Guidance the Monty Hall Way

Standard

We talk much about guidance and mistakes in the Christian walk. If one sure mistake exists, it’s to eat half a bag of dark chocolate peanut M&Ms after 10:30 PM. Even now, my pancreas begs for mercy.

But I get like that when I’m pondering tough questions. One’s mind drifts in the ether, trying to solve all of life’s questions, and the hand reaches into that bag again and again. Soon, half the bag’s gone, replaced with ruing buying the dumb, corn-syruped thing in the first place.

(Drop me a line at 4:00 AM and see if I’m still wired.)

The topic that started the binge concerns open and closed doors. Evangelicalism obsesses over the idea that God opens and closes doors as part of the way He guides us. If I’d invested a dollar for every time in the last thirty years I’ve heard a Christian pray that God would open a door, my manservant, Bill Gates, would be serving me Château d’Yquem nightly in my palatial Seychelles island estate.

I’m fascinated by the open/closed door metaphor that we Christians so easily conjure for guidance. When I ponder its origins, a couple verses come to mind:

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “This is the message from the one who is holy and true. He has the key that belonged to David, and when he opens a door, no one can close it, and when he closes it, no one can open it.
—Revelation 3:7

[Paul and Timothy] traveled through the region of Phrygia and Galatia because the Holy Spirit did not let them preach the message in the province of Asia. When they reached the border of Mysia, they tried to go into the province of Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.
—Acts 16:6-7

I believe those two verses form the backbone of the open/closed door theology many Christians use today to justify guidance and the decisions they make.

What does the open/closed door theory of guidance look like? Well, a person has a decision to make, sets before the Lord the options, then pursues the option that “opens” or abandons the one that”closes,” perceiving the opening or closing of a “door” as the sanction or denial of a particular option.

Truthfully, I’ve struggled immensely attempting to understand that view of guidance. Yet so many Christians I know live and die by the open/closed door method of discerning God’s will.

Problems abound:

  • Is an “open” door truly God’s will? I could decide to park my car on a bridge, climb on top of the railing, then hurl myself off simply because that opportunity might be open. However, there’s no guarantee that God’s going to save me from my stupidity. Nor is hurling myself off a bridge God’s will. The Bible clearly does not support self-destruction, so it can never be God’s will to attempt to destroy one’s person. Satan tried that same temptation with the Lord, if we remember!
  • Is a “closed” door truly closed? The door was obviously closed to the woman who pleaded with the judge to vindicate her against her enemy. She got nowhere with the judge. One day, though, under her persistent badgering, he relented, and she received what she desired. Should we use that verse to justify banging on closed doors?
  • Is a “closed” door the result of God willfully closing it or from the interference of evil spiritual forces. (Likewise, could evil open a door?) Woo! Don’t ask too many of your Christian friends to deal with that one! Would a little extra prayer open the closed door? Remember, as Jesus noted, some closed doors that involve the demonic can only be resolved with prayer and fasting. They may eventually open.

It gets more complex than this, too.

Let’s look at two options:

  • Door A offers a possibility that flies in the face of conventional Christian thinking. Many Christians would reject it, though they may do so based more on enculturation than explicit Scriptural admonition. For the person faced with this door, its opening would provide an immediate solution that, while not popular with some, would offer more immediate benefits.
  • Door B offers a more traditional solution, but with more uncertainty and fewer immediate benefits, with the distinct possibility of fewer long-term benefits (or outright hardship). This door has the blessing of more Christians.

What, then, would one do if God “opens” Door A and not Door B? Walking through Door A might garner serious brickbats from fellow Christians. But didn’t God “open the door?”

On the other hand, if Door A is rejected in hopes that Door B opens, what happens if Door B stays “closed?” Are Church people willing to come to the aid of the person who rejects A on principle only to have B fail to open? Which door? The lady or the tiger?My own experience in this scenario doesn’t give me much comfort that the Church will pick up the slack should someone take the tough stand and resist open Door A, only to later find Door B wedged shut. It also raises the troubling question that God doesn’t seem to know what He’s doing because He didn’t open the more popular “Christian” option.

I’ve had more than a few people tell me I’m one of the smartest people they’ve ever met. But being (supposedly) smart doesn’t resolve this open/closed door dilemma, at least for me. I know that when I face open/closed doors, particularly when the situation is pressing, I can rarely figure out what to do. As I get older, I find that indecisiveness growing rather than lessening. So much for the wisdom of the aged!

The problem of the open/closed door doesn’t always resolve through reading Scripture either. Some situations become one of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” and one can pile up Scriptures on either side to the point of utter confusion.

