Some people believe that getting remarried after a divorce is adultery and a sin. This would have to include dating. Yet, it seems that some people who believe remarriage is a sin might excuse dating as acceptable by creating artificial and legalistic “technicalities” in order to justify their personal desires to justify dating as long as they do not get remarried? This however is a display of hypocrisy in order to bend artificial rules created by personal legalism and lack of control.

If remarriage is a sin, then dating must be included as a sin in such a belief. The Hebrew Prophets and Jesus always called the people to the heart of the law rather than the legalistic letter of the law. For example Jesus equated the entertaining of adulterously imaginative thoughts about another woman as equal to the physical act of adultery. In the same manner, Emotional adultery by which a man or woman seeks the fulfillment of emotional and spiritual needs through a member of the opposite sex other than their spouse is as guilty as one who commits physical adultery, because it is the heart which displays the true character of a person and which leads to the physical action, and the physical action does not occur unless the heart is already in position to do so. Therefore dating is emotional and spiritual form of intimacy and union by which one mirrors the emotional and spiritual union of marriage even without the physical union with another person. To hold to the belief that remarriage after divorce is adultery and sin, but to excuse dating on the technicality that it is ok as long as one does not physically remarry is nothing more than legalistic hypocrisy motivated by self-interest and lack of self-control.

Case Study on Adultery #3: If a husband is in school, obtaining a Masters Degree in order to pursue his dream and life long calling; what would motivate and justify his wife to take the 1 year tuition money held in savings that is already designated to such an endeavor and give it to one of her guy-friends simply because he desires to go to a questionable rinkydink college where he will possibly obtain an equally questionable degree. What is going on in such an extra-marital relationship that would justify a wife placing her husband’s calling at risk for the sake of another man’s desires? Is it better to sacrifice the dreams of a spouse for the sake of a friend, or is there something deeper and perhaps adulterous in the willingness of a wife to sacrifice the dreams of her spouse for the dreams of another man? Such pondering may never see an answer, yet it seems to me that something deeper underlies the simple act of helping a friend out. If the wife already exhibits a habitual propensity towards adulterous relationships, averaging one every two years, while having herself confessed to various people of her lack of self-control in such relationships in various instances, then this is perhaps the probable sign of yet another adulterous relationship in a long ongoing problem of adultery.  

Religion is the sociological label for one’s philosophical world view concerning the existence of a god, gods, powers, or no god. Even Atheism is a religion as it makes a philosophical statement about the non-existence of god, gods or powers. Humanistic Atheism or Secular Humanism specifically replaces a god, gods, or powers, with the potential of the human person and perhaps the human person itself. The religious nature of such a philosophical world view that believes in the non-existence of a god, gods, or powers, has been confirmed by various court rulings that have recognized such world views to be religious in nature. The attempt to reshape current systems into atheist systems where god, gods, or powers in the traditional sense is not allowed is therefore not the removal of religion from the system, but rather a replacement of traditional religions with the religion of atheism or humanism. It seems that what is portrayed to be a battle for human rights is in reality a battle to enforce one specific philosophical world view over all others. This religious intolerance is perhaps most evident by the ferocity with which those of the humanist religions attacks all other religious structures within the public realm particularly those of the Christian philosophical worldview.

Origin

Narcissism is defined more specifically as a pattern of grandiosity (exaggerated claims to talents, importance, or specialness) in the patient’s private fantasies or outward behavior; a need for constant admiration from others; and a lack of empathy for others. The term narcissisticis derived from an ancient Greek legend, the story of Echo and Narcissus. According to the legend, Echo was a woodland nymph who fell in love with Narcissus, who was an uncommonly handsome but also uncommonly vain young man. He contemptuously rejected her expressions of love. She pined away and died. The god Apollo was angered by Narcissus’ pride and self-satisfaction, and condemned him to die without ever knowing human love. One day, Narcissus was feeling thirsty, saw a pool of clear water nearby, and knelt beside it in order to dip his hands in the water and drink. He saw his face reflected on the surface of the water and fell in love with the reflection. Unable to win a response from the image in the water, Narcissus eventually died beside the pool.

