CHRIS BRAY Blog, News and Theological Musings
How NOT to Waste Time on Your Phone
Gospel Music Association Covenant Award Nominations
It was an honour to receive two Gospel Music Association Covenant Award nominations for my latest project, "The Praises of His People". The two categories I was nominated for are, "Collaboration of the Year" with Kate Adams, and "Praise and Worship Album of the Year".
The Covenant awards acknowledge Canadian Christian music and artists who are skillfully worshipping God through art, and it's an privilege to have my contribution recognized.
This year the awards are hosted in Edmonton, Alberta on Thursday, November 5th. Unfortunately my tour schedule is unable to accommodate the awards show, even though I will be so close (touring 9 dates in Calgary, AB just a few hours away)!
I'm thankful for the wonderful community of artists that exist to equip and mentor one another for the building of the kingdom.
You can learn more about the Covenants from GMA Canada.
The Facebook Facade
You're on the couch at 8:30pm, in your sweat pants after a long day. Your hair is a mess. Your not wearing any makeup. And…you're eating cheap Chinese food because you're too tired to cook.
What do you do? Scroll through Facebook, of course. What do you see everyone else currently doing?
- Melissa just took a selfie skydiving with her boyfriend (who's in medical school to become a doctor).
- Heather just bought a super cute pair of jeans at 50% off, and posted a selfie of them in the mirror (which also happens to show off her new tattoo)
- Joy and Janice just went to the spa, got a makeover and look so amazing, yep a double selfie with your bestie (BF's forever).
- Guess who just started a non-glutton, organic, vegan, sugar free, liquid cleanse diet? Nancy did. With a selfie to show off the 10 pounds she lost in only two days! (And the best part is she's not even hungry!).
Let me ask you an honest question. What's your initial reaction? Are you happy for your Facebook friends? Or deep down, are you jealous?
We want to be happy for them, but sometimes we can't. But why? For some reason we feel inferior to these people. We think they have this amazing life and I'm just sitting on the couch at 8:30pm, in my comfies, eating 2000% of my daily MSG intake…
The problem is twofold:
1. FACEBOOK IS A FACADE.
2. COMPARISON DIMINISHES SELF WORTH.
Facebook is a highlight and lowlight reel. Facebook is full of accolades, accomplishments and let's be honest most of the time, boasting. As a father of four young girls I'm just as guilty as the rest. Kid walking at six months, talking by a year, doing calculus with an iPhone app etc. etc.
Here's the thing to remember, Facebook is not real life. Facebook is a perception, a snapshot into someone's "perfect" exterior life. Facebook is a façade. Although sometimes people share their struggles or prayer requests, it's mostly only the good stuff that shows up in the news feed. Usually there's a whole part of someone's life kept in secret because they are too afraid to share it with the world. But why are we so afraid to share our struggles, failures, disappointments and discouragements?
The answer is: COMPARISON. We make the mistake of finding our self worth in how many Facebook likes we get on a photo. Think about it, how often do we return to see how make people "liked" the selfie that took five thousand tries to get "right"?
When we compare ourselves to other people's accomplishments and accept our self worth from that ranking, we are always going to be left feeling inferior. There will always be someone who is better looking, more fit, healthier, stronger, funnier, more "successful", richer, etc.
The fact is our self worth isn't found in Facebook likes. Our self worth is found in our identity as a beloved child of God. We have a God who loves us and created us for a unique and specific purpose. Not only that but he's given us each unique gifts and talents to help build one another up.
Imagine how Facebook would be different if we only shared our struggles, if we stopped comparing ourselves to one another and used the online social platform as a means to bear one another's burdens. Now that's time well spent.
Losing Your Salvation, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
One of the passages (of the numerous in Scripture) I like to use to illustrate this point of view is the parable of the unforgiving servant.. In fact, it's not my illustration, it's Jesus'. I find this passage, Matthew 18:23-35, loaded with severity.
If you're from the tradition that doesn't believe one can lose their salvation, follow along closely...
