How to Have an Opinion

The advent and development of the Internet as we know it today has irrevocably revolutionized our world.

I begin with this rather obvious statement because I want you to consider its truth.  The Internet HAS revolutionized our world in countless ways--some good, some bad, some neutral, and some that can go either way.  I want you to stew with me on one of those "it could go either way" ideas for a moment.

One can find many things on the Internet.  In recent months, I have come across something that is almost as ubiquitous on the Internet as the selfie and that might even be connected to the selfie in some Freudian, sub-conscious sort of way.  I am referring to opinions.  There is no shortage of opinions to be found on the web.  One can find them in the tweets, posts, articles, and comments of the smartest and most celebrated among us, in those of your "average Joe" and, more often than not, in the online ramblings of someone simply referred to as "anonymous."  Opinion is alive, well, and circulating freely on the fiber optic cables that make up our virtual landscape.  The "information superhighway" (remember when it was called that?) has provided just about any person on earth with the capability to voice their opinion and make it available for anyone else to consider. (Take this blog as a case in point.)  This may be a good thing.  Or, it may be a really, really bad thing.

Consider this.

What one cannot find quite as easily on the Internet as opinions is respect, courtesy, deference, and genuine, healthy dialogue or debate about those opinions.  Many of the opinions offered online are structured and promoted in such a way that they create strife, resentment, and isolation.  They are a platform for aggrandizement of self and belittlement of others.  They degenerate into a rhetorical game of chicken rather than serving as a sincere search for truth.  I stand among the accused on this particular point.  I have never had much difficulty offering my opinion--particularly behind the shield of a computer screen.  Unfortunately, I have crossed the proverbial line on several occasions--even to the point of losing friends in the Facebook sense of the word.  It strikes me that most people don't need to be taught to form opinions.  We seem to be hardwired to do so.  I wonder, however, if we could all use some lessons/reminders about how to have our opinions.  That is--about how to hold them and about how to offer them for others to consider.

To that end, I would like to offer some basic guidelines.  These are, of course, just my opinion, so please take them as such.

1.  Remember the source and progression of opinions.

Whenever I watch a movie that deals with racial inequality and bigotry, I end up asking myself the same, penetrating question, "What would I have believed and how would I have acted if I lived in the 1860's or even the 1960's?"  Of course, I want to believe that I would have been enlightened and progressive in my thinking.  I want to believe that I would never have succumbed to the ugliness of racism.  I am haunted by the fact, however, that it is probable, had I been born several decades or more earlier than I was, that I would have adhered to the racial creeds of the day.  That is, I probably would have been a bigot.  This is just a simple calculation based on the color of my skin and the social status of my family tree.  I don't like that thought, but I cannot categorically deny it either.

My point is that our systems of belief (our opinions) are, to a significant extent, the product of our cultural context--our upbringing, our social status, our circle of friends, etc...  Of course, everyone wants to believe that their opinions are well-grounded, logically sound, and devoid of any sentimental attachment.  We want to believe that we believe what we believe because it is the truth.  In some cases, this is an accurate assessment.  In many cases, however, we believe what we believe for reasons that are far less pristine and rational.  This doesn't necessarily mean your beliefs are wrong.  It does mean that it is incumbent upon all of us to remember the source of our opinions and of those we encounter.  Everyone has a story, and opinions are intricately intertwined in the details of that story as it unfolds.

Speaking of unfolding stories, it is also essential to remember that opinions are like bodies.  They grow, mature, strengthen, weaken, and change dramatically over the years.  You haven't always thought the way you think now, and you probably won't think exactly the same way in 20 years that you do now.  (At least, I hope you don't.)  We all would do well to remember this in our interactions with others and their ideas.

