In my 10 years of private practice, I became persuaded that the community of God’s people was meant to be the place where the deepest healing takes place. I came to the conclusion that real healing has less to do with technical intervention and more to do with profound relational engagement.

Why did this strike me as very poignant? I am almost finished with two books on helping those suffering from Combat Stress and PTSD (Achilles in Vietnam, by Dr. Jonathan Shay and Down Range: To Iraq and Back by Dr. Bridget Cantrell and Chuck Dean) and I also have been attending a lot of training on the same subject. Almost universally acknowledged is the fact that in order to recover or reach a “new normal” in life and coping with the experiences of combat is the need for proper sharing of your story with others who have been there. The person needs to develop his narrative and share it in a safe environment with others instead of holding everything in and acting out inappropriately on those unexpressed emotions and feelings. I know that this is an oversimplification of the process; but I am not a therapist, and don’t pretend to be one.

I think Dr. Crabb is applying that same idea to the Church, in that when we function as the body of Christ, hurting individuals can find the love, strength and encouragement to overcome problems in their lives through Godly, true, honest and open relationships with others in the Church. However, that can only happen when the Church demonstrates the life changing power of God in those who claim Christ as their Savior. This comes through incarnational ministry as we truly become the hands and feet of Jesus Christ.

Could this be what 1 Corinthians 12: 14-26 talks about when Paul writes:

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. (NIV – bold not in original)

Would we see more spiritually/mentally healthy people if the church was truly encouraging its members to provide profound relational engagements with others in the church? This would look different depending on location, denomination, culture etc., but I can certainly say that it would go much further than asking people to join a Sunday School class and come to a fellowship meal!

1. Beth and I now live in Escondido CA. I loved my job at Panama City and made some great friends there, but I can’t say that I miss the town. I am stationed at Camp Pendleton CA, where I serve as the flight line chaplain for Marine Aircraft Group 39.

2.We bought a house in Escondido, which is about halfway between San Diego and Camp Pendleton.

3. We had a wonderful cross country trip with 2 cars, 4 cats, and 1 dog. There will be pictures forthcoming!

4. Christmas was good – we still have not settled on a church, but attended a Christmas Eve service and then on Christmas day went on a cruise around San Diego Harbor.

5. I am training to run the Carlsbad Marathon on 20 January, and I am also planning to run the San Diego Rock and Roll Marathon as well as 2 half marathons this year.

6. I read several good books recently and have been formulating some theological thoughts that I am hoping to have time to write about. Stay tuned, but believe me as you can tell there is not much need to check back here on a daily basis.

Well, to make a long story short, I completed 50 pushups for the Marine Corps detachment on Thursday which allowed me to start training; but when it counted on Monday morning for the Army, I only completed 41 when I experienced complete muscle failure, instead of the required 42.  I was dropped from training, and was and am extremely disappointed in my performance.  However, for some reason I had never felt right about going to this school; and as excited as I was for the opportunity, I had an uncomfortably nervous feeling about it from the day I was asked if I could go on three weeks notice.  As disappointed as I was in my failure to meet the standards, on my drive home, I actually had a weirdly peaceful feeling about the whole experience. 

The next day as I read in Proverbs, that verse in 16:9 just jumped out at me, as if the Lord was saying that no matter what my plans were, ultimately God controls what I actually do.  I have no idea why I failed the school, but I do know that God controls my steps and there is a reason for everything.  It proved to be a time for me to refocus on why I am actually here – not to earn nice stuff to wear on my uniform – but to serve God and minister and evangelize the service members God places in my path. Soli Deo Gloria

The writers clearly show, backed up by declassified reports and many first hand interviews that many of the brilliant military moves that Schwarzkopf took credit for were in fact not his and some he even opposed at first. For example, the famous left hook by the Army that is generally credited with bringing the ground war to a close in 4 days was not his idea and he was not excited about it the first time he heard it. The staged amphibious landing that the Marines did in order to keep the Iraqis defensively engaged in eastern Kuwait was opposed by General Schwarzkopf, but General Walt Boomer insisted on it happening. This was later credited to Schwarzkopf’s overall strategy. The Generals’ War does not try to beat up General Schwarzkopf in any way, but the book does show where the ideas came from that were later claimed by he and others to be his own. General Schwarzkopf was without a doubt a brilliant commander, but he owed some of that brilliance to other’s ideas.

