I've been doing a lot of reflecting lately, about the often trite response of much of modern Christian teaching. My wife regularly watches, listens, and reads the likes of Joyce Myers, and since she is becoming a Christian counselor, Tim Lahaye. Plus, I remember my own times of going to Christians n times of trouble in my early walk. While preaching the basic Gospel; I just see a coldness that is troubling in some of the things they say, and the way they often say things. Severl well know verses are thrown out at the suffering, to tell them how they should deal with their "trials". But I find now, that these may be taken out of context a bit. One great thing I did get out of my debates with the preterists here and elsewhere over the past year, is a better sense of the "audience relevance" of scriptural statements. There ws a special "peace" offered to those suffering for Christ as the Old Covenant system was going down. We take this today and apply it to our situations, and then get impatient with those who don't "just choose" to "receiv" this peace. But then we admit, it's not such a quick, easy proacess, but a hard, lifelong struggle. This isa causes much confusion. So I have added these thoughts to my Psychology page, which started out as a defense against Christian psychology against "old-line fundamentalists" such as the Bobgans, and Biblical Discernment Ministries; which believe that no psychology is needed since all you have to do is give counselees the scriptures on suffering and contentment, and that should be enough for them to get over their problem; if they are really following God. But now I see that much of the Christian psychology of new-evangelicalism is based on the same basic premise of the old-liners (who are therefore more consistent), and all of them in general have tended to take a very trite and sometimes downright cold and blunt approach, which I feel is very uncalled for, and possibly detrimental to the suffering person.
I just wanted to see what others thought of this:
--------------------
Even with "the Book, the Blood, and the Blessed Hope" [cited as what counselees need a "dose" of], there is usually no quick
healing. Many counselors cite the scriptures to the suffering that "His grace is sufficient" (2 Cor.
12:9), and "all things work together for good for those called according to His purposes
(Rom.8:28)" which are taken to mean "you were saved from a fate far worse than whatever you
are suffering now (Rom.8:18), so you have nothing to be discontent about". Then, the counselor himself
will get very impatient fast if the counselee doesn't get over his anger or bitterness, leading to the
conclusions that perhaps this person doesn't want help; is "unsanctified", etc. But more
compassion is called for than this. Basically, a whole philosophy has been set up from this, which actually promotes coldness to the suffering! Basically, the formula goes like this:
1)We are sinners, therefore we "deserve" pain, or it is "good" for us (the saved) to cleanse us
2)The circumstances of life is the vehicle through which God sends us some of this pain (yet is obviously withholding most of it for us, and gives "no more than you can bear")
3)Therefore, we must respond to these circumstances with a positive attitude, or we're "sinning" against God
4)It is so easy! Just "choose" to do it, and God does the rest, supernaturally (just like salvation). There is no excuse for not claiming this "victory"! [COUGH]itsreallyahardlongprocessofselfeffortSee#1&2[COUGH]!
5)The person who doesn't is just indulging in some pleasurable sin (of fear, anger, self-pity, etc), and is helpless, and should at first be hit in the face with their "sin", and if that doesn’t work, be left to their own misery until they are willing to "repent".
These sort of parallel or better yet, are corruptions of the "four spiritual laws" (the basic points of the Gospel—God created us, we fell, He sent His Son to die for us, we must receive Him to be saved); strongly suggesting a different gospel—one that is "no gospel" (good news) at all! At this point, I am no longer even addressing just fundamentalist teachers, as this formula, and the various passages it is read into undergirds almost all of evangelical teaching on "the victorious Christian life"(including charismatics, and including even Christian psychologists criticized by the fundamentalists!); with millions of dollars of books, audio, video, speaking engagements, etc. being sold to masses to whom this "victory" still largely seems to evade, as they keep going back to buy more. The fundamentalists such as BDM and the Bobgans are simply more consistent, with it, since psychology would truly not be needed at all if God just instantly, automatically heals your emotions and makes you content when you simply repent, ask, read the Bible, etc. as people suggest.
Ironically, as much as these teachers pitch "the Book", they themselves are not even reading it right! Much of this trite coldness stems from a very common, but very wrong reading of various scriptures. 1 Cor.10:13, and James 1:2,3. "There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that all of you are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that all of you may be able to bear it". "count it all joy when all of you fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith works patience". From these two passages, it is for all purposes taught that the suffering person's pain is good for them! The way the teaching goes; is that if God is allowing this circumstance, He knows it is good for what He wants to make you into (His plan for your future, or just "molding you to the image of His Son"), and you can handle it. We hear of "omelette theories", where eggs have to be broken to make a dish of food, so "brokenness can be good". And also, analogies of an oyster, which gets a grain of sand in its shell, and through a painful process, makes a beautiful pearl. Then, there is comparison to surgery or dentistry: "the Doctor has to excise that bad organ or tooth; you don't understand what he is doing; so just be still and let him". One book or tract I saw years ago said regarding bad circumstances, "they are hurdles" (and of course God knows how high we can jump, though it is "hard" for us and we feel we can't do it). Another said something like "God stretches us almost to the breaking point" to make us grow. Then, we get the perennial trashing of "feelings": "You may feel you can't handle it; but will you trust God's Word, and not your feelings?" The suffering person's feelings are pitted against God, thus completely invalidating their distress! (yet adding to it greatly, as this places them in a great bind!) Like with the old-liners, Jer.17:9 is being referred to, suggesting that the "wicked heart" is making what is really "good" seem bad; or as we call it; "painful". (The context says nothing about reaction to pain). Then, "it is by faith in God's Word that you know that you can handle it, even if you don't feel like you can". Of course, since it is through "faith" we are saved, and without which "no man can please God" (Heb.11:6) and whatever is not, is sin (Rom.14:23; some more verses often used in these situations); we see the warrant to question the sufferer's salvation for not getting over it or at least changing his attitude toward it. Many do not go this far, but instead dismiss them as "Carnal Christians" who are "not filled with the Spirit". But here, "faith", which was the vehicle through which we trust God for salvation, is taken and applied to something it never was directly intended for! So if he still says he can't handle it; then we got him! See; he doesn't want God's help! It's his human pride". He is "exalting himself above God", we even hear! He (or the psychologist accepting his feelings) is denying sin; since our sin is what made us deserve so much pain in the first place (recall; we were spared from so much worse, and this is why we should be happy in the "trial" we get in place of Hell in the first place). Thus, (to some) he is possibly not even saved or sanctified! So of course any "mental illness" that may be connected with the problem is said to be a "choice" of the person's own sinful doing! It is the same basic argument as the physical health gospel: "not enough faith"!
The problem in these passages is that "Trials" and "temptations" are read as "painful circumstances". But the word translated "temptation" (peirazo/peirasmos) means just that: temptation. Even "try/trial" (dokimos) used here conveys a similar meaning. (other words; such as purosis, "fiery trial", or thilipsis, "pressure/trouble" address painful situations, but these are not used here! Strong's does say that peirasmos "by impl." means "adversity"; but this is from a projection of the common misunderstanding of the word; and not its actual definition based on how it is used in the text!) If the common interpretation were right, then the Bible blatantly contradicts itself; because James then says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed". This is the same word used in Cor. and we see that it means what we commonly understand as "temptation to sin"; not a painful situation. Yet how many times do we see Christian teachers, counselors and books tell a suffering person "God brought this hardship into your life to test you. You can bear it no matter what it is, because He said you could, and He did it for your good". "Accept it from the hand of the Lord". If he rejects it; complains too much, etc, then he is "despising the chastening of the Lord"*. If that is what "test" (tempt) means, then they are the ones contradicting scripture and accusing God, not the sufferer who says the situation is too much for him to bear! *(while one of Job's friends originally leveled the "chastening" statement at Job's suffering [wrongly, we see from God's response to them in the end!]; Hebrews places it in its correct context of persecution for the faith; not general pain and rough circumstances that occur to all regardless of whether they are God's children or not --which is what people coming for counseling are usually dealing with!)
