"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.  And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will be qualified to teach others.  Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs - he wants to please his commanding officer.  Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules.  The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.  Reflect on what I am saying, for the LORD will give you insight into all this."  2 Timothy 2:1-7

Ok, so I put a relatively sizable chunk of Scripture on us today, but I needed it all. 

This week, as I was following the reading plan that connected to Brett Burleson's message from this past Sunday (www.thechapel.com to see it - very good teaching), the above Scripture was the first one for the week.  From the standpoint of spiritual formation, which was the intent of the message, I looked at some things that were true from this passage about my personal spiritual formation.  But, I had to answer a question in my conversation with God to get at what I felt like I needed to learn.

The question was, "What do a soldier, an athlete, and a farmer have in common?"  I realized that these examples were used in this passage for a reason, but I needed to understand their connection better.  Though there are probably many more connections than I will mention, I feel as if God showed me two primary connections between all three of them:

1.  Discipline - It seems pretty obvious that a soldier needs discipline.  My dad was a Marine, so I know the stories of what you had to do in Officer Candidate School or in Boot Camp.  If you did not become disciplined you simply could not be a Marine.  The same is true of an athlete.  Having watched the Olympics recently, these athletes train for years to compete at very high levels, and, as a result, they must discipline their exercise, diet, time, and mental energy to attain their goals.  And for anyone who had grown up on, or near, a farm.....well, it's not like farmers are lazy and sleep late.  Often they are up at the crack of dawn to get the work done that is necessary, so they must discipline themselves for this kind of labor.

2.  Patience - While all of these examples must be disciplined, they must also be patient.  Soldiers train and train, and most often they do alot more training than they do real combat (prayerfully).  Same for an athlete.  Those men and women who run in the 110 meter race, which lasts 9 or 10 seconds, are training and training and training for days, weeks, and years to get the opportunity to run for a few seconds well.  And what of the farmer.  He must till, plant, water, fertilize, and.......................wait.  He can't force the growth of the vegetables, or plants, or crops - he has to wait on them to mature for harvest.

As I saw these things come into perspective, I realized that my spiritual formation is very similar.  For me to really get to know God, I need to put myself into a place of abiding in his presence.  It is spiritual "disciplines" like Scripture reading and memorization, prayer, service, sharing my faith, and giving that allow me the vehicle to know God more intimately.  The disciplines aren't the "thing", they are just vehicles to promote intimacy with the Father.

But I also realized that even as I practice the presence of God through the vehicle of some spiritual disciplines that my life, much the fruit of a tree, won't mature overnight.  I must be patient to allow God to work in, and through, and around me in ways that are consistent with His purposes.  Microwave spiritual growth is just not the pattern of God.

So, I hope that today you will embrace discipline - not as a religious activity (or some form of self-punishment, "I've been a little slack in my faith this week, so I have to memorize the book of Leviticus by lunch"), but as an opportunity to know God intimately.  He is the point of the discipline.  With that, I also hope you will be patient.  What God wants to do in and through and with us is so precious that it takes time to develop.  The beauty, and texture, and richness of our transformation is not found in a few minutes on a Tuesday.  It is found in a long journey of obedience in the same direction.

    "Therefore we do not lose heart.  Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day."  2 Corinthians 4:16

I am officially an Olympic junkie.

I find myself watching things I would never otherwise watch - syncronized swimming (the sport where all the girls look like they are from an '80's Robert Palmer video), fencing (seriously.......stabbing people for medals), and equestrian (which I still don't watch - it is just a bigger version of a dog show for me, but I realize that it takes talent to do all that manuevering).  I have had a long week or two as it is, and I just compound my tiredness by staying up to watch all these late night Olympic moments (I wish the whole world was on Eastern Standard Time - though I guess it would be weird for people in Beijing to eat lunch in the dead of night).

One of the things that interests me is to see the Olympians who have competed at multiple Olympics.  When they show video of them from the last Olympics, or even from two Olympics removed, you can see the changes that have occurred to their bodies.  Have you seen Dara Torres?!?  Even looking at Michael Phelps from last Olympics to this one, you can see how much stronger and more fit he has become.  The body is meant for progress when it is worked effectively by an athlete.

The tough thing, though, is the reminder at the Olympics of those heroes we saw progress physically over the years, but now a whole lot of years have gone by and they look more like me and you.  Seeing Mark Spitz or Karch Kiraly or Mary Lou Retton (all of whom still look great by the way) is a reminder that we are all aging.  The body is meant for a time to progress, but once it has crested that hill then the body begins a track of deterioration (for some it is faster than others).

Spiritually, we are made to progress - just like we are physically.  But the beauty is that there is no hill to crest so that our spirituality becomes all downhill after that.  We are not made to deteriorate spiritually.  Paul the apostle reminds us that all of our bodies will outwardly waste away.  Either through disease, or natural aging, or possibly through some type of trauma (Paul's trauma was a result of persecution that resulted in beatings, shipwrecks, scorpion stings, and various other calamaties), all of our bodies will decay or break down.

But our hearts don't have to.  We can be continually renewed inwardly all the days of our lives.  We can live in a strength that doesn't come from protein shakes or power yoga.  We can live in the strength of the resurrection of Jesus.

