Pastors and Ph.D.’s

My blogging buddy, Brian, opened a can of worms with a recent post. The question? Is a Ph.D. an appropriate degree for those in pastoral ministry as opposed to academia? You may want to go back and read the comments in his post before getting into this one. I felt particularly qualified to respond, but I knew that my thoughts would overrun his comments section. :) So, here are my thoughts on the appropriateness of Ph.D.’s as pastors.

I finished a Ph.D. in historical theology (history of religious experience) in 4.5 years at International Seminary last year. International is a modest school and accommodated my ministry schedule and family life while still holding my feet to the fire. I was able to do classwork and initial research while still serving a local church. But when the heavier research and (European format/big book) dissertation writing ensued, I went on ministry leave for two years. It took every bit of time I could muster in those two years to finish up and return to ministry at another church. So, the majority of my experience about whether a Ph.D. is appropriate for ministers has come in the last year. Furthermore, the position I took was local as an associate minister role at a larger church. So, the opportunities to teach and preach are more selective than if I were a senior minster somewhere. But the position also allows me to pursue academic interests and be available for my family as well. For now, I am content with that in every way.

When someone chooses a “research” degree as opposed to a leadership/church development degree, things will be a little different. Much of my training in church history/history of mentalities never makes its way into my teaching and counseling, but it does impact the way I prepare for those tasks. Like the quote from Carson on Brian’s blog, the degree teaches you to think in a way that is completely different from other degrees. The sheer volume of research and reading associated with competency in a particular field is dense to say the least. Most Ph.D.’s, once they are at the cusp of recent developments in their field, continue that process in the academy through journal articles, collaborative efforts, conferences, and the like. But when a Ph.D. enters the pastorate, that ability to stay current wanes simply because the academic resources are not as readily accessible. I was an ”expert” in my field one year ago. I am no longer…not because I don’t want to be, but because my reading list now includes a broad mosaic of topics from leadership books to commentaries to popular theology. In other words, the research “chops” remain but the research is no longer for you our your discipline. It’s for those you serve in ministry. You spend time researching their questions, not yours. And that’s why most Ph.D.’s stay in the academy.

So, taking on a pastoral role requires a Ph.D. to “give up” some of the academic freedom and personal research time. Not all of it though. You can still belong to academic societies (I do) and research/write as time allows. But the research mindset acquired through doctoral studies doesn’t leave. So, though you may not be an expert in every field related to ministry, you know how to find and assimilate all types of knowledge. I read the Harvard Business Review, a Festschrift, or Erwin McManus’s latest book in the same way. I certainly don’t think a Ph.D. is too much for a pastor. In fact, I agree with Carson. It’s the mentality gained through gaining a Ph.D. that supplements the call of a pastor’s heart. They don’t cancel each other out or anything. They complement each other. I don’t often talk “above” my congregation, but I am fully aware of their theological paradigm when talking to them. I save my academic ramblings for my other egghead friends. I also am willing to be a little more “edgy” in some of the topics I broach with them, simply because I want them to be confronted with ideas outside the ones they’ve held for the past thirty years – I try to keep them ahead of the theology “curve.” My sermons get a little academic on occasion, but not anything like the dry academic books I personally read. In fact, I believe part of my job includes “mining” for appropriate trends in theology and translating those into a palatable format for my congregation. I did the schooling; they get the benefit.

Pastors don’t need a Ph.D. to minister effectively. Some of the most impressive ministers I know have little more than a two year Bible college degree. Some of the worst ministers I know have high levels of education.  Is a research doctorate benficial to those who have entered pastoral ministry? I think so. Would it help every minister? I don’t know – I can only speak for myself. It helps me.  But the question is not whether a Ph.D. is an appropriate degree for ministers. The real question is whether someone with a Ph.D. is called to pastoral ministry.