Now, to use persecution as an example of what "tempting" was; when the Christians were being persecuted; it was a painful circumstance; but they were at the same time being tempted to either renounce Christ, or return evil for evil. Thus; they were also being "tried" or "tested". The trial or test itself was not the pain or even the circumstance itself (and thus not what was "good for them", or given by God for their "good"), but rather the temptation to do wrong! It's resisting temptation to sin that makes us grow! The very context in the surrounding text of the Corinthians chapter shows us sinful actions that God's people would be tempted to indulge in, in response to hardships. No one is justifying responding to situations with wrong actions. When a person says "I can't take it"; he is not always justifying doing something sinful. In fact, he may actually be resisting the sinful action, and thus fulfilling the scripture! But that doesn't mean that the situation is not having a damaging effect on him. If this were true; then no Christians would have ever died as a martyr! If God allowed the physical torture; then it could not be more than he could bear, and he would live no matter what was done to him. If he dies; it was apparently "too much" for him to bear! So it is obviously not the "painful circumstance" that is being addressed there! (The temptation to renounce God to save his life is what he can resist or "bear", through faith in God's promises! Thus; he would "pass" the test). So likewise, the same can hold true for emotional, mental and psychological pain. Many things do occur in this world, that, like physical pain, are too much to bear. And God allows them, and does not fix all of them at this point. Should we tell children that have been molested (who generally have severe emotional damage, that many cannot recover from) that if God allowed this, then it must be good for them, regardless of what they feel? Most would not say that directly; but ultimately, it is what they believe! (If the person complains too much, questions God and doesn't get over it, then they might eventually tell him that when they run out of patience, after all, as we shall see, they are "sinning" by not getting over it!) And they; like the other forms of health gospels, frequently appeal to "testimonials" of other people (sometimes their own) who have overcome similar situations; but people are different, and not all have the same strengths and weaknesses. Other factors can come into play as well. So you just cannot always blame the victim for refusing to heal!
Many teachers go on to insist that every little bad thing that happens to Christian is an "attack" of the devil (and/or, therefore a "test" of God). A commonly used illustration is a driver cutting you off at the intersection; or "attacks" against the job, family members or finances. A popular comic style tract even shows a baby crying (in a hectic, backslidden household) because Satan pinches him! Satan "does" these things (with God's allowance), and then Satan puts the negative response, fear, and soforth into your mind. You, of course, have to "resist" this. Satan pulls all of these strings in life, and God just "uses it for your good" and offers you "power" for "peace" and "victory" in it, but only if you display the correct attitude, discussed below. Most of these problems are identical to what the rest of the world experiences. One televangelist and writer mentions a period when she was concerned about business meetings, and people would be late, not excited, and then half didn't show up sometimes. She asks God "why are You doing this to me?", and God supposedly tells her that He is teaching her a particular lesson. On one hand, I find it funny, because this person criticizes, like the others, our tendency to be asking "why" all the time, and especially having an accusatory attitude toward God. But here, not only does God answer to the affirmative (i.e. he did "do it"), but also even explains why! This person would be the first to tell us that not every thought or voice that comes into our head is from God; but one has to measure it with the Bible, and "cast down" anything that "exalts itself" above Christ (2 Cor.10:5, which would definitely include anything "accusatory" against God/Christ). But since this "word" goes along with this teaching, it is apparently not even questioned, but rather readily taken and used to prove to the the readers why they should have a good attitude when they don't get their way! "The world doesn't revolve around you" this person and others like her can be frequently heard saying; but in a case like that, it looks like it does revolve around us; only in a negative sense! I have also heard "You are not important enough for God to overlook in His promises", but we are apparently important enough for God to take some other driver and stick him in front of us, (or allow Satan to do it), and other forms such intervention, to test us to see if we have faith in those "promises".
From here, we get into the other universally trashed perception (next to feelings), our "understanding". "Don't try to understand it", we are taught. Then Is. 55:8,9 "My thoughts are not your thoughts", and Prov.3:5 "Lean not on your understanding" always come up. For every doctrine that people can't understand and question (The precise formulation of the Trinity, Calvinistic reprobation, the fundamentalist doctrine of good and bad music, aberrant or false groups do it too with their doctrines such as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation, etc.); this tactic is used. Who can test anything, then? But we see in developing these teachings, that they have used their own understanding and thoughts in interpreting these scriptures. Yes, God is ultimately above our understanding, but they are taking this too far when they use it to silence all challenges to their teachings. It seems that they are the ones who have speculated too much into the unknown, in saying that a particular trouble a person is going through was sent for some good but unknown purpose, for instance, and then using that to try to motivate the person to get over their pain through "thanksgiving". It is only when you question or challenge them, that "man's understanding" becomes wrong. So you can't feel it, and you can't figure it out, you just believe it by faith, and once again, if you don't get over your pain, you did wrong. Once again, the old-line fundamentalists who condemn most of these modern leaders for even speaking of psychology are more consistent with these teachings in saying that it is totally unneeded and unbiblical, if God just zaps your mind with some unfelt "strength" that makes all your pains and suffering not matter when you simply pray and thank Him. If all of this was so true and so simple; you'd think there would be a mass revival with all the people preaching it today. But basically, the lack of such a revival is all on the people and their "sin". (These teachers frequently refer to "all these Christians out there" who are not growing, struggling with the same problems, etc.)
Once again, many of the scriptures they are using are addressing first century Christians in the unique situation of spreading the Gospel in the world for the first time, in the hostile Roman Empire, under the equally hostile Old Covenant institution which still ruled over many people (until its destruction in AD70). One thing I got out of the debate with preterism was a better sense of the "audience relevance" of many of these scriptures. They were written primarily to the people then, and while they definitely carry over to us in principle; we often carelessly transfer every detail to our experiences, when it doesn't completely fit. Today, by comparison, most Christians in the West enjoy a relatively peaceful mundane life, were we try to spread the Gospel, but the situation is nowhere near as volatile or significant as that faced by the New Testament Christians (or Christians in hostile mission areas today). So in such a time of peace, society has become more decadent, and given over to sin, and this has given rise to more and more open sin, and thus physical and emotional suffering, which becomes the more pressing issue; instead of persecution for Christ, and freedom from the Law that were the main issues of the New Testament. So to portray the daily circumstances of life in this environment as being like as it were, some sort of chess game between God and Satan is quite speculatory, and overgeneralized. In this common theory, it's like any bad thing that happens to us, is; we're walking along one day, and God looks down and says "Oh, [so-and-so] needs a lesson in {patience, endurance, forgiveness, etc}", and then allows Satan to stick a driver in front of us to cut us off to "test" us, or perhaps a bigger problem, like physical ailment (you or a loved one). We have all of this figured out; yet if the person complains that it is unfair, or whatever, he is told not to "lean on his understanding", once again. Yes, we can grow by responding to difficult situations, but to portray God and Satan as "doing" everything to us today tends to create more of a sense of expectation that may be unrealistic, in the first place. This can short circuit the effect the teachers are trying to have, by making one more likely to think God should prevent bad things, since He is so directly "involved" in them; and ask "Why did You do/allow this?" and be disappointed at Him and think He doesn't care when He doesn't prevent them. Also, on the flipside; it can make one wonder why others, especially Christians, aren't punished for doing evil; if God is punishing or "chastising" all of a person's evil, now. So then; God seems very "unfair". Of course, the suffering person who does or thinks all this is "sinning", and castigated by this teaching. (That "bad attitude" is said to be their whole problem in the first place). But perhaps the teaching is orienting his perspective the wrong way. So we tell them not to try to understand everything, and that in the next life, all wrongs will be made right, and then perhaps we'll understand everything. If it's true that God allows much evil to go unpunished this life (including from Christians), then do not tell people that bad things in their lives are specifically "sent" by God, because then; it does seem like He's "picking on" them. We may try to tell them something like "God is giving you special attention (so thank Him)" or "He's given those other people over to their sins, so He doesn't bother with them anymore", but once again, this is all beyond anybody's knowledge. Often fellow Christians following this teaching and using these scriptures make it worse by encouraging someone to "have faith" that God will do something or is doing something, and when it doesn't come to pass, the person is told "well; I guess it just wasn't His will!" What a devastating emotional rollercoaster this can create! (a recent local "testimony" of someone being "miraculously cured" of cancer, and then still dying of it days later comes to mind!) No wonder so many still deep down inside lose faith, despite all of this pep talk! We have speculated to much into the unknown to try to explain what is just common life in a fallen "travailing" world. And when we try to project what we believe God is promising to do, we should remember Deut. 18:22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follows not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; but that prophet has spoken it presumptuously!" So just changing the story to an embarrassed admission that "it wasn't God's will after all" will not fix the damage to the person promised something, as well as our testimony and the credibility of Christ to the watching world. We just should not be so quick to pronounce such things.