One area that the book views as a negative that is Schwarzkopf’s leadership style with regards to how he brought together the various services. In truly joint warfare, Schwarzkopf as the combatant commander is in command of every service in his area of responsibility. General Schwarzkopf basically gave the southern Kuwait area to the Marines, the western Kuwait and Iraq area to the Army and the Air War to the Air Force and let each come up with their own war plans. Even when the war plans of each service didn’t quite sync up, he tended to be hesitant to get involved and make sure that the war plans would ensure completion of his overall mission. The authors demonstrate this in a couple of different ways. This really showed up when the Air Force was so focused on bombing in Iraq to the neglect of bombing missions in support of the upcoming ground war, Schwarzkopf did not step in to force the Air Force generals to provide better support to the Army and Marine Corps. Another way this played out, was that the Marine Corps warfighting strategy was to go fast and furious to Kuwait City, whereas the Army was very methodical in positioning troops and equipment in order to perform the left hook into Iraq and take out the Republican Guard. The Marines attack, instead of being the envisioned holding action, basically routed the Iraqi Army and caused many of the Republican Guard units to escape to the safety of interior Iraq without being destroyed. This left the best Iraqi units with the ability to still wage war and put down the eventual Shiite and Kurdish insurgencies.

The authors also show the politics that took place behind the scenes in Washington trying and in some cases succeeding in controlling the war plans. While the public face was that Washington was staying out of Schwarzkopf’s way, it is clearly seen that that is not totally true. The air war strategy and part of the ground war strategy actually came out of the bowels of the Pentagon, and the initial pitch to Schwarzkopf and the other services combatant commanders did not make them very happy. There were other issues where Generals at the Pentagon did not think that Schwarzkopf was the right man for the job, the Commandant of the Marine Corps at the time (and a personal hero of mine) General Al Gray, apparently at first did not think that General Boomer was the right man to lead the Marines into Kuwait, and there were other personnel questions and issues.

One of the services that took real hits in the book is the Air Force. The authors clearly show that the Air Force really thought that they could win a war from the air, and never thought a ground war was necessary. Their strategy was shown to be impossible. Air Power is a huge advantage that the United States has, but to think that air power on its own would win a war is unrealistic. They never were fully integrated into the overall joint mindset because they never thought the ground war would happen.

The Generals’ War at its core raises the question, “Did the United States win actually accomplish its mission?” The public answer that has always been given is, yes, based on the fact that Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. However, it was clear based on reports from the time that there was a general belief that if this war was undertaken correctly Saddam Hussein would be out of power in Iraq. That did not happen. At the very least, CENTCOM had as one of its central missions as stated by Schwarzkopf to destroy the Republican Guard. The intelligence reports afterwards clearly showed that that did not happen as thoroughly as intended. The authors do not intend to directly answer that question, but instead to ask the questions and give the evidence that may show all of the mission was not accomplished, and there are still many real issues to be faced in truly joint warfare.

Overall, The Generals’ War was a fascinating read, that will give you a better understanding of the Operational and to a lesser degree, Strategic level of war. While Schwarzkopf and Powell do lose some of their luster from the pages of the book, they are still recognized as being leaders of amazing ability. The most important contribution of this book, other than its study of an important military operation, is its value for training future leaders in joint warfare. Hopefully, we have learned these lessons and can truly begin to function as a joint force in an asymmetrical and chaotic battlefield that we face today.