Living Loved

Last year, I specifically remember walking past my oldest daughter’s room during her naptime. I stopped for a minute. Even today when I look at my children, I am overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for them. That time - standing in the doorway –  was one of those moments. But it was also a time when I thought, I really hope I can teach and model the important things in life for her. With our third daughter due in September, that responsiblity still weighs heavily on me a year later. That day, watching her sleep, I thought about life lessons that mattered to me now and also those that I thought were much more important than they really were when I was a child. I spent a lot of time majoring on the minors, particularly as a young adult.

Of course, the first life lesson I thought of was “love God.” That seemed like a right answer – certainly the answer everyone would expect a Christian parent to say to their child. But I started thinking about the connotations behind that simple phrase. So much of my life was spent assuming that loving God involved “doing” or performing for him. I’ve talked about that wretched cycle here. But I really would like something more for my own children. That’s when I thought, maybe our life’s goal should be to let God love us. That was what I had missed all along growing up. I was uncomfortable knowing that I hadn’t done something for God spectacular enough to merit his love. People in the church talk a good game about this – almost always quoting phrases about being saved by grace and something about unmerited favor. But honestly, what I see in the church is Christians working overtime to “prove” to God that they are worthy of the “unmerited” grace they have already been given.

Part of this has to do with our view of God. I’m a big believer that the more we understand God, the more we are comfortable trusting him. That goes the other way as well – lordship is impossible when you don’t trust God. See, God is a recreational being. He’s social. He’s playful and interactive. He likes relationship and finds fulfillment in the “give and take” of all the members of the Trinity. We’re merely meant to dance the cosmic dance with our recreational God. That’s where our fulfillment comes from as well – not from another human. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with loving your family and friends. But there’s more to life than that. When God decided to make Eve, he did so because he thought it would be good for Adam. But nowhere in the biblical account does Adam say he is lonely. Adam was complete just by relating to his Maker. But in creating Eve, God imitates his own recreational and social nature. That’s amazing to me.

So, that’s my wish for my children – not that they’ll love God, but that they will being willing to let God love them. that they will “live loved.” That’s where fulfillment lies – within the realization of total acceptance by a relational and recreational God who’s whole intent is to give them their heart’s desire. Sound far-fetched? I don’t think so. It’s something I’m learning to walk in. I hope I can help my children understand that as much as God has captured their heart, they have also captured his. And that was God’s plan all along.

Some Random Observations

1) The Muppets are awesome. I had the bright idea to You Tube “Mahna Mahna” from the Muppet Show last week and show it to the girls. Now, that’s comedy. the girls loved it and the more we viewed The Swedish Chef, Rowlf, Beaker, Gonzo, Fozzie (and don’t forget Dr. Teeth), the more I remembered why the Muppets are so stinkin’ cool. That should be required TV watching for all children. Educational programming overrated. Let your children watch the Muppets, for Pete’s sake.

2) Ren & Stimpy is disturbing. MTV2 started airing Ren & Stimpy a while back – I finally DVR’d some episodes. I watched Ren & Stimpy when I was in high school and thought it was hilarious. So, I sat down to watch, anticipating the return of laughter that accompanied my adolescent memories of the show. You know: stinky tooth holes, ”Happy Happy Joy Joy”, cousin Svën, the Canadian kilted yaksmen.  Now, as a grown man, that show is absolutely bizarre. No wonder my mom hated it. Ren & Stimpy is some sick junk. Bob Camp must have been smoking crack when he came up with that stuff. Of course, the shows I watched were from season 4…but still. Holy cow.

The Nuances of Church Leadership

Happy Father’s Day to all!

I’ve been at TFUMC for a year now. I have made two glaring leadership mistakes during that time. I thought I’d share them with you so that you don’t repeat my stupidity. First, a little background on my job environment…

TFUMC is a complex mixture of 1250 members, half of whom adhere to a contemporary form of worship and the other half enjoying the traditional service. The success of both services is a confluence of many factors. Probably the most important one is that both are held in separate locations on our church campus. So everyone can enjoy each others’ company at weekly functions, but the services aren’t borrowing space or creating traffic problems (or any other “systems” issues) for each other. As to my two mistakes: personality plays into different leadership styles. I am a “type A” personality…a nice person (hopefully), but still task-oriented in many ways. However, Methodist churches are generally lay-led and part of my responsibility is supporting lay leadership over those ministries in my job description. In other words, my job is not to do all the work – it’s to support and involve our congregation.