While I do believe that God does intervene in some things, still, we don't always know which things, and shouldn't try to speculate on given instances, and only then claim "we can't understand it". Some things are just good fortune and lack thereof. Fortune, or "luck"; I would define as "an unknown principle of a disposition of a situation to a particular outcome especially to benefit or to adversity that is out of control of the person involved"; rather than any magical or mystical meaning. The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person". Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective. (once again, we cannot comprehend God's perspective). So why speculate? Whether it is God, or just a combination of natural forces (that God "controls" in a more passive way), we do not know. God may use it for some good, but this should not be our primary word of "comfort" to the one suffering from it! This creates expectations of some immediate good, but when it is not seen, then we have to keep pushing it further and further back; until we ultimately conclude it must be some "heavenly reward" beyond this life. What good is all this after awhile to the person suffering now? One writer cites an instance where a person is planning a vacation with him, but then finds he has lost his job. He "trusts God" and goes on the trip anyway. Sure enough, when he gets home, another employer has called him for a job. So "God provided for his needs". Fine. But if this hadn't happened, and he had to foreclose the house, or whatever then, that would have been God's will for Him, and he better not dare "sin" by grumbling about it. He still has other things to "thank" God for, so that is apparently what his true "needs" were! Hence, the definition of "needs" becomes scaled down. So someone else reads this and they expect that to happen for them, but they are not as fortunate, they will be disillusioned, and of course only get a pat answer about "needs" from these teachers. But they shouldn't have set people's hopes up that high in the first place! Phil 4:19 "God shall supply all your needs" and Heb.13:5,6 "Be content with such things as you have: for He has said 'I will never leave you nor forsake you' so we can boldly say 'the Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do to me'" is taken basically to mean that whatever you have at any given time is all you need; if you are being abused by someone, it shouldn't trouble you, because at least they cannot take your soul; and when in danger, don't fear because even if you lose your job, your posessions, etc., that's OK because that would be all you "need" because Christ is "with you". We are told "If you have not accepted His full leading for your life, you will complain because you doubt things will turn out all right". But just what is "all right"? Do Christians never lose everything and wind up on the street? Do they never lose limbs and other body functions? It is very confusing, because on one hand, the way the verses are initially quoted, it looks like God is promising nothing really bad will ever happen, but when it does; then we must revise the definitions of "need" and "all right", with "food" or even "air" as the last resort to prove that every Christian's "needs" have always been "provided for" no matter what happened! But then do Christians never starve to death? What is "all right" about that? That their soul will be in Heaven, of course! While this should give us hope and something to be thankful for, as well as "peace" from any worries about eternity; still, our emotions are based on current situations, and the teachers make it sound like those situations in themselves will be or turn into some later situation (in this life) that is "all right". But that is never promised for this life. So you might as well just say "look to Heaven" as much of the old Church did, but the modern church wants to make it sound nicer. Another approach I have heard is "God is doing something special in your life. It is a special test"; which is basically admitting that He is not keeping this general "promise" to the person, so this is "different", and "special", and the person should all the more thank Him for it. Amazing they will cite the latter and Matt.6: "take no thought saying what shall we eat...drink...be clothed with...for God knows you have need of these things, but seek first His Kingdom" to laypeople; when these were directed to the apostles, and the contexts are covetousness— wanting something just because someone else has it, not because it's needed), not basic physical and emotional needs. (But then basic needs that are lacking are often considered "wanting things someone else has" by the teachers trying to counsel the person to be content!) Yet many of these "apostles" and pastors who quote this today are quite expressive about their struggle for a "living" when it comes to putting financial pressure on their congregations and supporters; especially when they feel people are not giving enough! And they make sure they have far more than their basic needs met! Yet they can so easily say all of these things to the less fortunate. (This issue really does parallel the Calvinistic concept of "preterition", where because we credit God for saving us, we are to "accept the unpleasant from Him" too by assuming that those lost were deliberately "passed over" by Him, because "they deserved Hell anyway". It even shares the reference to the "potter and clay"; and this issue even touches upon foreknowledge/foreordination, with the question of how God creates future good from pain and misfortune. The difference is only in the scope of the "good" (mercy) and "evil" involved (temporal or eternal). Many if not most of these teachers are not even Calvinists, but do not realize how much they have been influenced by this type of thinking regarding God's sovereignty, which greatly shaped Augustinian and Reformed Christianity, and is related to many of the Church's historic problems).
As for Rom.8:18, "worthy" means (like "temptation") just what it sounds like: "deserving". This compared to the "glory" (honor) that shall be revealed in us. This is in no way dismissing people's suffering as unimportant, insignificant, or having no detrimental effect. Perhaps the most frequently cited, 8:28, is discussing the "no condemnation" in Christ (v.1) which figures in our "adoption" (v.15) and "predestination" (v.29). It is not saying all our suffering is good because "God uses it for some hidden plan"--as if that is what gets us the inheritance being discussed throughout the book. Many other scriptures used also have a similar, particular context. Much of the Christian persecution referred in these verses was not just from the pagans, but also from the Jews, (see for example 2 Cor.10:24-26) whose Old Covenant system of law and condemnation, was passing. They either tried to bring Christians back under the Law; or opposed the cause of Christ altogether, and even got the Christians in trouble with the Romans by excluding them from the immunity to emperor worship the Jews were granted. It all hinged on the "Salvation" from the curse of the Law. In the overall context of Colossians, we see that freedom from "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (2:14) is the cause of the "peace" in 3:15, as well as Romans 5:1. So likewise, in Phil.4:6-7 "Be anxious for nothing...And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus", also is pointing ultimately to freedom from being under the Law; which naturally had caused a lot of anxiety. (the Law is discussed a bit in the previous chapter). This is another passage leveled at sufferers, and it is taken to mean some sort of supernatural "serenity" that comes over you and makes your pains not matter. If they don't develop this "peace", then perhaps the person has not received Christ, or at least not been filled with the Spirit. You have to apply it and make it grow by constantly practicing a formula of certain (mechanical) responses, such as reciting a verse, singing, praying, repenting of the "sins" of certain emotions every time a thought comes up; even "rebuking" thoughts and feelings (among some). We are told by different teachers to tell yourself over and over that you can conquer it, "react the opposite way from your emotions", even to "Say you don't want it, and over time this will change your lustful "need" for whatever it is (and then God will(may) give it to you)", etc. Or of course, there's the "thanksgiving" mentioned in the verse. Some will try to say "You're not thanking God for the problem; just thanking Him in it". They'll give a sample prayer like "Lord; I don't understand this, but I trust that You're doing this for my good; so I thank you for your care"; but that for all purpose is thanking Him FOR the problem! Much similar double-talk abounds in this teaching.
