How to Make and Keep Friends
Creating an environment of doing life with others is how friendships are made and kept, not just spending time together but also sharing interests, activities, and ideas. It seems as though we’ve forgotten how even to function without the screen and nurture life with other humans. Try actually living with others, inviting them into your life, and asking to be part of theirs.
How does a person make and keep friends? Well, there are at least two parts to this. First you have to meet someone, and second you have to become part of that person’s life.
After you say hello, what’s next?
One of the things I remember being difficult as a child was introducing myself to other strange children. It was very uncomfortable. Probably many adults can relate to this feeling. After you say hello, what’s next? Thankfully, I had parents who encouraged me in this skill and later in the skill of making “small talk.” And even before our family had lessons in conversation, God used an occurrence to encourage me to at least step out of my comfort zone and say “hello.”
I remember visiting a church as a child with my family, and none of the children talked to me. It was the worst feeling ever. Afterward I determined that I would not let that happen to others who visited my church. The Lord used that terrible experience to give me compassion for others and the courage to introduce myself to new people.
Looking for the “lost” and seeking them out is what Christ does to us.
Meeting someone is the first step in making a friend. If you are shy or uncomfortable around new people, sometimes a good starting point is finding someone else who looks left out and lonely and focusing on serving them. This can help you forget how awkward you feel. Looking for the “lost” and seeking them out is what Christ does to us. He came from his place of comfort to serve the lost and make them friends of God.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The State of the PCA
It is very easy to conclude that a spiritual cancer has been in the body too long and that there does not appear to be anything that those who are committed to God’s Word can do. We have tried and we have failed. Certainly, God can do something to heal the cancer, if He chooses. But the future of the denomination outside a miraculous intervention is bleak.
In May of 2000 I was attending a Reformed pastor’s conference in Ohio when it was announced that Dr. James Montgomery Boice had just been diagnosed with stage four cancer. It had only just been detected but by that time the cancer was beyond anything the doctors could do to stop its destructive spread. Dr. Boice preached his last sermon shortly after and within a few months of this announcement at the conference he was gone from this world.
The story might have had a different ending had the Lord in His providence made the cancer known at a stage at which something could have been done by doctors. But by the time the cancer was discovered, it was simply too late. The devastation worked by the cancer in his body had gone too long untreated.
This could be a kind of analogy of the state of things in the Presbyterian Church in America. It is very easy to conclude that a spiritual cancer has been in the body too long and that there does not appear to be anything that those who are committed to God’s Word can do. We have tried and we have failed. Certainly, God can do something to heal the cancer, if He chooses. But the future of the denomination outside a miraculous intervention is bleak.
And I have to be honest, in thinking through all that has gone on in the past three years in the PCA, and especially in light of the past few months, this is the question that I have asked myself. What are we to do?
I do not know the answer. But if we are to face the problem head on, we have to be honest about the current state of the church – about the problems that exist. And as I have considered this, I see three major problems.
First, we made a major tactical error in giving the General Assembly’s power as a judicial court to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).
One of the significant aspects of Presbyterian government is that there are three courts of elders. Sessions of churches, presbyteries, and General Assembly each function as a court, or at least they originally did. And it is a good system. The next highest court can always be appealed to when there has been a failure or perceived failure of the lower court to render the biblically correct decision. This provides a check on lower courts that begin to move toward liberal views of Scripture, or that begin to tolerate or accept immoral behavior among their members. Ultimately, the General Assembly would have the last say in doctrinal and moral issues.
But in 1988, the elders of the PCA turned this power of judgment over to 24 elders. And in so doing, set up the seemingly impossible situation in which we find ourselves today. Had the overtures from Central Georgia, Savannah River, and Southeast Alabama requesting the assumption of original jurisdiction been considered directly by the General Assembly itself, TE Greg Johnson may have been charged for holding views regarding same-sex attraction that were alleged to be contrary to the Westminster Standards. It is conceivable that the PCA would not be in the circumstances we find ourselves today.
I was not in the denomination when the Standing Judicial Commission was created (I was in the Presbyterian Church, USA [PCUSA] at the time, watching it crumble), though I am sure the arguments for establishing the SJC centered around practicality, efficiency, and logistics. But whatever the reasons, it was done, and despite the fact that the Book of Church Order (BCO) says that the General Assembly is the highest court, that is, unfortunately, not precisely the case. The highest judicial court is a group of 24 elders that act, think, and judge for the rest of us. There is the perception among some that the SJC is sadly out of line with the majority of PCA elders.
It could be argued that this has left us with a kind of episcopal/presbyterian hybrid, rather than a pure presbyterian system of government. And that is, unfortunately, more conducive to a liberal trajectory than a conservative one.