So, here’s mistake #1:  for our first small group launch in March, I did what I assumed would create momentum. We did PowerPoint, pep talks, videos, curriculum advertisements, all directed at a launch date with various models available for those interested (sermon-based to accountability, etc.). It failed miserably. We had about five groups launch with varying attendance. Two of the five waited until after the launch to form through private conversations and emails. If you do the math, that’s little more than a 1.5% increase in our entire membership. An abysmal failure.

Mistake #2: All children’s areas were in desperate need of a face-lift to put us at least on a comparable scale to other churches our size. My first (of three) projects was to renovate an area for the 5th and 6th grade ministry. Rather than laying out the plan clearly, I turned the project over to a large group of individuals, each adequately equipped to participate in one aspect of the renovations. As a result, though the facilities have been updated and we stayed close to budget (very important!), the project took roughly 6 months longer than I had initially anticipated, missing the completion date by half a year!

Okay, so what did I learn from these mistakes? Well, for starters, I became reacquainted with the “nuances” of leadership style. Leadership must be “fine-tuned” to the context, people, and objectives involved. In these cases, I used the wrong style on the wrong project. I over-administrated one of the most “organic” movements in our entire church: small groups. Our congregation connects on a personal level at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Small groups form out of relationships. That’s something I cannot “lead” anyone to do. Sure, I can make resources available and emphasize the importance of small groups. I can even create a “launch” to highlight that ministry…but over-leading something that organic can be disastrous.   

Similarly, I under-administrated the facilities project by not providing more direction. By not laying out clear deadlines and specific objectives, I left those involved with little structure to complete their task. I should have switched styles for these two events. If anything I should have over-administrated the renovations and under-administrated the small groups. The funny thing is: I’ve been around this mountain in other churches before. I’ve read books warning of the exact scenario I experienced in these two projects. But what works in one church rarely works in another. To me, in church work, it’s often the intuitive nature of dealing with people that makes or breaks a project. And there’s no sure-fire way to predict the success or failure of any project. But it seems that the nuances of  leadership style – how people react to a particular form of leadership – is more central to its success than the specifics of the project itself.

Boycotting U2…

I know this post is going to disappoint some of my more trendy readers out there. It’s certainly going to disappoint my wife.

I’m boycotting U2. I’m done with ‘em. As a postmodern Christian, I must confess (to my own shame) that I have not purchased their latest album. That may rend the hearts of some of my generation’s most “missional” leaders. I’m sorry. I just can’t listen to them anymore. Don’t despise me; just listen to my plea for reason.

U2 is great band. Their music is great and I own about seven albums myself. I remember at age thirteen, when some CCM music mag did an article on them. I was enchanted for years to come.  In U2, we find the subtle Christian overtones of “Where the Streets Have No Name” and the socially conscious lyrics of “Mothers of the Disappeared,” “Pride (In the Name of Love),” “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” and “Love and Peace or Else.”  There’s the poetic beauty of “One” and the moral confidence of “Walk On.” And then, there’s “Grace.”

Ahhh….”Grace.” Rarely do you find such good theology in a song.

I started to get jaded about five years ago. Christian artists and worship leaders collectively released a “We Love U2″ tribute album. U2 became “trendy”…along with the other two members of the cultural Christian Trinity: coffee shops and drawing spiritual significance from The Matrix. Socially conscious and spiritually aware, Bono became Jesus. Or maybe Rauschenbusch came back as Bono…I can’t remember which…It could have been both. Besides, Bono is gonna single-handedly “make poverty history,” right? When not mingling with dignitaries, he evidently browses books on comparative religious studies and post-structuralist anthropology. All of this has allowed him to declare a new message to us (in 3-D, no less): we should  all “co-exist.” I know that’s been said before…but now Bono has said it. And we should do it.

