I had a simple revelation today after hearing a message by Mark Driscoll. I will include a link to the message at the end of this post, I think it is a message that all Christian men need to hear and come to grips with.
I have long wondered why lust is such a trap for nearly every man that walks on this planet. For some men it becomes consuming and something that they desire, even to the point of addiction. I would be liar if I said that I was a man that has not struggled with lust, and I pray that I do not become a hypocrite for writing this. You could easily try to explain away this phenomena by science and simply say that it is the chemical make up of a man having more testosterone and a higher sex drive, which I simply cannot deny, but men having a higher sex drive means little more than a doorway for temptation. But, is this the core reason why men fall into the trap of lust? No, it is in part the reason for the temptation, but there is a light and day difference between temptation and sinning.
So what then is the core reason for lust being such a trap for men? And, how the heck do we fight the temptation? I have read several books on this topic, and have either not understood a single thing that the person was saying or have tried to apply what they were telling me to do and failed. I don't believe these things are necessarily wrong, but I think they all fail to understand one basic truth.
To explain this truth I have to explain how a mans mind works. To do this I will borrow an analogy that I first heard from Dr. Robert Lewis of Men's Fraternity. I have talked to several people on this issue and have always found the analogy to be perfectly accurate. A man's mind is like a laser beam. When we focus on one thing, everything else goes out the window. Conversely, a woman's mind is like a radar, she can focus on one thing but she always has the capacity to see other things coming her direction. This is how God created us. There is no fighting it, this is how we are!
So how does this relate to lust and sin? It is quite simple. When we, as men, see something or someone that we perceive as beautiful, that becomes our focus. At this point I do not believe it is yet sinful lusting. However, it is also at this point of focusing in that all other courses of thought are pitched out the window (we do not do this intentionally, but that's the way our minds work). It is at this point that Satan has you fully in the trap, and all he has to do is pull a little string to close the door because at that point you have tossed aside all consideration of God, sin, consequences, respect for a future (or current) wife, and/or anything else. At that point you are alone in thought about that image, which becomes its own fantasy world with no barriers or limitations.
How then are we to fight the the temptation? I have read over and over again that a man's battle against sin is a fight and it seems like every book and every discussion about it speaks of it in terms of a war. I distinctly remember reading one book that used the verse about putting on the holy armor and warring with the temptation to lust until it subsided. Yeah, I tried that and I failed miserably. It is in our nature to try to fight this temptation with our own strength and will. But, thinking that we stand a shot at fighting a fallen angel is unbelievably prideful. We fail miserably because we don't have the strength, nor do we really understand what it means to put on the holy armor. Lust and other temptations can seem so harmless, but we fail to understand that Satan is engaged and actively constructing an all out attack on God's kingdom. I think in the case of sexual sin, putting on the holy armor looks more like standing firm in defense than trying to slay some sort of imaginary giant. However, if we think that we can stand in defense under our own will, we will still fall. David, a man after God's own heart, was engaged in an all out attack to take his life by Saul for several years. He writes in Psalm 32 that God is a hiding place protecting us in times of trouble.
So you say, I still don't understand how to not fall into the temptation of lust, and the David thing is still confusing me? Understanding what a man is and his purpose needs to be at the heart of every discussion on sin. I encourage you to watch the video below to understand masculinity, in its entirety, in regards to this issue. We need to understand that we have to submit ourselves "to spiritual authority because we innately know nothing" nor can we do anything. David understood that and did not try to stand, he allowed God to be His protective armor. He HID behind God's protection. This doesn't mean he fought along side or tried to help, he HID. We need to be so enveloped in God that we don't perceive it as permissible to intentionally go to places that invite perversion and when the location is outside our control that the second that temptation arises, walls start to shoot up and sirens start to go off that this is an attack and you need to retreat. Our thought process and relationship with God should so permeate everything that we do that before we can focus our laser beam minds we have already immediately recognized this.
It is my prayer that each of you who read this are able to have a relationship with God and reach the depth of understanding that is necessary to have triumph in this aspect. If you are anything like me when you read this, you will automatically think I've tried to get intimate with God and I just don't feel it, this prayer goes out for you. But, that should help you understand the length to which humans have fallen. God will bring you back if you let Him. It is a process and growth will occur, have faith and God will work wonders in you.