I personally think that the BCO needs to be amended back to the pre-1988 version as a necessary grassroots “check and balance” on those who would seek to change policy by judicial fiat rather than by action of the General Assembly. The question is, can this past revision of the BCO be reversed? Or would slightly over one third of the elders who voted against the proposed amendments 23 and 37 prevent any movement to restore the GA to the highest court in every respect?
Second, we did not have the foresight to amend the BCO to exclude current false doctrines or false teachers when it would have been easily achievable.
The proposed amendments 23 and 37 recently defeated by vote of the presbyteries, could have with some insight been easily passed years ago, but they were not introduced. Some might argue that men like TE Johnson and those espousing “Side B” views could not have been anticipated earlier, but that just isn’t correct. The argument for ordaining “gay-but-celibate ministers” has been around since at least the 1980’s in other denominations that were becoming increasingly liberal. Nevertheless, the elders of the PCA (conservative as they were) did not anticipate that this heresy could or would infiltrate the PCA. But it did. And, sadly, now that it has reared its ugly head, the numbers of those espousing the heresy, and the presbyteries following this, even though not a majority, appear to have become too many to overcome.
Finally, there appear to be among some PCA’s elders a loss of commitment to the biblical doctrines as expressed in The Westminster Confession of Faith.
By far the chief problem, when it comes down to absolute basics, is that many in the PCA appear no longer to be convinced that the Westminster Confession of Faith is an a clear exposition of biblical doctrine.
There appear to be some who do not view regeneration as taught in the Confession, as evidenced by their teachings on “Side B” theology. They argue, in spite of Scripture to the contrary, and in spite of historical and contemporary examples, that God cannot change someone’s sexual orientation. TE Johnson make this as clear in his December 21, 2021 USA Today article. But this expression is a denial of the Confessional doctrine of regeneration, or at least a serious denigrating of it. Either way it is not orthodox.
Moreover, there are elders in the PCA who appear to have softened in their views of homosexuality in general. We have elders who would not go so far as to perform a “gay wedding,” but they would have no problem attending a “gay wedding” (as a part of affirming the persons without affirming the practice). But no one among the Reformers or Westminster Puritans, or any number of other men committed to Scripture in the past would ever have countenanced such an inconsistency. In fact, had any such accommodation been suggested in the Old Testament church, or any part of the church through the first part of the 20th century, the one who attempted to justify it would have been subject to discipline by the assembly. The idea of a “homosexual marriage” would have been so alien to God’s people from the beginning that they would not have been able to justify it on any kind of biblical grounds. It would have been to them like someone attempting to justify attending a ceremony in which a pagan friend was offering a child to Molech, just to “support” his pagan friend, or to “love him while not loving the sin.” That would rightfully have been considered a total accommodation to the perverse practice. And yet when it comes to “gay marriages” we have PCA elders who cannot see that they are doing the same thing. And the problem is that they just don’t see this sin as detestable anymore. That reflects a dangerously low view of biblical ethics.
Others, whether they know it or not, have adopted the theology of Charles Finney. This is why there is so much compromise when it comes to evangelism and apologetics. Too many in the denomination (despite what they may say) believe that we are the ones who convince people to become Christians. That has led them to conclude that our accommodation to culture, or alignment with the world’s academic community, or winsomeness, or non-offensiveness is necessary for us to draw people to Christ. If we just push the right buttons, we can convince people to turn to Christ. Some will not say explicitly that this is what they believe, but it has become their philosophy. Not surprisingly, TE Johnson actually espouses this theology publicly, as evidenced in his most recent book. But some in the PCA, whether they state it in clear terms or not, have espoused this man-centered approach to evangelism.
I would further argue that we actually have theological liberals in our denomination. One conservative fellow minister in the PCA in a recent article stated that “there are no theological liberals in the PCA,” but I respectfully disagree with that statement.
There are serious liberals in our denomination. They applauded an elder who got up and made an emotional speech devoid of any Scripture, and the next day voted to censure an elder “for intemperate speech” who simply read Romans chapter 1. They did not like the implications of that biblical text. They wanted to avoid it. And that is exactly what liberalism does. In fact, that is where all liberalism begins, downplaying if not rejecting, Scripture.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Other elders in the denomination, and some prominent ones, reject what the Scriptures (and the Westminster Confession of Faith) clearly teach about creation, holding instead parts of the theory of evolution. And this is a serious problem. This is exactly what the liberals in all denominations (including the PCUS) believed. Creation ex nihilo by the Word of God is fundamental to the biblical system.