Description

A Narcissist generally displays five or more of the following descriptions:

• He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates accomplishments and demands to be considered superior without real evidence of achievement).
• He or she lives in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or “perfect” love.
• He or she thinks of him- or herself as “special” or privileged, and that he or she can only be understood by other special or high-status people.
• He or she demands excessive amounts of praise or admiration from others.
• He or she feels entitled to automatic deference, compliance, or favorable treatment from others.
• He or she is exploitative towards others and takes advantage of them.
• He or she lacks empathy and does not recognize or identify with others’ feelings.
• He or she is frequently envious of others or thinks that they are envious of him or her.
• He or she “has an attitude” or frequently acts in haughty or arrogant ways.

In ministry

In ministry the narcissist has an inability to empathize with others. This may be evidenced by the inability to socialize and “mingle” with others as well as a displayed discomfort in social events. This inability to empathize may also be evident in the narcissisit’s inability to recognize or connect with the daily issues and lives of those in the ministry, resulting in insensitivity or an arrogance by which the narcissist judges others for the quality of their lives in contrast to his or her own. Often the goals of the ministry or the narcissist’s goals for that ministry become priority over the relational needs of the members of that ministry. The narcissist’s style of ministry is generally a “take control and lead” style with a great felt need for recognition of the narcissist’s position and ability as the leader of the ministry. The Narcissist seeks attention and praise for their success, and may even seek to portray themselves as the victim when things go wrong, thus pushing blame to others so as to preserve attention and praise to themselves. This may blend into or come out of the narcissist’s feeling of entitlement. The narcissist may seek or demand loyalty of those under them and may seek to manipulate them for his/her purposes. The ministry is built on the person, rather than on the purpose of the ministry. The narcissist sees the people of his/her ministry as tools who serve them rather than as a flock whose care he or she is responsible for. Often the narcissist may lose focus on the ownership of the ministry, seeing the ministry as his/her ministry, rather than recognizing their role as a servant-leader of God. The Narcissist may be a good leader for attracting others into their vision and may be good at attracting people by their attitude of success and apparent gifting, and people may genuinely feel good for being recognized as useful to this person, but the ultimate end of the narcissistic leadership will be a downfall when either the narcissist takes a fall, or the ministry ceases to be about God and ultimately becomes about the narcissist.

The Narcissist’s Reward

The narcissist seeks immediate reward through recognition, a feeling of control and power, praise, admiration, and perceived confirmation of their special status and ability. This often comes with a heavy cost often leaving behind broken hearts and dead ministries.

Matthew 6:5-6  “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Servant Leadership.

The true leader of ministry is a slave to all; a servant of God. The reward of the servant-leader is the glorification of God, the joy of ministry, the fellowship within the body, and the eternal crown.

1 Corinthians 9:16-27  6 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.  17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.  18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.  19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.  20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;  21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.  22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.  23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.  24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.  25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.  26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;  27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Once, in a classroom setting in a room that was used by a contemporary service on sundays, I had a fellow classmate rebuke me and others for snacking during class because the classroom was “God’s Sanctuary.”

This got me to thinking. There are several negative implications to this type of legalistic thinking. When faith becomes a set of rules which are followed without reason or relationship then the experience of God suffers, and one’s belief in the person of God is degraded.

This legalistic thinking limits the presence of God to a building. A dichotemy of thought is created between the spiritual and the non-spiritual. God is present in a sanctuary, but not any where else. I have to be holy on sunday, but I can do what I want on every other day of the week. Perhaps even more extreme, I only have to be holy when I am in a “sacntuary,” but as soon as I step out of the door I am free to live as I wish.

An inconsistency is created in what makes a “sanctuary.” If we cant snack in a class room because it is used on sundays by a contemporary sevice that intentionally does not meet in a church in order to give a more comfortable environment to people who are interested in Jesus but wary of church institution, then anywhere God is worshipped becomes a sanctuary where food is not allowed. Do you pray in your home? Would that make your home a sanctuary where food is no longer allowed?

