[eikon] blog

Vantage Point: Simon of Cyrene

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:12:56 -0400

Jerusalem, a normally quiet city, is filled with millions of people, some from close by, and some from other parts of the world. The streets are consumed with religious people coming to celebrate and honor the Passover. Among those millions is one man whose life would never be same. Tonight we look at a man who found himself in the right place at the right time and experienced a transformation through the Cross of Jesus.

Why do you think God chooses unlikely times and places in our lives to use us for something great? Describe a time in your life when God used you when you least expected it.

What “cross” are you bearing for Jesus? Why is it so difficult? Is there something in your life that you need someone else to help you bear?

As God looks at your heart, what do He see? Are you trying to appear to be someone you are not? Do you compare yourself to others too much?

How have you been lacking in your spiritual responsibility? How have you been busy for God or busy avoiding God? What steps do you need to take to be more responsible?

Have you ever felt humiliated trying to do the right thing representing God? Describe.

Think about a time when you were “interrupted by God.” How did you feel at that moment and now looking back, what did you learn?

Was there a time in your life when you thought just following the rules is all you needed? When did you “pick up reality and relationship” with Jesus? How did He reveal Himself to you?

What do you need to “put down” at the Cross? How can you practically take steps this week doing so?

Vantage Point: Barabbas

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:58:32 -0400

Q1: What are you passionate and zealous for? Share about time when your passion got you in trouble?

Q2: As we compare the lives of Jesus and Barabbas, we see that both men were passionate for a cause, to bring freedom to an oppressed people. Read Matt. 26:39 and Luke 23:13-19, what were the differences in how these two men acted on that passion?

Q3: In what areas of your life does the hatred and rebellion of “Barabbas” come out? How can you apply the love and obedience that Jesus demonstrated to those areas?

Q4: Before coming to Christ, what limits did you place on God’s love? What was that one thing you thought God couldn’t forgive?

Q5: Make this personal, how did God demonstrate His own love toward YOU? What did He redeem you from?

Q6: How has God delivered you from the tyranny or yoke of someone or something? What steps do you need to take to find that freedom?

Q7: The scripture is silent on how Barabbas used his new found freedom. Since Christ has redeemed you, how is He calling you to use your liberty for his Kingdom?

Vantage Point: Apostle John

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:18:42 -0400

The Apostle John is familiar to us because he wrote so much of the New Testament. He was the human author of a Gospel and three epistles that bear his name. Most of all, this fiery fisherman from Galilee learned that love and truth are the most important attributes to following Jesus Christ. However, love was a quality he learned from Christ, not something that came naturally to him. This disciple who once tried to kill a village full of Samaritans would later become known as the "disciple of love".

Q1. What were you once known for? What are you known for now? What are the two or three words that would describe your reputation?

Q2. As we look at Phil. 2:5-11, what do we learn about humility from the life of Christ? What do you think are the key factors in living a life of humility?

Q3. How has Jesus challenged your view of authority and position? Read Luke 9:46-48, in what area’s of your life do you need to become “childlike”?

Q4. How do you treat others that are different than you? In what area’s of your belief system do you need to be more accepting? In what areas do you need to take a stand?

Q5. How have you personally seen divisiveness destroy unity and hinder God’s work in a person or ministry?

Q6. In your own life, what is the price you have paid for being vindictive?

Q7. Read Matt. 5:44, how should you respond to those that “curse” and “despitefully use you”? Why do you think this is so hard to live out?

Q8. Have you ever seen someone transformed by receiving forgiveness, when they really deserved judgment? Share with the group.

Q9. How has Jesus transformed you with His love? And because of that transformation, who has He put in your life to love and care for? Share your experience?

Vantage Point: Simon Peter

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:42:38 -0400

Peter was exactly like most Christians- both carnal and spiritual. He succumbed to the habits of the flesh sometimes; he functioned in the spirit other times. He was sinful sometimes, but other times he acted the way a righteous man ought to act. This imperfect man- was sometimes Simon, sometimes Peter- was the leader of the twelve. All the imperfections that Jesus saw in Peter were the very ingredients He needed to sharpen in order to make Peter a leader.