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/marriage-and-men
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Irish Reverie - Original song by me (performed at Acoustic Cafe)
I'm sorry to those of you who can't view this. I'm trying to get a hard copy of the file to put a video up on youtube which I could then post on here.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
St. Patrick: The Real Story
Saint Patrick (estimated AD 387 - AD 461) was a Roman Britain-born Christian missionary and is the patron saint of Ireland. He was educated at a monastery and school of divinity founded by Saint Illtud (now Llantwit Major), often called "the oldest university in the world".
When he was about sixteen he was captured by Irish raiders and taken from his native Wales as a slave to Ireland, where he worked as a shepherd, outdoors and away from people for six years before escaping and returning to his family. Back home he entered a monastery for 15 years and he later returned to Ireland as a missionary in the north and west of the island. He had visions to convert Ireland into a Christian nation and his vision was fulfilled both during his lifetime and after. Ireland eventually came to be a Catholic nation boasting many monasteries, although there aren't any known to have started during his lifetime. He was recognized for his accomplishment in the 8th century and named a Patron Saint of Ireland when they decided to hold an annual celebratory feast on March 17th in his honor.
The available body of evidence does not allow the dates of Patrick's life to be fixed with certainty, but it appears that he was active as a missionary in Ireland during the second half of the fifth century. Two letters from him survive, along with later hagiographies from the seventh century onwards. Uncritical acceptance of the Annals of Ulster would imply that he lived from 340 to 460, and ministered in what is modern day northern Ireland from 428 onwards.
When he was about sixteen he was captured by Irish raiders and taken from his native Wales as a slave to Ireland, where he worked as a shepherd, outdoors and away from people for six years before escaping and returning to his family. Back home he entered a monastery for 15 years and he later returned to Ireland as a missionary in the north and west of the island. He had visions to convert Ireland into a Christian nation and his vision was fulfilled both during his lifetime and after. Ireland eventually came to be a Catholic nation boasting many monasteries, although there aren't any known to have started during his lifetime. He was recognized for his accomplishment in the 8th century and named a Patron Saint of Ireland when they decided to hold an annual celebratory feast on March 17th in his honor.
The available body of evidence does not allow the dates of Patrick's life to be fixed with certainty, but it appears that he was active as a missionary in Ireland during the second half of the fifth century. Two letters from him survive, along with later hagiographies from the seventh century onwards. Uncritical acceptance of the Annals of Ulster would imply that he lived from 340 to 460, and ministered in what is modern day northern Ireland from 428 onwards.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Psalm 32: Part 1
I have recently been going through some Psalms. I wanted to share a few on here that are speaking to me. I'm going to start with Psalm 32. There are a number of reasons why I love this Psalm, but mostly I love this Psalm because of the imagery that comes with it. If you look in verse 3 David openly admits that there were times when he would go for periods of time without confessing, which we can all identify with. His description is fascinating to me.
When I first read verse 3 I automatically thought about the numerous verses that speak metaphorically of the spiritually weak being blown around by the wind. I had always viewed them in a literalist view that can most easily be seen in Isaiah 41:16 "You will winnow them, the wind will pick them up, and a gale will blow them away. But you will rejoice in the LORD and glory in the Holy One of Israel." I always viewed it as one event, you just simply get blown away from God and there you remained until you came back. But, verse 3 leads me to believe my literalistic interpretation is a misinterpretation.
In verse 3 David metaphorically speaks of his faith as bones. I love this imagery. First of all, bones are constantly building or deteriorating depending on the amount of calcium and other nutrients they are given, they never are idle. When David speaks of his bones wasting away it is an issue that compounds and continually gets worse. Physiologically speaking, bones can get so bad and brittle that they break on the touch. With faith, lack of repentance is not simply something that you just get blown away and you stay there until God brings you back, it's something that gets progressively worse and can get so bad that all Satan has to do is put the slightest temptation in front of you and you don't even have the ability to put up a fight, you just shatter. Conversely, a bone gets built gradually and can become very strong.
