Blog

Posted on

Hebrews 2:9 and New Coke?

Do you remember New Coke? You have to be a certain age even to be aware of this story. It happened during my teen years, so I remember this pretty well.

In the Spring of 1985 some knuckleheads at Coke decided they would launch the reformulation of Coca Cola to compete with their rival, Pepsi. Obviously this was months, even years in the making.

Just after World War II Coke’s market share was 60%. By the 1980s it had fallen to 24% and Pepsi was beginning to outsell Coke in supermarkets. Coke was still dominant because of its vending machines and restaurant sales, but the executives thought the handwriting was on the wall. They were scared.

Pepsi was promoting taste tests that kept coming back with Pepsi being the preferred drink. Coke downplayed them, but their own internal research showed the same thing. They were afraid Pepsi was going to overtake them.

So in a bit of hubris they decided to change the taste of Coke and make it sweeter, like Pepsi’s taste. They completely eliminated the old Coke formula and went 100% with New Coke. They were all in. It was a marketing disaster. Within three months they brought back the taste of Coke under the Coke Classic brand name. Eventually that went away and New Coke died the death it needed to die. Coke completely reverted to its original formula.

Why did they change the formula? Why not just add the New Coke taste as another product and still keep the Old Coke too?

I read a story on this a few years ago in the book, Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell that said part of the problem was how they conducted taste tests in the ‘80s. Pepsi was winning taste tests head-to-head with Coke, but they were a particular kind of taste test. They were actually called sip tests. As you can guess, you didn’t drink an entire can, you just took a sip or a small cup. And in sip tests Pepsi would win hands down. But the problem is nobody drinks pop like that. Nobody takes a sip and puts it back in the fridge. Another taste test involved giving tasters a case of Pepsi and a case of Coke and checking back with them in a few weeks. In those home tests Coke would win.

So the Coke executives changed the formula for Coke on the basis of sip tests even though that’s not really the way to taste a product.

Hebrews 2:9 (ESV) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Jesus tasted death for all of us, and it’s important to know that this wasn’t a sip test. The word “taste” might make us think that it was just a little mouthful, but that’s not the intention of the Greek word.

When our oldest son was a baby, my in-laws visited us one time. We were at a restaurant and I think my mother-in-law put a little pop in the end of a straw and put it on Justin’s tongue. His little baby face showed shock at the taste of Coke. You could say that he tasted Coke.

The word in Hebrews 2:9 doesn’t mean a taste like that. It actually means that Jesus thoroughly tasted death. He experienced it all. He didn’t take a sip test or just the little drop in the end of a straw. He drank it all.

This means that we don’t have to face death like Jesus did. He took the punishment for sin. He faced God’s wrath in death so we don’t have to.

Jesus tasted death for you. That’s what this passage says. Now it’s not saying that you won’t die if you trust Jesus. He’s saying that death has been stripped of its power, or its horror. We don’t need to fear death. You will die should Christ tarry His coming, but you won’t experience what makes death truly horrible—separation from God.

Paul the Apostle says it this way.

1 Corinthians 15:55 (ESV) “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

Death has been stripped of its sting for the Christian. Jesus faced the sting of death. He was separated from God the Father for six hours on the cross so you don’t have to be. God the Father condemned Jesus as He became sin for us. That’s the sting of death and Jesus took it for you.

Death has been emptied of its power for the believer. We don’t need to fear it. Many Christians have believed this at the point of death, and they have calmly, joyfully, gone to see their heavenly Father.

Now, because of Jesus, we don’t lose with death. We only gain. We gain heaven. We gain Christ. We gain freedom from sin. We gain presence with the Lord. Death has been emptied of its power by the One who tasted death for every man.

Posted on

Love Like My Mom

My Mom called on a Saturday night over two and a half years ago to tell me that my younger brother, Jeff, had died.[1]Picture is of my brother Jeff My Mom didn’t grow up in a family that knew the gospel. In fact, she was the first person in our family to trust Christ. Her parents were divorced at a time when a scoundrel husband could just move across a state border and avoid paying any child support. And her dad did just that. Life was harder for her.

Jeff was called mentally retarded when that term was acceptable in the ‘70s. He would never have been able to live on his own, and so he lived with my parents his entire life. My mom and dad would never think of institutionalizing him. He was actually a great help to them as an adult. He loved routine, so they gave him jobs to do regularly. He could bring wood in for the wood stove. He could shovel snow. He could bring up the laundry. He could put away dishes.

Sometime after I graduated from college Jeff started having seizures. He had never had any health problems related to his disability before. After a seizure he would need several days of rest before he was fully recovered. My mom would lovingly take care of him until he recovered.