Q1: As we dig into Matt. 4:18-22, we see that when Jesus called Peter he was an ordinary fisherman. Where were you when God called? How did Jesus compel you to follow Him? What is your story of responding to our Savior?

Q2: According to 1 Cor. 1:26-29 God chooses to use your weakness to bring Him glory. How has God this done this in your life? If not, how do you need to change your understanding of how God sees you?

Q3: Take a look at Matt. 16:13-23, what extraordinary vision has God placed in your heart? Are you still seeking God for that vision, or have you given up? How are you allowing your past words or actions to keep you from God's destiny for your life?

Q4: During the dark and difficult times in your life, how closely have you followed Jesus? Discuss with the group how that affected you.

Q5: As we read Matt. 26:31-35 and see how Peter responds to Jesus, what attitudes, behaviors, or actions do you need to change in order to follow closer to Christ?

Q6: What areas of your life have you not taken seriously that now have caused you to follow at a distance? Discuss with your group how it affected you.

Q7: Matthew 26:75 tells us that Peter "went out and wept bitterly" after he realized that he had betrayed Jesus. When you sin, how do you respond? How should we respond according to scripture?

Q8: As Jesus asked Peter in John 21:15-17, “Do you love me more than these?” What is competing for Jesus rightful place in your heart?

Q9: How are you trying to love God and the world at the same time?

Q10: Read with the group 1 John 1:9. How has Jesus given you a second chance?

Q11: How can you take advantage of Peter's unique vantage point of our Savior?

Ida: the Missing Link at Last?

Wed, 20 May 2009 13:32:51 -0400

For all the headlines and proclamations, this “missing link” story includes an amazing amount of hot air.

A story we first previewed on May 16 has since rocketed to the heights of media hype as a team of scientists reveals “Ida,” the latest and greatest supposed missing link. But does Ida actually support “the evolution of early primates, and, ultimately, modern human beings,” as one news outlet reported?1

Another reporter raved, “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.”2

Formally identified as Darwinius masillae (in honor of Charles Darwin), the fossil originated in Germany and is purportedly 47 million years old. One scientist gave the find the nickname Ida (after his daughter).

As for a more level-headed explanation of the evolutionary excitement, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes, and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

Thus, rather than an apeman-like missing link that some media sources have irresponsibly implied, the real story is quite underwhelming and should in no way faze creationists. Let’s first review the facts:

• The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

• The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.

• Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.3

• Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind.

Given these facts, it may seem incredible that anyone would hail this find as a “missing link.” Yet British naturalist David Attenborough claims:
“Now people can say, ‘Okay, you say we’re primates . . . show us the link.’ The link, they would have said until now, is missing. Well, it is no longer missing.”
Unbelievably, Attenborough claims his interpretation is “not a question of imagination.”

The Creationist Interpretation
The principles that inform creationists about Ida are some of the same that allow creationists to interpret fossil after fossil hailed as “transitional forms”:
1. Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human.
2. A fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
3. Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
4. The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial. Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete. Everything’s there. It’s unheard of in the primate record at all. You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.” Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood.4 Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.”5
5. If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.
6. Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
So it’s clear what Ida is not. As for our conclusion on what Ida is, we wrote in News to Note:
[B]ecause the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

Much of the excitement over Ida appears to stem from a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link. The documentary will air on the History Channel in the U.S. (as The Link) on May 25 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. It will air on BBC One in the UK (as Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link) on Tuesday May 26th at 9 p.m. Filmmaker Atlantic Productions even launched a website to promote the discovery, revealingthelink.com.

Yet as Hurum commented, “This fossil will probably be pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years.” So while the media rush may at first be a bid to promote the documentary and book, the ultimate result is one more trumped-up “missing link” presented to future generations as evidence of evolution.

Credit:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

Did God Give Us Marijuana to Use?

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:52:29 -0400

Q: I am a relatively new Christian, but I was raised by parents who taught me that using drugs under any circumstance was unacceptable. I completely understand my parents point of view and now that I am growing older, I agree with them, but I do however have trouble defending my position with some of my friends. They contend that most drugs are definitely unacceptable, except for the ones that they say "God, put here for us to use", such as marijuana and other exotic plants. I would like to know how to handle this question or if I should change my point of view.