On a side note, bones get stronger when they function properly under pressure. This phenomena is call Wolff's Law, they have actually determined that bones increase in density and become stronger when they are put to the test and don't break! However, every bone, no matter how strong it is, can be broken. I also love the imagery of faith as bone because anatomically speaking bones are the solid structures that allow our bodies to stand and to function, and I think that is a beautiful metaphor for faith that empowers us and should be the rigid foundation upon which everything is built.
When I first read verse 3 I automatically thought about the numerous verses that speak metaphorically of the spiritually weak being blown around by the wind. I had always viewed them in a literalist view that can most easily be seen in Isaiah 41:16 "You will winnow them, the wind will pick them up, and a gale will blow them away. But you will rejoice in the LORD and glory in the Holy One of Israel." I always viewed it as one event, you just simply get blown away from God and there you remained until you came back. But, verse 3 leads me to believe my literalistic interpretation is a misinterpretation.
In verse 3 David metaphorically speaks of his faith as bones. I love this imagery. First of all, bones are constantly building or deteriorating depending on the amount of calcium and other nutrients they are given, they never are idle. When David speaks of his bones wasting away it is an issue that compounds and continually gets worse. Physiologically speaking, bones can get so bad and brittle that they break on the touch. With faith, lack of repentance is not simply something that you just get blown away and you stay there until God brings you back, it's something that gets progressively worse and can get so bad that all Satan has to do is put the slightest temptation in front of you and you don't even have the ability to put up a fight, you just shatter. Conversely, a bone gets built gradually and can become very strong.
On a side note, bones get stronger when they function properly under pressure. This phenomena is call Wolff's Law, they have actually determined that bones increase in density and become stronger when they are put to the test and don't break! However, every bone, no matter how strong it is, can be broken. I also love the imagery of faith as bone because anatomically speaking bones are the solid structures that allow our bodies to stand and to function, and I think that is a beautiful metaphor for faith that empowers us and should be the rigid foundation upon which everything is built.
Psalm 32: Part 2
In verse 4 David says that he confessed his sins. He confessed the whole thing, not part, without covering it up and in doing so he was forgiven. He then commends those who believe to pray to God so they may be forgiven.
The next verse recalls the history of what happened when people didn't repent or ask for forgiveness, the mighty waters of the flood destroyed everyone. Now, God made a covenant that he would never flood the earth again so this passage is obviously a metaphor for temptation. It is interesting that David is actually kind of giving Satan credit here for his power. David realized that Satan’s power is able to do to flesh that which a massive sea is able to do. But, more importantly than David giving Satan credit is the confession that human flesh is utterly powerless against a force that strong.
Verse 7 talks about God being a hiding place. I honestly envision a hiding place being some place that I have to run into and curl up in a ball in a corner shaking uncontrollably from fear, a place that has massive gates that the strongest force cannot penetrate. I love the imagery I get in Psalm 63 when it talks about his soul clinging onto God, just clinging like there’s no tomorrow.
The next verse recalls the history of what happened when people didn't repent or ask for forgiveness, the mighty waters of the flood destroyed everyone. Now, God made a covenant that he would never flood the earth again so this passage is obviously a metaphor for temptation. It is interesting that David is actually kind of giving Satan credit here for his power. David realized that Satan’s power is able to do to flesh that which a massive sea is able to do. But, more importantly than David giving Satan credit is the confession that human flesh is utterly powerless against a force that strong.
Verse 7 talks about God being a hiding place. I honestly envision a hiding place being some place that I have to run into and curl up in a ball in a corner shaking uncontrollably from fear, a place that has massive gates that the strongest force cannot penetrate. I love the imagery I get in Psalm 63 when it talks about his soul clinging onto God, just clinging like there’s no tomorrow.
Psalm 32: Part 3
When I first started reading, verses 8-11 seemed like a David had moved on and had switched gears and I wasn’t sure how it related and tied in with the first half of the Psalm. But then I started thinking and I would like to bring back the bone metaphor here. There are many forces and ways on this earth that our bones can be snapped like twigs, even the femur (the strongest bone in the body) is no match for the forces that govern this earth.