2.  Remember to separate the opinion from the one holding it.

This may sound contradictory to my first point.  I just got through telling you to remember that our opinions are closely aligned with who we are.  This is true.  It is also true, however, that we must evaluate the veracity of an opinion based on the merits of the opinion itself and not based on the person who is offering it.  To put this another way--if something is true, it is true regardless of who says it or supports it.  Once again, we all want to believe that we disagree with someone else because they are wrong.  Could it be, however, that sometimes we disagree with them because we just don't like them?  There are few things in life that are more irritating than when someone we consider to be from "the other side" offers an idea that makes logical sense and adds up in our mind.  It is difficult to admit it when our nemesis is right, but this we must do.

I believe that many followers of Jesus and right-wing conservatives encounter this difficulty in discussions of politics.  "Obama Bashing" has become quite fashionable in these circles, and I see it nearly every day on my Facebook feed.  I will concede the point that many of his policies and decisions (in my opinion) are unwise and counter-productive.  I don't like his politics.  I do not believe, however, that "everything that man says is a lie" or that every action his administration has taken or will take is wrong.  Is the right side of the field (or the left for that matter) intellectually honest enough to admit that even a broken clock is right twice a day?  (Although according to comedian Stephen Wright scientists are working on a broken clock that is right three times a day.)

3.  Remember that there is a right way to be right.

I am finding myself becoming more distant from and disillusioned by professional sports.  My concern is not with the talent or level of play in our professional leagues.  In many sports, these are at the highest level they have ever been.  My concern is that I am seeing far less grace and sportsmanship than I used to.  (That makes me sound so old!)  Even my beloved game of college basketball seems to have slipped into the mire of arrogant chest-thumping and trash-talking.  I don't like it.  I don't like it at all.  I'm not sure that the old adage is true that says, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game that matters."  No, I believe it is important to play to win, but even in your pursuit of victory and excellence, I believe it is essential to win honorably and gracefully.  I just don't see a lot of this on ESPN these days.

In our online or in-person discussions, let us all remember that you can be right but in a way that is wrong.  Strive for grace and sportsmanship when you spar with others in the comments section of your favorite blog or virtual water cooler.  Spirited debate should not and does not preclude the possibility of civility and respect.  Play to win, but win with style.

4.  Remember to admit the possibility that you might be wrong.

Of all the opinions I am offering in this article, this is the one that I fear may elicit the most disagreement.  Personally, I believe it is essential in any conflict of ideas (no matter how major) to admit and accept the possibility (however slim it may be) that you might be on the wrong side.  I am not implying that one should harbor doubts about her position.  I am not asserting that one should hold his beliefs weakly or in a perpetual state of flux.  I am not proposing a relativistic, post-modern ideal in which every opinion is equally true.  That, of course, is preposterous.  In just about any debate, there is a wrong side and a right side.  (Although the point should be made that it is foolish to make the reductionist "either-or" error.  Many of us need to open ourselves to the possibility of "both-and" in many of our discussions.)

What I am saying is that it is critical for us as fallen, finite beings to admit at least the possibility that we might be wrong.  Why is it critical?  Because, the fact is, we might be wrong.  If one gets to a point where they feel that at least some of their opinions are infallible, that person has placed himself in a position of stunted growth--both personally and relationally.  The opportunity for productive, healthy dialogue evaporates the moment someone says, "I am right and there is no possibility otherwise!"  Personally, I make a habit of disengaging with anyone who cannot admit the possibility of error in a certain opinion.  Why waste my time or theirs?  It's pointless to move any further in the discussion.

I think this is especially important for my fellow followers of Jesus to consider.  The fact that I believe the Bible to be infallible does not imply that I as a student of the Bible am also infallible.  Yet, this is exactly how Christians often come across to each other and to those outside our faith.  Remember that it is our faith not our knowledge that forms the basis of our religious system and our relationship with God.  I don't know that God is not dead.  I don't know that heaven is for real.  I don't know that Jesus is alive.  I believe each of those things, but I don't know them.  For the record, I feel that my belief is well-founded, but it is still only belief.  The atheists, the Hindus, or anyone else might be right.  I might be wrong.  To deny this possibility is to deny the nature of our worldview and to exclude the possibility of connecting with and genuinely impacting those who don't share our beliefs.