"Anger" is called a 'sin' based on Eph.4:31 and Col.3:8, especially by the more conservative, such as the old-line fundamentalists (Hasn't this brand of "fundamentalists" and "anger" traditionally gone together?) Yet v.26 of the Ephesians passage says "Be angry and sin not"; (showing it is possible to be angry without sinning) is explained away. What they don't tell you is that there are two different (though related) words, and "anger" in those first to verses basically means "violent passion", not just plain anger at some offense (as is the case in the latter verse). The verse says we should not let the sun go down on our anger, and this is of course what we should strive for. But problems remain, and this instruction is used to suggest people should never be angry about a particular situation again. "Fear" as it is used in the NT also concerns mainly the Law and the pressure from those persecuting Christians over it. It's amazing that many of these teachers try to quash out of existence two basic emotions and use accusations of "sin" to manipulate everyone into Stepford Christians, when many of them get fearful and angry at what they feel threatened by (as we shall see shortly; even though this is disguised and not admitted, or excused as "righteous anger"), and this is somehow OK! And they are trying to motivate people to overcome a "fear" and "anxiety" not being discussed by these passages, by using the very "anxiety" and "fear" these passages ARE discussing (condemnation by the Law: i.e.charges of "sin")! One person goes as far as to paste together verse 18 and 19 of 1 Thess 5 and write that the person who prays "I don't understand why" rather than a thankful prayer "flunks the test", and "has already quenched the Spirit through fear"! (each verse in that immediate passage is a separate issue being addressed). So the person hurt by someone or something in life, rather than the victim of a circumstance, is actually the offender (i.e. "sinning against God")! No wonder there has been so little compassion sensed in the Church!. If the person "groans or complains inwardly", even, this can be "immediately remedied" by "calling his doubt-induced complaining exactly what it is--sin". But just what exactly is it that is being "doubted" then? That it is good for him!
Fear is said to have at its root "selfishness". A person is afraid of various situations such as losing a job or standing before an audience because of the sin of "interest in self" that causes fear of "looking like a fool" or "looking like a failure in the eyes of family or not being able to provide family and self with necessities of life. while a lot of fear can be from selfishness, this is way overgeneralized and taken to an unscriptural extreme. Just what is this "unselfish" ideal? Are we supposed to want to look like a fool or failure or not providing for the family? Or I guess it's not want them, but simply not mind if they do happen in the future, once again, because if God does allows these things, it's good for us. Then why don't these leaders then put themselves in these situations? They would say they "don't depend on their possessions and comforts", but then we don't see any of them ever doing without it! (As it is, you would really wonder if they would fit the description of 1 Cor.15:19: that if Christ was not risen and our faith turned out to be vain, then would they, like the NT Christians, be seen as "the most pitiable of all men"; or would they still be looked at as having "made it" in the world, despite their industry being based on something false--which the world believes anyway?) Then, I just wonder what about the fear of Communism? Or atheism and humanism? Or the Antichrist? Are those somehow different? Here is a person who "worried" about the Panama Canal giveaway enough to say that it was a proof that non-Christians were not fit be elected to public office by Christians, and sees America's problems as coming from "humanistic Europe", and has thus aided in the Church's rabid sensationalism over the sins of the left, and made a fortune out of a storyline based on the premise that the Great Tribulation is too much for Christians to go through! (hence a "secret rapture", because God just would never put us through such trouble. But it is the "righteous" who are persecuted in these scriptures they cite, rather than being physically prosperous! This should make us think!) Yet it's some person already in such types of situations, or in the gutter, or any other suffering person who isn't "content" who is "selfish"! It gets worse!
Mentioned is a case of a Christian psychologist telling a person struggling with fear that she was just a "very selfish young woman"; a "turtle hiding under a shell of selfishness. Just throw it away and start thinking more about others and less about yourself". She went away crying, but eventually overcame it. Still, the utter cruelty of this approach is astounding! Even if there might be some truth to this, do we need to be so blunt; at least at that early point in the counseling? (She had just come to him asking about her fears, and he probed into them with about six questions and then made that judgment. This seems to be a very common tactic in Christian counseling offices!) Because a "hard way" works on some people doesn't mean it is right, or from God. If done to the wrong person; you can push them right over the edge, and possibly even put yourself in danger! It could devastate or destroy some people! But of course, then, we would just say it was their own fault! A person who did not "confess their sin" of their fear, for instance, is said to be "incurable". How encouraging! Just consign them to utter hopelessness on top of their problem! Of course, "they did it to themselves"! (and as shall be asked again, how did any non-Christian--who rejects vehemently even the idea of "sin", EVER overcome fear, then?) This basically parallels the secular cliché of "God helps those who help themselves"! (He even calls what he offers "Christian Self-help". The old-liners would justly criticize this, but they use the same exact philosophy about people who don't "repent of these sins" being "incurable"!) She supposedly enjoys "abundant life" now, but you still don't really know what's going on in her heart every day. Especially since this walk is compared to pushing a boulder uphill for the rest of your life, as we shall see. Just as long as they don't hear about the negative anymore, but only hear positive, they are satisfied with the outcome, and that seems to be what this is all about. If you hear someday of her having a heart attack or dying from stress from suppressed fear (it was still there; she simply "didn't act upon it anymore"), then what? Not only that, but "anger, worry and self-pity" are lumped in with "lust" as "fun temporarily" and "emotional satisfactions! No wonder there is so much coldness to the suffering in much of today's counseling! The person's emotions are seen as some sort of game he's playing, or doing for kicks, like with lust. He's getting some sort of enjoyment out of it! No wonder people think they should be so cold and tough with them! Many of the people teaching this have never been in a a place where they felt the deep cutting pangs of rejection and lack of love to the point the only pity they can get is from themselves, or they they are threatened by something terrible, like where their next paycheck or meal will come from! But they know to judge what's in these people's hearts (based on "the Bible" meaning their interpretations of it, seen through their own experiences!) Anger, worry, and self-pity in such cases may bring some sort of temporal relief or comfort, but that is not fun! All we are doing is stabbing our wounded right in the heart and making prooftexted justifications for it, and then traveling the world boasting about these tactics to others in conferences or sermons because "it works"! The end is not justified by the means! Perhaps the biggest proof that God is not actively measuring out earthly "hardships" as "chastisement" every step of the day for our flaws is the fact that He has not struck these leaders down with biblical plagues or taken everything away from them for such crass, callous insensitivity! (or allow a hostile regime to take us over, which was one of their sin-"induced" fears! Instead, He has allowed them all to enjoy a comfortable "American executive"-class lifestyle, and THIS is how they "thank" Him!). I have even seen a teaching that whoever has a hard time dealing with difficulties is "refusing to accept being man", and instead "trying to be God"! ("man" once again defined in terms of "pain"). Accusation after accusation is hurled at the sufferer, and the counselor claims to be speaking the Word of God. Why should anyone even come to God for the comfort and peace they are saying He gives if that apparently is His word to them, and He is so condemning of them?