Its not all fun stuff, though. Last week I had to arrange for a burial at sea for a deceased Navy retiree. I also got called Friday and had to arrange and go out with our Casualty Assistance Calls Officer (CACO) to inform a father that his son had been killed in Iraq. It was a reminder to me to keep praying for all of our Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines who are serving in harm’s way still today. There were a total of 3 Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) divers killed in Iraq last week in one attack. Navy Times covered it here. That is always a difficult part of being a Chaplain or even a pastor and dealing with deaths of loved ones. I think it is easier, though, in a church setting, where hopefully you knew the person and possibly know of their salvation.

Easter Sunday, we had a cold, but wonderful worship service celebrating our Lord’s resurrection. We held it at the base Marina, and had 44 in attendance! The gospel was presented and hopefully some came to a clearer understanding of Christ’s work for us on the cross and in His resurrection. I preached a four week expository series from Matthew, leading up to Easter on “The parentheses of Christ’s ministry”.

Week 1 – Christ’s Baptism

Week 2 – Christ’s temptation

Week 3 – Christ’s crucifixion

Week 4 – Christ’s resurrection (Easter Sunday)

Well, that is what I have been up to. I will continue the Christian Liberty study as I have time, and I am currently putting together a list of all the books I read in the last year (very short list, unfortunately) with a description of each.

You can find part one here and part two here.

In First Corinthians 10:14-11:1, Paul finishes the passage by delineating 4 principles in using Christian liberty that provide his final thoughts to the Corinthians on this subject. 

In verses 14-22, Paul clearly shows that there is a principle of separation involved in the use of our Christian Liberty.  The separation is to occur from idolatry.  No matter where the other lines are drawn, for the follower of Christ there is to be no hint of idolatry in his life.  Paul explains that as Christians when we participate in Communion, we are partaking in Christ’s sacrificial death (which is one reason I don’t hold to a strict memorial view of the Lord’s Supper, but that is for another post).  He then uses another illustration from Israel, that the ones (priests) eating the meat offerings were those who actually offered the sacrifices in worship to God.  In the same way the pagans who feast on the meat actually used that meat not to worship God, but to worship false gods, which are actually demons.  It is from that Satanic activity that Paul is warning his listeners to separate.  It seems he is also trying to get those who would say that you can eat anything, to think about what activity this meat has actually been used in.  Therefore, as a Christian who participates with Christ in communion, you cannot participate with demons in your eating.

Paul continues in verses 23 and 24 to explain the principle that I call, constructive benefit.  The issue is not one of, “can I do this?”  It is instead, will this activity benefit me (spiritually) and/or will it build up (spiritually) a fellow believer.  This speaks to the strong believer on two levels: one, will it be spiritually destructive or beneficial  for me to eat this food, but secondly, can the use of this liberty build up in a constructive way my fellow believer with the weak conscience.

The third principle is the principle of conscience, and is seen in verses 25-30.  This applies to both your own conscience and your fellow believers.  Paul says when you go to the market, do not look for reasons to be offended.  Just eat what you can get.  The same applies when an unbeliever invites you to dinner, just eat the food.  However, if another believer happens to be at that same meal and he raises the issue that the meat has been offered to idols, then you should not eat it.  Is that because it is wrong or offends your conscience?  No.  It is because by bringing up the issue, it clearly is an issue for his conscience, and therefore out of consideration for his conscience, you refrain.

The fourth and final principle that Paul spells out is the principle of God’s glory in verse 31.  Whatever you choose to do as you act within your liberty as a Christian, ultimately it must be done to bring glory to God.  That is the greatest principle to apply our actions against – will what I am about to do bring glory to God. 

Paul closes his exposition on Christian liberty with verses 32-11:1, by reinforcing his overall theses of not being a stumbling block and  making choices with our liberty that will help us win people to Christ.  He then wraps it up by saying that this is what Christ practiced and as he (Paul) follows Christ’s example, the Corinthians should follow his example in the same way.  

You can find part one here.