So...

The next time you begin to launch into an online tirade about your favorite soap-box topic, will you take a moment to consider the ideas I've offered here?  I hope that you will.  I believe there is much truth to what I've said in these paragraphs.

But I might be wrong...

The (Other) Final Word in the Modesty Debate

In part 1 of this article, I postulated some postulates (what else would a person postulate?) about the so-called "Modesty Debate."  Summarily speaking, I tried to argue that the Biblical expectation for women/girls in their clothing choices deals primarily with their attitude and motive although I Timothy 2:9 does create a basic standard for the clothes themselves.  The good ol' ESV renders this standard as "respectable clothing."  At that point in the article, both my brain and my fingers were reaching the point of exhaustion so I stopped typing.

After a week, both my brain and my fingers feel sufficiently rested to continue.  Actually, I am really excited about this part of the post because it will allow me to speak about an area in which I am a genuine, qualified, first-rate expert--my own opinion.  I am also excited because submitting my own opinion prohibits anyone from disagreeing with me or trying to dissuade me because I can just say, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine."  (Note - Although the previous sentence was included primarily for humorous purposes, I do have a less lighthearted reason for including it.  I think individuals engaged in the so-called "Modesty Debate" do need to realize that much of the conversation on both sides is opinion because the Bible does not give a great deal of specific prescription for New Testament believers in this area.  At least, in my opinion, it does not.)  So, with no further ado, I will now continue...(Wait, I just thought of one more piece of ado.  I want to include a warning.  Warning - I am planning on speaking fairly frankly (though not explicitly or inappropriately) about certain aspects of this issue in the paragraphs below.  Please don't be mad at me when you get to those parts.  I told you they were coming!)  Okay, now there is no further ado...

Section Two - My Personal Opinions about Various Aspects of the So-Called "Modesty Debate"

For what it's worth, here's what I think about...

1.  The definition of "respectable clothing" - As I said earlier, the only specific Biblical guideline I have thus far been able to identify for the actual clothes a New Testament era woman/girl wears is that they be "respectable."  (By the way, I see no reason why this same word shouldn't apply to men's/boy's clothing as well.)  This, of course, begs the question, "What makes for respectable clothing?"  Ah!  Therein (as they say) lies the rub!  For being a specific guideline, this mandate isn't really all that specific.  I find it noteworthy that God did not further define/explain what He meant by "respectable."  He certainly could have done so, but...He didn't.  I believe His reason for doing so is two-fold.  First, God expects each Christian to think through, pray, and consider for themselves what "respectable clothing" looks like.  Second, God knows that the specific look of "respectable clothing" will vary and change according to the culture.  I know that this second idea will make some of my readers uncomfortable, but I just don't see how one can ignore the fact that clothing (like several areas of the Christian experience) is very much dependent on cultural contexts.  The ambiguity of God's dress code is actually a testimony to the brilliance with which God designed Christianity because it makes it timeless and borderless.  God giving very specific guidelines for clothing choices would be a lot like buying a new computer or cell phone--in a matter of time it will be outdated and obsolete.  By limiting His expectation to our clothes being "respectable," God has allowed both 1st century believers and 21st century believers to adhere to the guideline despite the fact that clothing styles are vastly different between the two.

All of that leads me to to say this--we should choose clothing that is, within the larger scope of culture, generally considered to be "respectable."  That is--will most people using common sense who see us consider our clothes to be appropriate and respectable?  Undoubtedly, there are some styles that even the general culture understands to be provocative or inappropriate.  Believers shouldn't wear these.  Outside of those, however, I believe that the circle which includes "respectable clothing" is a pretty big circle encompassing a variety of different looks--including looks that might be considered more conservative or more liberal.  To put it bluntly, I think that, as long as our private parts are covered, we have a great deal of freedom when it comes to how long, how high, how loose, and how whatever our clothes are.  "Respectable" is a big concept, and anyone who tries to define it more narrowly than God is overstepping their bounds, in my opinion.