Matthew 18:23-35:
23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii;and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.'29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me;33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers,till he should pay all his debt.35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
Firstly, the precursor to this parable states that this parable can be compared to Heaven (v23). I remember listening to a bible preacher spend 55 minutes of his 1 hour sermon to point out that what this parable is 'really' about, is just how much God is willing to forgive us. And that's true, but it's only half of the moral of the story...
How much was owed?
The unforgiving servant owed "ten thousand talents". The NIV footnotes tell us that's somewhere in the neighbourhood of several million dollars. His fellow servant, whom he was unwilling to forgive owed him merely a few dollars. This gives us some perspective.
So what is this parable telling us?
The debt that the unforgiving servant owed was impossible to pay. It would have taken him, and his family working lifetimes over and over again in wages just to pay the king back. Yet what is interesting is that the king demanded justice. The king demanded they be sold and the debt be paid.
However, the servant begged and pleaded with the king, the king had mercy on him and forgave the entire enormous debt. Similarly, we are born into a state of sin with a debt we cannot pay. It's impossible for us to work long enough or hard enough to procure for ourselves the means to pay our debt that God demands for justice. We have a king that when we approach sincerely and ask for his mercy, he grants it. Our debt is cleared, our sins are forgiven.
But this story isn't over. The unforgiving servant was debt free. He was given a new life. Then when a fellow servant who owed simply a few dollars asked for his patience and mercy that he might have more time to pay his debt, the unforgiving servant was unwilling to forgive him or extend any grace. When the king heard about this, his entire enormous unpayable debt was placed back on him and he was sent to prison to pay every last cent.
So what does this mean for us?
Even though our debt of sin has been forgiven, washed away, cleansed, if we are unwilling to forgive another, even for a small thing, God will see justice. He will place our old debt back on our lives and we will be in the same place we were before--unable to pay our debt of sin, in prison for eternity unable to pay lifetime upon lifetime of wages of debt.
Still think we can't ever lose our salvation?
It's not about us working to procure the payment of debt, it's all about asking for the kings mercy. And when we are unwilling to extend mercy, after its already been shown to us in an immense way, that mercy we were given is revoked, we are imprisoned forever to pay a debt we can't afford. This passage is very clear and severe.
Asking for God's mercy is important, but extending mercy is also required.
FREE Download of "Great Are You Lord" live
Download my rendition of All Sons & Daughter's, "Great Are You Lord", from my live praise and worship album, "The Praises of His People" when you sign up for my mailing list. You'll also get exclusive and advanced access to music and materials!
Sign up for the mailing list today for your instant download of "Great Are You Lord" at www.chrisbraymusic.com
Sign up for the mailing list today for your instant download of "Great Are You Lord" at www.chrisbraymusic.com
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” - Why I’m not celebrating a “win” for same-sex unions, from a non-religious perspective.
This may seem slow in response. However, I feel this is an important subject that requires a high degree of clarity, so I decided to be as precise, deliberate and methodical in how I communicate my intellectual reasonings.
MY PRECURSOR:
While it appeared as though the entire world celebrated a great “victory" on the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on so called same sex marriages, yesterday was a sad day for me. This is a letter from my heart to whoever cares to read it. I’m NOT trying to persuade minds with arguments, to condemn or to provide religious guilt (in fact, this isn’t a religious discussion at all. If you’re a Christian both Scripture and Tradition are explicit on the matter), I’m simply presenting reasons as to why I hold a particular opinion (secular opinion), which I ask that those who do not hold, would respect (as I respect theirs). I used the word respect, because the word “tolerate” has been perverted in our society to imply that everyone must “accept” other people’s beliefs and opinions. I don’t agree with that.
Before I proceed with my perspective, I’d like to precursor my comments. It appears as though anyone who holds a differing opinion on same sex unions are typically categorized and then disregarded as two types, either: “homophobic”, or “judgemental”.
I am far from perfect, ask my wife, though I am striving to be neither homophobic or judgemental. In fact I have friends and family whom openly admit and practice same sex attraction. I love these individuals and give them the utmost respect and dignity that they deserve as a person. They have made life choices and live a lifestyle that though I do not agree with, for reasons forthcoming, are still theirs to make. Though this is not a religious debate, I admit I am a man of faith, and because of that I believe that I was made to love all of humanity, no matter what skin colour, heritage, or sexual orientation, etc.
Similarly, though I hold certain moral convictions, I don’t hold others to the same lifestyle choices I have made. This doesn’t mean I agree with theirs, but I still give them dignity and respect as a person. I also have to believe that sharing a different opinion with another, done so in charity (love), must be possible without it being dismissed as “judgemental”. For example (and I’m NOT equating this example with same sex unions), if someone is riding the waves on a surfboard, and another from the beach notices a shark fin, it should be the responsibility of the other to warm them. Perhaps the surfer might dismiss their warning as being “judgemental". However, a person not willing to shed light on a dangerous situation would be negligent, rather than tolerant.
I’m not a judge, and I don’t want to be. Ultimately people are going to make choices, I’m just writing this letter to shed some light on the consequences of those decisions. I’m not here to weigh in on their culpability, guilt or sentencing. I’m merely documenting observations. Though I may not be as charitable in situations as I should be, I’m striving to let true love win.
This ends my precursor, now onward to why I can’t join this rainbow celebration...
WHAT IS LOVE?
I’ll have to admit, though this ruling was not surprising, what was surprising was the positively orchestrated and exceptionally timed ad campaign to promote this as a “win” and “celebration”.
I found President Obama’s speech to be oddly delivered, with social media quickly using hashtags “#lovewins” and “love is love” (quoting Obama’s speech).
My question is, "what is love”? Haddaway asked that question in 1993 with a catchy hit song, and that question still rings today. Is love gratification? Or is love sacrifice? We’ll come back to this in a moment…
People who have no investment in this fight (and sadly this has become a fight, on both sides), are seeing the superficial reasons as to why this U.S. Supreme Court ruling is “good”. Many being convinced that, “this doesn’t affect anyone else except the two getting married, so why shouldn’t they be able to”.
Fundamentally here are my three (non-religious) reasons I cannot celebrate this as a “win”:
ONE - A CASE OF DEFINITIONS.
2+2 does not equal 3. Traditional marriage has ALWAYS, since the beginning of humanity, been between man and woman. This definition is historical and long standing, no one can deny that. So if the word “marriage” defines the legal union of a man and a woman, enabling it to include the union between two men or two woman dilutes the definition. I’d suggest a more prudent solution would be to label these same sex unions something different. A union between a man and a woman is not the same thing as a woman and a woman (or man and man), so why would we attempt to call it the same thing?
A great example of this is polygamy, the next logical step in the dilution of marriage. When Obama was presenting his victory speech, I couldn’t help but ask the question, “Why can’t three people who love each other, marry?” Are we not depriving three people of “true” love by not letting them marry? The problem is, polygamy is different from traditional marriage, it’s a whole other word, with a whole other definition. So let’s not try to call it the same thing. The consequence is a dilution of the meaning of the word.
TWO - A CASE OF NATURAL LAW.
Biologically, humanity has two genders, male and female. These two genders are ordered towards union with each other for procreation. This is important to remember, because without this recognition, sex is just gratification. If you want to test this theory out, next time you are about to be intimate with your "significantly union-ed other” (aka “spouse”), tell them, “I am seeking this sexual intimate encounter with you for MY sole physical pleasure only”. You might get a slap in the face. The sexual act has two objective natural ends: unity and procreation. Pleasure, both physical and emotional is (sometimes) a welcomed addition to this act, but not always. Attempting to isolate one natural property of the sexual act, apart from it's two primary ends, is objectively and naturally disordered.
Here’s an example to explain what I mean. An 18 year old girl perceives that she is overweight, even though in reality, she is severely underweight, deprived of nourishment, with her skin hanging off of her bones. So what does she do? She eats food. Not only that, but she enjoys food, very much so. Eating food gives her GREAT pleasure and gratification, even fulfillment.
However, the primary function and natural end of food is that it provides her body with nourishment. But she also proceeds to force herself to throw up her food immediately after she consumes it. This 18 year old bulimic is living a disordered lifestyle. Not for religious reasons. Not because she is fat or skinny. Rather, her actions are disordered because they violate natural law. The actions are unnatural and disordered. The same reasoning applies to acts of intimacy by same sex couples. The actions are unnatural and disordered as they go against their intended design, regardless of gratification or preference.
Yet some might claim, “these feelings come naturally to me, therefore these actions must be natural”. Try applying that same logic to any other disordered action and you see where the system breaks down. Whether it is bulimia, polygamy, beastiality, alcoholism etc. (and no, I’m not equating same sex acts to any of these listed.)
True love demands that we tell this 18 year old bulimic girl of her true beauty and dignity as a human person. She herself might argue, “I like how I look, it’s my body and my right to be able to force my body to do whatever makes me feel good and liberated as a person”. If we don’t tell her of the consequences of her actions, that her teeth will rot, that she will be malnourished, that she is suppressing emotional issues (through love and charity of course) we become negligent. This is why I’m writing this letter. This is why I cannot celebrate this so called “victory” for America. It weights on my heart like a parent whose child has run away from home.
The institution of marriage is designed to foster the natural end of the commitment: unity and procreation. This is not possible for two men or two women. Ultimately we need to ask, "what is sex for"? If it’s just mutual self gratification (either physical or emotional) than why does this need to be in the confines of “marriage”?
THREE - A CASE OF SOCIETY.
This addresses the misconception that same sex unions only affect the two who engage in them (pun intended). Take a moment and consider WHY a government would traditionally provide incentives and benefits for those who have families? Why would they give tax credits to people who are married? Why would they give additional tax credits to those with children? The short answer is because it benefits the society as a whole economically.
Families are the bed rock of society. When a man and a woman come together in marriage they make babies. These babies are nurtured and educated to be contributing members of this society. Same sex unions are sterile of this ability. Even if they adopt, you’re not creating additional contributing members of society, rather you’re simply moving members around.
Furthermore, by giving the same benefits to same sex unions as traditional marriages, the societies economy is being diluted from the purpose of the incentives, without the outcomes: future contributing members of society. Plainly put, the government is giving money to these unions which would not bear the fruit of their financial investment.
Lastly, we need to recognize that even if same sex couples decide to raise children, either by adoption, or through various alternative conception methods, they are DELIBERATELY depriving their child of either a mother or a father. Statistically, this has ramifications to the outcome of the child. For example, not having a father present, correlates to unwed/unwanted pregnancies, convictions, drug use etc. (To learn about this these sociological studies check out - http://dailysignal.com/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/)
ARE WE DENYING “TRUE LOVE”?
In closing, I feel we need to address the following misconception that suggests by denying same sex unions the title of marriage we are depriving them of “true love” and sentencing them to a life of loneliness. But how far are we willing to take this reasoning, if we follow it to it’s logical end? (And I am by no means comparing these examples or equating them as the same degree).
For example, a father and a daughter share a truly unique bond together. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry if they “truly” love each other? What about someone who hasn’t been able to find “true” love with another human, but is in “love” with their pet? Should we DENY them the opportunity for “true” love with their pet dog, or horse or goat, etc.? Aren’t we sentencing these people to loneliness by denying them “true" love? How far will we take this?
The problem is not the person, it's a problem of perception. Similar to the bulimic that perceives he or she looks fat, all the while is dangerously undernourished, we need to be guided by not simply gratification of desires, but fulfillment and dignity in our personhood, no matter what orientation we possess.
So, “what is love”? Is it taking our desires, no matter how disordered to their logical end? Even if it means marrying a bridge, or a car, or a flashlight? Perhaps we should celebrate alcoholics who choose to get drunk every night as their right to live that particular lifestyle. After all, it’s not affecting anyone else, and they may even enjoy it... Or is “true” love more than gratification. I come from the camp that suggests that true love is more than mere gratification, but true love is sacrifice.
Many will hate me for this post, become violently upset and emotionally enraged. I may even lose friends over this (not my intent). What I’ve written, I’ve done so in love with the best intentions and so we are clear, just because I don’t agree with someone who holds a differing perspective or opinion, doesn’t mean I hate them or am angry with them.
If you hold a different opinion or perspective I welcome you to share your intellectual reasonings. However, hate speak, on either side of this camp will not be tolerated.
With great love and charity, peace be with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)