We have copied lock, stock and barrel the philosophy of Job's friends, and don't even realize it! Not a clue! We have only rehashed, repackaged, and prooftexted it, and then taken it even beyond their level! God may have corrected Job when his words got too out of place, but He was really angry at his friends who "did not speak right concerning Me". Job was ordered to offer sacrifices for them! That was a very serious offense to Him! Just look at the fact that it was actually their "comfort", with all its charges of sin that made Job sink so much lower into such negative thinking bordering on blasphemy in the first place! (He actually started out more positive!) Yet these leaders today think what they're doing is different because it "worked" on some, who happened to be convinced/convicted of sin through it! I have seen Christians around me walk around criticizing themselves for slipping in their anger and other attitudes, or devotional time, or whatever, (as well as being hard on others) and they "repent of these 'sins'", and ask God's "forgiveness"; but none this even made them grow any faster. They just continued to struggle with it and grow gradually as they always had, and most everyone else does. It's just a guilt trip, that may or may not being results, but Christian growth is about quality; not quantity, and such methods are not necessary, but are contrary to God's love.
I just wanted to see what others thought of this:
--------------------
Even with "the Book, the Blood, and the Blessed Hope" [cited as what counselees need a "dose" of], there is usually no quick
healing. Many counselors cite the scriptures to the suffering that "His grace is sufficient" (2 Cor.
12:9), and "all things work together for good for those called according to His purposes
(Rom.8:28)" which are taken to mean "you were saved from a fate far worse than whatever you
are suffering now (Rom.8:18), so you have nothing to be discontent about". Then, the counselor himself
will get very impatient fast if the counselee doesn't get over his anger or bitterness, leading to the
conclusions that perhaps this person doesn't want help; is "unsanctified", etc. But more
compassion is called for than this. Basically, a whole philosophy has been set up from this, which actually promotes coldness to the suffering! Basically, the formula goes like this:
1)We are sinners, therefore we "deserve" pain, or it is "good" for us (the saved) to cleanse us
2)The circumstances of life is the vehicle through which God sends us some of this pain (yet is obviously withholding most of it for us, and gives "no more than you can bear")
3)Therefore, we must respond to these circumstances with a positive attitude, or we're "sinning" against God
4)It is so easy! Just "choose" to do it, and God does the rest, supernaturally (just like salvation). There is no excuse for not claiming this "victory"! [COUGH]itsreallyahardlongprocessofselfeffortSee#1&2[COUGH]!
5)The person who doesn't is just indulging in some pleasurable sin (of fear, anger, self-pity, etc), and is helpless, and should at first be hit in the face with their "sin", and if that doesn’t work, be left to their own misery until they are willing to "repent".
These sort of parallel or better yet, are corruptions of the "four spiritual laws" (the basic points of the Gospel—God created us, we fell, He sent His Son to die for us, we must receive Him to be saved); strongly suggesting a different gospel—one that is "no gospel" (good news) at all! At this point, I am no longer even addressing just fundamentalist teachers, as this formula, and the various passages it is read into undergirds almost all of evangelical teaching on "the victorious Christian life"(including charismatics, and including even Christian psychologists criticized by the fundamentalists!); with millions of dollars of books, audio, video, speaking engagements, etc. being sold to masses to whom this "victory" still largely seems to evade, as they keep going back to buy more. The fundamentalists such as BDM and the Bobgans are simply more consistent, with it, since psychology would truly not be needed at all if God just instantly, automatically heals your emotions and makes you content when you simply repent, ask, read the Bible, etc. as people suggest.
Ironically, as much as these teachers pitch "the Book", they themselves are not even reading it right! Much of this trite coldness stems from a very common, but very wrong reading of various scriptures. 1 Cor.10:13, and James 1:2,3. "There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that all of you are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that all of you may be able to bear it". "count it all joy when all of you fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith works patience". From these two passages, it is for all purposes taught that the suffering person's pain is good for them! The way the teaching goes; is that if God is allowing this circumstance, He knows it is good for what He wants to make you into (His plan for your future, or just "molding you to the image of His Son"), and you can handle it. We hear of "omelette theories", where eggs have to be broken to make a dish of food, so "brokenness can be good". And also, analogies of an oyster, which gets a grain of sand in its shell, and through a painful process, makes a beautiful pearl. Then, there is comparison to surgery or dentistry: "the Doctor has to excise that bad organ or tooth; you don't understand what he is doing; so just be still and let him". One book or tract I saw years ago said regarding bad circumstances, "they are hurdles" (and of course God knows how high we can jump, though it is "hard" for us and we feel we can't do it). Another said something like "God stretches us almost to the breaking point" to make us grow. Then, we get the perennial trashing of "feelings": "You may feel you can't handle it; but will you trust God's Word, and not your feelings?" The suffering person's feelings are pitted against God, thus completely invalidating their distress! (yet adding to it greatly, as this places them in a great bind!) Like with the old-liners, Jer.17:9 is being referred to, suggesting that the "wicked heart" is making what is really "good" seem bad; or as we call it; "painful". (The context says nothing about reaction to pain). Then, "it is by faith in God's Word that you know that you can handle it, even if you don't feel like you can". Of course, since it is through "faith" we are saved, and without which "no man can please God" (Heb.11:6) and whatever is not, is sin (Rom.14:23; some more verses often used in these situations); we see the warrant to question the sufferer's salvation for not getting over it or at least changing his attitude toward it. Many do not go this far, but instead dismiss them as "Carnal Christians" who are "not filled with the Spirit". But here, "faith", which was the vehicle through which we trust God for salvation, is taken and applied to something it never was directly intended for! So if he still says he can't handle it; then we got him! See; he doesn't want God's help! It's his human pride". He is "exalting himself above God", we even hear! He (or the psychologist accepting his feelings) is denying sin; since our sin is what made us deserve so much pain in the first place (recall; we were spared from so much worse, and this is why we should be happy in the "trial" we get in place of Hell in the first place). Thus, (to some) he is possibly not even saved or sanctified! So of course any "mental illness" that may be connected with the problem is said to be a "choice" of the person's own sinful doing! It is the same basic argument as the physical health gospel: "not enough faith"!
The problem in these passages is that "Trials" and "temptations" are read as "painful circumstances". But the word translated "temptation" (peirazo/peirasmos) means just that: temptation. Even "try/trial" (dokimos) used here conveys a similar meaning. (other words; such as purosis, "fiery trial", or thilipsis, "pressure/trouble" address painful situations, but these are not used here! Strong's does say that peirasmos "by impl." means "adversity"; but this is from a projection of the common misunderstanding of the word; and not its actual definition based on how it is used in the text!) If the common interpretation were right, then the Bible blatantly contradicts itself; because James then says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed". This is the same word used in Cor. and we see that it means what we commonly understand as "temptation to sin"; not a painful situation. Yet how many times do we see Christian teachers, counselors and books tell a suffering person "God brought this hardship into your life to test you. You can bear it no matter what it is, because He said you could, and He did it for your good". "Accept it from the hand of the Lord". If he rejects it; complains too much, etc, then he is "despising the chastening of the Lord"*. If that is what "test" (tempt) means, then they are the ones contradicting scripture and accusing God, not the sufferer who says the situation is too much for him to bear! *(while one of Job's friends originally leveled the "chastening" statement at Job's suffering [wrongly, we see from God's response to them in the end!]; Hebrews places it in its correct context of persecution for the faith; not general pain and rough circumstances that occur to all regardless of whether they are God's children or not --which is what people coming for counseling are usually dealing with!)