Some claim they make decisions by sensing more peace in one option than the other, yet I’ve seen the “peaceful” door turn out to have tigers lurking behind it. So I’m not sure the peace angle works.

I tend toward the countercultural angle, as I find that the wisdom of the culture reflects as no wisdom at all. Certainly not God’s wisdom. That means I often choose the door that runs counter to prevailing wisdom. I’m finding that, more often than not, my feet wind up on the narrow road, unpopular though it may be, even with other Church people.

Some may say that whatever path one winds up on reflects God’s will, but that doesn’t sit well with me, especially when following that supposedly God-directed path generates catcalls from other Christians, often the very ones who most support God’s sovereignty in all things. What, they’re suddenly not happy with God’s leading because it looks unconventional?

So I don’t know about the open/closed door means of discernment. It poses too many traps, too many Gideon-like fleeces, little of it reflecting true faithfulness. While God may very well lead that way, it may be the exception rather than the rule.

Demolishing the Culture of Busyness

Standard

I didn’t want to put out two “Dire Dan” posts in a row, but besides the problems we have with taking care of the least of these, we have a serious problem with busyness. Yep, speed kills...and now we have the proof!Any long-time reader knows that I feel busyness damages the soul and makes us less aware of the the Lord’s leading. And it’s a growing problem.

Now my suspicion is no longer conjecture.

Dr. Michael Zigarelli, associate professor of Management at the Charleston Southern University School of Business, conducted a study over five years that shows that Christians are succumbing to the tyranny of the urgent.

I’ll wait here while you read the article.

Read it? Great!

In light of yesterday’s post, how can we possibly meet the needs of others if we’re always focused on our own lives as we rush hither and yon? Well, we can’t. Sort of puts a crimp in those Kingdom of God plans, doesn’t it.

Who succumbs to the rush?

And professionals whose busyness interferes with developing their relationship with God include lawyers (72 percent), managers (67 percent), nurses (66 percent), pastors (65 percent), teachers (64 percent), salespeople (61 percent), business owners (61 percent), and housewives (57 percent).

Let’s break that list down to root issues that create busyness.

Lawyers, managers, salespeople, and business owners

  • Distorted work lives (caused by industrialism).
  • The pursuit of money.

Nurses, teachers, housewives, and pastors

  • Bearing the load of caring for others in a relationally-disconnected society created by distorted work lives and the pursuit of money.

The root causes listed are familiar to readers of this blog. Many posts here cover these root issues. Sadly, those tenacious roots grow deeper every year, but we hear little about them in our churches.

It’s not enough to say that we must focus more on God. That’s just adding another task to the problem. Instead, we Christians must start questioning the underlying root issues that cause this busyness.

While the study does not explain why Christians are so busy and distracted, Zigarelli described the problem among Christians as “a vicious cycle” prompted by cultural conformity.

“[I]t may be the case that (1) Christians are assimilating to a culture of busyness, hurry and overload, which leads to (2) God becoming more marginalized in Christians’ lives, which leads to (3) a deteriorating relationship with God, which leads to (4) Christians becoming even more vulnerable to adopting secular assumptions about how to live, which leads to (5) more conformity to a culture of busyness, hurry and overload. And then the cycle begins again.”

I agree with Dr. Zigarelli’s analysis. First, we are caught in a vicious cycle of busyness. Second, the implied cure is to no longer conform to the culture.

What must that non-conformity look like?

I suggest that we Christians must

  • Revitalize and rebuild local economies that counter globalism’s trend toward marginalization of communities and individuals
  • Discover alternative work lives that keep families (and communities) together during the day
  • Pursue simplicity by rejecting consumerism
  • Create alternative Christian communities that better conform to the Gospel’s standard of benevolence and more effectively shoulder the burden of caring for others
  • Reform our doctrinal emphases from head knowledge to the practical outworkings of the Faith
  • Stand by and encourage those who reject conformity to the prevailing culture rather than marginalizing them
  • Craft a new vision for living lives devoted to God first and to each other second.

Folks, these root issues penetrate deeply into the Western psyche. Busyness simply reflects the root. As Jesus notes of some demonic powers, only prayer and fasting will drive them out. And I believe some element of the demonic weaves through these roots.

None of this will be easy. It means revisioning all aspects of how we live our lives. Too many of us think how we live now is the only way it can be. But that’s a lie. We’ve got to stop believing that lie and start believing that God can change things if we repent and start asking hard questions that demand even harsher answers.

See these posts for more:

OT Christians vs. NT Christians

Standard

One of the many mistakes I believe Christians make today concerns viewing the Bible as a book of answers. That may be true to a point, especially for the babe in Christ, but I find that as I mature the Bible holds just as many questions as it does answers, perhaps more.