So how do we avoid getting snapped like a twig? Well, in one sense you do exactly what vs. 7 says, you hide in God and let Him take care of you. In the other, you don’t put yourself in situations where you can be shattered. Verse 9 puts it another way. “Do not be like the horse or the mule that have no understanding and must be controlled by bit and brittle.” I believe this is saying that we have to have a strong enough spiritual foundation to understand when and where we are tempted and have an understanding of our weaknesses. If we do not know ourselves or analyze ourselves frequently enough to know our strengths and weaknesses we have no idea where to go and have to be controlled “by bit and brittle”, or basically dragged around. The end of vs. 9 adds the all important “or will not come to you”, which can be referred back to the first half of the Psalm. A person that does not know the structure on which they are built upon is a person whose bones are deteriorating and because of sinful nature will look to themselves first to solve their problems instead of going to God.
I once read that when you are struggling spiritually, the first thing that happens is prayer becomes substantially less important, or you stop praying altogether. I have found this to be true in my experience. Vs. 5-6 tell us that in order to repent we have to pray to God. If you don’t repent, your bones waste away (vs. 3), you don’t pray to or hide in God and then the mighty waters are able to reach you (vs. 6-7) and that will bring woes upon you (vs. 10). As for those who repent, pray, and hide in the Lord they are protected from the broken bones, mighty waters, and woes. God is a proud God and quick to deliver those who seek Him. I think Jesus has an understanding of how difficult it is for human flesh to trust entirely in God, and with the Father are quick to pull us out of the pit if we are seeking Him.
Vs. 11 Is a reflection of how glad we should be that God would care enough to protect us and deliver us, as no one is righteous of their own accord. Believers should be so conscious of their sinful state that they can’t help but sing praise to God that they are spared even once let alone a lifetime of temptation.
So how do we avoid getting snapped like a twig? Well, in one sense you do exactly what vs. 7 says, you hide in God and let Him take care of you. In the other, you don’t put yourself in situations where you can be shattered. Verse 9 puts it another way. “Do not be like the horse or the mule that have no understanding and must be controlled by bit and brittle.” I believe this is saying that we have to have a strong enough spiritual foundation to understand when and where we are tempted and have an understanding of our weaknesses. If we do not know ourselves or analyze ourselves frequently enough to know our strengths and weaknesses we have no idea where to go and have to be controlled “by bit and brittle”, or basically dragged around. The end of vs. 9 adds the all important “or will not come to you”, which can be referred back to the first half of the Psalm. A person that does not know the structure on which they are built upon is a person whose bones are deteriorating and because of sinful nature will look to themselves first to solve their problems instead of going to God.
I once read that when you are struggling spiritually, the first thing that happens is prayer becomes substantially less important, or you stop praying altogether. I have found this to be true in my experience. Vs. 5-6 tell us that in order to repent we have to pray to God. If you don’t repent, your bones waste away (vs. 3), you don’t pray to or hide in God and then the mighty waters are able to reach you (vs. 6-7) and that will bring woes upon you (vs. 10). As for those who repent, pray, and hide in the Lord they are protected from the broken bones, mighty waters, and woes. God is a proud God and quick to deliver those who seek Him. I think Jesus has an understanding of how difficult it is for human flesh to trust entirely in God, and with the Father are quick to pull us out of the pit if we are seeking Him.
Vs. 11 Is a reflection of how glad we should be that God would care enough to protect us and deliver us, as no one is righteous of their own accord. Believers should be so conscious of their sinful state that they can’t help but sing praise to God that they are spared even once let alone a lifetime of temptation.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Race and College Coaching Jobs
This post is in response to a recent outrage by Charles Barkley about the hiring to Auburn football coach Gene Chizik.
