Three Resources for Surviving Newborns

I was talking to Amy yesterday and I realized that we have a lot of friends who are either currently pregnant or just had a baby (congratulations!). One of the things that gets really, REALLY old is parenting advice that goes something to this tune:

Random Person: Oh, you're going to do that with your kid? Well, I love my kid so we do this instead.

Me: Really? Okay well thanks for letting me know that you think I don't love me kids.

Anyways, in lieu of advice, here are some resources Amy and I used that we found really super useful:

1) The Wonder Weeks App. It costs 2 bucks, it's available for Android or Apple, and it's amazing. Turns out that almost every baby has mental leaps in their development around the same times and during these leaps they will do their best to break you like a Kit Kat bar (Good luck during week 5, we've been there). The app lets you know what to expect during the leaps, what mental abilities they'll start displaying after the leap, and a handy chart showing how close your child is to the next one.

2) The five types of Baby Cries. Turns out babies can communicate what they need. This was very helpful because it let us address what they needed instead of blindly guessing. Here's a short summary of the 5 types of cries, but the Oprah video in the link gives a good example of how the cries sound.

1. Heh - Baby is not comfortable (Too hot, too cold, dirty diaper, foot stuck, Timmy fell down a well? Who knows, babies are a mystery, but it's definitely something)
2. Owh - I'm sleepy, the sound is made as a reflex when the baby yawns. On our second it usually comes out like oo-wha
3. Neh - I'm hungry. When the baby get's hungry they have a sucking reflex so their tongue goes to the roof of their mouth making the "N" sound
4. Eh - Baby needs to burp
5. Eair - It's a deeper sound than the other cries and means baby has gas. Sometimes accompanied with baby pulling their knees up or pushing down with their legs.

3) Cutting out dairy. Okay, okay, this one is half advice, but it really is just meant as a resource for your benefit. My first born was borderline colicky. He was not happy about being out of his perfectly regulated, feed on demand, water bed womb and made sure everyone knew it. After 2 months of misery for all of us, Amy read that some kids are just sensitive to dairy introduced through momma's milk.

She cut it out of her diet and shortly there after first born's gas problems disappeared, he stopped crying non-stop, it was wonderful. If you got a kid who won't stop crying, it's worth a shot to cut our dairy, but a word of warning. It is in stinkin' everything.

It is crazy hard work to get dairy out of your diet. And no sooner are you successful then you go out to eat and the cook in the back is too lazy or incompetent to realize that it's not enough to not put anything dairy on the skillet when he makes your meal, he has to clean the skillet or work area prior to making your meal and now you got a kid who won't stop screaming, his poop is mucousy, and his mother is contemplating beating someone within an inch of their life with a spatula.

Well that's it. Good luck and remember, you can survive this.

Three Resources for Surviving Newborns

The Pointless Vilification of Vaccination and Anti-Vaccination

Sometimes, I swear I talk to people and what they hear is "I'm a backwater inbred hick without an ounce of understanding and I hate my kids."

When instead what I said was, "Other people would lump me together with anti-vaxers."

This is a multifaceted and extremely complex issue that I think both sides overly vilify the other over. I've wanted to talk about it when things were more calm, but people get crazy worked up about it so it's hard to find a good time.

So let me start with a quick setup to the question: "Why would other people lump me together with anti-vaxers?"

The unfortunate answer is because I dare to ask some basic questions about the current vaccination schedule. That's it, the big dark secret is out for the whole world to see, how dare I question my betters?

While I have many, many, many questions that unduly get strangers yelling at me through the wonderful power of internet anonymity let me narrow this down to only the three most worthwhile ones.

1) Do vaccinations have hazardous side effects?

No, no, no stand down keyboard warriors. I'm not talking about Autism, though that is what most people usually have in mind when they talk about this. Undoubtedly, you've seen some chart like this one

Whoops, sorry I meant to show a chart linking vaccinations to autism. Oh well, this one is just as relevant. The problem with this chart and the vaccination to autism charts is they seek to overly simplify complex issues by saying "This and this alone is the cause for that".

I do not believe that vaccines causes autism. I think that the real underlying issues around the increase in autism are related to a decrease in infant mortality, women having children later in life (sorry that's just science for you, and is in no way meant to be any kind of personal opinion on how late in life women have kids), and, most importantly, the increased range/better identification of autistic trends.