I heard a lot of “timely messages from God” a decade ago about the coming wave of Christianity that would no longer cater to superstars of the church. You know…the megachurch leaders and the personalities of Christian TV. God was going to advance his kingdom with a “faceless” generation. That’s a great idea. But for many in the postmodern Christian milieu, it’s empty rhetoric. We’ve ridiculed the shallow Christians who give their money to televangelists. We’ve also laughed at those who followed the fashion trends of Sex and the City. We’ve dismissed the former generations who have declined to participate in the “emerging conversation.” We have even snickered behind the backs of ministers who still find solace in a lectionary. Some people think Paris Hilton has something important to say…

…and we’ve got U2.

Who Needs Self-Esteem Anyway?

I know a lot of people who aren’t happy. Or at least they aren’t happy for long. Most people ride a roller coaster of reactions to what happens to them in any given day. In America, this is compounded by our affluence. When asked about work, we say, “Oh today was horrible!” When asked why, we mention things like, “I didn’t get that spreadsheet filled out!” or “It took forever to get my special order latte this morning, and that put me behind schedule all day!” Obviously, I’m joking, but we have to admit we really only have “small” problems. We focus on these because of a lack of bigger problems…which is a great “problem” to have.

If I remember correctly, the etymology of the word “happiness” comes from “happenings” – events in life that produce a specific emotion. You are happy when circumstances in your favor produce a sense of relief or elation. In other words, “happy” people rise and fall according to what “happens” to them. If course, if you have to perfect life, you’re always happy. But remember, we’re the same people that complain if our dry cleaning isn’t ready for pickup.

Rather, what we should be after is joy. Joy is something different. It’s peace and contentment that remains with us regardless of how our day is going. It’s not circumstantial – it’s permanent. And that’s what scripture says we should seek. Of course, secularists will tell you that they can have joy as well. They believe permanent satisfaction is based upon a healthy self-esteem or self-actualization. If you like yourself, you’ll be content with life, no matter what state your in. That sure does sound nice, doesn’t it? But there’s a problem. Those same people who will tell you to be “happy” with yourself are the same ones who often base success in life on jobs, material comfort, intellectual prowess, acquired skills, and community respect. So really, they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth.

We don’t need self-esteem. We need God-esteem. I am convinced that deep down, what people think about themselves is directly related to what they believe God thinks about them. Read that sentence again, people. If you believe God thinks little of you, then you’ll think little of yourself. If you wake up every morning to a God who plans to bully you through adverse circumstances all day to teach you some patience, then your day isn’t going to go very well. Honestly, 99% of events in a day have little effect on your life. Yet, we swing back and forth, acting like insignificant issues are life-changing. There are only two reasons for this: 1) we’re bored or 2) we have nothing more permanent to base our outlook on.

God-esteem places full confidence in the permanent character of God. For me, this is based solely on the unyielding love of a God who wants my affection and devotion. Yes, that’s sounds romantic, doesn’t it? It’s because I’m not afraid of God of what he might “do” to me in order to advance his kingdom. So my outlook on life never changes – and my view of myself reflects that permanence of God’s unconditional love. That’s my ultimate “happening” in life…a “happening” that’s above life’s circumstances. And that’s the root of lasting joy. When you can stake your life on the reality that God takes “delight in you with gladness/With his love he will calm all your fears/He will rejoice over you with joyful songs” (Zeph. 3:17), then you have something that gives you permanent joy. That’s what God thinks about you. That’s God-esteem and it’s pivotal to the reality of a deep love-walk with God.

Learning to “Feel” God

I promised you in the post about Maxie Dunnam that I would follow up by exploring the idea of “feeling” God. Here you go…

Pastoring is a tricky business. Taking concepts developed in an innocuous vacuum of journal articles, magazine op-eds, and…well…blogs and translating them into real life is difficult. Rarely is the transition a smooth one. That’s because pastoring involves people. Theology involves concepts. Though everyone lives from a place of personal theology, the outworking of that personal theology is often drastically different from one person to the next. Nurturing the growth of such a diverse group of folks can be the undoing of any industrious minister. But I’ve noticed something that helps direct my personal ministry. One of the things I feel most “called” to in the ministry is the help people understand and facilitate their ability to “feel” God.