I will preface this by sharing my feelings about Charles Barkley. I do not have respect for Charles Barkley. I have always felt that even since his playing days in the NBA that he has always done things to draw attention to himself. He was a good player, but in a lot of ways I would compare Charles to Terrell Owens. He always is making a fuss about something... Now, I am all for the promotion of black coaches or coaches of any other race. I do feel that they can be as successful as any white coach. However, recently it seems that any time a black coach is in the final group and is not hired it always gets stated by someone that the reason they were not hired is because they were black. Now, I don't want to dismiss this too lightly. I do think that racism still exists, and perhaps there are some jobs that are decided based on that factor. But, to blame EVERY job decision on that fact is absolutely wrong and absolutely disgusts me. I will not pretend to know how it feels to be a minority nor will I claim to know what it feels like to be oppressed, but what is going on right now about the Auburn job is just wrong. First of all, Charles Barkley has completely stepped outside of his boundaries by stating Auburn was wrong, and Gene Chizik is not qualified. Barkley is a basketball player and has never played college football, and who knows if he has ever played competitive football at all in his life. I understand standing up for a friend, but if Charles wants to talk about being qualified, Charles is the one that isn't qualified to judge the decision Auburn made. He doesn't even have any coaching experience period. I don't care if you've played basketball 40 years of your life, if you've never coached you are not qualified to say what a good coaching hire is... especially at the college level where far more goes into coaching than simply basketball or football game planning like it is largely in the NBA/NFL. Charles hasn't even been involved in college athletics for 25 years, and even then he was just a player. He has no basis for any of his arguments other than an Auburn hiring committee he was dismissed from for undisclosed reasons which he also blamed on race. Could it be that Alabama and Auburn are not over the racism that engulfed the beliefs of the south for so long, sure. But, the fact that 2 of the final 3 candidates for the Auburn football job were black suggests otherwise. When you have 3 coaches of that caliber, most of the time the decision doesn't even come down to a resume. Auburn decided to go with a guy that has been a recent coach at Auburn in a coordinator position. He recruited incredibly well for them, not mention he's the only of the candidates that has any experience recruiting in the AL area, and is an excellent motivator. Now that being said, I'm not even a Chizik fan. I don't like Iowa St. and I have a lot of questions about people who decide or have decided to be part of any of their programs. I'm just making the point that many times when you get into the final candidates that what they've done in the last year or two isn't always the deciding factor, and in fact I'd be very concerned about the hire. I'd be more inclined to say it's a poor hire if they used winning record in the past 2 years as the deciding factor.
As far as Turner Gill's response. I understand that job interviews are putting your entire self out there and are quite a personal matter. But, when you have people up for jobs as prestigious as the Auburn coaching job, not getting the job is not a personal attack. I understand this is easy to say and not so easy to do... but Turner Gill suggesting that oh, it's because I'm black, or maybe it's because I'm married to a white woman and people don't take that well. What if Auburn just made the decision that Gene Chizik was a better fit because of his experience in the south and had nothing to do with Turner Gill being black or his personal life at all? Is that so hard to believe? And, I understand the questions and doubts that blacks have. We all have doubts about a lot of things, so I don't blame Turner Gill for his doubts about his job. However, at what point, if ever, are we going to get to a place where blacks no longer have to question why a hiring committee decides to hire them? And, why does everything become a race issue? I'm not trying to be derogatory, I truly am trying to understand.
I will preface this by sharing my feelings about Charles Barkley. I do not have respect for Charles Barkley. I have always felt that even since his playing days in the NBA that he has always done things to draw attention to himself. He was a good player, but in a lot of ways I would compare Charles to Terrell Owens. He always is making a fuss about something... Now, I am all for the promotion of black coaches or coaches of any other race. I do feel that they can be as successful as any white coach. However, recently it seems that any time a black coach is in the final group and is not hired it always gets stated by someone that the reason they were not hired is because they were black. Now, I don't want to dismiss this too lightly. I do think that racism still exists, and perhaps there are some jobs that are decided based on that factor. But, to blame EVERY job decision on that fact is absolutely wrong and absolutely disgusts me. I will not pretend to know how it feels to be a minority nor will I claim to know what it feels like to be oppressed, but what is going on right now about the Auburn job is just wrong. First of all, Charles Barkley has completely stepped outside of his boundaries by stating Auburn was wrong, and Gene Chizik is not qualified. Barkley is a basketball player and has never played college football, and who knows if he has ever played competitive football at all in his life. I understand standing up for a friend, but if Charles wants to talk about being qualified, Charles is the one that isn't qualified to judge the decision Auburn made. He doesn't even have any coaching experience period. I don't care if you've played basketball 40 years of your life, if you've never coached you are not qualified to say what a good coaching hire is... especially at the college level where far more goes into coaching than simply basketball or football game planning like it is largely in the NBA/NFL. Charles hasn't even been involved in college athletics for 25 years, and even then he was just a player. He has no basis for any of his arguments other than an Auburn hiring committee he was dismissed from for undisclosed reasons which he also blamed on race. Could it be that Alabama and Auburn are not over the racism that engulfed the beliefs of the south for so long, sure. But, the fact that 2 of the final 3 candidates for the Auburn football job were black suggests otherwise. When you have 3 coaches of that caliber, most of the time the decision doesn't even come down to a resume. Auburn decided to go with a guy that has been a recent coach at Auburn in a coordinator position. He recruited incredibly well for them, not mention he's the only of the candidates that has any experience recruiting in the AL area, and is an excellent motivator. Now that being said, I'm not even a Chizik fan. I don't like Iowa St. and I have a lot of questions about people who decide or have decided to be part of any of their programs. I'm just making the point that many times when you get into the final candidates that what they've done in the last year or two isn't always the deciding factor, and in fact I'd be very concerned about the hire. I'd be more inclined to say it's a poor hire if they used winning record in the past 2 years as the deciding factor.
