10 Things I learned at RMTEX

After returning from the 'field' (ok...it was two miles from my hotel room) for four days, I now have ample time to reflect on what I've learned in RMTEX. What is RMTEX? A new drug? No! RMTEX stands for Religious Ministry Team Exercise. Essentially, it's what happens when you put twenty chaplains, twenty five RPs (Religious Program Specialists), and one Gunnery Sergeant out in the woods for four days. The result? Pain....and lots of it, exhaustion, and lots of it, team work...and lots of it....and, at times, hilarity.

So here are the top ten things I learned at RMTEX:

10. It's a bad sign when the Gunnery Sergeant is smiling....it's worse when they are whistling...if they hum to themselves...your life insurance better be paid up

9. It is possible for men to give birth....to an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) baby

8. Two portajohns and fifty people are not a good combination

7. NEVER TAKE YOUR GAS MASK OFF IN THE GAS CHAMBER

6. It's not the heights that will kill you...it's falling from them that will

5. Changing your underwear can be the best feeling in the world (especially when you haven't done it for days)

4. Chaplains should NEVER fly a helicopter...or drive a boat.

3. NEVER TAKE YOUR GAS MASK OF IN THE GAS CHAMBER

2. Sending teams of RPS and Chaplains out into the woods to find points can lead to a lot of laughter...from the Gunnery Sergeant

and the number one thing I learned from RMTEX:

1. I didn't have near the amount of respect for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that I ought to have had. We went out and worked hard for four days. These men and women work hard, endure so much, and put out an incredible effort. If you see anyone in uniform serving your country, THANK THEM, for all they do and all they've been through to keep all of us safe.

Responsibility, Liberty, Anarchy

Our country is based on the dual principles of liberty and responsibility. It is unfortunate when these come into conflict with one another.

Exhibit one is the Democrats in the Wisconsin state legislature. When outnumbered by a Republican majority, the Democrats did the one bold move they had left: they ran away. Rather than be subjected to a political loss and participate in the process, the Democrats sidestepped proper procedure and physically fled the state.

One fleeing senator even said that it was his job to run away. Interesting logic…he was doing his job by not doing his job.

To be fair, the Democrats fled because there was no legal and possible way they could prevent the Republican majority from enacting a law they felt was detrimental to their constituents. This act was an act of political sabotage and an act of protest. The only problem was that it contradicts the oaths the Democrats took when they became members of the Wisconsin chamber.

Our country was built on political protest. The Liberty Tree, the Tea Party, the Sons of Liberty all centered around the idea of dramatic actions to protest perceived injustices. These actions caught people’s actions and imaginations. They sparked a new movement and helped people fight for liberty on behalf of the entire country. In that vein, we can understand what the Democrats in Wisconsin did. Backed into a corner, they did what they felt was right for their people.

But that is where the similarity ends.

The actions that transpired before the American Revolution were carried out by people who had no power. They were not elected officials and therefore could not affect change. They were done to protect the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They inspired people to a dramatic change with concrete principles (repeal of the Stamp Act, etc).

What is interesting to note, is that when the time came for the rebels (Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, etc) to take their duly elected seats (first at the Continental Congress and then at various government seats), they abandoned their radical behavior in favor of taking on the responsibility of governing.

And that is the difference…and its an important difference. In Wisconsin we see the opposite practice: duly elected officials abandoning the responsibility of governing in favor of dramatic actions.

The dangerous thing about Wisconsin is this abandoning of responsibility. In politics, you will sometimes win debates and you will lose debates. That is politics. When the Republicans showed up to the US Congress during the Health Care Debate bill, they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they would lose that vote. They showed up. They argued. They lost. If they had run away like the Wisconsin Democrats, surely there would have been blood in the press over the issue. But they stayed and lost. They governed responsibly.

When a duly elected body begins to ignore the rules and abandon their responsibility, anarchy ensues.