What I mean is that when vaccines are tested they are done individually. Test subject A get's vaccine A, observed result is X repeat 10,000 times. When it's done we have a good understanding of the expected side effects of that vaccine. But when vaccines are actually given they are often given in large groups. For example, according the to CDC vaccination schedule at your child's 2 month checkup they should be given the following vaccinations:

1) Rotovirus

2) DTaP (which is a combo vaccination that protects against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough))

3) Hib (Haemophilus influenza type B) (Fun side note when first discovered in 1892 this guy was erroneously believed to be the cause of influenza)

4) PCV (pneumococcus)

5) IPV (Polio)

6) Hepatitis B (Second Dose)

How do these shots interact together? What are the known side effects? We don't know. To the best of my knowledge there is no significant testing done on how shots interact together nor is there any requirement to report side effects that may be a result of a combination of shots instead of a side effect of one specific shot.

That's a problem that the CDC or WHO or some other responsible medical group needs to tackle to ensure that the schedule is having kids get shots as safely as possible.

2) Why should we do a one size fits all schedule?

When you go to a doctor for treatment they take the time to get your weight, height, and age at a minimum before prescribing any kind of treatment. But so help you if you deviate one iota from the all powerful vaccination schedule. It's like some people know that schedule better than they know the 10 commandments. Come on, now!

A rational person should immediately recognize that inherent dangers of blindly adhering to a one size fits all medical regimen. But not only do people try to shame those who say, "You know what little Timmy really doesn't need vaccine X right now", but we try to legislate control of a child's health out of the hands of the parents and into the hands of the state! That's insanity.

No vaccine is so prevalent on the CDC vaccination schedule in America that we are any more at risk of having a disease mutate by having a subset of the population not vaccinated against it than we are having it mutate in the already existing subset of vaccinated kids who still end up getting the disease. For that matter, we're not any more at risk for having it mutate because a subset of Americans don't get vaccinated for it than we are at risk having it mutate outside of America for the portions of the world who do not have access to the vaccination at all.

3) What's up with that vaccination schedule?

If you look back at that list above, at a child's 2 month check up, they are due for an amazing 6 different shots totaling 8 different vaccinations! By the time your child is 2 they will have needed a total of 24 shots, that means at 2 months you get 25% of the total shots your child needs by their 2nd birthday.

By the time they're 4 months old they will have received half of the shots they're supposed to get by the time their 2. In fact, I'm being generous by saying two years old. If you look at the schedule, they could (and often do) get all 24 shots by the time they are 1 years old.

This question really ties in with the second question. The schedule is far too aggressive for the average kid. There are certainly cases where this schedule would need to be followed (i.e. kids who are going to be abroad), but for the average kid, do they really need to worry about getting the polio vaccine at 2 months? A disease which the CDC reports has been wiped out from America since 1979?

Or for that matter does every newborn really need the Ilotycin eye ointment at birth? (it vaccinates against Chlamydia and Gonorrhea as well as prevents pink eye if the mother had a vaginal rupture)

Let me be clear, I fully support vaccinating kids. I'm not going to tell you how we did it with our sons because it's none of your business.

But the mere fact that I look at this and go, "You know what? I can talk this over with his doctor and together we can administer these vaccines in a manner that doesn't needlessly overload his system." by default lumped me into the anti-vaxxer camp.

Which is pure insanity.  Parents have enough on their plate without having to worry that their friends or the government is going to attack them because they are pursing sound medical advice by tailoring the vaccination schedule to meet their child's needs.

The Pointless Vilification of Vaccination and Anti-Vaccination

Mary, Martha, and a Message for Moms

.

(Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, Diego Velázquez, 1618)

I'm driving home from work and call my wife to let her know.  As soon as she answers the phone I can hear it in her voice; she's completely stressed out.  She's trying not to talk to me about it because she doesn't want to have a heart that is grumbling or complaining, but I can tell.

I don't hear my son yelling or crying in the background or even trying to talk to her nonstop while she's on the phone.  I ask her how he was today and she tells me he was really good.  Okay, so she's not stressed over anything my son did.

The conversation continues for another few minutes as we talk about what we each did that day and what's for dinner.  Finally, unable to figure it out on my own, I just ask her, "Is there something stressing you, my dove?"  There's silence on the other end for a moment and then, "Well... it's the house."