My brother didn’t have Down Syndrome. In God’s grace many Down Syndrome children are incredibly compassionate and loving. They are tender and affectionate. That was not my brother. There really wasn’t much emotion in Jeff’s hugs. They were perfunctory not passionate. He wasn’t a robot; he could show frustration, and he even smiled quite a bit. But he didn’t do the normal things that a baby, a young child, and even young adults do to express love to their parents. My mom never got an affectionately clingy infant in my younger brother. He would hug when he was told to, he would even say “I love you” if you said it first, but it wasn’t like when other people said it. I don’t doubt that Jeff actually meant it as well as he could, but love was a concept that really was beyond his ability to understand. He was never able to understand the question, “why?” And you really have to understand that to understand love.

I’ve thought about this over the years, and it’s occurred to me that my Mom’s love for my brother was a wonderful example of what Christian love is supposed to be. We don’t define love like unbelievers. We don’t just love those that love us. We are able to love those who don’t return any love—even our enemies (Luke 6:27-29). Of course with those closest to us it can be hard to love as Christ loved and seemingly get very little in return… maybe even nothing in return.

But it is how God loved us.

…but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (ESV)

In fact, we were his enemies and he still loved us.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 (ESV)

My mom has been a living definition of biblical love to me my entire life. For a long time, I didn’t notice it. That’s just what a mom does. But now I’m enriched by it. My love is too often selfish. I give to get. But my mom, like God, just gave. And she did it because the gospel changed her. And she did it for my brother’s entire lifetime.

My brother is gone, but I still think of my mother’s love for him. It’s a sweet picture of God’s love for me, and it reminds me of how to love others.

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Luke 6:35 (ESV)

References[+]

References
↑1 Picture is of my brother Jeff
Posted on

“I Forgive You, but I Need to Establish Some Boundaries”

I’m teaching on forgiveness in a class full of freshmen, and it brings up interesting questions. For example, I was asked do we ever set boundaries with a person that we’ve forgiven? I think by that they meant that a person had sinned against them, they had forgiven the offender, but they didn’t trust them anymore. So are they justified in resisting restoring the relationship to it’s “pre-offense” status? Is it okay to put up some boundaries with this person?

One caveat for my answer is I will assume the offense is not a form of abuse. Abusive behavior has different dynamics—your greatest concern in that case is protecting the victim.

So with that caveat, I have two concerns with the question.

Boundaries Might Just Be an Acceptable Excuse to Avoid Actually Forgiving

Forgiveness is a step on the path to reconciliation. With many offenses, it’s equivalent to reconciliation. I’ve sinned against my wife hundreds of times, and her forgiveness has always reconciled us.

But what if you actually want to hold on to the hurt? In that case might you claim that you have forgiven them, but you need to set some boundaries? Those boundaries, coincidentally, will prevent you from fully reconciling. They will punish the offender for sinning against you. Remember that forgiveness is a promise not to bring it up to someone’s face, not to bring it up behind their back, and not to dwell on it. If you’re dwelling on it, you haven’t actually forgiven the offender. If you’re bringing it up to their face through an unnecessary use of boundaries, you also haven’t forgiven them. Really, you haven’t.

In fact, the use of boundaries can be a “spiritual” method to exact some revenge. And you and I don’t have the option of vengeance.

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:18–19 (ESV)

So boundaries cannot be an excuse not to forgive the offender. You cannot claim you’ve forgiven him, but then refuse to work towards reconciliation; you cannot write them out of your life. Boundaries distance us from the offender. They don’t reconcile two people; they keep them apart. Is that what forgiveness should look like?

Or is your heart possibly deceiving you into thinking you forgave them, when you didn’t? You want to keep holding this sin against them.  

Boundaries Might Be the Idolatry of Self-Protection

Sin hurts. Sometimes it’s hurtful because of the surprise of who did it. Sometimes it’s hurtful because of the betrayal. In those situations and others we can become very self-protective. “They’ve blown it. I forgive them, but I won’t trust them again.” I understand that impulse, but we cannot worship the idol of never being sinned against that way again.

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, 4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Luke 17:3–4 (ESV)

Do you think that maybe on the third time in the same day a person might think, “I should set some boundaries so they don’t sin against me again”? But that’s not what Jesus says to do. He says forgive them and forgiveness is inherently risky. It means they might sin against you again. In fact, they might sin against you seven times in a day.

You cannot make not being sinned against an idol you worship. That type of self-protection could be a form of pride. “Nobody should ever sin against me that way.” Why? Are you so important?