Shane Raynor (the author of Wesley Report- a cyber-hub of all things Methodist) posted his thoughts on the idea of “Actualizing the Holy Spirit.”  Great article. Actualization can describe the integration of an idea of concept on a cognitive or emotional level – a hangover from the concepts of Maslow’s self-actualization and his writings on peak experiences. But personally, I take the idea even farther towards the concept of somatization: the conversion of cognitive, emotional, or spiritual aspects to physical or tangible expressions. For spiritual purposes, it’s the work of  the Holy Spirit in bodily manifestation. Normally in the psychiatric/medical community, that term has negative connotations. But honestly, anything - good or bad, happy or sad – affects us physically. It’s the same idea found in the ridiculously overused term “psychosomatic.” Internal issues result in physical expression. Good dissertation topic: explore the connotations of positive forms of somatization in humans and its theological similarities to the Incarnation as an example of the economy of salvation (oikonomia). Tell me when you’re done and I’ll read it with great interest…

Over the years, I’ve watched many individuals have a spiritual encounter that completely shifted their personal paradigm of God’s nature and immanence. In each of those scenarios, experience (of some sort) confirmed the power of God available to them on a personal level. Personally, it struck me as odd that God would initiate a strong spiritual encounter when I knew that many of those who received it had little to no doctrinal knowledge. I believed God was doing things backwards; after all doctrine comes first, right? But it occurred to me that throughout the history of the church, many people openly rejected any attempt of indoctrination without a prior or accompanying spiritual experience to validate that doctrine’s truth. Once someone has an encounter where they “feel” God, they will desire to know more about the God who provided that experience. God anchors faith in experience until one becomes grounded in proper belief. I began to understand my pastoral role was to disciple a healthy and balanced Christian upon the foundation of those spiritual encounters – not denying their legitimacy or downplaying their appropriateness.

How Christianity translates the supernatural into daily life is the most important aspect of personal spirituality today. Many pastors and theologians are struggling with this. Contemporary Christians are eager to cast off strict, doctrinally-oriented approaches to Christianity without accompanying experience. We ask Christians all the time  to follow their beliefs with actions – that our love relationship with God requires corresponding expression in a personal way. But today’s Christians have turned the tables: they actually expect to understand God’s love through the experiences he provides. 

Christianity has always been a two-pronged religion. One side involves doctrinal ascent to a set of beliefs centering on the finality of Jesus Christ. The other side is more “subjective” – it involves the prospect of “feeling” God through experience. That experience becomes an anchor for faith that can be leaned upon as doctrinal maturity develops. Of course, ministers and theologians get this backwards all the time - we teach doctrine in hopes that it will lead to experience for our congregations. But people’s actions tell us differently. When they are forced to choose between experiencing something on a spiritual level or adopting a particular set of dogma, they most often choose experience, since they ultimately believe that experience will correctly inform their doctrine, not the other way around. In other words we’ve been doing theology backwards. Postmodern Christians don’t say “I believe because I know;” they say “I believe because I feel.” It doesn’t have to be crazy charismatic stuff…but it’s gotta be something.

There are thousands of examples of this throughout church history. But how about a modern example. This video of Brian Head Welch, the former guitarist of Korn, discusses the role of “feeling” God in coming to Christ. Check out his comments about experience starting around 5:20.

The “Holiness” of Johnny Cash

I’ve told you before that my daughters really enjoy listening to Johnny Cash. I do, too. The story lines and delivery of his songs are great – some of that stuff is difficult to play, too. The snare drum work on “Orange Blossom Special” and the picking style on “Jackson,” for example. Claire Grace really likes ”Walk the Line.” I’m not sure if it’s the subtleness of the melody as it makes it’s way around a modified circle of fifths (she has the same musical tastes as her father and that’s something I find intriguing) or the droning precision of the rhythm section. A very well-crafted song.