Oh, this subject.  My beautiful wife is nearing the third trimester of pregnancy, has an almost 3 year old son who demands nonstop attention, talks to you about everything, and wants to run and explore (provided you're there running and exploring with him).  And as the old infomercial goes, "But wait, there's more!"  She's also in a lot of pain, my son was born asynclitic.  It's said to be the second hardest type of birth (the first being breach), and one of its unfortunate side effects, for my wife at least, is some lasting bone/muscle damage that's making her second pregnancy very difficult.  She's doing some physical therapy to help, but it can only do so much.

Needless to say, she's exhausted and can't walk for long.  I've been trying to take care of the things she can't keep up with, but I'm no mom.  I'm dad, which means housework gets done like a triage ward.  So clutter can stick around for a while, dishes sometimes pile up (especially when the dishwasher is clean and needs to be unloaded), but it's not like we're living in filth mind you.  I may be dad, but even I make sure the house is sanitary

Still, seeing the clutter stresses her, not because she's a perfectionist, but because she feels like it is a constant reminder that she's not doing her wifely duties.  I know she's being serious, but it always makes me laugh when she says that.  As if the Bible taught that a wife had to do all the laundry and all the dishes and the vacuuming.  It annoys her that I laugh, but you can blame my dad for it.  He drilled it into his sons' head that there were no gender specific chores.  If mom was doing dishes or sweeping or moping we'd better be in there helping her or doing homework.  Knowing how to do laundry was my brother's fault though; he knows what he did.

So I get home and I find a picked up house.  After we got off the phone my wife felt so guilty, despite me telling her not to worry about it, that she cleaned up the clutter.  Which was sweet and I tell her thanks, but she spent the rest of the night and much of the next day in pain.  The trade off isn't worth it.

In Luke 10:38-42 we're given a unique look into Christ's friendships outside His disciples.  He comes into the home of Martha and her sister Mary was there and Jesus sat down and began to teach.  Mary sat down and listened, but I love how the King James Version puts what Martha did, "Martha was cumbered about much serving."  Not just distracted, cumbered.  She's hindered, she's hampered, she's obstructed by the serving.

Martha wasn't just making sure people had a place to sit or getting dinner ready like a good hostess, she was being obstructed by overly focusing on the material concerns of how her home looked to her guests.  And what was Jesus' response when Martha finally got mad that her sister wasn't helping?  He rebuked Martha for letting the material keep her from enjoying the spiritual.

And this isn't just a thing for pregnant moms either.  Even before the pregnancy, my son consumed my wife's energy.  But here's the thing, hardly a day goes by that my wife doesn't send me a picture of my son's smiling face, or my son snuggled up to momma all worn out.  As Jesus put it, my wife "has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."

So don't get stressed out about a house that gets a little messy, don't be ashamed to invite friends over, and don't stop investing in the good portion.

Mary, Martha, and a Message for Moms

Gifts of the Spirit and Mark Driscoll

A week ago I had the opportunity to teach some high school boys about the Holy Spirit, who He is, His characteristics, His roles in salvation and the believers life, and briefly touched on the gifts He gives believers.  Unfortunately, since I only had thirty minutes with them, I wasn't able to spend any time at all on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but it's a very important subject.

From the very foundation of the church people have wanted to use the Holy Spirit as if He were a source for mystical power.  In Acts 8, we see a believer, Simon the magician, actually trying to buy the Holy Spirit and we are told in the verses that follow that he tried to do so because we was jealous and bitter that the Apostles had been given a gift that he had not.

But what Simon and his spiritual descendants fail to grasp is that the gifts of the Holy spirit are not for your own personal edification.  We can see this just by looking at the "love chapter" in the Bible.  Seriously, turn to 1st Corinthians 13, and then flip forward or back one chapter from where you are and what do you see?  God, through the pen of Paul, talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit and how the Corinthians were abusing those gifts for their own personal glory.  1 Corinthians 13 is not a lovey dovey message, it is a strongly worded reprimand against the Christians in Corinth that were living in sin by their flagrant abuse of the Holy Spirit resulting in divisions in the church.

So next time you're sitting there thinking, "Hey, I wasn't paying attention, did I just _______?" and think the Holy Spirit enabled you to do something supernatural, here's a quick sanity check to help you figure it out:  Does it minister to the church?  If the answer was yes, then the answer is at least "maybe".  If the only person who benefits is yourself then the answer is no!  The things I hear people try to attribute as a work of the Holy Spirit are mind boggling and resemble the mystical spiritual ki/chi energy or magical potions found in eastern religions than it does anything in the Bible.

