June 2005 Archives

Sometimes God’s goodness is so… tangible. It’s so real. Tonight is one of those nights where His goodness in His providential leading of my life is acutely felt. How I was heading toward ruin and destruction! How He has delivered me and will continue to deliver me!

I’m glad that Satan’s mouth is shut up by the cross. Man. He’s such an accuser and deceiver!

God truly has given me riches in exchange for rags. I’m in such a better place this year than last year and I count all the loss as worth knowing the gain of today. What does tomorrow hold? More faith in the future grace of God. Praise Him that He’ll be there no matter what.

This is just the spillover of my heart. I’m so broken by His goodness right now.

Admittedly, I’m taking this opportunity to evaluate something based on what I’ve been reading in my philosophy course.

I was perusing the Drudge Report and came across this interview on the Today Show between Matt Lauer and Tom Cruise. It was full to overflowing with the frustration that comes from a “do what works” pragmatism that reached an impasse with two people whose belief systems are in contradiction to each other, but neither are wanting to just come out and say it. There’s a desire in both to be right, but Tom Cruise is the problem because he’s not willing to be like Matt Lauer and say that whatever works is what’s best for someone.

This type of stuff gets press, and I guess I’m glad to see it. I’m glad to see someone get airtime who thinks he’s right and the other is wrong and that the two cannot mutually exist and both be right. Just wish Piper would get national attention like this. :o)

That’s generalities. Let me summarize.

CRUISE: I’ve never agreed with psychiatry, ever.

MATT LAUER: But— but Tom, if [Brooke Shields] said that this particular thing helped her feel better, whether it was the antidepressant or going to a counselor or psychiatrist, isn’t that enough?

There are the two points coming into conflict. Cruise thinks that psychiatry is not ultimately helpful, and Lauer says that if it works, it’s okay and should be left alone. After more argument, Lauer hits upon the heart of the matter:

MATT LAUER: But a little bit what you’re saying Tom is, you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

Yes, Matt Lauer, you are right… sort of. Tom Cruise thinks he has found truth, and that truth is in conflict with what you believe “works.” Therefore what works and what is true, and whether truth trumps what works, is the real issue in this debate. What is true for you is in conflict with what is true to Cruise.

Who’s right? You’re both espousing a method one way or the other. Lauer, you’ve seen Ritalin and such “work” for people, therefore you acknowledge it as a viable option, although you don’t claim that it’s the only way to healing. Cruise, you’ve read about dangers of Ritalin and the history of psychiatry and on that basis you reject Ritalin as a good option for people.

Can we not just say, “I respectfully disagree with your opinion” instead of…

MATT LAUER: Let me take this more general, ‘cause I think you and I can go around in circles on this for awhile. And i respect your opinion…

It’s just that Lauer disagrees with Cruise, but he’s not going to be bold enough as Cruise to say that.

MATT LAUER: Do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that— would that be a goal of yours?

TOM CRUISE: You know what? I— absolutely. Of course, you know.

Here we hit upon a heresy in an age of pragmatism: even if it works for you, it’s wrong. Cruise is getting burned for it.

And I would not be surprised if, in the future, proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the supreme treasure of the universe whose glory we’ve exchanged and have made God into images that our minds can devise will also get heat, if not jail time. I’m not going into the pastorate thinking that my life is going to be easy, but rather a bearing a burden that’s going to have the world crushing me at times.

I was enjoying singing through the wonderful original arrangement of Isaac Watts’ song, Alas and Did My Savior Bleed. I was pondering the last verse, which is the following:

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe.
Here, Lord, I give myself away
‘Tis all that I can do.

I’ve been doing a word study of “debt” and “obligation” and “owe” in the New Testament, and I am not finding “debt” ever spoken of in this sense. I’ve seen it used two ways so far in my studies of all the passages I could find, and what I can’t find is this: the grace we have received puts us into debt with God.

When the New Testament authors speak of debt, with one possible exception (in Romans 8), it is always 1) the debt against God we owe because of our sin, and 2) the debt against other people we owe because of the grace we’ve received. Romans 8 is perplexing me, but in every other passage what is prized and emphasized is debt freedom toward God, and debt creation toward man. I have not yet discovered any place that speaks of our still being in debt to God. Grace is not a debt-creating thing in relationship to God; it’s a debt-freeing thing in relationship to God. And as we have received that grace, we owe grace to other people.

In the future I want to unpack all the major passages I have found that speak of debt or obligation or owing. I’m inclined to say that the concept of owing God due to grace or somehow making payments back to God is a hazardous way to conceive of our relationship to Him. It’s not without possible benefits, but I think we fall into the holes too easily and wreck what could otherwise be a good analogy.

So, I’ll launch into that later. Maybe someone will be helped by it.