Now, to use persecution as an example of what "tempting" was; when the Christians were being persecuted; it was a painful circumstance; but they were at the same time being tempted to either renounce Christ, or return evil for evil. Thus; they were also being "tried" or "tested". The trial or test itself was not the pain or even the circumstance itself (and thus not what was "good for them", or given by God for their "good"), but rather the temptation to do wrong! It's resisting temptation to sin that makes us grow! The very context in the surrounding text of the Corinthians chapter shows us sinful actions that God's people would be tempted to indulge in, in response to hardships. No one is justifying responding to situations with wrong actions. When a person says "I can't take it"; he is not always justifying doing something sinful. In fact, he may actually be resisting the sinful action, and thus fulfilling the scripture! But that doesn't mean that the situation is not having a damaging effect on him. If this were true; then no Christians would have ever died as a martyr! If God allowed the physical torture; then it could not be more than he could bear, and he would live no matter what was done to him. If he dies; it was apparently "too much" for him to bear! So it is obviously not the "painful circumstance" that is being addressed there! (The temptation to renounce God to save his life is what he can resist or "bear", through faith in God's promises! Thus; he would "pass" the test). So likewise, the same can hold true for emotional, mental and psychological pain. Many things do occur in this world, that, like physical pain, are too much to bear. And God allows them, and does not fix all of them at this point. Should we tell children that have been molested (who generally have severe emotional damage, that many cannot recover from) that if God allowed this, then it must be good for them, regardless of what they feel? Most would not say that directly; but ultimately, it is what they believe! (If the person complains too much, questions God and doesn't get over it, then they might eventually tell him that when they run out of patience, after all, as we shall see, they are "sinning" by not getting over it!) And they; like the other forms of health gospels, frequently appeal to "testimonials" of other people (sometimes their own) who have overcome similar situations; but people are different, and not all have the same strengths and weaknesses. Other factors can come into play as well. So you just cannot always blame the victim for refusing to heal!
Many teachers go on to insist that every little bad thing that happens to Christian is an "attack" of the devil (and/or, therefore a "test" of God). A commonly used illustration is a driver cutting you off at the intersection; or "attacks" against the job, family members or finances. A popular comic style tract even shows a baby crying (in a hectic, backslidden household) because Satan pinches him! Satan "does" these things (with God's allowance), and then Satan puts the negative response, fear, and soforth into your mind. You, of course, have to "resist" this. Satan pulls all of these strings in life, and God just "uses it for your good" and offers you "power" for "peace" and "victory" in it, but only if you display the correct attitude, discussed below. Most of these problems are identical to what the rest of the world experiences. One televangelist and writer mentions a period when she was concerned about business meetings, and people would be late, not excited, and then half didn't show up sometimes. She asks God "why are You doing this to me?", and God supposedly tells her that He is teaching her a particular lesson. On one hand, I find it funny, because this person criticizes, like the others, our tendency to be asking "why" all the time, and especially having an accusatory attitude toward God. But here, not only does God answer to the affirmative (i.e. he did "do it"), but also even explains why! This person would be the first to tell us that not every thought or voice that comes into our head is from God; but one has to measure it with the Bible, and "cast down" anything that "exalts itself" above Christ (2 Cor.10:5, which would definitely include anything "accusatory" against God/Christ). But since this "word" goes along with this teaching, it is apparently not even questioned, but rather readily taken and used to prove to the the readers why they should have a good attitude when they don't get their way! "The world doesn't revolve around you" this person and others like her can be frequently heard saying; but in a case like that, it looks like it does revolve around us; only in a negative sense! I have also heard "You are not important enough for God to overlook in His promises", but we are apparently important enough for God to take some other driver and stick him in front of us, (or allow Satan to do it), and other forms such intervention, to test us to see if we have faith in those "promises".
From here, we get into the other universally trashed perception (next to feelings), our "understanding". "Don't try to understand it", we are taught. Then Is. 55:8,9 "My thoughts are not your thoughts", and Prov.3:5 "Lean not on your understanding" always come up. For every doctrine that people can't understand and question (The precise formulation of the Trinity, Calvinistic reprobation, the fundamentalist doctrine of good and bad music, aberrant or false groups do it too with their doctrines such as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation, etc.); this tactic is used. Who can test anything, then? But we see in developing these teachings, that they have used their own understanding and thoughts in interpreting these scriptures. Yes, God is ultimately above our understanding, but they are taking this too far when they use it to silence all challenges to their teachings. It seems that they are the ones who have speculated too much into the unknown, in saying that a particular trouble a person is going through was sent for some good but unknown purpose, for instance, and then using that to try to motivate the person to get over their pain through "thanksgiving". It is only when you question or challenge them, that "man's understanding" becomes wrong. So you can't feel it, and you can't figure it out, you just believe it by faith, and once again, if you don't get over your pain, you did wrong. Once again, the old-line fundamentalists who condemn most of these modern leaders for even speaking of psychology are more consistent with these teachings in saying that it is totally unneeded and unbiblical, if God just zaps your mind with some unfelt "strength" that makes all your pains and suffering not matter when you simply pray and thank Him. If all of this was so true and so simple; you'd think there would be a mass revival with all the people preaching it today. But basically, the lack of such a revival is all on the people and their "sin". (These teachers frequently refer to "all these Christians out there" who are not growing, struggling with the same problems, etc.)
Once again, many of the scriptures they are using are addressing first century Christians in the unique situation of spreading the Gospel in the world for the first time, in the hostile Roman Empire, under the equally hostile Old Covenant institution which still ruled over many people (until its destruction in AD70). One thing I got out of the debate with preterism was a better sense of the "audience relevance" of many of these scriptures. They were written primarily to the people then, and while they definitely carry over to us in principle; we often carelessly transfer every detail to our experiences, when it doesn't completely fit. Today, by comparison, most Christians in the West enjoy a relatively peaceful mundane life, were we try to spread the Gospel, but the situation is nowhere near as volatile or significant as that faced by the New Testament Christians (or Christians in hostile mission areas today). So in such a time of peace, society has become more decadent, and given over to sin, and this has given rise to more and more open sin, and thus physical and emotional suffering, which becomes the more pressing issue; instead of persecution for Christ, and freedom from the Law that were the main issues of the New Testament. So to portray the daily circumstances of life in this environment as being like as it were, some sort of chess game between God and Satan is quite speculatory, and overgeneralized. In this common theory, it's like any bad thing that happens to us, is; we're walking along one day, and God looks down and says "Oh, [so-and-so] needs a lesson in {patience, endurance, forgiveness, etc}", and then allows Satan to stick a driver in front of us to cut us off to "test" us, or perhaps a bigger problem, like physical ailment (you or a loved one). We have all of this figured out; yet if the person complains that it is unfair, or whatever, he is told not to "lean on his understanding", once again. Yes, we can grow by responding to difficult situations, but to portray God and Satan as "doing" everything to us today tends to create more of a sense of expectation that may be unrealistic, in the first place. This can short circuit the effect the teachers are trying to have, by making one more likely to think God should prevent bad things, since He is so directly "involved" in them; and ask "Why did You do/allow this?" and be disappointed at Him and think He doesn't care when He doesn't prevent them. Also, on the flipside; it can make one wonder why others, especially Christians, aren't punished for doing evil; if God is punishing or "chastising" all of a person's evil, now. So then; God seems very "unfair". Of course, the suffering person who does or thinks all this is "sinning", and castigated by this teaching. (That "bad attitude" is said to be their whole problem in the first place). But perhaps the teaching is orienting his perspective the wrong way. So we tell them not to try to understand everything, and that in the next life, all wrongs will be made right, and then perhaps we'll understand everything. If it's true that God allows much evil to go unpunished this life (including from Christians), then do not tell people that bad things in their lives are specifically "sent" by God, because then; it does seem like He's "picking on" them. We may try to tell them something like "God is giving you special attention (so thank Him)" or "He's given those other people over to their sins, so He doesn't bother with them anymore", but once again, this is all beyond anybody's knowledge. Often fellow Christians following this teaching and using these scriptures make it worse by encouraging someone to "have faith" that God will do something or is doing something, and when it doesn't come to pass, the person is told "well; I guess it just wasn't His will!" What a devastating emotional rollercoaster this can create! (a recent local "testimony" of someone being "miraculously cured" of cancer, and then still dying of it days later comes to mind!) No wonder so many still deep down inside lose faith, despite all of this pep talk! We have speculated to much into the unknown to try to explain what is just common life in a fallen "travailing" world. And when we try to project what we believe God is promising to do, we should remember Deut. 18:22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follows not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; but that prophet has spoken it presumptuously!" So just changing the story to an embarrassed admission that "it wasn't God's will after all" will not fix the damage to the person promised something, as well as our testimony and the credibility of Christ to the watching world. We just should not be so quick to pronounce such things.