A good follow up question would be is it being used in a manner consistent with scriptures?  I'm willing to believe God might still allow someone to speak in tongues, but if they do not follow the command to have someone interpret that tongue as commanded 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 then why should I believe they are Christians?  After all, Christ Himself said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." If someone is directly rejecting a commandment of Christ, how can we claim that they love Christ at all?

There is a reason all this has been weighing on my mind, beyond the fact that I just taught a lesson on it.  This past week Mark Driscoll chose to resign rather than endure church discipline.  In a process that was disturbingly similar to what happened at my own church a decade ago, he had the decks stacked in his favor to be acquitted, though not guilty of moral (read sexual) impropriety (as if that's the only sin worth holding a pastor accountable for), the Board of Elders asked him to submit to, what Driscoll's church called, a "spiritual care plan", and instead of enduring such discipline resigned (and then went to speak at a different venue).

We are told in 1 Corinthians 12:10 that the Holy Spirit has given some people the gift of discernment.  When people pop up and start saying, "hey we should really be paying attention to this guy because he's out of line" instead of telling them to sit down and shut up, or saying "well you don't have all the fact so there's no way to no for sure", we should pay attention and check what that guy is saying against the standard of scriptures.

This Driscoll fiasco should have been stopped 7 years ago when he preached a sermon on the Song of Solemn stating that God commanded wives to do specific sexual acts on their husbands regardless of their own comfort with it.  Disregarding the complete abuse of the passage to reach such a conclusion, forcing your wife into something she is not sexual comfortable with directly violates Ephesians 5:28 where husbands are told to love for cherish their wives above their own needs (i.e. as Christ loved the church).  It probably should have been stopped even sooner than that had only someone prevented a spiritually young in the faith Driscoll assuming an elder/pastoral role when he co-founded Mars Hill.

Rather than letting these things escalate until they're the stuff of national news bringing derision on the name of Christ we need to not suppress the gifts of the Holy Spirit, even the dealing with of sin privately within the church through proper discernment is a gift designed to bring unity and peace to a church.  Those who would block such work are hindering Christ and the church and are directly contributing to a process which eventually blows up and brings shame on us all.

Gifts of the Spirit and Mark Driscoll

Making the Most of your Bible reading plan

Ah the start of a new year, even though polls show as much as 80% of those who profess to be Christians fail to read the Bible at all, for those of us who actually care to read the things that the God we claim to serve felt important enough to write down for our edification the start of a new year means the start of a new “Read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year” reading plan.  These plans are nice and they really help young in the faith believers get into the habit of reading the Bible, and they can help mature in the faith believers read passages that they might tend to miss as they choose a new book to read as the finish the last one.

The drawback is to read the Bible in a single year you have to read 3 ¼ chapters every day (or three chapters for 3 days, and four chapters on the fourth day).  That can end up being a huge amount to read every day (especially on the day you need to read Psalm 119!), this means the downside to such a reading plan is we fail to give the proper level attention to what we are reading. 

Let me encourage anyone participating in such a reading plan this year to go one-step further.  Pick a scriptural subject, any scriptural subject you are interested in at all, and write down everything the Bible has to say about that subject. After you have picked a subject, write down the inverse of that subject, or as close to the inverse as you can get.  So if you want to read everything the Bible says about God’s love, also write down everything the Bible says about His wrath.  If you want to write down everything about Salvation, also write down everything the Bible has to say about God’s condemnation.  At the end of the year, you will be a better-rounded Christian for having read both sides of the issue.

If you are not planning to read the Bible through in a year and it has been a while since the last time you read through the Bible in a year, it is not too late to get going this year!  There are plenty of online resources that will help you break down what passages to read on which day, and even apps you can download for your phone if you want that extra level of interaction.  

 Again, here are the steps I recommend doing:

1. Pick a year long reading plan
2. Pick a scriptural subject that really interests your or you would like to learn more about and write it down
3. Now think hard and also write down the exact opposite (or as close to the exact opposite as you can think of) of the subject you picked
4. As you read the Bible write down everything it has to say about those two subjects (I like to hand write this, but doing it in a computer program is fine, the important thing is to write it down).
5. If you want to go above and beyond, at the beginning of the year, write down what you expect the Bible to say about the two subjects and then at the end of the year compare what you expected the Bible to say to what it actually said.