As far as Turner Gill's response. I understand that job interviews are putting your entire self out there and are quite a personal matter. But, when you have people up for jobs as prestigious as the Auburn coaching job, not getting the job is not a personal attack. I understand this is easy to say and not so easy to do... but Turner Gill suggesting that oh, it's because I'm black, or maybe it's because I'm married to a white woman and people don't take that well. What if Auburn just made the decision that Gene Chizik was a better fit because of his experience in the south and had nothing to do with Turner Gill being black or his personal life at all? Is that so hard to believe? And, I understand the questions and doubts that blacks have. We all have doubts about a lot of things, so I don't blame Turner Gill for his doubts about his job. However, at what point, if ever, are we going to get to a place where blacks no longer have to question why a hiring committee decides to hire them? And, why does everything become a race issue? I'm not trying to be derogatory, I truly am trying to understand.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Christmas Blessings
Today I read a statement that talked about having to work hard and doing what it takes to have a blessed Christmas this year. Now I don't know exactly what was meant by the person who wrote this, but I assume that this had to do with the amount of gifts given and/or value thereof. If you haven't read my post below I would encourage you do so now, to give you more of an idea of my stance on this. Anyhow, I ask the question what does it mean to be blessed or to have something that is blessed? Furthermore, what does it take for something to be blessed? I am very interested to hear your answers to these questions. Here are some general thoughts to get your mind going. I think that Americans, and Christians therein, have adopted a materialistic view on life. Not only are we infatuated with increasing our wealth and toys, we have taken the treatment of humans, as a whole, to levels close to that of the human condition pre-flood. I'm not talking about tolerance or intolerance, I'm talking about selfishness. In a future post I will write more on my belief that all sin is rooted in selfishness. I believe that this statement is exactly that, blessed being the ability to get more toys for your family so that they may be "happier". Which bids another question. What is happiness and where does it come from? Now, I won't even get into that, or this post will never end, but feel free to offer up your thoughts. Now to clarify, I do believe God chooses to give more things to some people than others. By our American definition they would be considered blessed, and I find it hard to argue. But, the Bible has this to say Luke 12:48 "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Now in many ways this can be viewed as a blessing, but can it not also be a burden? Not that this should be our view either, but as Americans and the wealthiest nation on earth have been entrusted with and given A LOT! Much is expected of us and are we doing anything with it? Also, does working harder mean we will be more blessed? Not necessarily, if you're working hard in order to have more toys. God is the only one from whom blessings come. I do not believe I can bless anyone, nor can anyone bless me. The Spirit can work through us so that God may bless individuals, but we ourselves can do nothing to be blessed. Therefore, to work for the selfish motive of having more and being able to give more toys to your family and yourself I do not consider to be a blessing. So, my initial small thought ballooned into much more. But, I encourage you think about that this Christmas. What exactly does Luke 12:48 look like during the Christmas season? I look forward to hearing feed back and your own thoughts on my questions. I have more thoughts to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