A: Thanks for your question about drug use and what the Scriptures have to say concerning it. Let me begin by saying that the Bible prohibits the use/abuse of drugs both directly and in principle. Drug abuse is directly prohibited in Galatians 5:20:

(Galatians 5:19-21 NKJV) Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, {20} idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, {21} envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The original word here for 'sorcery' is actually the Greek word 'pharmakeia', from which we derive our English word 'pharmaceuticals'. This very specific word refers to illicit drug-abuse that results in making contact with the spiritual realm. This certainly covers most drugs, including hallucinogenics, which often serve as an open door into the demonic realm.

In principle, drug abuse is also condemned in Scripture because the believer is not to be brought under the power or influence of anything other than Christ.

(Romans 6:5-6 NKJV) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, {6} knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

(Romans 12:1-2 NKJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. {2} And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:12 NKJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Obviously, drugs do not bring freedom to a person's life, instead they bring bondage and enslavement. This completely goes against God's will and plan for His people. Moreover, if the Bible prohibits drunkenness and the influence of intoxicating drinks, (Proverbs 20:1 NKJV, Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise), then it's obvious that drugs have no place in God's plan for our lives. As a father, God wants what's best for us and drugs are exactly the opposite both spiritually and physically. And as for the argument that "God put certain things here" (i.e. marijuana and other exotic plants), we could say the same thing for arsenic or any other type of poison that's derived from plants that "God put here", but nobody would ever consider consuming them on those grounds...because they're dangerous and life-threatening. Drugs are too, both in the short and long term.

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:50:07 -0400

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Comment below

How Could Jesus Be Both God and Man at the Same Time?

Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:09:17 -0400

It's undeniable that the incarnation involves mystery beyond human understanding. How could the eternal, infinite God, Creator of all things, become a finite being with human limitations and weaknesses? While we cannot understand it, the Bible clearly asks us to believe it. Scripture declares that Jesus, the Messiah, is both truly God and truly man.
Jesus Himself clearly declared His preexistence and deity when He said:
I tell you the truth, . . . before Abraham was born, I am! (John 8:58).
In Mark 2:1-12 Jesus proclaimed His authority to forgive sin, and in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus declared that He will judge the world. His enemies understood the significance of these claims. They said:
Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Mark 2:7).
Consequently, they wanted to crucify Him, specifically on the charge of blasphemy. They said:
We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God (John 19:7).
And when His enemies required Jesus to state whether or not He was the Christ, He replied:
Yes, it is as you say, . . . But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64).
While numerous passages throughout the New Testament refer to the deity of Christ, many also refer to His humanity. For example, in the first chapter of his Gospel, the apostle John declares both the deity of Christ and His humanity.
Through His Son, God entered into the suffering of His creatures. He even experienced their temptations:
For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
While recognizing the paradoxical nature of the claim that the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, became truly human, we cannot deny the truth of this event without rejecting the plain meaning of Scripture. Philippians 2:5-11 tells how Christ voluntarily gave up the independent exercise of His divine attributes. He did this to be the great High Priest "who has been tempted in every way, just as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). Somehow, the Word became flesh, voluntarily taking up a role subordinate to that of the Father.
One of the strongest statements in Scripture about the incarnation is found in 1 John 4:2-3:
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
Many of the battles within the church in the first 400 to 500 years of its existence were centered on the need to define the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures. The greatest battle within the church over this issue occurred when the Arians attempted to define Jesus' divine nature in a manner that distinguished and separated it from the Father. Arians held that the Father is eternal but the Son is not. They taught that though the Son is the greatest of the all created beings, and Himself the Creator of the world, He is not "of the substance of God."
Providentially, the Arian party had a brilliant, dedicated opponent in Athanasius of Alexandria. He reasoned that if Jesus were not truly God, His death could not have the infinite value needed to atone for the sins of the world. This argument eventually provided the basis for the victory of the orthodox position that Christ possessed two natures—a divine nature and a human nature—united in one person. He is God and man, not half-God and half-man. He is as much human as if He were not God; and He is just as much God as if He were not human.

1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-3).