This week we also learned that the President of the United States directed the Attorney General of the United States to ignore a law of the United States. President Obama told Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 because President Obama does not believe in the morality of DOMA.

The problem with this is that the President of the United States is not in a position to judge the constitutionality or the morality of the law (that’s why we have the Supreme Court), but rather he is to enforced the law as it stands.

When George W. Bush was President, he was asked about his enforcement of Roe v Wade. Bush, an avowed opponent of abortion, agreed that since he was president, he needed to enforce the law. Bush did work within the legal boundaries to overturn the law, but he never disobeyed the law or gave up his responsibility in governing because of his objection to the law.

The problem with Wisconsin and with the President’s decision is this: we have procedures and laws and regulations for reasons. If we allow our legislatures to abandon their responsibilities because they don’t agree with what is happening, then we will begin the long descent in anarchy.

There are many laws that people do not agree with. Our country was designed to be based on compromise to ensure (as much as possible) that our liberties would not be infringed upon. Our government was designed to protect as many people as possible. Ironically, our government was also designed to protect us from the very actions that helped create this nation.

One thing I love about the United States is that we are a mixture of Liberty and Responsibility. We must hold those principles in balance or else we will head towards anarchy.

Victimized: Domestic Violence and the Church

Sometimes the most sinister problems are the most silent. Heart disease, for instance, can damage a person years before there are any major symptoms. Computer viruses work in the background, messing with the main systems before anybody can notice they are present. Domestic violence can go unnoticed for years…even decades…before anybody in society or in the church knows that it’s a problem.

Domestic violence is an issue that, for the most part, the church has been silent about. Whether it’s because we are too focused on other equally troubling issues (AIDS, homelessness, etc), or because it’s uncomfortable to deal with, the church can no longer afford to be ill-prepared to deal with domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a prevalent issue in the United States. It is estimated that nearly 25% of woman will experience domestic violence in her lifetime (85% of victims of domestic violence are women). 1.3 million women will be physically assaulted by an intimate partner this year.[1] Compounded with emotional abuse, the numbers become astronomical. It must be stressed that this is not a partisan issue and our intention is not to blame anybody nor side with a political agenda. We simply want to stress the enormity of this problem and to help us all to respond accordingly.

The church cannot…and must not be silent on this issue. At heart this is a theological issue. In abusive relationship, one party seeks to be God over the other. The abuser seeks to be the center of victims life and damages the victim physically, emotionally, but also damages the victim’s relationship with their creator.

As we speak about this issue, we need to define some terms.

· Abuse—refers to the long term and systematic behavior of one person (the abuser) towards another (the victim). While some actions can be abusive (and should not be diminished), there may not be abuse present because it is not long term or systematic.

· Domestic violence—generally refers to abusive behaviors in the home, normally of a physical nature.

· Emotional abuse—refers to emotional manipulation on the part of the abuser towards the victim. Emotional abuse is domestic violence because it violates the will of the victim.

Signs of Abuse

There are many signs of domestic violence…some relate to the emotional state of the victim while others reflect the actions of the abuser.

For the victim, there may be emotions of fear, hurt, resentment or mistreatment. They may avoid certain conversations for fear of angering their partner. The victim may walk about in a daze wondering if they truly are the crazy one while their partner is the sane one.

The abuser may threaten, belittle, anger, hurt, or threaten to hurt the victim. They may or may not yell, but they will humiliate the victim. They will ignore or belittle the accomplishments of the victim.

There are many reasons why an abuser abuses. Some are narcissistic and truly believe that the world revolves around them. Some are victims of abuse in the past, or the victim of an improper relationship. Some simply like the feeling of power. But whatever the reason, the issue is always the same: control. An abuser abuses a victim because they want control over that person and their world.

There are some common ways that an abuser tries to dominate his victim[2].

· Dominance—the abuser will try to dominate all aspects of life: financial, social, emotional. They will try to decide who the family will spend time with, where they will go and what they will do.