It’s possible that the offender might sin against you again in a very similar way. If so, you confront them again, and if they repent, you forgive them. It’s not about protecting yourself from hurt. It’s not even about what’s best for the offender. It’s about glorifying God by being a generous forgiver (Eph 4:32).

We who have been forgiven so much cannot look for reasons not to forgive. The gospel demands more than that. Jesus forgave us much; we–by his grace–can do the same.

Posted on

Self-Confidence and a Near Death Experience

I passed my driving test when I was sixteen—barely! Not that I passed it barely, but I was less than three months from my 17th birthday. It was winter in Wisconsin, and I managed to get the car temporarily stuck in a snowbank when I was trying to parallel park. Maybe I did barely pass. Fortunately I got it out, and the examiner didn’t hold it against me.

American car culture never really enticed me. Lots of teenage guys get their driver’s license and then buy their first car. I didn’t own my first car until my junior year in college. It was more practical than romantic—I knew I would need to pay my own way through college, and cars are expensive.

But during my junior year I started looking for a used car, and with the help of some guys in my church, I found it. It was a Mazda GLC 4-door station wagon late 70s or early 80s edition—can’t remember the exact year. I told you I wasn’t a car guy. Google it; it was quite the vehicle. GLC stood for Great Little Car which sounds like what an ad agency would come up with for a car that was little, but not great.

It was my first car, and it was a manual shift. I hadn’t ever driven one before, so my dad took me to the local stadium parking lot and gave me 30 minutes of lessons. Then I dropped him off and started my 90 minute drive back to college. My Dad was not a helicopter parent; it turns out 30 minutes might not have been enough.

I killed the engine a few times, but mainly the drive was a two-lane highway all the way there, and once I got up to speed, I could maintain it. At one point I decided to pass a car that was going too slow. Now my Dad’s instructions didn’t include advice on passing another vehicle while driving a stick shift. So I was in fifth gear going the top speed for a Mazda GLC when I pulled out in opposing traffic to pass this vehicle.

If you’ve googled the picture, you realize that I was not driving a muscle car. It didn’t accelerate very fast, and I didn’t know that downshifting to fourth gear would help me accelerate. I wasn’t making much progress when I noticed an 18 wheeler coming right at me. I willed the car to go faster and still didn’t get anywhere, but now I was too far into passing to pull back into my lane. The semi was getting closer and finally I jerked the wheel to the left shoulder of the road as the semi went between me and the car I was passing. I hit the brakes on the gravel shoulder hearing the semi honk long and loud. My heart was beating fast; I was sweating. I was scared. I immediately prayed, “Oh Lord, thank you for saving this stupid, stupid boy.” I caught my breath for a few minutes, and gently pulled out onto the highway crossing the road to get into my lane and continued my way up to college.

That near-death experience reminds me of my tendency to be self-confident. God’s goodness includes Him reminding me that I am dependent upon Him. His reminders are most often not as dramatic, but they are always necessary. I am prone to look at any little success as saying something about me, so I need reminders that I am dependent upon God.

Jesus said,

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. John 15:5 (ESV)

It’s not that I can do some things, but that I cannot do anything without Jesus. Certainly not anything that bears fruit for God’s glory. But give me a little ministry success, and I will be tempted to believe that it’s because of me. And I’ll be inclined to attempt greater things in my own strength. Just like when I was 21 and thought because I’d been driving a stick shift for an hour, that I was a pretty decent driver. Self-confidence is a dangerous thing for a believer.

It’s good to remember that I cannot bear fruit on my own. I need Jesus.

Posted on

It’s Just Semantics; It Really Is!

Defining Biblical Counseling

Yesterday we were at a soccer scrimmage when my wife started talking to a little girl. My wife used to be a K-4 teacher, so she’s pretty much a child whisperer. Laura asked her, “What grade are you in this year? Is it K-4? Or K-5? Or do you call it kindergarten?” The girl thought a little and said, “I’m in Pretty K.” It was an adorable response. She was a cute little girl and probably belongs in “Pretty K.” Children sometimes mess up words in the most descriptive, heartwarming way possible.

The right words are important. The right definitions are important.

In one of the courses I teach we begin the first lecture by discussing a definition of biblical counseling. I ask the students to give me elements of a thorough definition, and then we look at actual definitions that I’ve collected over the years. It normally leads to a good discussion on what elements are present and absent in each definition.

Let’s look at a few and notice what they emphasize and what they might overlook. Of course I’m not critiquing these authors for anything missing in their definitions. Often a definition is designed to highlight a particular emphasis of biblical counseling and not to cover every element of importance. But comparing and contrasting them helps us think critically.