It all comes down to one’s view of Scripture. And there are some in the PCA whose views of Scripture simply do not line up with orthodoxy. The “theology” of some in the PCA is more culturally or personality driven. Their emphasis follows the world’s view of racism, justice, equality, and, as is becoming clearer, sexuality. And wasn’t this exactly the problem with the liberals within the PCUS so many years ago – and the PCUSA now?
It may be true that no one in the PCA identifies as a liberal. They may not see themselves as that. But the proof is seen in the doctrines they reject. In a previous article on sexuality, I referred to progressives within the PCA. One teaching elder in my own presbytery, who claims to be progressive, responded to the article by denying that there are any progressives in the denomination. That surprised me initially, but in retrospect it makes sense. Progressives, at least in the early stages of their personal evolution, do not want to be identified as such. But that does not change the fact that they actually are progressive.
That is the state of the PCA as I see it. Does this mean that nothing can be done? That I cannot say for sure. Certainly, God can change hearts and minds. None of us doubt that. So we pray. But God also expects those who believe His Word to take serious action. Perhaps one biblical example will make the point.
In Joshua 7-8 recounts the defeat of Israel’s army by the men of the small city of Ai. They had just seen Jericho collapse by God’s power, but here God had allowed them to fail. Not surprisingly, Joshua fell on his knees and prayed for hours. And what was God’s response? “Get up! Why have you fallen on your face? Israel has sinned.” That was followed by God telling Joshua, “I will be with you no more” if you do not root out the evil (or evil person) from the camp. Prayer is obviously good. But praying leads to action when there is sin that needs to be rooted out.
That is where we are today in the PCA. Decisive action is needed. What that action will be is a matter for serious consideration by all elders in the PCA who are committed to the Scriptures. What would God have us to do?
David Martin is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Dayspring PCA in Forsyth, Ga. -
Book Review: Everything is Spiritual – Rob Bell
Written by David S. Steele |
Thursday, April 14, 2022
The message that Rob Bell presents in this book is anything but spiritual. Instead, it offers a syncretistic concoction of worldly philosophy that leads the unsuspecting on a path to divine judgment. That’s a far cry from an antidote. Poison doesn’t cure disease. Poison kills the unsuspecting.Rob Bell, Everything is Spiritual (New York: St. Martin’s Publishing Group, 2020), 310 pp.
In 2011, I reviewed Love Wins, my first book by Rob Bell. The piece prompted praise by conservatives and vicious scorn by progressive Christians and liberals. Whatever anyone thinks about Bell, one thing is for sure: the guy can write. He is a master communicator. And whenever he writes or talks, people listen.
Anyone familiar with Rob Bell knows that he is somewhat of a gadfly among evangelicals. And “gadfly” is a massive understatement. But there is something endearing about Bell. Some point to his skill. Others are impressed with his intellect. For me, I’ve always been drawn to Bell’s ability to communicate what he’s truly feeling – including insecurity, childhood pain, or unfulfilled expectations. He identifies a “generational lack of grace,” a trait that is found too often in the church. His transparency is refreshing and his candor is something that is greatly needed in our day.
While I applaud Bell’s transparency, I have expressed deep concern with some of the theological and philosophical assertions that he has proposed. His most recent book, Everything Is Spiritual is no exception. Michael Eric Dyson’s endorsement of the book provides a revealing summary:
“In Everything Is Spiritual, Rob Bell updates Teilhard de Chardin’s Catholic mysticism, makes sexier Werner Heisenberg’s quantum physics, and baptizes Jewish Kabbalah in an exciting vision of the future of human evolution. Bell challenges the notion that science and belief are at war, with his sublime fusion of Christian faith and modern evolutionary science. Bell’s book is the perfect antidote to the plague of an evangelical worldview that is captive to imperial dreams and a literalism that kills the spirit of Christianity …”
I will argue in this review that while Michael Eric Dyson truly does capture the essence of Bell’s intentions in Everything Is Spiritual, the end result is unhelpful and spiritually dangerous. Instead of illumination, readers will be left in a quagmire – with more questions than answers. And they will wander aimlessly in a spiritual wasteland, armed with an inaccurate portrait of God that leaves them hopeless without the biblical gospel.
No Final Answer
One of the common themes in Bell’s writing is ambiguity. He extinguishes certitude and exalts mystery (both of which are fundamental tenets of postmodernism). Careful readers will notice that the author is quick to pay lip service to Christian theology but swiftly degenerates into a subtle (or not so subtle man-made philosophy). The Bible warns, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4, ESV).