2. "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

3. The actual controversy began in Alexandria, about 320, in a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander (312?-328). Arius,a pupil of Lucian of Antioch (see p.97), was presbyter in charge of the church known as Baucalis. He was advanced in years and held in high repute as a preacher of learning, ability, and piety. Monarchian influences imbibed in Antioch led him to emphasize the unity and self-contained existence of God. In so far as he was a follower of Origen, he represented the great Alexandrian's teaching that Christ was a created being. As such He was not of the substance of God, but was made like other creatures of "nothing." Though the first-born of creatures, and the agent in fashioning the world, He was not eternal. "The Son has a beginning, but . . . God is without beginning." Christ was, indeed, God in a certain sense to Arius, but a lower God, in no way one with the Father in essence or eternity. In the incarnation, this Logos entered a human body, taking the place of the human reasoning spirit. To Arius's thinking, Christ was neither fully God nor fully man, but a tertium quid between. This is what makes his view wholly unsatisfactory.
Bishop Alexander was influenced by the other side of Origen's teaching. To him the Son was eternal, like in essence to the Father, and wholly uncreated. His view was, perhaps, not perfectly clear, but its unlikeness to that of Arius is apparent. Controversy arose between Arius and Alexander, apparently on Arius's initiative. It soon grew bitter, and about 320 or 321 Alexander held a synod in Alexandria by which Arius and a number of his sympathizers were condemned. Arius appealed for help to his fellow pupil of the school of Lucian, the powerful bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and soon found a refuge with him. Alexander wrote widely to fellow bishops, and Arius defended his own position, aided by Eusebius. The Eastern ecclesiastical world was widely turmoiled (Williston Walker, A History Of The Christian Church, p.107).

4. For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death,that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent.
For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them.
And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honor, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king's having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all.
For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death (Athanasius, Incarnation Of The Word, 9th section).

How Should I Deal With Rejection?

Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:40:37 -0400

Q: How should I deal with the impact of rejection in my life?
A: When we feel the blow of major rejection -- like the unfaithfulness of a mate, the wound of a family member, or the betrayal of a close friend -- we may wonder if we will ever find someone who will love us again.
In an emotional trauma, we try to make sense of our pain. There's a constant drive to understand and explain why this agony is happening. During this time we can be tempted to respond to rejection in unhealthy ways. We can develop a contempt for ourselves, a contempt for others, a contempt for God, or a combination of all three.
In self-contempt, we take the full responsibility for the failure of the relationship. We wonder, What is it about me that causes people to leave me? We doubt our value as a person, and everything about us is called into question. Doubts of our ability to maintain a loving relationship trouble us. We think, They must have seen something so repulsive in me that no one can love me. Facing the rejection of a spouse, for example, can be especially difficult when you see other couples staying together through devastating experiences. We wonder why our own relationship could not stand the test of trials.
Contempt for others is another response we might use to try and make some sense of our pain. It holds others as fully responsible for the dynamics in the relationship. We view them as evil. We write them off with, "It's all their fault." Or we might put distance between others and ourselves and view them with contempt. We avoid close relationships because we believe that no one can be trusted.
Contempt for God blames Him for our pain. We reason that if He is in control of our lives and He loves us, why didn't He protect us from this heart-breaking experience? Those who have been rejected and abused by their parents as children, in particular, can tend to blame an all-powerful God for their suffering. Rejection and loss causes us to doubt that God loves us because we are angry with Him for not protecting us and allowing it to happen.
At first, contempt for ourselves, others, and God works for us. It helps us maintain the facade that we have everything under control because we have "explained" the reason for the pain. We can now go on with our lives, fixing what we can about ourselves and keeping everyone (including God) at a distance. This drive to control our world is so strong that we would rather hate ourselves (self-contempt) than be faced with the fact that we are not in control and that we may be hurt again.
What sounds good about contempt is that it does not require facing additional pain. It avoids grieving losses. It sedates the heart and it keeps others from getting too close. That sounds inviting to a hurting person, but if we nurture contempt, it will lead to depression, loneliness, and bitterness.
We are desperately afraid, because to love again we must risk being vulnerable and admit that we do care, no matter how hard we try to numb our hearts. When we are at the end of our rope and we begin to realize that contempt no longer works for us, we can choose a better way of dealing with life. Letting others get close to us and learning to trust again leads us through the process of grief. For a person who has been hurt, grieving may sound like a sadistic choice. But grief will lead us down the path to restoring our faith, embracing hope, and opening ourselves up to love.
Grieving is important because it provokes us to cry out to God, and thereby to open ourselves to His healing (Psalm 34:17). He is ultimately the One who can give us comfort and protection (Psalm 61:3; Matthew 5:4). When we grieve, we face the truth that we have been deeply hurt and there is something lacking. There is a hole in our hearts that hurts terribly.
It may not feel like it at first, but healing begins when we face the sadness and disappointment of the loss of our hopes and dreams. We tend to avoid our feelings (i.e. deep sadness) because we are afraid that they will consume us, that we will never find comfort. But if we act in faith and "throw ourselves" on the Lord in dependence and cry out to Him, He will be the rock that saves us from the overwhelming waves of pain (Psalm 34:18). God's comfort gives us hope -- hope for a brighter future and for love again. Life without hope is not worth living. Scripture says that God will fill us with hope (Romans 15:13). It also recognizes the vitality and necessity of hope (Psalm 119:116; 147:11).
The process of growth is difficult because it engages us in an agonizing battle between faith and doubt. When doubt begins to get the best of us, we will be tempted to give up. Contempt will seduce us as we fight through intense emotion and questions. Ironically, resisting contempt and entering into this dark valley of emotion is when we can begin to see our faith deepen.
When we see our faith deepen and we are reminded of how God is working in our lives, hope grows. Hope gives us the motivation to love, which is the most important element in the believer's life (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 Corinthians 13:13). Love will open our hearts to hear the truth about our strengths and shortcomings (1 Corinthians 13:6). Love will soften our hearts for others, cultivate forgiveness, and help us face the beams in our own eyes before we look at the specks in the eyes of our brothers or sisters (Matthew 7:3-5).
We can't fight this battle alone. We need to talk to strong Christian friends who can remind us of the truth of God's love for us. It's important to have friends who will give us freedom and support as we grapple with our doubts and fierce emotion. We may need to seek the help of a good biblical counselor during this rough time. And filling our minds with the truth of God's Word will strengthen us. Meditating on Scripture will equip us and cause our faith to grow.
Unhealthy responses to the pain of rejection inhibit a life of joy, peace, and love. But responding to rejection in a healthy manner, by honestly grieving and crying out to God, can strengthen our character, deepen our faith, and allow God to change and heal our hearts. We can learn to embrace a hopeful vision that God is up to something good in our lives, even in the midst of heart-breaking rejection (Romans 8:28).

How Should I Respond?

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:16 -0400

Q: How does the Bible say I should respond when a fellow Christian has wronged me?

A: Matthew 18:15-17 provides the "ground rules" for the resolution of conflicts between Christians. It applies to peer relationships, not sexual abuse or other offenses that fall in the category of criminal law. Although this is a brief passage of Scripture, it is more than a simple formula. It needs to be obeyed in the spirit of wisdom and compassion that should mark all Christian relationships. The purpose of any confrontation is spiritual healing and restoration of relationship, not revenge.

As verse 15 states, the first step in resolving a damaged relationship is for the one who feels sinned against to confidentially confront the one who has committed the offense. Unfortunately, this first private step is often overlooked. Instead of taking the initiative to personally speak with the one who has offended us, we are inclined to look for allies by sharing our side of the issue with uninvolved people. This failure to face our offender in person allows the offender to go unconfronted, and it increases the distance and distrust between him and us.

If the offending brother or sister does not accept our correction, that is not the end of the matter. It then becomes appropriate to involve two or three other people as witnesses to our problem. While continuing to protect confidentiality, these witnesses are to join us in a second attempt at confrontation and reconciliation.

If the one who has harmed us expresses no repentance or change of heart, even after this confrontation with two or three witnesses, the authority of the whole church is required. Jesus declared:

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector (Matthew 18:17).

This means that if the offending party will not accept the authority of the church, we are no longer to fellowship with this person as a brother or sister in Christ. Instead we are to love him or her in the way Jesus loved tax collectors and public sinners who desperately needed spiritual conversion.