While I do believe that God does intervene in some things, still, we don't always know which things, and shouldn't try to speculate on given instances, and only then claim "we can't understand it". Some things are just good fortune and lack thereof. Fortune, or "luck"; I would define as "an unknown principle of a disposition of a situation to a particular outcome especially to benefit or to adversity that is out of control of the person involved"; rather than any magical or mystical meaning. The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person". Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective. (once again, we cannot comprehend God's perspective). So why speculate? Whether it is God, or just a combination of natural forces (that God "controls" in a more passive way), we do not know. God may use it for some good, but this should not be our primary word of "comfort" to the one suffering from it! This creates expectations of some immediate good, but when it is not seen, then we have to keep pushing it further and further back; until we ultimately conclude it must be some "heavenly reward" beyond this life. What good is all this after awhile to the person suffering now? One writer cites an instance where a person is planning a vacation with him, but then finds he has lost his job. He "trusts God" and goes on the trip anyway. Sure enough, when he gets home, another employer has called him for a job. So "God provided for his needs". Fine. But if this hadn't happened, and he had to foreclose the house, or whatever then, that would have been God's will for Him, and he better not dare "sin" by grumbling about it. He still has other things to "thank" God for, so that is apparently what his true "needs" were! Hence, the definition of "needs" becomes scaled down. So someone else reads this and they expect that to happen for them, but they are not as fortunate, they will be disillusioned, and of course only get a pat answer about "needs" from these teachers. But they shouldn't have set people's hopes up that high in the first place! Phil 4:19 "God shall supply all your needs" and Heb.13:5,6 "Be content with such things as you have: for He has said 'I will never leave you nor forsake you' so we can boldly say 'the Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do to me'" is taken basically to mean that whatever you have at any given time is all you need; if you are being abused by someone, it shouldn't trouble you, because at least they cannot take your soul; and when in danger, don't fear because even if you lose your job, your posessions, etc., that's OK because that would be all you "need" because Christ is "with you". We are told "If you have not accepted His full leading for your life, you will complain because you doubt things will turn out all right". But just what is "all right"? Do Christians never lose everything and wind up on the street? Do they never lose limbs and other body functions? It is very confusing, because on one hand, the way the verses are initially quoted, it looks like God is promising nothing really bad will ever happen, but when it does; then we must revise the definitions of "need" and "all right", with "food" or even "air" as the last resort to prove that every Christian's "needs" have always been "provided for" no matter what happened! But then do Christians never starve to death? What is "all right" about that? That their soul will be in Heaven, of course! While this should give us hope and something to be thankful for, as well as "peace" from any worries about eternity; still, our emotions are based on current situations, and the teachers make it sound like those situations in themselves will be or turn into some later situation (in this life) that is "all right". But that is never promised for this life. So you might as well just say "look to Heaven" as much of the old Church did, but the modern church wants to make it sound nicer. Another approach I have heard is "God is doing something special in your life. It is a special test"; which is basically admitting that He is not keeping this general "promise" to the person, so this is "different", and "special", and the person should all the more thank Him for it. Amazing they will cite the latter and Matt.6: "take no thought saying what shall we eat...drink...be clothed with...for God knows you have need of these things, but seek first His Kingdom" to laypeople; when these were directed to the apostles, and the contexts are covetousness— wanting something just because someone else has it, not because it's needed), not basic physical and emotional needs. (But then basic needs that are lacking are often considered "wanting things someone else has" by the teachers trying to counsel the person to be content!) Yet many of these "apostles" and pastors who quote this today are quite expressive about their struggle for a "living" when it comes to putting financial pressure on their congregations and supporters; especially when they feel people are not giving enough! And they make sure they have far more than their basic needs met! Yet they can so easily say all of these things to the less fortunate. (This issue really does parallel the Calvinistic concept of "preterition", where because we credit God for saving us, we are to "accept the unpleasant from Him" too by assuming that those lost were deliberately "passed over" by Him, because "they deserved Hell anyway". It even shares the reference to the "potter and clay"; and this issue even touches upon foreknowledge/foreordination, with the question of how God creates future good from pain and misfortune. The difference is only in the scope of the "good" (mercy) and "evil" involved (temporal or eternal). Many if not most of these teachers are not even Calvinists, but do not realize how much they have been influenced by this type of thinking regarding God's sovereignty, which greatly shaped Augustinian and Reformed Christianity, and is related to many of the Church's historic problems).
As for Rom.8:18, "worthy" means (like "temptation") just what it sounds like: "deserving". This compared to the "glory" (honor) that shall be revealed in us. This is in no way dismissing people's suffering as unimportant, insignificant, or having no detrimental effect. Perhaps the most frequently cited, 8:28, is discussing the "no condemnation" in Christ (v.1) which figures in our "adoption" (v.15) and "predestination" (v.29). It is not saying all our suffering is good because "God uses it for some hidden plan"--as if that is what gets us the inheritance being discussed throughout the book. Many other scriptures used also have a similar, particular context. Much of the Christian persecution referred in these verses was not just from the pagans, but also from the Jews, (see for example 2 Cor.10:24-26) whose Old Covenant system of law and condemnation, was passing. They either tried to bring Christians back under the Law; or opposed the cause of Christ altogether, and even got the Christians in trouble with the Romans by excluding them from the immunity to emperor worship the Jews were granted. It all hinged on the "Salvation" from the curse of the Law. In the overall context of Colossians, we see that freedom from "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (2:14) is the cause of the "peace" in 3:15, as well as Romans 5:1. So likewise, in Phil.4:6-7 "Be anxious for nothing...And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus", also is pointing ultimately to freedom from being under the Law; which naturally had caused a lot of anxiety. (the Law is discussed a bit in the previous chapter). This is another passage leveled at sufferers, and it is taken to mean some sort of supernatural "serenity" that comes over you and makes your pains not matter. If they don't develop this "peace", then perhaps the person has not received Christ, or at least not been filled with the Spirit. You have to apply it and make it grow by constantly practicing a formula of certain (mechanical) responses, such as reciting a verse, singing, praying, repenting of the "sins" of certain emotions every time a thought comes up; even "rebuking" thoughts and feelings (among some). We are told by different teachers to tell yourself over and over that you can conquer it, "react the opposite way from your emotions", even to "Say you don't want it, and over time this will change your lustful "need" for whatever it is (and then God will(may) give it to you)", etc. Or of course, there's the "thanksgiving" mentioned in the verse. Some will try to say "You're not thanking God for the problem; just thanking Him in it". They'll give a sample prayer like "Lord; I don't understand this, but I trust that You're doing this for my good; so I thank you for your care"; but that for all purpose is thanking Him FOR the problem! Much similar double-talk abounds in this teaching.