Take the opening Psalm:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
—Psalm 1

Out getting our teeth worked on today, my son and I listened to John MacArthur’s “Grace to You” program. See, I’m one of those countercultural fools who likes my Christian radio packed with teaching, as opposed to what passes for music on those same channels. Fortunately, I just so happened to tune in right as MacArthur started his program. When I heard he’d be expositing Psalm 1, one of my favorite Psalms, I stayed put.

MacArthur did a great job, but then stumbled egregiously on the very heart of the Psalm:

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
—Psalms 1:3

See, MacArthur got super-spiritual and claimed that “In all he does, he prospers,” refers to spiritual prosperity. But the text doesn’t say that. It says in ALL he does he prospers. Yes, his spiritual life prospers, but so does his physical, emotional, and intellectual life. God blesses him with prosperity in all aspects of life. He’s got a supermodel for a wife, the world’s greatest klatch of kids, money in the bank, the respect of his peers, a voice that people heed, a powerful network of business partners, and on and on. When the town needs something done, it goes to the Psalm One Guy.

What bothered me was MacArthur’s New Testament-izing of that Old Testament passage. And it shows me how poorly we Christians integrate the Old Testament with the New. In fact, I would say that we don’t truly integrate the OT and NT, but instead form our denominations around which one we prefer!

What do I mean by that?

Well, I think that we have folks in the Church who divide into two camps, one that leans heavily on the OT for its theology, and one that goes NT.

Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, charismatics, and a lot of mainline Protestant churches stand their ground on the OT. When they talk about believing the promises of God, they stand on verses that God spoke over His chosen people, verses that talk about taking the land, abiding in the promises, overthrowing giants, growing from the least into the greatest, and fire coming down out of heaven to consume one’s enemies. It’s a view that sees the godly man as the pillar of his community, chessmen.jpga community of chosen established by God. It’s lowly Israel made a great nation, its men held up for esteem so that kings seek them out.

On the other side, many Evangelicals pitch their tent in a NT view that sees the Church as a persecuted, ragtag bunch of misfits held together by grace. The godly man is not only poor in spirit, but quite possibly poor in purse. Verses that appeal to this view hold up dying to self, renouncing worldly gain, becoming the scum of the earth, and abandoning earthly prosperity for heavenly reward. The godly man is the one speared to death in a Roman colosseum, a martyr for the cause of Christ.

So these two camps war. The NT proponents enter the OT and start revising all the verses to fit their idea of what the true NT man must be. The OT proponents, though, wade into the NT and try to dismantle the NT camp’s “suffering servants.”

This, to me, explains why John MacArthur must overlay Psalm 1 with a spiritualized meaning rather than taking it at its word. He espouses the NT camp’s philosophy, so it can’t possibly mean that God prospers a man by giving him earthly wealth. As MacArthur jumped back into the NT for the rest of his teaching, he showed his hand by defaulting to NT readings that reinforced the spiritualization of Psalm 1.

And that leaves me with questions.

To me, Psalm 1 is clear, as are the rest of the OT passages that support God prospering the righteous with wealth, power, and respect. And I also see the NT side that supports a view of the Church as the downtrodden of society who have received the Good News when the rich and powerful did not. Both are clearly in the Scriptures, and both are clearly true.

Now, how do we reconcile them?

First, I’d like the OT camp to realize that “taking dominion” doesn’t always look like a Lexus in the driveway. Sometimes the greatest saints of God are the most lowly. To the NT camp, not every person who’s named the name of Christ winds up crucified upside down. Many of the Church’s greatest scholars and theologians came from privileged homes. Some even bankrolled their churches.

God may desire to have some become poor to prosper the Kingdom, while in His good measure He deems that some acquire wealth, power, and respect to expand that same Kingdom. Both OT and NT Christians don’t wish to hear this, though. It strikes me even more odd that many of the world’s poor take the OT side, while the rich of the world take the NT side, yet neither truly experiences the reality of the side they hope to claim!

Like so many things in the Christian walk, the truth may well reside in the middle of those two views. Attempting to make a law out of either side only creates trouble and misunderstanding. The Pentecostal who believes that God will bless and prosper him gets the “prosperity gospel” label by the other side, while the conservative Baptist is seen as a sad sack who hasn’t appropriated his inheritance as a child of the King of Kings.

Despite what the two camps say, I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive. But finding that overlap (where I believe truth reigns) requires work and possibly abandoning preconceptions, two things that don’t come easy to the American Church circa 2007.

It means asking plenty of questions, too. I’m willing to work at discovering that middle ground, though. Anyone else?