One might say, a sanctuary is a place where people specifically serve and worship God. But doesnt scripture tell us to do all things as unto the Lord? Are we not serving and worshipping God when we take care of our responsibilities to provide for our family, cook dinner for our family, build caring relationships with our coworkers, being a light to the world? If such is true and we are to worship in all aspects of our life, then there is no place that is not a sanctuary.

Is God not the creator of heaven and earth? Is the Lord not omnipresent, and omnipotent? The earth is His and there is no place he is not present. If such is true, is not the whole earth his sanctuary?

We are to worship God in every aspect of our lives no matter where we go by honoring him, living righteously before him and living justly with our fellow man bearing love and compassion. When we limit and structure our life, the experience of God, and the nature of God in our own understanding, creating pockets of spirituality within our life where we rigidly worship God  by defining “the Church” as a building rather than as the Christian body of believers, we create a legalistic religion of rules focused on pleasing the standards of men, rather than honoring the God of the heavens and earth with whom we can have a wonderfully intimate relationship.

Church is not about a building or a system of legalistic rules.

Church is wherever God’s people are, and its a life lived in the presence of God, and in community with others.

(Out of respect and sensitivity for this person I did put away the snack so as not to be a stumbling block to him by provoking bitterness or anger in his heart.)

As I was reading through some Scripture I came to a thought about salvation.

Calvinism believes in the election of souls for salvation. We do nothing for our salvation but rather God choses and saves those whom he decides to save. With such a system of salvation and thus eternal security, it makes sense that many calvinist-based ministries place great emphasis in getting the non-believer to come to salvation yet tend to be weak on the follow-up towards discipleship, because the goal of calvinist evangelism is to get that commitment for Christ on the basis that once a person has become a believer, he will be eternally secure no matter what he does with his life afterwards.

This seems fairly logical and satisfies a desire for security yet that is just the problem. Are we trying to understand God’s plan for our comfort of mind in a system that logically makes sense to us? Or are we trying to understand how God works as he has revealed himself in scripture?

Inconsistencies seem to arise when we adopt such a logically pleasing doctrine, as Scripture seems to suggest election as well as a universal love that allows for free will. Is Arminianism right? or is Calvinism right? Scripture shows evidence for both in action, and to claim that one is right at the exclusion of the other seems rather presumptuous, arrogant, and creates inconsistency in the understanding of Scripture.

One such inconsistency deals with the saving power of Christ’s death. Scripture tells us that Christ died for all, yet Calvinist theology tells us this cant be so. The assumption is that if Christ died for all then all should go to heaven. Yet people still deny Christ and go to hell. If Christ died for all and people still go to hell, then his saving power is ineffective. The Calvinist conclusion is that Christ only died for those who are elect. In this way Christ’s death was 100% effective for those whom he died for.

The inconsistency with this theology is that while according to their definition, Christ’s power is effective for whom it was meant, it is now limited. It is as if to say that Christ could not save everyone, so he chose to save those he could save. While trying to save one limitation, Calvinist theology in effect creates another. If I were to say that I can beat everyone at a game of cards and yet I only played against 8 year-olds, then yes, given that I only play against 8 year-olds I can beat everyone I play against. However it is quite obvious that my ability at cards is very much limited in skill.

1 John 2:2 says, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

There is nothing limiting or ambiguous about “holos kosmos” (whole world) that could possibly make it mean “whole world of only those he chose to save”. The normal reading and understanding of the phrase is simply the “whole world”, everyone, chosen or not, no exceptions, all. Christ’s power has given the potential for all to be saved if we but respond to His saving grace.

Instead of asking, “are you an Arminianist?” or, “are you a Calvinist?”, maybe we should stop blindly following human figures or popular books and programs, and instead look at what Scripture actually says and follow Jesus Christ.

Before we begin to say, “Calvin said…” or “Mother Teresa said…” or “This book says…”, maybe we shoudl stop, see what Scripture has to say about it, and find out what God has to say about it.