Making the Most of your Bible reading plan

A response to "Confronting the lie: God won’t give you more than you can handle"

I've recently seen a link going around Facebook entitled "Confronting the lie: God won’t give you more than you can handle" in which the author, whom I choose not to name, confronts the notion that God won't give someone more than they can handle.  He starts off well enough, but then he starts to talk about spiritual stuff.  He asks God 6 questions:

Why? Why not step in? Why not act? Why wouldn’t you make it right? Why couldn’t you part the clouds and provide a moment for us to catch our breath? Why everything at once? Why? - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.ZvrnsSFi.cfpGWPvl.dpuf

Why?
Why not step in?
Why not act?
Why wouldn’t you make it right?
Why couldn’t you part the clouds and provide a moment for us to catch our breath?
Why everything at once?
Why?

And then he swears and uses anecdotal evidence to prove that God does give people more than they can handle.  Though in his defense, he does at the end use a scriptural reference.  The author claims that it takes "courage" to ask these "holy" and "sacred" questions.  It's a bit of stretch to call the questions holy and sacred and it's an equal stretch to say it take courage.  But they are important questions because they are questions that all believers must at one point ask on their journey to spiritual maturity. So if I may be so bold, let's just call these questions what they are a sign of:

Spiritual immaturity

If the author ever reads this article I mean no offense by the previous statement.  If there is anyone else reading this who feels insulted because I just implied asking these questions was something you did in your spiritual infancy, I hope you also continue reading because this is rather important.

We all start our journey as Christians here:

We all start off as infants in our Christianity as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3.  That's nothing to be offended at or bristle over or be ashamed of, nor is it something for spiritually mature individuals to ridicule you for.  It is, however, something to graciously accept and be aware of in all humility.  It's also important to remember that just because someone has been a Christian for a long time does not mean they are no longer spiritual infants. In 1st Corinthians 3:2 (emphasis added) Paul writes,

"I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,"

Paul is saying, "Hey, by now you've been Christians long enough such that we should be off the milk and at least up to cheerios!  Why am I still having to feed you milk?"  So simple longevity as a Christian does not make one Spiritually mature, and if you've been a Christian for a long time and have yet to graduate to deeper theological matters, then maybe it's time to change the way you do your Bible study or move to a church that does more than shallow teaching of the scriptures because Paul exhorts those who have been in Christ to transition to solid, spiritual food.

So why am I saying these questions are a sign of Spiritual immaturity on the author's part?  Well, two reasons. 

First, and of lesser importance, there's the swearing.

I know swearing a strangely trendy thing for "hip" "pastors" to do, but it is also a sure fire sign of spiritual immaturity.  Setting Romans 12:2 aside in which we are told "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" which I believe is too open ended to be used as proof against swearing.  We are told in James 3:9-12

"With [our tongues] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water."

We, as Christians, have been called to tame our tongues and refrain from cursing (as well as coarse/vulgar talking in Ephesians 5:4 and the instruction to abstain from even the appearance of evil in 1 Thess. 5:22).  That the author, or any Christian for that matter, has yet to grasp this basic truth is a sign that they are still spiritual infants who have not yet begun to glean anything but very surface level applications when they read passages.  While it is not okay that they curse, they need to immediately repent and sin no more on that matter, it is okay that they are still young in Christ and growing in maturity.  It is my hope and prayer that he learns these things and grows in his spiritual walk.

(This has nothing to do with anything, but this is a fascinating article about how the brain handles swearing, basically it's not processed as language but as emotion, an interesting concept in conjunction with what God says about people ruled by their emotions)

**Important Disclaimer!  With what I am about to say, I am by no means trying to trivialize the very real trials the author had gone through!  Some people took pot shots at him in the comments section of his post stating that all the hardship he was facing were a result of sin in his life.  If God held us accountable for all our sins in such a manner we'd all be leprous corpses!  The belief that you are somehow holier than a sick person is a satanic, Pharisaical, blasphemous mindset.  We know it as such because of the interaction between Christ and His Disciples in John 9:1-3

"As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

Sickness is actually seldom portrayed in the Bible as a direct punishment from God and more often shown as the result as the tremendous weight of sin in the world (Romans 8:18 ff) or as an event to glorify God. So when I point out the implication of each of his questions, I'm not ridiculing or deeming him.  I'm pointing out the reality that these are questions we ask in our spiritual infancy and providing the answers that God has given us in the Bible.