· Isolation—the abuser will try to limit contact with other individuals, in particular individuals they think might know what is happening. For instance, they may force the family to change churches, or to change jobs or schools. They may monitor phone conversations and text messaging and emails.

· Threats, intimidation, and humiliation—the abuser’s weapons include all sorts of emotional manipulation. They seek to disorient the victim from the reality of their situation.

What to do?

Pastors and church leaders find out about abuse all the time: sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.

Step 1: Discern when to act

When you find out indirectly, things are complicated. You can observe for obvious signs of abuse and attempt to ‘gently’ converse with the victim to see whether they are ready to deal with the situation. If they are not…there is nothing you can do. Let me repeat that: until the victim is ready and willing to deal with the situation, there is nothing you can do. This may sound harsh, but it is reality.

Even when you find out directly, the above principle applies. You cannot do anything until the victim is willing to confront the situation in reality. In helping her to decide this, you must and should be in contact with the local domestic violence shelter. Have their number on hand.

Sometimes victims can become part of the problem. This also may sound harsh, but unfortunately it is part of the reality. A victim may come to you or to another individual and want to ‘talk about a situation’. After hearing the information, you may want to act right away. But the victim does not want to proceed and is not ready to proceed. All the victim has done is released some of the pain so they can return to the situation and live life as ‘normal.’

When this happens, the victim has become part of the system and is not ready to escape from it. Any interference from the outside can upset the ‘system’ and in turn the couple may react violently and try to put the blame on the outside person.

This is why you cannot act until the victim is ready for action.

For example:

Tom and Mary have been married for twenty five years. Tom has been abusing Mary for years. Mary has confided to people over the past few years some aspects of Tom’s abuse, but is never ready to confront Tom. When a local teacher who noticed that things were amiss in Tom and Mary’s relationship and tried to confront them, Tom became very difficult to engage and began to blame all the problems on the teacher. Tom went to the school administrator and complained that the teacher was causing problems for he and his wife. Sound crazy? Unfortunately this situation plays out again and again all over the US every day.

Step 2---Get Help right away

When the victim is ready to act: make sure you get help right away. That means getting the victim in contact with a local domestic violence shelter and taking care of their physical and emotional needs right away.

In most cases, the police cannot and will not get involved. Unless there is direct physical evidence of assault and the victim is willing to press charges, there is nothing they can do. Currently there are no laws against emotional abuse (which would be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law). Pastors should and must cultivate relationships with the local law enforcement and privately they can let them know what is happening.

Another question might be how to handle extended family. Sometimes, the extended family knows what is happening…other times not so much. The extended family needs just as much pastoral care and support as the victim (and the abuser).

Step 3—Protect the sheep

The hardest part of domestic abuse is the knowledge that the pain can extend beyond the local family unit. Sometimes, domestic abuse and domestic violence can affect the congregation and as elders in the church, we have an obligation to protect the majority of the church.

There are warning signs that it may be time to take dramatic actions. For instance, sometimes an abuser will try to ‘extend’ their ground by making off-hand comments, or sexual innuendos towards other members. Sometimes domestic abuse can go hand in hand with sexual addiction or other sexual issues and these must be confronted seriously.

If you are unsure about the possible implications, please talk to a mental health professional. Reminder: if there are ever children or teenagers at risk, do not hesitate in separating the abuser from the congregation: the safety and well being of youth always comes first.

If the couple is not a safety threat to others, the church still has an obligation to perform discipline on the abuser. This will more than likely result in the abuser (and sometimes the victim) leaving the church. As much as legally possible, the abuser’s new church should be notified as to possible problems.

As much as possible, pastoral care must be offered to the victim, the victim’s family and the abuser (provided that the abuser is not a threat to the congregation).

Conclusion

Domestic violence is a messy issue with many sides to it. The church must stand with the victims of domestic violence and offer the grace and forgiveness of Jesus to the abusers.