Jay Adams’ definition of nouthetic counseling is “bringing God’s Word to bear upon people’s lives in order to expose sinful patterns, to correct what is wrong, and to establish new ways of life of which God approves.”[1]Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1970), 51-52.

One weakness that we see more clearly today is that Jay doesn’t mention suffering. He, of course, understood that our problems are caused by sin and suffering, but his clarion call was to encourage the sinning counselee to repent. However, notice that his dependence upon the sufficient Word of God shows up right at the beginning of his definition.

Heath Lambert gives a general definition of counseling that covers secular and biblical, formal and informal counseling when he says, “Counseling is a conversation where one party with questions, problems, and trouble seeks assistance from someone they believe has answers, solutions, and help.”[2]Heath Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling: The Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 13.

This definition demands that the counselor have answers. Listening to someone vent or commiserating with their distress is not enough. If you are just the listening ear for someone, then they will probably appreciate you, but you won’t really help them. They need to be pointed to truth. If you don’t eventually do that, you are not doing biblical counseling.

John Piper says, “Biblical counseling is God-centered, Bible-saturated, emotionally-in-touch use of language to help people become God-besotted, Christ-exalting, joyfully self-forgetting lovers of people.”[3]John Piper in James MacDonald, Bob Kellemen, & Steve Viars, Eds., Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling: Changing Lives with God’s Timeless Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2013), 24.

Piper holds the record for the most hyphenated definition. 😉 What most students pull out of this one is his emphasis on “emotionally-in-touch use of language.” They understand Piper as saying that our words should be sensitive and compassionate to the counselee. I agree.

I like what this one by Ernie Baker and Johnathan Holmes emphasizes, “One of the ways of defining biblical counseling is ‘broken people helping other broken people find healing through the power of the gospel and in the power of the Spirit as they apply the living principles of Scripture (Hebrews 4:12) to life.’”[4]Ernie Baker and Johnathan Holmes in James MacDonald, Bob Kellemen, & Steve Viars, Eds., Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling: Changing Lives with God’s Timeless Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, … Continue reading

Holmes and Baker remind us that we are also broken. We are not a professional class that can give condescending advice to hurting people. That’s a contrast to secular counselors who are very professionalized. Jay Adams taught early biblical counselors that Romans 15:14 indicated that all believers could be “competent to counsel.” We are more like our counselees than different. That’s a fundamental understanding of biblical counseling. Their sins may have more dramatic expressions or more extreme consequences, but the roots will look very similar in our own hearts. Biblical counseling is not a place for the self-righteous.

David Powlison was a leader in the second generation of biblical counselors. His definition was, “Wise counseling is essentially a way of loving another person well. It is a way of speaking what is true and constructive into this person’s life right now.”[5]David Powlison, Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community (Winston-Salem, NC: Punch Press, 2005), 5.

Powlison’s emphasis throughout his life was always speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15), and you can see that in his definition. We should not mistake either harsh truth-telling or sentimental listening as biblical counseling. We have truth that is sometimes hard to hear, but we must compassionately share it.

A definition from Bob Kellemen is the most thorough. “Christ-centered, church-based, comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally informed biblical counseling depends upon the Holy Spirit to relate God’s Word to suffering and sin by speaking and living God’s truth in love to equip people to love God and one another (Matt. 22:35-40). It cultivates conformity to Christ (the whole person becoming whole in Christ—our inner life increasingly reflecting the inner life of Christ) and communion with Christ and the body of Christ leading to a community of one-another disciple-makers (Matt. 28:18-20).”[6]Robert W. Kellemen, Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 46.

Bob Kellemen thinks and writes like I wish I could. Everything is in this definition. He mentions Jesus, the church—you’re not doing biblical counseling if you don’t push people back to the church, compassion, the Holy Spirit, suffering AND sin, sanctification, and discipleship. It’s a complete definition. I can’t find a weakness—except maybe it’s too long. 😉

What do you think is missing in these definitions? What might you add?

References[+]

References
↑1 Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1970), 51-52.
↑2 Heath Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling: The Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 13.
↑3 John Piper in James MacDonald, Bob Kellemen, & Steve Viars, Eds., Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling: Changing Lives with God’s Timeless Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2013), 24.
↑4 Ernie Baker and Johnathan Holmes in James MacDonald, Bob Kellemen, & Steve Viars, Eds., Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling: Changing Lives with God’s Timeless Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2013), 41.
↑5 David Powlison, Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community (Winston-Salem, NC: Punch Press, 2005), 5.
↑6 Robert W. Kellemen, Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 46.
Exit mobile version