**End of disclaimer**

The second reason these questions are a sign of spiritual infancy is because they are all focused on himself.

Think about what each question implies. 

Why? (are You (God) letting this happening to me)
Why not step in? (so this wouldn't happen to me)
Why not act? (So it will stop happening to me)
Why wouldn’t you make it right? (Right as defined by *me*, not You, God)
Why couldn’t you part the clouds and provide a moment for us to catch our breath? (This one is already evidently focused on himself)
Why everything at once? (If You're going to do this why can't it be on *my* schedule instead of Yours, God?)
Why? (are You (God) letting this happening to me) (again)

What do all these questions have in common as their focus?

They all about me.  I am the focus of each of these questions.  In fact several of them are implicitly stating that we are more aware of our needs than God or that God is somehow absent or uncaring or unaware about what is happening in his life.  If God was just paying more attention then He wouldn't have allowed things to happen the way they are.

These were also all questions Job found himself asking when God stripped him of his wealth, his family, and his very health.  In the end after 37 grueling chapters of man based theology and his friends telling him it was all because of some secret sin of Job's, God Himself enters the scene and says one of my favorite things in the Bible

"'Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
'Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,Who set its measurements? Since you know.'"

We know from the beginning of Job that the actual cause of all the calamity Job faced was so that the name of God would be glorified.  It is truly an amazing and powerful book when you realize that at the end of it Job never get's his questions answered.

Just like us Job was never told why God allowed his children to die and his finances to be destroyed and his health to vanish all in the span of a few minutes.  And as we grow in our spiritual maturity we come to understand that the things happen to us because God is Sovereign,  because God is Righteous, because God is the ultimate Authority, because It's all about God, not me.  Very rarely do we get to know the exact reason for hard times in our lives.  

Sadly, the author actually ends the article with the following paragraph. (Emphasis added)

Don’t hear me saying I am rejoicing because of the last couple of weeks.  I am not.  Not once have I danced around our house shouting, “Yeah suffering!”  Instead, in the midst of pain and hurt, I am actively expecting God to do something.  I don’t know what.  I don’t know when.  But I am expecting the God of resurrection to heal us.  I am expecting God to restore us.  I am expecting him to redeem this situation.  I am expecting him to do this and so I will be actively looking and waiting for him to do something. - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.6rRmYkJS.dpuf

Don’t hear me saying I am rejoicing because of the last couple of weeks.  I am not.  Not once have I danced around our house shouting, “Yeah suffering!”  Instead, in the midst of pain and hurt, I am actively expecting God to do something.  I don’t know what.  I don’t know when.  But I am expecting the God of resurrection to heal us.  I am expecting God to restore us.  I am expecting him to redeem this situation.  I am expecting him to do this and so I will be actively looking and waiting for him to do something. - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.6rRmYkJS.dpuf

 Don’t hear me saying I am rejoicing because of the last couple of weeks.  I am not.  Not once have I danced around our house shouting, “Yeah suffering!”  Instead, in the midst of pain and hurt, I am actively expecting God to do something.  I don’t know what.  I don’t know when.  But I am expecting the God of resurrection to heal us.  I am expecting God to restore us.  I am expecting him to redeem this situation.  I am expecting him to do this and so I will be actively looking and waiting for him to do something.

This is heartbreaking because in his spiritual infancy he doesn't realize that God already is doing something! God is not blind or unaware of his distress.  Rather than his response of, "Not once have I danced around our house shouting, "Yeah Suffering!" James has a different perspective in Chapter 1 verse 2-3

"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

Or in other words, instead of ultimately blaming God for not stepping in on your schedule and doing things the way you think they should be done, you say

While no one expects us to be dancing with joy in the midst of adversity, we are to have an inner peace and joy, comfort if you will, in the knowledge that trials are given to us by God for our benefit.

And that's the thing.  The statement "God will not give you more than you can handle" is true, provided you understand it as a spiritually mature Christian.  God will give you so much that you will despair and be broken and be brought to lowest you've ever been, but you will be able to handle it because God is the one who has allowed it to happen and it has a purpose as described in 2 Corinthians 2:8-9 (Again, emphasis added)

For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.