I am not an expert in Domestic Violence. I still have a great deal of learning that I must do. As a pastor, it is hard to admit that I do not have the answers. But I do not and I must rely on the answers and explanations provided for me by others who work in this field.

If you know somebody who is a victim of domestic abuse, I encourage you to pray for that person and for all victims. Pray for the abusers that they may repent and come to know Jesus Christ and turn from their ways. Pray for the shelters and for everybody who works with this issue.

www.familyshelterservice.org

www.cawc.org

---

[1] http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

[2] Paraphrased from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm

The Hard Thing

I’ve always wondered if I would have the courage to be like my father.

My mother was diagnosed with Parkison’s disease when she was 52 years old. The years that followed were marked by the disease’s rapid progress, in which it robbed my mother of her ability to move, her ability to speak, and her ability to eat. Throughout it all, my father stood by her and cared for her in a selfless manner. When she couldn’t move, he took her to the places she loved going. When she couldn’t speak, he improvised a system to help her communicate with those around her. When the doctors placed a feeding tube in her, he made sure that she had her medicine and food every day that he was able. He cared for her every day until the day she died.

For that, my father is my hero. He exemplified love in action and did not shy away from his responsibilities he vowed to my mother on the day they were married. In doing this, my father chose a very hard thing to do. There was nothing easy about the way he lived his life. He did not choose the easy way out. When things became difficult, he did not abandon his vows, his love, or his duty.

This is can be so easily contrasted with the actions of John Edwards, the 2008 Presidential candidate. When his wife was diagnosed with cancer, Edwards sought solace in the arms of his secretary. Instead of living with his wife through this illness, he fled from her and his responsibilities and his love. No matter what excuses he could conjure, Edwards could not deny the basic facts that he had chosen the easy way out. He was unwilling or unable to do the hard thing.

We see here two basic approaches to one’s relationships and covenants. John Edwards stands for the easy way. This way confronts situations with the basic question, “what’s in this for me?” My father exemplifies the hard way, which asks the basic question, “how can I serve others?” The two ways are diametrically opposed to each other because they each have different foci. The first focuses primarily on ourselves, the second primarily on others. And while everybody fluctuates in between these two approaches, we can see ourselves (and others) generally lean towards the hard or easy way.

This is completely true when it comes to our relationship with Jesus Christ and His body, the Church. People generally approach these relationships either by asking, “what’s in it for me?” or “How can I serve?”

One of the most common problems in the church today is people who gravitate towards the easy way or who expect Jesus and the church to meet their needs first and foremost. This approach is marked by a concern about what one is ‘getting out’ of a worship service or church event. People are concerned about having their needs met and making sure they are comfortable and at ease.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the consumerist approach to selecting and finding a church to join. The consumerist seeks out a church that will primarily meet those needs, whatever those needs may be. And though these needs may be dressed up with spiritual concerns, the primary motivation remains the selfish desire to gratify our cravings.

For instance, Mary was a woman who loved emotional highs, especially during worship services. She did not feel like she was edified unless the service made her feel various emotions: happiness, sadness, and excitement. It was those emotional highs and lows that she sought week after week. After all, when you read the bible, there is always so much excitement and so much passion that pervades the text. Worship should match these biblical experiences .

She had joined a small church that was just starting up and was so excited to become a part of it. This was something new and fresh and there was buzz of energy in the air as the people gathered and began the business of starting a church. But as the weeks and months went on, the excitement began to change. There was more discussion of mission and strategy and less passion that drove the worship services. Personalities began to conflict and things were beginning to get hard.

Mary couldn’t deal with the change in the church. After all, she needed church to fuel her and to provide her with passion for the week. She couldn’t let herself get bogged down with earthly matters like strategy or personality conflicts. She needed energy and excitement and these things were lacking at this church. So soon after this, she found a new church where she could feel the energy and the excitement. She chose the easy way.

