christians should, at heart, be people who willingly give up their rights for the sake of others.  I've preached and practiced that for years.  BUT, even Jesus stood firm at times in the face of the Pharisaical mindset of his day.  Here's the deal.  No one seems willing to ask these days, Can non-religious people have a Pharisaical mindset that needs at times to be firmly confronted?  I say "Yes!".  The prideful arrogance of the FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) is modern-day Pharisaism at its worst- prideful, arrogant  obsession regarding one's view of God.  If Christians have that kind of attitude, their microphones need to be turned off.  But, if Christians are simply sharing life and hopes and dreams and that's impossible to do without mentioning Jesus- and, if the militant FFRF is threatening to "remove schools from the synagogue" unless they turn off the microphone, I think there comes a time to leave the microphone on.  The school would NOT have been in violation of any mandates, including their own policy, had they simply let the young man be heard.  I'm weary of hearing of schools running scared and "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in the name of "playing it safe."  I don't want my grandkids to be always having to second-guess their words when Jesus comes to mind.

Maybe I want too much.  Maybe I just need to help get my grandkids ready to live in a far, far different country that the one in which I grew up.  And I'm working on that, too.  But I will never encourage them to be ashamed of Jesus.  I will encourage them to be kind, gracious, loving.  But never ashamed.  If that has become the criteria for being a good "Christian" in today's America, then I guess the microphone will be pulled on many generations in the Calvin family in the future.  And that makes me sad.  Just sayin'!  Not mad- just sad.

AVOID EGO ATTACKS

I've alluded a few times in previous posts how urgently important it is to avoid ego attacks at ALL costs when involved in a heated argument.  Let me expand on that idea a bit.  Couples/families can disagree and even argue on virtually any topic/issue and have their relationship remain relatively intact when it is over (all other things being equal); however, when one or more get off issue and onto personal attacks (in order to "score points"), they will inflict irreparable harm upon each other and upon the relationship.  

What are ego attacks?  Anything that verbally diminishes the value of the other person: sarcasm, hurtful comments regarding appearance, intellect, family heritage, weight, habits, etc., as well as continually dredging up the past in unhealthy ways.  Basically, "You" statements, spoken with anger- "You are so... (fill in the blank)."  The writer of Proverbs says that the power of life and death resides in the tongue and we need to be people who are best known for speaking life into everyone, especially those closest to us.

When I coached debate in the seventies and eighties, I noticed a tendency for the better teams to engage in ego attacks upon their opponents when they sensed that they were losing the round (Sorta like politicians do nowadays).  I told my teams that if I ever saw them doing that, I would forfeit the round and we would go home the losers, even if it were in the state finals.  I wanted them to win on issues- not condescension.  If I felt that strongly about ego attacks in debate, you can imagine my feelings regarding it in marriage and family.

A quarter century ago, we had a young lady come for counseling with anorexia nervosa.  Although she weighed a mere 79 pounds, she saw herself as fat.  She recalled a time when she was eleven years old and her dad- a verbally abusive man- screamed a her: "I don't see what the boys see in you anyway, as fat as you are!!"  Sixteen years later, at 79 pounds, she still clung to her daddy's assessment of her.  Sad isn't it.  The power of life or death resides in the tongue.  I urge you, for the sake of your family, CHOOSE LIFE!!

FALLING DOWN

This is one of those things that, hopefully, you will go a lifetime without EVER needing to employ.  It is ONLY for those times when anger is very obviously about to "take over"- yelling, personal attacks, on the verge of throwing things.  I owe this suggestion, too, to Dr. Paul Faulkner.

When you sense that the anger curve is about to spiral out of control, one of you- it doesn't matter which one- fall out on the floor, limp as a dishrag- wherever you are (You'll only do it in public once- from then on, you'll reserve your spats to the house!).  Now, the other person walks over and lies down on the floor, too- head-to-head with the first person.  Get the picture?  You now have two grown adults lying on the floor, head-to-head, looking at the ceiling, arms outstretched.  NOW, pick up the disagreement wherever you left it when the first one fell to the ground and continue hashing it out (No ego attacks- see previous posts!) and talk it through until both of you feel comfortable getting up.  That's it.  "But, what will the kids think?"  Well, I hope you're not guilty of having arguments with that sort of intensity in front of your kids; however, if you are and you fall down, they'll LOVE it.  They'll be asking you about it, lying beside you, crawling on top of you, and, whatever they do, they'll be SO much more comfortable than they were when things were so intense that they wondered if you were both about to kill each other.

This works when needed for two reasons: it provides a "cooling down" moment.  It's hard to remain as intense as you were when your spouse has just fallen to the floor.  And, when you're "doing battle" you're wanting to see the whites of the "enemy's" eyes.  (In such intense arguments, you're treating your mate like an enemy because you're trying to "win".  Two things to remember at such times: the only enemy is Satan- the one who's wanting to devastate your relationship- are you going to let him win?  And, in these kinds of intense arguments, when one of you "wins", both lose.)  You don't need to see the whites of their eyes.  And falling on the floor allows you to hash things out, without trying to see when you "score a victory", so you both concentrate better on a solution rather than a "win".

More than thirty years ago, I had a couple come for counseling who had gotten into such a fight that they had actually thrown things at each other.  I suggested this exercise because, quite frankly, at that time, it was about the only suggestion I had in my "tool kit".  I saw the couple a few years ago- thirty years of marriage, grown kids, grandkids on the way, elder in the church.  They thanked me for the "falling down" recommendation.  They said that they'd only had to employ it a very few times in three decades, but just knowing they had it as a possibility, helped them keep their disagreements on a healthier level than they had sunk to prior to coming to see me.  SO, it works IF you ever need it.  Hopefully, you never will.  

4/30

Much of the anger in our homes has as much to do with timing as it does with issue.  We drop something heavy on each other just before we head off to work in the morning or immediately upon arrival at home in the afternoon, and then we either steam all day about it or else the evening sinks quickly into cold silence.

So, let's take some advice I heard Dr. Paul Faulkner give decades ago, and work on that, shall we?

Let's designate four thirty minute periods of our day as "sacred", meaning that we promise that we as a couple/family will refuse to allow ourselves to lay anything heavy or negative on each other during these four thirty minute sacred spaces.  Here are the Four Sacred Times: the first thirty minutes after we arise in the morning, the last thirty minutes before we go off to work/school, (By the way, in too many American families, these are the same thirty minutes- in other words, we are creating our own stress by how late we get up each morning.  By the time our feet hit the floor, we are already in a hurry, running, rushing, grabbing a quick Pop-Tart, irritated at ourselves and taking it out on each other.  We need to set the alarm a little earlier and hit the snooze button a little less!), the first thirty minutes home from work/school, and the last thirty minutes before we go to bed.  That two hours of each day should be reserved for positive, healthy conversation only.

Some might argue, "Well, that wouldn't leave any time for fussing."  My answer, "Would that be so bad?"  And besides, we would still find the time to discuss those heavy things that need discussing.  I know because I've had hundreds of clients over the years who have practiced this discipline successfully and have come back to thank me for suggesting it.  I always say, "Thank Paul Faulkner.  He's the guy who taught it to me"  Thanks, Paul.  Not just for this, but for all you and Carl Brecheen have done over the years to help Joan and me get to Anniversary #47 next Tuesday, June 4th.  We couldn't have done it without you.