The spiritually mature response to trials is to realize that God will never give me more than I can handle in Him.  Everything that He gives me is for my edification, when He takes me to the brink it is so that I will cease attempting to rely on myself in my spiritual immaturity, and instead rely wholly on Him as a mature Christian.

Why? Why not step in? Why not act? Why wouldn’t you make it right? Why couldn’t you part the clouds and provide a moment for us to catch our breath? Why everything at once? Why? - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.ZvrnsSFi.cfpGWPvl.dpuf

Why? Why not step in? Why not act? Why wouldn’t you make it right? Why couldn’t you part the clouds and provide a moment for us to catch our breath? Why everything at once? Why? - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.ZvrnsSFi.cfpGWPvl.dpuf

Confronting the lie: God won’t give you more than you can handle - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.ZvrnsSFi.cfpGWPvl.dpuf

Confronting the lie: God won’t give you more than you can handle - See more at: http://natepyle.com/confronting-the-lie-god-wont-give-you-more-than-you-can-handle/#sthash.ZvrnsSFi.cfpGWPvl.dpuf

A response to "Confronting the lie: God won’t give you more than you can handle"

How Far is Too Far?

There's been a lot of talk as a result of Mark Driscoll crashing the strange fire conference and I'm not going to weigh in those matters at this late point in the game because they're not important to what I want to discuss.  What I do want to talk about is a common response I saw in the midst of these discussions.  A conversation would be going along about what various people thought about Driscoll's actions and the theological truths of Cessationism versus Continuationism and suddenly someone would chime in with:

"What does it matter?"

I was always taken aback by this response.  I know that they weren't trying to be flippant with God's word, and it came from people who I know to be solid mature Christians, but are legitimately asking the question as long as we have the fundamentals down isn't everything else of secondary importance?

So the question that springs to my mind in the midst of all this is at what point have we perverted so much of the rest of the Gospel that we are now teaching a gospel of our own making?  At what point do we, like this Justin Bieber fan

go too far? (yikes!)

The short answer is I don't have an answer.  I don't think it's possible for anyone but God to weigh the inner most workings of a man's heart and go "This one has truly trusted in Me alone".   That said, I think there are three points that are worth considering:

1) Secondary issues are a misnomer
2) We've been given instructions to test the validity of our own faith and the faith of others
3) It shouldn't be about how far we can get on secondary issues (see #1)

(Does this seem too long and you just want to skip to a short summary?  Skip to the tl;dr section, and read the rest when you have the time.

1: Secondary issues are a misnomer

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 states that

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

We also know from Deuteronomy 4:23-25 that God jealously guards the sanctity of His divinity and Leviticus 20 verses 22,23 and 26 states

"You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.
You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine."

This does not paint the picture of a God who doesn't care about "secondary issues" We have been called to live in perfect accordance with God's commandments.  We will fail, constantly and miserably fail, but we are called to strive for that perfection of holiness because everything in the scriptures are of primary importance.

Now yes, I understand that when people say "primary" what they mean is that which results in Salvation namely a proper faith in the Gospel that Christ died for our sins, was raised from the dead on the third day, and it is salvation through faith in His works alone that justifies us, that we're all one body of believers and it doesn't matter at the end of the day if you believe that the miraculous works of the Spirit have ended, or if they continue.  Which is a great segue to number 2!

2: We've been given instructions to test the validity of our own faith and the faith of others.

There are two main illustrations we are given to test our own faith and the faith of those around us.

John 13:35 - "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 14:15 - “If you love me, you will keep my commandments"

The first quote by Christ is rather self explanatory someone who has truly placed their faith in Christ will love the body of believers, but it's the second one that relates to the matter at hand.  Someone who has genuinely placed their faith in Christ, what people call the "primary" issue will be directly reflected by how they treat so called "secondary" issues! 

Which is why it very much matters how people either misinterpret or fragrantly abuse passages to support/undermine a given position.  Now I don't want to get into the meat of Cessationism and Continuationism, I think that would be a great post for another day, however it is worth noting that those who teach that the Spirit still works trough miraculous signs and wonders typically teach that one should speak in tongues because "A spirit language is the greatest gift the Holy Spirit can give a believer." (Reason #4 on this page).  Now ignoring for a moment that I would say that the Holy Spirit sealing our salvation for all eternity as taught in Ephesians 1 is the greatest gift given by the Holy Spirit and also ignoring that 1 Corinthians 14:5 states that prophecy is a better gift than tongues, the problem is that 1 Corinthians 14 also gives strict guidelines for speaking in tongues such as


²⁷ If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. ²⁸ If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

 This is very clear and direct teachings yet it is completely ignored within the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.  

Now no, I am by no means claiming that as a Christian I keep 100% of the Bible, I am still subject to the flesh and live in a fallen world.  However, when confronted with such a clear cut verse that attacks something I enjoy doing, I respond with submission.  Oh I will fall, sometimes I will fall so hard I'll find myself living in the old pattern of sin again, but I will strive against the temptation because I love God with all that I am and I desire to do his commandments.

Which brings me to the last thing 3: It shouldn't be about how far we can get on secondary issues (see #1)

My dad used to work in a Nuclear plant when he was in college.  He tells a humourous incident in which one of his co-workers was carrying a container marked "Hazardous Waste".  As he was transporting it, he accidentally stumbled and dropped the container.  Can you imagine this man had just stood there?  If he said to himself, "I can safely be exposed for X seconds so there's no rush"? Or if he said, "I need to be 10 feet away to be safe" so he methodically counted out 10 feet then stood there?

From what I'm told, this man, who was rather tall and gangly, resembled something more like this:

As it turned out the container was mislabelled and he was never in any danger at all, but he wasn't going to stick around to find that out! 

I posted the question how far is too far?  How far can I go down bad theological trails before a denomination ceases to be a part of the church and becomes a cult teaching heretical doctrines?  But it shouldn't be about  how far someone can go and "still be a Christian" Recognizing that God is a holy God who demands we follow His commandments, when we see a brother or sister following bad doctrine our response should never be, "Oh well, it's a secondary issue so it doesn't matter". 

Sadly in modern Christianity, the passage "judge not lest you be judge" has been so badly abused and mistaught that we think you cannot hold anyone accountable for doing something wrong.  In 1 Corinthians 5, however, Paul is practically yelling at them "Why are you not judging sin within the church?!"

When we see someone sinning, which includes following false doctrine, we should with all love pull them aside privately and take them to the scriptures so that they can respond to them.  Of course we should allow freedom in the Spirit on areas where God has not explicitly stated what we should or should not do, but when the Bible clearly teaches something such as "don't speak in tongues without an interpreter and then limit it to 2 or 3 at a time" and we see whole congregations speaking over one another without any interpretation then we need to call them back to proper worship.  If they respond with repentance then we've strengthened their walk in the Lord, if they respond with disdain then using the above passage as a litmus test we can reasonably assume that because they do not delight to keep God's commandments then they are not His followers and we should be bold enough to treat them as such.  (i.e. pray for their salvation and witness to them)


tl;dr version/summary:

I don't believe that I or anyone can with all authority say "here is a line in a sand and anyone teaching more than X number of theologically false statements has created a new gospel"

I believe that saying anything in the Bible is a secondary issue is a misnomer and demeans the Holiness of God.  While there are grey areas that God has given us freedom to do as the Spirit leads us to do, every theological truth is a primary part of the perfection of God that we have been called to perfectly emulate.

I believe that it is important to test our own faith and the faith of others.  We won't agree on everything about the Bible and that's okay, but when we are flagrantly disobey the commands of the Bible then we need to be rebuked.  Those who are in Christ will ultimately rejoice at the discipline because they love God and His commandments.  Those who continually chafe or lash out against discipline should be regarded as on who is unsaved (as described in Matthew 18 on Church discipline)

I believe that it shouldn't be about how far one can safely go into bad theology before we call them out on it.  1 Corinthains 9:24-27 (emphasis added) says:

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

We are to be in constant spiritual training constantly strive and checking ourselves and likewise encouraging fellow believers around us so that we can have confidence in our salvation lest we come before the throne of God and find ourselves saying "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name" only to hear

"I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness"

And I suppose that's kind of the thing.  At the end of the day I believe that those who are truly in Christ will leave churches who teach an abundance of false theology because those who are truly in Christ don't desire to be far away from Him at all and that those who stay in such church do so because they cannot stand sound doctrine but desire to have their ear tickled pink.

How Far is Too Far?