From a theological perspective, it’s the lyrics that fascinate me though. Here are some of them:

I find it very, very easy to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I’ll admit that I’m a fool for you
Because you’re mine, I walk the line

You’ve got a way to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can’t hide
For you I know I’d even try to turn the tide
Because you’re mine, I walk the line

To me, the lyrics of this song really capture an understanding of relational holiness. Now, when I say “holiness,” most people think of a list or series of tasks that Christians must do in order to find acceptance in God’s sight. Or they attribute the holiness of God to the idea that because God is holy (read: better than us) he, in the words of Plato, “mingles not with man.” Of course, all this does is make God seem unapproachable. But I think Johnny Cash does a pretty good job of portraying an accurate view of what God is hoping for among us.

In all of these lyrics, the speaker “walks the line” in response to the generosity, kindness, actions, and support of the one they love. It’s “easy to be true” to one who loves you so much – Cash describes the ease of resisting temptation based on the goodness of his lover. Faithfulness is something we normally assume is one of the more difficult things to do (particularly if you watch a lot of TV). But Cash describes the ease of loyalty that is fostered when the goodness and pure intentions of another person are revealed. When we have “cause for love,” our response – if we are fully invested in that love relationship – is one of reciprocity. It becomes effortless to “walk the line” when we’re enraptured with the beauty of the one we intently gaze upon. Nothing else seems to matter. When those factors are in place, then the lifestyle that reflects that relationship naturally follows. And that, my friends, is relationally-based holiness – a sign of transformation, not conformity to rules. Natural, comfy, peaceful, uncomplicated, honest, and open.

 I used this example with a friend the other day when talking about the difference between styles of holiness. If you grew up (like I did) with the impression that I could somehow ”will” myself to a place of holiness, then chances are good you were miserable like me. I just assumed that was something that I could do to impress God. Obviously that’s not the case. Let’s say that that model of holiness is kinda like a car: you’re driving it to get from one place to the other. There’s only one problem – the gas mileage stinks. You can tinker with the engine all you want and increase the MPGs a little bit, but nothing substantial.  In the end, you finally figure out that you need a new car designed for better gas mileage  - a better vehicle to get from point A to point B. At least for me, that’s what I had to do.

Holy living is not the goal of the Christian walk. Relationship is. And lifestyle changes are signs or goalposts that encourage us to delve deeper into relationship with the Father. Of course, if we only focus on the signs, we ignore the sign-maker. That’s a great way to make sure we never see the lifestyle changes we’re hoping for. Look at it this way: the Ten Commandments (at least for the Christian walking in grace) are no longer “commandments” – goals for outward conformity. They become the Ten Promises. They represent the natural results that occur when someone is infatuated with Jesus. They are not coerced or “willed” into being. They are engendered by a deep trust in God. Wrapped in the arms of a loving God, we find it “very, very easy to be true.” Now, that’s a God I can worship.

Walk His Way: He Forgave, Part 3

Now let’s talk about the nuts and bolts of forgiveness for a few minutes. When I talk about forgiveness like I have the last several minutes, the idea of forgiveness for most of us becomes impractical. Either we feel that we’ll be disingenuous in forgiving others or we will become “doormats” for the rest of the world. As I said before, forgiveness does not condone the behavior of another, letting them “off the hook” so to speak – as if forgiving someone means conceding defeat – or that we “lose” when we forgive. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to use another analogy to show you how forgiveness occurs. I heard an illustration concerning forgiveness by Yale Divinity School professor Miroslav Volf a few years ago that deeply impacted my understanding of forgiveness. At that time in my life, I was wrestling with exactly what forgiveness meant and how I could forgive in a more complete way. The tired rhetoric of “just forgive and forget” or “you better forgive or God won’t forgive you” really rubbed me the wrong way. Comments like that seemed “cheap” – like they were shouted from an ivory tower. It dismissed my pain and seemed to force me to condone the perpetrator’s acts. His illustration helped me tremendously with this so I wanted to share it with you.

Volf says forgiveness is like a present. Forgiveness is given as a gift to another. Most people are happy to receive the gift of forgiveness…but they have to open the gift in order to receive it fully. What’s inside the box? The accusation of wrong-doing. In order to take the gift of forgiveness, the offender must take the responsibility for the fact that his or her decision crushed the heart of another. Forgiveness is not only a gift – it’s a scathing indictment. Forgiveness has two parts: 1) you hurt me and 2) I forgive you.

So, receiving forgiveness requires us to admit that we need to be forgiven. Obviously this is true with the gift of the cross. We receive forgiveness from Christ after we admit that we need that forgiveness. And that’s usually the hardest part. Though we are happy to do this with Jesus, what about with each other? That was my issue: How do I grant forgiveness without giving the impression that I condone the betrayal? That’s when I began to understand that forgiveness happens in stages – it’s a process. A Christian needs to extend forgiveness to others, but that doesn’t mean their forgiveness will be fully received, simply because of the indictment it contains. Sometimes the perpetrator may choose to never open the gift…and we can’t make them unwrap it.

So, what we find mostly among people is partial forgiveness. Here are some examples:

• The victim has forgiven but the accused refuses to accept responsibility of any wrongdoing.
• Or, similarly, the accused refuses responsibility saying their actions were necessary for some greater good – something seen as more important than the victim’s betrayal.
• Or the accused dies before forgiveness can be extended to them. 
• On the other hand, sometimes the guilty desires forgiveness, but the victim refuses to grant it as a form of punishment.

In all these cases, partial reconciliation is a best case scenario. Forgiveness remains in a partial state of completion. Sometimes things stay that way until the end of time – when both people can see forgiveness in the light of heaven.

So, what are you saying, Sam? I’m saying that forgiveness takes time. Forgiveness can only occur when both people are ready. Forgiveness is not a cheap way out for either party – the accused is not let off the hook and the victim doesn’t sweep their feelings under a rug of “Christianese” – religious language that really means nothing. True forgiveness is more than a concession to what we were taught in Sunday school – it is about making things right. Sometimes accepting forgiveness requires the accused to take the time to regain the trust of the betrayed – that long arduous journey is part of forgiveness. Because of this, forgiveness in our fallen world happens in shades of completion. We should be patient with others as they come to terms with the cost of forgiveness. And if you desire the forgiveness of another, make sure you are willing to accept that’s inside the box…

There’s a popular author and speaker named Rob Bell who pastors a church in the Seattle area. Rob’s always interesting to read or to watch, simply because he likes to think outside of the box. He approaches topics in a simple but unique way. I was watching one of Rob’s videos about two years ago and he said something that has stuck with me since then. How do you know forgiveness has occurred in your heart towards another person? Rob says that happens when you can “wish the other person well.” Now, that gives us a goal, doesn’t it? – an end to bitterness and resentment. Notice that doesn’t mean we ever have to condone the behaviors that created such grief our lives. We merely have to release that person from our judgment. God can bless everyone. He can also correct everyone. That’s his job.

Our job is to recognize that forgiveness comes in stages. And that takes time. It’s a process that may never find its completion until we are embraced in the Father’s love. Until then, we must accept that we see “through a glass darkly.” But as the Father’s love continues to fill our hearts, eventually…not immediately…but eventually, he will help us find a way to forgive so that we can wish well those who have hurt us. Over time, we will find ourselves able to say the words of Jesus: “Freely you have received, freely give.” 

Walk His Way: He Forgave, Part 2

Okay, so why do we forgive? Well, the obvious (and correct) reason is because Jesus forgave us. But rarely do we unpack that idea so that it makes sense to us. Last week Leigh Ann talked about loving others. Our ultimate example of this is Christ’s love for us displayed at the cross. There are a lot of ways to look at the cross…but personally that’s my favorite. I can’t explain all the theories about how forgiveness occurred at the cross (at least not in a Sunday morning sermon). But I can explain why. That one is pretty easy. God forgave us because God loves us. Forgiveness, though important in itself, had a larger purpose: it was a way to show us God’s love. 

Maybe this example will help clarify. The day after Thanksgiving every year, Beth and I decorate the house for Christmas. It takes a lot of work to decorate a house, however – and all of our decorations are stored in the attic. I spend more time than I’d like to in our attic and, for the record, I can’t stand it. This past Christmas I spent my time up there singing “It’s the most wonderful time of the year” hoping that the song would have some sort of reverse psychological effect on my surroundings. It didn’t. I still hate the attic. But I survived the whole experience once again.

The girls love to “help” us decorate. I believe only one ornament was broken this year – a new record! A few hours into the endeavor our youngest daughter, Annagale, got into trouble and was banished to her room for a while. When she came out, she apologized to her mom for the grievance, as is normally the case. But this time, something unique happened. Beth told Annagale, “That’s okay sweetie, I forgive you” and Annagale responded by throwing her arms around her mother and saying loudly: “Awww! I love you too, Mom!” I was walking through the room and stopped mid-stride. Never before had I heard such an excellent example of the interconnection between love and forgiveness. Beth said I forgive you, but Annagale heard I love you.

I realized that what I had just heard was a great example of my belief that God’s forgiveness at the cross was merely a result of his larger emphasis to show us how much he loved us. All elements of forgiveness in the cross are an outward manifestation of God’s self-disclosing love. Annagale experienced this with her mother. She innately understood that forgiveness is only granted from love. So, she merely skipped the result and affirmed the root of Beth’s forgiveness toward her: the deep love of a parent for their child. Forgiveness is merely an outworking of God’s deeper divine character. Unfailing love engenders unfailing forgiveness. Jesus basically gives us the same scenario when he describes the Father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed or not, but the term “forgiveness,” (one Christians are obsessive about when talking of Jesus) is nowhere to be found in that story. Yet, there’s no doubt that forgiveness was on the mind of the father as he bounded up the road to hug and kiss his estranged child. That forgiveness is buried within the actions of an unconditionally loving father. It never has to be said. It’s just part of the deal. Forgiveness is a byproduct of love wrapped in the arms of a nurturing God.

In the first passage from Matthew, Jesus illustrates the same point in a different way. The disciples, just like us today, wanted a solid number of times they had to forgive before they could “write off” an offender for good. Peter actually quotes the correct number of times for pronouncing vengeance in Jewish law, figuring if seven times is enough for judgment, then certainly seven times is enough for forgiveness. Jesus’s answer – seventy-sevens or seventy times seven (490) – was startling for all those who heard it. Jesus does what many Jewish exegetes of the day did – he makes an allusion or (as like to call them) “echo” to another passage of scripture. Often we miss this since we don’t catch those background clues in a passage. The scripture Jesus refers to is Genesis 4. Around verse 18, a guy named Lamech shows up as one of the descendants of Cain. Lamech sings a song where he boasts of killing someone who had “wounded” him. Jesus alludes to or “echoes” Lamech’s response: “If someone who kills Cain is punished seven times, then he who kills me will be punished seventy-seven times!” or “seventy sevens” – the same number Jesus says we should forgive. In Jesus’s time, everyone would’ve recognized his “echo” about Lamech.

Jesus was saying this: as much as Lamech harbored resentment, bitterness, and unforgiveness in his heart, to that same extreme we should embrace forgiveness for those who wrong us. As depraved as Lamech’s will to murder was, our willingness to forgive should be that much greater. Now that’s a tough pill to swallow, isn’t it? The number 490 (seventy times seven) is not a math equation or some sort of mental gymnastics. It’s symbolic for something more. It’s about the nature of forgiveness. If we’re keeping count of the number of times we have to forgive, we aren’t really forgiving at all. That’s merely seeing what we can get away with! True forgiveness is beyond a measurable number – it’s eternal and permanent. Paul picks this up in Colossians when he said, “Make allowance for each other’s faults, and forgive anyone who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others.” In other words, forgive with the same eternal quality that God forgave us.