"Anger" is called a 'sin' based on Eph.4:31 and Col.3:8, especially by the more conservative, such as the old-line fundamentalists (Hasn't this brand of "fundamentalists" and "anger" traditionally gone together?) Yet v.26 of the Ephesians passage says "Be angry and sin not"; (showing it is possible to be angry without sinning) is explained away. What they don't tell you is that there are two different (though related) words, and "anger" in those first to verses basically means "violent passion", not just plain anger at some offense (as is the case in the latter verse). The verse says we should not let the sun go down on our anger, and this is of course what we should strive for. But problems remain, and this instruction is used to suggest people should never be angry about a particular situation again. "Fear" as it is used in the NT also concerns mainly the Law and the pressure from those persecuting Christians over it. It's amazing that many of these teachers try to quash out of existence two basic emotions and use accusations of "sin" to manipulate everyone into Stepford Christians, when many of them get fearful and angry at what they feel threatened by (as we shall see shortly; even though this is disguised and not admitted, or excused as "righteous anger"), and this is somehow OK! And they are trying to motivate people to overcome a "fear" and "anxiety" not being discussed by these passages, by using the very "anxiety" and "fear" these passages ARE discussing (condemnation by the Law: i.e.charges of "sin")! One person goes as far as to paste together verse 18 and 19 of 1 Thess 5 and write that the person who prays "I don't understand why" rather than a thankful prayer "flunks the test", and "has already quenched the Spirit through fear"! (each verse in that immediate passage is a separate issue being addressed). So the person hurt by someone or something in life, rather than the victim of a circumstance, is actually the offender (i.e. "sinning against God")! No wonder there has been so little compassion sensed in the Church!. If the person "groans or complains inwardly", even, this can be "immediately remedied" by "calling his doubt-induced complaining exactly what it is--sin". But just what exactly is it that is being "doubted" then? That it is good for him!
Fear is said to have at its root "selfishness". A person is afraid of various situations such as losing a job or standing before an audience because of the sin of "interest in self" that causes fear of "looking like a fool" or "looking like a failure in the eyes of family or not being able to provide family and self with necessities of life. while a lot of fear can be from selfishness, this is way overgeneralized and taken to an unscriptural extreme. Just what is this "unselfish" ideal? Are we supposed to want to look like a fool or failure or not providing for the family? Or I guess it's not want them, but simply not mind if they do happen in the future, once again, because if God does allows these things, it's good for us. Then why don't these leaders then put themselves in these situations? They would say they "don't depend on their possessions and comforts", but then we don't see any of them ever doing without it! (As it is, you would really wonder if they would fit the description of 1 Cor.15:19: that if Christ was not risen and our faith turned out to be vain, then would they, like the NT Christians, be seen as "the most pitiable of all men"; or would they still be looked at as having "made it" in the world, despite their industry being based on something false--which the world believes anyway?) Then, I just wonder what about the fear of Communism? Or atheism and humanism? Or the Antichrist? Are those somehow different? Here is a person who "worried" about the Panama Canal giveaway enough to say that it was a proof that non-Christians were not fit be elected to public office by Christians, and sees America's problems as coming from "humanistic Europe", and has thus aided in the Church's rabid sensationalism over the sins of the left, and made a fortune out of a storyline based on the premise that the Great Tribulation is too much for Christians to go through! (hence a "secret rapture", because God just would never put us through such trouble. But it is the "righteous" who are persecuted in these scriptures they cite, rather than being physically prosperous! This should make us think!) Yet it's some person already in such types of situations, or in the gutter, or any other suffering person who isn't "content" who is "selfish"! It gets worse!
Mentioned is a case of a Christian psychologist telling a person struggling with fear that she was just a "very selfish young woman"; a "turtle hiding under a shell of selfishness. Just throw it away and start thinking more about others and less about yourself". She went away crying, but eventually overcame it. Still, the utter cruelty of this approach is astounding! Even if there might be some truth to this, do we need to be so blunt; at least at that early point in the counseling? (She had just come to him asking about her fears, and he probed into them with about six questions and then made that judgment. This seems to be a very common tactic in Christian counseling offices!) Because a "hard way" works on some people doesn't mean it is right, or from God. If done to the wrong person; you can push them right over the edge, and possibly even put yourself in danger! It could devastate or destroy some people! But of course, then, we would just say it was their own fault! A person who did not "confess their sin" of their fear, for instance, is said to be "incurable". How encouraging! Just consign them to utter hopelessness on top of their problem! Of course, "they did it to themselves"! (and as shall be asked again, how did any non-Christian--who rejects vehemently even the idea of "sin", EVER overcome fear, then?) This basically parallels the secular cliché of "God helps those who help themselves"! (He even calls what he offers "Christian Self-help". The old-liners would justly criticize this, but they use the same exact philosophy about people who don't "repent of these sins" being "incurable"!) She supposedly enjoys "abundant life" now, but you still don't really know what's going on in her heart every day. Especially since this walk is compared to pushing a boulder uphill for the rest of your life, as we shall see. Just as long as they don't hear about the negative anymore, but only hear positive, they are satisfied with the outcome, and that seems to be what this is all about. If you hear someday of her having a heart attack or dying from stress from suppressed fear (it was still there; she simply "didn't act upon it anymore"), then what? Not only that, but "anger, worry and self-pity" are lumped in with "lust" as "fun temporarily" and "emotional satisfactions! No wonder there is so much coldness to the suffering in much of today's counseling! The person's emotions are seen as some sort of game he's playing, or doing for kicks, like with lust. He's getting some sort of enjoyment out of it! No wonder people think they should be so cold and tough with them! Many of the people teaching this have never been in a a place where they felt the deep cutting pangs of rejection and lack of love to the point the only pity they can get is from themselves, or they they are threatened by something terrible, like where their next paycheck or meal will come from! But they know to judge what's in these people's hearts (based on "the Bible" meaning their interpretations of it, seen through their own experiences!) Anger, worry, and self-pity in such cases may bring some sort of temporal relief or comfort, but that is not fun! All we are doing is stabbing our wounded right in the heart and making prooftexted justifications for it, and then traveling the world boasting about these tactics to others in conferences or sermons because "it works"! The end is not justified by the means! Perhaps the biggest proof that God is not actively measuring out earthly "hardships" as "chastisement" every step of the day for our flaws is the fact that He has not struck these leaders down with biblical plagues or taken everything away from them for such crass, callous insensitivity! (or allow a hostile regime to take us over, which was one of their sin-"induced" fears! Instead, He has allowed them all to enjoy a comfortable "American executive"-class lifestyle, and THIS is how they "thank" Him!). I have even seen a teaching that whoever has a hard time dealing with difficulties is "refusing to accept being man", and instead "trying to be God"! ("man" once again defined in terms of "pain"). Accusation after accusation is hurled at the sufferer, and the counselor claims to be speaking the Word of God. Why should anyone even come to God for the comfort and peace they are saying He gives if that apparently is His word to them, and He is so condemning of them?
We have copied lock, stock and barrel the philosophy of Job's friends, and don't even realize it! Not a clue! We have only rehashed, repackaged, and prooftexted it, and then taken it even beyond their level! God may have corrected Job when his words got too out of place, but He was really angry at his friends who "did not speak right concerning Me". Job was ordered to offer sacrifices for them! That was a very serious offense to Him! Just look at the fact that it was actually their "comfort", with all its charges of sin that made Job sink so much lower into such negative thinking bordering on blasphemy in the first place! (He actually started out more positive!) Yet these leaders today think what they're doing is different because it "worked" on some, who happened to be convinced/convicted of sin through it! I have seen Christians around me walk around criticizing themselves for slipping in their anger and other attitudes, or devotional time, or whatever, (as well as being hard on others) and they "repent of these 'sins'", and ask God's "forgiveness"; but none this even made them grow any faster. They just continued to struggle with it and grow gradually as they always had, and most everyone else does. It's just a guilt trip, that may or may not being results, but Christian growth is about quality; not quantity, and such methods are not necessary, but are contrary to God's love.
