Last night we were singing Faithful One.  I was struck by the relativism that has pervaded even our worship to an absolute God. The chorus goes “You are my rock in times of trouble”, and the sentiment is brilliant, and God does love the heart to lead the form [of worship] (some say that he loves the heart, not the form, but I’m not sure His word allows that statement to hold true). The thing that sticks out at me is that the song infers that there are times when we’re in trouble and so conversely that there must be times that we are not in trouble, and, therefore that there are times when God is not our rock.

Of course, if the song is just saying that we’re always in trouble and because of that God is our rock and therefore is always our rock, then that’s fine because it’s the truth. We’re always in trouble, it’s just a question of whether we percieve it or not. It’s just that the inferance is easy to pick up and it is misleading. So perhaps a better lines would be

“You are my rock cos I’m always in trouble” or

“You are my rock whether I percieve I’m in trouble or not”, etc.

They don’t flow artisticly ..! Anyway, You get my point I’m sure.

At this point I took a step back to think about what is actually going on here. Is it better for someone to sing that God is their rock in times of trouble or not at all?  Well, clearly it’s better for them to sing and admit that God is their rock even if they accept that he’s their rock only while they’re in trouble !

There are times, and I’ve seen them where it’s better to destroy all that’s gone before because it’s just unhelpful. But conversely there are other times where it’s better to build on what already exists. In terms of these thoughts, there are times when it’s better to ask someone to dump their entire thinking and theology on an issue and replace it with the absolute truth, and there are times when it’s better just to say what’s helpful to them for this next step. An example would be with Roger Sapp (healing ministry guy) when he said that with one pastor he was praying clearly felt that he couldn’t receive healing because of past sin in his life (he’d confessed it previously, etc). The absolute truth in this situation is that that kind of thinking is rubbish - your healing is not dependant upon your behaviour (What father would deny his naughty child a lifesaving operation ?). But of course, you can say that a thousand times and it won’t get through, and this bloke couldn’t recieve the healing because he felt unworthy of it. So instead of changing this man’s theology, Roger managed to reveal God’s forgiveness, and that he was not just an unworthy sinner (which is of course true, but only half the story), but that he is a redeemed saint seated in heaven right now! And the guy immediately received his healing.

And with this comes a dilemma. When you direct someone upon their relative path to Jesus do you endorse their position? Or rather more precisely (since this is actually the answer I’m looking at): How do you direct someone upon their relative path without endorsing their position ?

This is a question, along with a few quite similar ones that we’re facing as a generation (Gen X, and especially Y). The bishop of York was good last night, but I wonder if one part of his message, one that has been said for years now, of “you need to reach people where they’re at” is actually mis-directed and is one for the boomer generation (35+) who didn’t have many non-christian friends and possibly for the generation after us (who will inevitably carry a reaction to our generation).

Us generation X-ers are different though: we don’t have a problem meeting people where they’re at, we actually really struggle leading people where they’re at.

(Granted there are obvious exceptions, but speaking generally…)

We’re a bunch of wimps you and I. We have no strength. We’ve become a bunch of horizontals in reaction to the previous generation of verticals. The thought of challenging a peer - hard enough in a christian context, but challenge your work or uni mates? Ouch. We’re more comfortable with coordination than leadership. This is no condemnation, its just the way it is. What we need to discover then is where our fight lies, and for us, in terms of the lost at least, I think its that we need to lead where at present we merely meet. And, to reiterate what I said earlier, we do that in context of God’s discernment of whether we should destroy and start again or build upon someones present worldview/theology without endorsing it.

Frankly, without God, we don’t stand a chance. But we should be comforted in this knowledge. God sometimes doesn’t reveal any issues for me to deal with, and at other times I’m dealing with a single issue, and at other times still I’m dealing with multiple issues. But God doesn’t make me deal with all my issues at the same time. And I think there is a useful key. God could easily show me the full extent of my sinfulness, but surely it would be too much to bear. Thousands and thousands of issues with multiple levels to deal with. God knows what and how much to reveal because he knows me.

The challenge then, for me at least, is to discern the next step and lead the people that I presently just meet, and frankly, I really need God to help me become vertical when He needs me to be.

Related posts
Does God ever withhold healing?
So just who is in charge?
A Gospel of Power not of words
What do you do when no-one is looking
Counterfeit God: “You search the Scriptures for me…”