1 Corinthians 10 is where Paul makes one more illustration, this time of the misuse and abuse of Christian liberty, and then puts forth the final principles for using Christian liberty. The first 10 verses of the chapter starts off with Paul using the illustration of Israel and their fall into idolatry and complaining, and warns the reader against both of these sins. The interesting way that Paul sets up the first part of this passage is by pointing out that Israel had everything going for them, with the presence of God, the power of God, and the perfect leader and example in the man of God. Despite all of those things, they turned to idolatry and griping. In every Bible translation, this illustration of Israel seems to be treated as being separate from his dealing with the issue of Christian liberty as seen in the “meat eating” question. The same is true for the majority of commentators that I have access to. The only commentary that I thought made a decent attempt to fit this into the overall passage was “Expositor’s Bible Commentary.” I really do believe, though, that given the fact that this illustration falls between a clear teaching on Christian liberty and the final verses on Christian liberty, it has to relate in some way to that teaching. I believe the answer to how it relates is found in verses 11-13

11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

I think that the illustration from Israel’s history is teaching us that even though God has given us everything in Christ, including liberty, if we use that liberty to indulgence it can go too far and lead us into sin. When Israel was at the height of God’s blessing – Moses was on the mountain receiving God’s law, and they were worshiping God at a feast – their feasting and worshiping turned into a desire for a concrete physical image and the idolatry of the golden calf. The temptation to use our liberty as indulgence in physical pleasure can easily lead us into sin if we are not careful. While the temptation to abuse our liberty and commit sin may be great, God will provide a way out of the temptation without falling into sin. My thought is that a careful use of our liberty will help us to see God’s way out.

I intended to take this post to the end of the chapter, but I will do Paul’s final principles later.

To start with, I believe from my study that the theme of 1 Corinthians is spiritual maturity. Everything Paul deals with is heading toward encouraging Christians to be completely mature in their faith.

In chapter 8, Paul is answering the question from the Corinthians which was addressed to him in a letter about whether it was right to eat meat which had been sacrificed to idols. He begins his discussion of this subject by saying that knowledge can make a person proud and arrogant, but love will build up the other person and seek their best. This will be important in his discussion. He then goes on to make it clear that an idol is absolutely powerless and worthless, therefore to have anything sacrificed to one of these inanimate objects means nothing. He continues the discussion, however, by saying that there are some Christian brothers and sisters whose faith is not strong and they are unable to eat this meat without it defiling their conscience. I believe Paul is saying with this line of argumentation that these people are immature in their faith. He continues, though, by giving the mature view of Christian liberty – that the mature Christian will set aside his freedom to indulge in that meat for the sake of the weaker (immature) brother. That is the short view of chapter 8.

Chapter 9 is an illustration from Paul’s own life of how he uses his Christian liberty. He starts off with a series of rhetorical questions that show his apostleship and the right he has to expect certain rewards and treatment because of that apostleship. His overall point is that he has the right to have a wife and travel with his family and expect the churches to take care of him and his family financially. Then he begins his example of how he sets aside this liberty he has to expect this treatment. He willingly preaches the gospel and asks for nothing in return, because he does not want anyone to ever get the impression that what he does is for money. He then closes his illustration from his life by making the statement that he would become “all things to all people” in order to present the gospel to them. My interpretation of this is that his use of Christian liberty is not to bring himself pleasure, but to be flexible enough to participate in whatever the activity that did not cross the line into sin. I say this because one of the statements he makes is that he will become a Jew to the Jew and a Gentile to the Gentile in order to see them come to Christ. The way I see this is that when he was with Jewish people, he willingly at Kosher, although he realized that God did not require this of him. When he ate with Gentiles and they served pork, he would utilize his freedom in the opposite direction and eat the pork. Everything he did was for the purpose of forming relationships that would lead to salvation of the individual.

For now, that is all that I am going to discuss, but stay tune to part 2 covering chapter 10.