So keep that in mind when you see the gray this morning in the mirror (or the crow's feet around the eyes, or the extra layer of warmth around the abdomen, or the joints that creek and crack when you get out of bed).  You can be strong - renewed - in a place that no disease or arthritis or muscle spasm can affect.

I think I am going to do a little different post than I would normally do today.

A few months ago I read a little fiction book called "The Shack" by Paul Young (William P. Young on the cover).  It is a story of how a man dealt with a tragedy, and through his pain, doubts, and despair came to understand the love of God in a fresh way.  That's about all I will say about the story in the event you choose to read it.

This book has caused quite a stir it seems.  Not only has it made the bestseller lists nationally, but it has been the subject of much criticism from some notable Christian leaders (while, I must say, it has also been embraced by many notable Christian leaders as well).  As a result, I have been asked countless times what my thoughts are on the book.  What follows are a few ramblings about that, and a brief outline and address of some of the major criticisms of the book.

First, I think it is very important that literature is read in its proper context.  This is a piece of fiction and, as such, should not be read as a work of systematic theology.  That was never the intent.  In fact, according to the author, his intent in writing the book was to give it to his children to help them have a narrative that would help explain to them how their father (the author) made his journey toward healing from all of the tragedy, abuse, and deception that had filled his life.  That said, the reader should discern the theology of the book and match it up to the revelation of God in Scripture as best they can to see for themselves what they think.  Now, on to some criticisms of the book:

Criticism #1 - This book clearly breaks the 2nd commandment of not creating a graven image because it portrays God the Father as a large African-American woman.    I don't think this criticism is altogether valid.  The idea of the graven image was for the object of worship, and that is not the literal, or metaphorical, purpose of this character.  The weakness of portraying the Trinity in the manner that the author chose is that now the Trinity is having a dialogue with the main character, Mack.  Putting words into the mouth of a character who is a symbol of God is one thing, but it is much more slippery to put words into the mouth of a character that is supposed to be God Himself.  But, the idea of breaking the 2nd commandment with this doesn't really hold water.  I haven't heard those same critics address the character of Jesus in the book "Dinner with a Perfect Stranger" or criticize C.S. Lewis for his Christ-type character of Aslan in the Narnia series.  This argument doesn't hold much weight - where I would note the weakness is in the dialogue that comes out of the mouth of "Papa" (my point is that this can be dangerous.......but I will concede that the author went to great lengths to make sure that the characters representing the Trinity spoke consistently with the nature of God......the author didn't get this perfect of course, but his effort is clear).

Criticism #2 - This book promotes goddess worship because God the Father is portrayed as a woman.  I would have to say that this criticism is lame, to be honest.  First, while recognizing that God the Father is Spirit and should rightly be portrayed as such, the idea that this book promotes a purely female God is ludicrous.  Further, that it promotes goddess worship is even more ludicrous.  As we know, maleness and femaleness both emanate from God, and I assume that was the goal of the literary endeavor to have a woman represent God whose name in the book was "Papa" (a woman named Papa may be a weird effort at it, but it is an effort at it).  As well, it becomes clear at the end of the book that this idea takes on a new format (won't reveal anything for those that want to read it).

Criticism #3 -  This book promotes the idea of modalism, i.e. - that God is not distinctly three persons, but is one person in three modes.  At first, this may seem to be a valid criticism, but the more I looked and read, the less I feel it is so.  Though "Papa" says that He was truly human in Jesus, I don't take this as a statement of modalism.  If Papa were to say that He was fully human in Jesus, that would be another thing altogether.  Orthodox Christianity has held to the idea of a Trinitiarian God, made up of distinct, eternally existent persons Who are One in essence.  I don't think that this book does a great disservice to this foundational doctrine, though I would say that it does get a little messy at times.

Criticism #4 - This book denies that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity.  I would say that this criticism is justified - whether it is correct or not would be up to your particular theology.  The author does make the argument in the book that there is no need for a hierarchy in the Trinity because it is a community of love that always acts in concert and harmony.  Those of a Reformed background would disagree.  They would contend that God the Father is on top of the pyramid, so to speak, and that at no point does the Scripture ever note The Father submitting to the Son or the Holy Spirit.  This would also give rise to their view of hierarchy in other matters of life - government, marriage, home, etc.  I think that this criticism is overblown because there is probably much agreement (albeit with different semantics) on this subject.  Functionally, since there is never going to be a rift in the Trinity, there really is no need for their to be a hierarchy in the terms we understand (like CEO, CFO, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to ask if Jesus had every resource that the Father has, I guess I would respond yes and no.  Yes, in that Jesus is fully God and He and The Father are one, and No in that He has limited Himself in scope to some things (No man knows the hour of Jesus' return, not even the Son, but only the Father - as an example).  This one is a matter of the particular theology that one holds, but both sides of this debate are still on the side of orthodoxy in my opinion.

So, there are a few thoughts if you have any interest.  If you want to read the book, by all means do.  If you would prefer not to read it, then by all means don't.  Whatever you do, keep your brain and your emotions engaged so that you can evaluate the reading through all of your person - not just one part of you.