Like many people, Mary prioritized her own needs and desires over the needs over other people. Without ever questioning what she might contribute to the church’s mission, she sought to suck the church dry for her own gain. And a consumerist like Mary is not unlike a vampire who, having taken all she could from the church, was able to exchange this church for a new one without any problem.

There are a dozen scenarios of the consumerist approach to church. People love to join churches for their facilities and what the building or program might give them access to. People leave churches because they feel there is not a program that meets their needs. Whatever the reason, at its heart, the reason is selfish.

What consumerists don’t realize is how their selfishness and self-involvedness hurts others around them and, in a larger sense, the culture.

Take for example, Mary’s church. Instead of helping the church to reach out to others and to accomplish the mission God gave them, she abandoned them and drained their resources. With fewer people willing to help there was more strain on those who were left. Her lack of financial contributions also put greater restrictions on the budget which in turn directly affected who the church could and could not help.

Following Jesus is never easy. He admits this Himself. When a young man came to follow after him, Jesus replied, “foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Matt 8:21 ESV). Again he says, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23). When Jesus calls a person to discipleship, it is never to make them feel comfortable, never to meet their needs, or to give into their selfish desires. Rather, the call of Jesus is a call to death. “Whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.” (Luke 9:24). To follow Jesus, to be a disciple, to be a Christian means to put to death yourself as the object of your desire. It means to put to death your wants, your needs, your desires, and your self-importance.

This is the hard thing of being a Christian: to love God, and to love others far beyond your own self.

This viewpoint approaches situations very differently. Instead of demanding that their needs be met, these people look for opportunities to serve. They seek to utilize their potential for others, no matter how humiliating the service might be. They care that God’s kingdom and God’s message and God’s love are being demonstrated and proven in whatever situation they may find themselves in. Their love for God overshadows their concern for themselves or their own desires.

German Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1904-1945) was such a man. In the midst of his life, he sought to serve God and to follow Jesus, wherever Jesus would lead him. At the height of Nazi power in Germany, he chose the easy path and fled to America. But his conscience would not allow him to stay. He loved God and his fellow Germans so much that he realized that he must return to Germany. His decision to return sealed his fate and his faithful obedience to Christ led him to his death at the hands of Nazi executioners. He chose the hard thing.

The Church cannot afford to have any more followers choose the easy way. This is what is killing the church in North America. When the great history books of the future are written, it will be discovered that it was not Islam, nor rampant secularism that defeated the church in the West; it was selfish Christians who cared more about being loved than loving others.

We need to heed again the call of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who said, “whoever would be first among you, must be slave of all.” (Mark 10:44 ESV) Loving others is a hard thing to do, perhaps the hardest thing in this world.

The question we must…must…ask ourselves is: am I seeking the easy way, or am I pursuing the hard thing?

Runnin' Down a Dream

“Runnin’ down a dream…that never would come to me…”—Tom Petty

It seems that many of us in the church are running after a dream that will never come to fruition. We spend years of energy hoping and searching for something that no longer exists and maybe never did. We are looking for an ideal situation that we think will give us hope, strength, or happiness. This dream comes in many particular versions: an ideal family, an ideal job, an ideal society. We spend so much time searching and dreaming for this that the reality of our lives passes us by and we fail to notice how God is at work, even in the most difficult and painful experiences or the mundane and ordinary events.

Many churches (and Christians) live striving after the past, wrongly thinking that life was somehow better. In particular, the society of the 1950s North American culture is often idealized as the highest that we can achieve in our lives. In this culture, it is assumed, families had definite structure, society was based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, and America was always right.

The problem is that reality often gets in the way of our dreaming.

Phyllis Tickle, in her brief survey of the contemporary scene, The Great Emergence, highlights some of the difficulties that the 1950s culture was dealing with that led to even our current situation.

Among the major issues was the role of women in the household. During World War II, women were expected to keep the factories running because the majority of men were off fighting the war. Children during this age, despite any thoughts of ‘should’, grew up with their mothers working.