Tragically, many have been deceived by Bell’s “spirit myths” over the years. For instance, in Bell’s book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God, he argues that God is “with us, for us, and ahead of us – all of us.” The notion that God is “with us,” “for us,” and “ahead of us (every single one of us) may sound good initially but falls short of the biblical model. It is true that God is “with” his people. We see this especially in the incarnation of Jesus, the One who is named Immanuel – or God with us (Matt. 1:23). Yet God is not “with” the man who has rejected the revelation of God in Christ. God is not “with” the one who rejects the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel. “… Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36).
It is true that God is “for us” – that is to say, he is for his people. “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39, ESV). Yet, God is not “for” the man who repudiates the promises and purposes of God. The holy God opposes the proud (Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5).
I referred to Paul’s warning in 2 Tim. 4:3-4 again and again as I read Everything is Spiritual. Indeed, doctrine is downplayed and orthodoxy is questioned. But not everything is ambiguous. As he did in Love Wins, Bell dogmatically casts aside the doctrine of hell: “Because some stories are better than others. Stories about a God who tortures people forever in hell shouldn’t be told. They’re terrible stories. They make people miserable. They make people want to kill themselves. Stories that insist that a few human beings are going to be okay and every other human being ever is doomed for eternity are horrible stories.”
In a magical twist, certitude suddenly reappears! Alas, the painful reality is obvious here: Anyone who bemoans doctrine is in fact, dogmatic themselves! It appears, then, that the dogmatic bark is worse than the bite.
No Final Authority
To make matters worse, no final authority is offered in Everything Is Spiritual. It is difficult to determine if Bell embraces pantheism, panentheism or some other theological construct. Whatever the case, the book makes much of God’s immanence and downplays his transcendence.
But what is missing here is a distinction between the Creator and the creature. Missing is a Creator who is sovereign over creation and rules over all. Bell’s account of God is noted in the biblical exchange with Moses who refers to himself as I AM. So far so good. But notice how Bell’s understanding of God undermines the Creator/creature distinction:
Moses wants to locate God, and what Moses gets is Everywhere. Moses wants something to wrap his mind around, and what he gets is All of it.
What an answer. Another way you could say I AM is Being Itself.
That’s past, that’s present, that’s future. All of it. Being Itself, the formless beyond any one form, animating all forms. The electricity the entire thing is plugged into. The water it’s all swimming in.
That’s every you that ever was and ever will be. All your yous.
Later, Bell refers once again to “Being Itself. I AM.” He writes, “You ground yourself in that, and you’re all of it.
Read More -
Ministry Testimony: Life-Changing Hope through Faith
In Romans 8, Paul considers that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (v. 18). Don’t you long for “the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21)? This is the hope in which we were saved (vs. 24)! And this hope for believers is a solid guarantee, sealed by the blood of Jesus. God says that hoping for things we can see is not hope. We are to wait patiently for the consummation of God’s plans. In this, we trust our children to him.
My story is typical of most parents who’ve faced the heartbreak of discovering their child struggles with same-sex attraction. We were happily oblivious to the darkness just under the surface that would change our lives forever. From the moment I found out in 2007—when our son had just turned 17—until I found help at Harvest USA in 2020, there wasn’t a day when I didn’t cry. I cried for my son, my broken heart, and all the loss—the loss of a future marriage for my son, grandchildren, a daughter-in-law, and simply being a “normal” family.
Suffering in Isolation
I would’ve told you I was trusting in the Lord, but the evidence showed otherwise. I would’ve said God was enough for me and our situation, but I wasn’t living like it. My faith was weak, but I was self-deceived in this area. I had a lot of learning and unlearning to do. Little did I know that this journey would not just be about my son but about God bringing me into a strong faith and conforming me into Jesus’s image. I desperately wanted help but was too ashamed to seek it. I told no one about our son because I feared the condemnation and judgment I would’ve once given to someone in my situation. So, I suffered in isolation, with no hope in my heart.
I bought the world’s lie—hook, line, and sinker—that this was just how things would always be. Hopelessness drove me deeper into my despair, and the cycle of unbelief continued. I knew God could help, but would he?
Little did I know that this journey would not just be about my son but about God bringing me into a strong faith and conforming me into Jesus’s image.
In 2018, when our son sent us a letter stating that he and his partner were married, I could no longer handle my devastation alone. I began to look for help online, and by the grace and direction of the Lord, I found Harvest. I could barely wait to start the first session and had to stop myself from completing the entire curriculum in one day. I can’t tell you what the possibility of hope dangling in front of my heart did for me.
Openness, Healing, and Waiting
By now, the hope wasn’t that my son would turn away from living in alignment with LGBTQ+ values so much as it was hope that I could be free from the feeling of total despair I’d adopted. In the first session, I got to share openly for the first time without fear of judgment! I cried my way through every session.
As the meetings progressed, I was encouraged to share with someone outside the group about our son.
Read More
Related Posts: