Defined By Who We Aren't?

Excerpted from my article published today at WorldMag.com.

One of the most telling, and failing, aspects to conservative evangelicalism is the propensity to define ourselves by what we are against. The striking aspect of this is that it is precisely the opposite of what Christ came to do. While we decry liberals, gays, name-it-claim-it types, and more, we forget that Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He came to be a physician for the sick. In short, he came for something.

Our againstness is lazy. We seek it to position and define ourselves according to those people, ideas, subjects, or organizations to which we are opposed. But this isn’t truly positioning ourselves at all. It’s just floating off the shore of whatever we are against. It doesn’t land anywhere solid or go anywhere productive; it just avoids the opposition. Being defined by what we are against is a hollow label that says little about what you are seeking to be or where you are seeking to go.

Read the full article HERE.

Cliches and Christianese

Words and phrases lose their meaning if they are misused often enough. As Christians we should be able to see this easily enough in that very word: “Christian.” It is a religious affiliation/cult/sect/statistic/cultural background/genuine relationship with Christ. So, from a broader cultural perspective, it is nothing at all. Instead those of us who actually affiliate ourselves with Jesus are “born again”, “Christ-followers”, “believers”, “disciples”, or something else.

But each of those phrases suffers, or is at risk of suffering, from a different malady – overuse. When a word or phrase is over used it doesn’t lose its meaning; it loses its impact. It becomes a cliché.

Among the subset of Christians (the genuine sort, not the other kinds) seeking to be culturally savvy there is a rejection of these types of clichés. They are discarded as “Christianese”, that lingo particular to the inner circles of those well-versed in churchy ways. This is intended to be (and often is) a good thing since it is an effort to say things with both meaning and impact.

Trouble arises when we realize that whichever phrases have been adopted to replace the clichés simply also become clichés in time. Christian becomes born again Christian becomes Christ follower which is fast becoming a cliché and must therefore be replaced.

Here’s the problem. Those phrases that have been discarded as Christianese, and therefore unusable, are usually powerfully true. Often, they’re straight out of scripture, and when we reach the point of discarding God’s word as cliché the problem is ours, not the words’.

“Accept Jesus as your Lord and savior.”

“Give your life to Christ.”

“God is Love.”

“Submit your way to the Lord.”

“God is our father.”

And I could go on. These are examples of those kinds of phrases that are so easy to set aside as passé and over-used and therefore useless. And each of them is more profoundly true than any of us can probably grasp. We cannot throw out such succinct power-packages of theology.

No, the solution is not in finding new phrase, but in breathing life into the old ones.

How we say phrases matters. Do we quote them as rote, tired, but reliable old stand-bys? Or do we speak them with timing and emphasis to bring out the realities of words like “Lord” and “savior” and “father”?

What explanation we give them matters. We don’t live in a churched society. We can’t assume our language is the one spoken by most people, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use the language. It just means we need to provide explanations with patience and offer room for questions and skepticism.

Above all, though, we need to remember that nobody is convinced to believe that Jesus is Lord or Savior by words alone. The Spirit gives life whether it’s through clichés spoken by sinners or fresh new phraseology. So let’s speak the truth with as much explanation and emphasis as we can and remember that it is not the words or the speaker who matter but the unseen mover.  

Linsanity, Tebowmania, and Christian Celebrity

With the furor surrounding Tim Tebow last fall  and Jeremy Lin at present there is an important question Christians must ask: How are we to respond to these kinds of celebrity believers?

I attempt to answer that question in an article at WorldMag.com. Here is an excerpt:

As the winter months of 2011 ramped up, so too did a phenomenon commonly known as “Tebowmania”—the frenzy of fandom surrounding the winsome, humble, and overtly Christian Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. It was the Molotov cocktail of outspoken orthodox Christ-following and eye-catching unorthodox football success that exploded the furor over Tebow. Christians went bonkers in support of the man and anti-Christians took every opportunity to make “God is a Broncos fan” jokes and other disparaging remarks.

Now, in these winter doldrums, another phenomenon has arisen: “Linsanity.” Jeremy Lin, the Taiwanese-American, Harvard grad, and undrafted upstart point guard for the New York Knicks has generated his own frenzy through unprecedented success on the basketball court. His unusual backstory and out-of-nowhere ascension to stardom have captivated NBA fans everywhere. He is also an outspoken Christian with a beautiful testimony of God’s work in his life.

While Lin has yet to generate the same vitriol that Tebow did, and while only time will tell if these athletes will be long-term successes, there is a very present question their popularity raises. How are Christians to respond to the athletes and the furor over them?

Read the full article HERE.

Misunderstanding Christianity and Competition - A Response to David Brooks

Photo Courtesy of NBA.Com

Jeremy Lin has captured the imagination of the basketball-following world over the past two weeks. He has even, in a Tebow-like way, transcended the awareness of mere fans and made it into the public eye. David Brooks of the New York Times published an article today called  The Jeremy Lin Problem  in which he attempts to explain the tension between the morality of sports and the morality of religion and Christianity in particular.

Brooks brings up and explores a difficult set of questions, ones that Christian athletes and sports fans truly ought to consider. However, in so doing, he creates (or at least propagates) some false dichotomies and simplistic points of view.

Brooks has this to say about the nature of sports and athletes:

"The moral universe of modern sport is oriented around victory and supremacy. The sports hero tries to perform great deeds in order to win glory and fame. It doesn’t really matter whether he has good intentions. His job is to beat his opponents and avoid the oblivion that goes with defeat.

The modern sports hero is competitive and ambitious. (Let’s say he’s a man, though these traits apply to female athletes as well). He is theatrical. He puts himself on display.

He is assertive, proud and intimidating. He makes himself the center of attention when the game is on the line. His identity is built around his prowess. His achievement is measured by how much he can elicit the admiration of other people — the roar of the crowd and the respect of ESPN.

His primary virtue is courage - the ability to withstand pain, remain calm under pressure and rise from nowhere to topple the greats." 

Brooks goes on to describe how this is in tension with the Christian moral and ethic.  He states it like this:

"Ascent in the sports universe is a straight shot. You set your goal, and you climb toward greatness. But ascent in the religious universe often proceeds by a series of inversions: You have to be willing to lose yourself in order to find yourself; to gain everything you have to be willing to give up everything; the last shall be first; it’s not about you.

For many religious teachers, humility is the primary virtue. You achieve loftiness of spirit by performing the most menial services. (That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.) You achieve your identity through self-effacement. You achieve strength by acknowledging your weaknesses. You lead most boldly when you consider yourself an instrument of a larger cause."

Brooks makes some intriguing points, but fails to correctly diagnose the tensions that exists.

At first blush, Brooks seems to be on to something with the tension between competition and humility. But I think he mischaracterizes the nature of true and upright competition. The truest forms of competition are not those which seek to humiliate another person or self-aggrandize. The truest forms of competition are those in which multiple parties are all pursuing excellence in the same field with the goal of reaching a certain aim first. It is the human heart that turns this competition into a pursuit of vanity, self-glorification, and humiliation of others. Much of what Brooks describes as the goal of the modern sports hero is simply a cultural emphasis on sinful attitudes, not the true nature of sports or heroes.

And it is the human heart that makes his particular emphasis on sports puzzling. If one was to carry out the logic of his argument to its extent there would be the same tension between Christianity and gaining promotion in any field because it would be succeeding in the place of others with the same goal. There would be tension in starting a small business and seeking to become profitable because other small businesses are also seeking to succeed and are, therefore, the competition. There would be tension in acquiring assets in any business because every asset acquired cannot be acquired by anyone else.

Brooks smelled something that stinks. He is on to something because the tension does exist, but his conclusions miss the mark. I believe there is tension present in the world of Christian athletes. But it is not a tension unique to that situation. It is simply an expression of the tension that exists in all our hearts all the time - that of seeking to glorify myself rather than glorify God.

Christians can be the best in their field. They can be, therefore, better, than others at certain occupations or tasks. The tension exists when we consider the biblical commands to pursue humility and consider others better than yourself. But tension does not correlate to contradiction.

Ron Turrene/NBAE via Getty Images

The tensions and temptations Jeremy Lin faces are exacerbated by his celebrity status and made obvious by the base reality of team sports as a competitive endeavor. But he is not required to, therefore, be a humiliator of others or a theatrical self-promoter. He is required to pursue excellence in the profession of basketball. Excellence is what all followers of Christ are called to pursue no matter the endeavor. God gave us talents and we are called to use them - for his glory, not our own.

And let us pray that Jeremy Lin continues his faithful pursuit of God-honoring humility in the midst of his God-honoring basketball excellence.

Self-Love and Loving Others

Excerpted from my article at WorldMag.com

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus gave us this as the second of the two greatest commandments. Paul described it as the summation or fulfillment of the whole law. No complicated explanations, lists of caveats, or endless parsing – just “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

And we westerners have taken it to heart. Sort of. It’s more accurate to say that we have taken it and fit it to our hearts. 

It has morphed from “Love your neighbor as yourself” to “Love your neighbor because you love yourself” to “Love yourself so you can love your neighbor.”

Read the entire article HERE

70 x 7

Forgiveness is hard. To willingly and willfully give up your claim on another person because of a wrong done by them is trying.

One of the most famous and most quoted passages on forgiveness is Matthew 18:21 & 22 where Peter asks if he must forgive someone who sins against him even as much as seven times and Jesus gives the famous response: “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”

The obvious and correct interpretation of this passage is that there must be immense forgiveness for wrongs committed against us, many times more than our human nature is comfortable with. We are to be rich in grace toward those who wrong us over and over again and thus forgive them over and over again for their various offenses. For, if we have been forgiven thousands of times over for our wrong doings by Christ, how can we not also forgive others?

But there is a second interpretation, complimentary to the first, which I think is also true and equally as important. And that is this: we are to forgive the wrong doer seventy times seven for the same single sin against us.

When someone hurts us deeply it is not as simple as to forgive them and be done with it. It’s not that simple because the hurt runs deep and keeps hurting days, months, years after the initial offense. It’s not that easy because certain words, places, circumstances, or conversations remind us of the hurt over and over again. And it’s not that simple because we’re sinners. When we forgive, it is eroded by our own heart’s bitterness and undermined by our own self-righteousness. It is forgotten in fits of self-pity or anger. Our forgiveness is not a finished or eternal offering.

So we must forgive that single person for that single hurt not just once, or seven times, but seventy times seven. Every time we face those certain words, places, circumstances, or conversations that bring the hurt back we must choose to forgive again.

This kind of forgiveness is, in my experience, the hardest to do, and that’s because the kinds of offenses that require it are the most hurtful. It’s one thing to forgive a brash, loud-mouthed co-worker over and over again because they manage to be offensive with every other sentence. It’s another thing entirely to forgive, daily, the spouse or parent or friend who has undermined your credibility or betrayed your trust. But it is good.

Seventy times seven means far more, but never less, than forgive each time you are wronged. It means forgive offenses to completion even if that means a daily, or even hourly, decision to let the debt go.

Can Everyone Be a Leader?

Excerpted from my weekly article at WorldMag.com:

Each of you is a leader!”

Recently this has become a theme, practically a mantra, whether it is in businesses, schools, or churches. Entrepreneurial efforts have become popularized as people seek to lead their own business or ministry. Hundreds and thousands of books have been written on the subject, seminars are held, and tests are given. Leadership is the thing.

But as the old adage goes, you can’t lead if nobody is following.

Obviously, not everyone is a leader. In fact, not even most people would qualify as leaders. But the mindset of “I am a leader” prevails, which has a striking effect. Numerous people are leading nobody in spite of their desire to lead, and they are following nobody precisely because of their desire to lead.

Read the full article HERE.

Ask a Question!

In college, I took several classes from  Jerry Root . He was one of my favorite professors and one of the few whose lessons have left an etching on my Teflon brain. One of the most significant lessons Jerry taught me was about asking questions. 

Jerry made it a point to lay a foundation for basic understanding in his classes. He did it by teaching the class the importance of questions such as “When you say _______ do you mean ______?” and “What do you mean by _____?” As a pretentious, obnoxious Wheaton College underclassman these questions were perfectly timed for me. I needed to learn how to understand and hear a person before making a judgment as to their correctness or character.

This is a lesson I am still learning, and it’s one that most people, it seems, need to learn as well. The number of snap judgments, inferences, misinterpretations, and character defamations thrown around, especially on the internet, is absurd. How often have you seen commenters on a blog question the author’s intelligence or faith? How often have you heard a parishioner throw out an entire sermon based on one opaque point?

Where does this disinclination to understand come from? Given each of our experiences being misunderstood and misrepresented, shouldn’t we turn those thoughts toward others and realize our propensity for doing the same? We must always remember that our inability to fully understand somebody does not mean they haven’t communicated well; it just as often means we aren’t comprehending well.

 The first step to beginning to respond in an understanding way to others is to realize how little we tend to understand them. Only one man in history had the ability to hear the words of another and know perfectly the heart behind them and all the meaning loaded in them. And that man wasn’t me and he wasn’t you. (See Matthew 9:1-8 for more info.)

So we must ask questions. We begin by questioning our interpretations and then we pass the questions along to the communicator. We must question the words used and the heart from which they sprung. We must question tone and temperament. And we must do so not with the intention of finding flaws or challenging the communicator (“Are you an idiot?” “Do you have any idea what you are talking about?”) but with the intention gaining real understanding.

But we must also be comfortable not getting answers, and, therefore, not making judgments. We can only glean so many answers from something that is written. We rarely get to know the full character or intention of the author. And without those answers we must be limited in our response, especially in angst, anger, and accusation.        

One of the things I appreciate most about the commenters on this blog is the number of questions that are asked (along with the very gracious and thoughtful feedback). I am thankful for readers who respond with grace and with requests for clarity rather than lambasting me for some assumed intent. It is encouraging to be able to clarify. It is discouraging to be misunderstood. It is encouraging to be questioned for the sake of understanding. It is discouraging to be falsely judged.

So I encourage all of you to do the same for other writers, for your pastors, or in conversation. Give them the grace to clarify, explain, and expose their hearts. And be willing to withhold a judgment if clear answers are lacking.