At the same time the booming post war economy led to men (and women) working longer hours outside the home. With more opportunities for women to work, both parents left the home, making it more difficult for children to grow up with their biological families.

The 1950s also greater developments in contraception and hormone control. This led to a more diverse workforce, with men and women competing for the same jobs. This in turn created a more difficult job market with fewer jobs available for more candidates.

The stabilization that the 1950s promises simply wasn’t there. Societies are always in flux, always in motion. It does no good to yearn for a return to ‘yester-year’ because ‘yester-year’ never really existed.

In other words, for those of us who are trying to return the past, stop looking. Your just runnin’ down a dream (to quote Tom Petty). It’s never going to come to you.

The older I get, the more I begin to realize that following Christ is not so much about recapturing the past as it is following Him into the future while dealing realistically with our present.

The world is dramatically different and its time we came to terms with it…not to lament the past, but to survey the field. I suggest there are three major ideas that the Christian Church needs to come to terms with.

1. The ‘traditional’ American family no longer exists. Whether or not the traditional family ever existed is a different question, but there can be no doubt that the idea of two parents (a knowing father and warm mother) nuclear family (consisting of cookie cutter kids) is no longer the model for most families. Most families today consist of parents, step-parents, single-parents, grand-parent parents with children that may or may not be biologically related to the adults with which they reside. This does not mean that God is not active in these families. Very often, God is very much in the midst of these situations. While the church can (and must ) encourage faithful obedience to the Scriptures, the church needs to understand that society has fundamentally changed. Instead of seeking an approach that stresses people’s biological ties to one another, the church needs to have an inclusive programming that encourages people from all generations to relate to one another. A local congregation should have the feel of an extended family.

2. There is no authority. The erosion of the concept of ‘authority’ in today’s culture is well documented. Whether it’s found in Burger King’s “sometimes you gotta break the rules” or in every single Disney movie where the main character discovers that all she has to do is ‘believe in herself’, people have determined that they themselves are the final authority. They decide what is true, they decide what is right. After 1517 and prior to the 1900s the question of authority had been answered with the Bible (the Bible says…). After 1900, this was commonly replaced with the ‘American Way’. But since the 1960s, the question of authority has been answered with a ‘?’. In order to gain a hearing with post modern society, the church has to have an answer in regards to authority. We know that Jesus is Lord, but how do we live this day to day?

3. Truth is experiential, not intellectual. For a bookworm like me, this is the most difficult proposition to understand. Modern people do not like to think the truth, they like to feel the truth. The merits of such a statement can be debated, but reality is reality. The good news is that Christian truth is not a proposition to be understood, but a Person to have relationship with.

How are we to live in this age, and how are we to proceed, then with life and faith? Here just a couple of suggestions.

First, stop living in the past…or rather, stop trying to recreate the past. The past was once the present, filled with all of its imperfections and problems…just as the future will also be filled with problems and shortcomings.

Second is to stop running after a dream. Life is what life is, and we should enjoy every inglorious, incomplete, unfulfilled moment of it. Life is filled with people who disappoint us (heck…I’m the guy who does most of the disappointing), life is filled with hurt, life is filled with heartache. Life is filled with joy and with gladness and with complete moments.

But the most glorious truth we can understand is that God is present with us in all of these moments. In all of our sorrow and in all of our disappointment, in all of our joy and in all of our happiness, God is present with us. We have to stop depending on others…no matter how close to us…husbands, wives, children, teachers…to give us happiness. We must learn to live in the moment. We must learn to live in and to love the gloriously imperfect lives we lead. Things will never match up to our dreams. Things will never be as we want them. Things will never be as we think they ought to be…and that’s ok. It’s time to stop chasing after that dream.

The only thing worth chasing in this world is God. We must chase after Him and depend on Him. Only after we stop chasing after a dream can we truly live.