NAU Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

questions:
- have the parents of wayward children failed in their training?
- will the wayward child always return to the Lord someday?

Obviously the answer to these questions is “No.” Despite the parents efforts, their children may go astray. And maybe the wayward child will never return to God.

Just about any Christian would agree that to take this scripture to be an absolute promise and rule that children raised properly will NEVER stray from God, or that children who do stray will ALWAYS return to God, would be foolish and not in keeping with the continuity of Scripture as a whole. It would be illogical, irresponsible and foolish to read such absolute promises into scripture where such promises and rules do not truly exist.

Despite the seemingly absolute nature of the statement being made in Scripture, it must be understood within the context of the whole of Scripture. The fact that Scripture uses generalities, hyperbolies, figures of speech, understatements and overstatements, does not in any way detract from the truth of scripture, nor does it create contradictions. The only contradictions that exist are in our incorrect, legalistic, or absolute interpretations which read into scripture what does not belong there.

Take Proverbs 22:6 for example. Most Christians would agree that it would be foolish to read such promises of security for the child based on the parents ability to raise them. Yet, as foolish as this seems in this one example, it seems that we as Christians do this all over the place in scripture. We make absolute promises and rules based on our theological views, preferences, and desires where in reality they do not exist in Scripture.

Calvinist theology attempts to interpret as many passages as it can to guarantee eternal security, while glossing over others. A few cornerstone passages are always pointed to when any other scripture that might suggest otherwise is brought up. The desire is to know one’s eternal security, and so a theology is created that reads much like the following: “Once a person comes to faith and says the right prayer and does his single baptism he will always be secure in his salvation even if he turns away from God because God knows he will come back to him eventually. If he doesnt turn back and instead goes to hell then he wasnt really a christian to begin with and wasnt entitled to the promise.”

The same thing happens in Prosperity Theology. However it happens in regards to immediate worldly aspects of health and wealth rather than eternal promises of salvation. The promise here is seen as follows: “If I give enough money to God and have enough faith in God, then God will reward me and must reward me with good health and lost of wealth.”
so with that I ask:

What promises do we read into scripture that might not actually be there simply because it makes us feel better, or because that is what we want to hear?

I am fairly convinced that God is more concerned with my spiritual life than my physical life. My spirit will continue, but my body will fade away. My body continues to deteriorate and will eventually die and return to the earth no matter how I pray, but my soul will live on into eternity. Will God answer prayers that may deliver me from physical illness or pain? He can, but if there is something greater for me to learn through it, or if there is a purpose or reason in God’s wisdom that I may never know nor see the effects of, then perhaps He wont. It would be supremely foolish and arrogant of me to believe that God must heal me and deliver me from any illness or pain because of an immature and incorrect reading of Scripture that forces God to be subject to any human understanding of the promises interpreted out of Scripture. Perhaps this view may seem somewhat pessimistic and hopeless, but it only seems so if one places the value of life on the circumstantial and superficial physical conveniences of such existance. When one finds the value of life in the spiritual, the character of the soul, and the sovereignty and Glory of God, then one ceases to focus on what is selfishly convenient and desired, and instead focuses on that which truly matters with hope into the eternal.

I think one of the best things I am learning at this point in my life is to disconnect my self from the actions of others. The more I understand that I am responsible for my own action and that I can only do what I believe to be my best, the more content I am with myself. The more I disconnect myself from other people’s action by realizing that I cannot control their actions, and understand that they will do what they will do, the less emotionally connected I will be to them. I willl then not be so disappointed when my hopes for the best in them are smashed by the realization that they will continue to do selfish and stupid things.

By emotionally disconnecting from the actions of others, and living the best that I can, I am able to live with greater peace within my own life, with less reaction to the actions of others, and the understanding that the nature of some people are just always going to be the worst and I am fine with that.

Maybe its weird, but there are 2 things I miss.

I miss the feel of holding hands.

And I miss random chattings about seemingly insignificant things. Although I guess this requires another person who enjoys every day chit chat so maybe I’ve never really had it to miss in the first place.