There is another idea that often creeps its way into the discussion, and so I would like to expend my last bit of mental dexterity for the day on that topic...

2.  The responsibility of women/girls to protect men from lusting after their bodies - As the so-called "Modesty Debate" rages on, those who take the more conservative approach (Please note above where I said there is plenty of room in the "Respectable Circle" for those who want to dress more conservatively) often support their specific dress preferences and (sometimes) seek to force them upon others by appealing to a woman's responsibility to protect the men around her from lusting after her body.  This, in their way of thinking, is accomplished by dressing conservatively.  Although there is no verse that specifically states this responsibility, it is true that there is a fairly well-developed Biblical concept that believers should not create situations that they know will most-likely cause other believers to sin.  I have no problem with the statement that women/girls should never dress in a way that they know will cause the males around them to lust and commit adultery in their hearts.  My problem with this line of thinking centers around the assumptions that often accompany it.  There is an assumption that all men are leering, lust-driven maniacs who cannot control their gaze or their thoughts.  While it may be true in general that men are primarily stimulated by sight, this does not necessarily mean that every guy around is a slave to his lust.  Many men have learned how to see a woman and appreciate the beauty of her respectfully-dressed body without lusting or committing heart-adultery.  Some will say, "What about those who haven't learned to do this?  What about the leering, lust-driven maniacs out there?  Shouldn't we try to help them out?"  This reasoning reveals another assumption, namely, that women have it in their power to prevent a man from lusting after their bodies by dressing more conservatively.  This simply is not true.  Writing transparently and seriously as a man for whom lust has been and is an ongoing battle, I have to speak frankly to the women who are reading this.  It doesn't matter if you are covered from head to toe.  If I am in the grip of lust at any given moment (please notice the if at the beginning of this sentence), I have the capability to inappropriately gaze at you and objectify parts of your body.  Unless you are dressed in a rectangular cardboard box, I can look at your clothes (as long and loose as they might be) and focus lustfully on your chest, your legs, your backside, your lips, your hair, or any other part I want to.  This is not your fault, it's mine.  If I am in the grip of flesh rather than Spirit, my lust might have nothing to do with your clothes at all but rather the simple fact that God created a woman's body with the shape and look that He did.  For me to expect you to stem the tide of my depravity by your clothing choices is an unrealistic expectation and a grievous burden to place on your shoulders.  For you to believe that you can stem the tide of my depravity by your clothing choices is a well-meaning, but utterly misguided thought.

"Should not women do their due diligence to make it easier for men to resist their lust?" some might ask.  Of course they should.  This is accomplished by choosing clothing that is "respectable."  (See point number 1 above.)  Beyond that, however, I just don't think that women/girls have the responsibility or the power in relation to men's eyes and thoughts that some would have us believe.  As with most things in the Christian experience, it comes down to an internal heart issue for the man rather than external influences.

And with that, I will complete my contribution to the so-called "Modesty Debate" and thereby wrap up the discussion for believers worldwide so that we can all move on to other points of debate/disagreement like politics, music, or Santa Claus.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end.

The Final Word in the Modesty Debate

During this past summer (2013), I began to notice an emerging trend on my Facebook feed.  In addition to the usual fare of rants against Obamacare, coupon posts, sports team trash talking, and pictures of people's dogs and/or foot injuries, I saw an increasing number of links to blog articles with the word "modesty" in the title.  These articles usually discussed an issue that is (in certain smaller segments of American Evangelicalism) a hot topic--girls' and women's clothing choices.  Having read many of these articles and the accompanying arguments being waged in the comments sections of said articles, I decided to sit down and articulate the final word in the so-called "Modesty Debate."  I figure that, if no one else is willing to settle this issue once and for all, I might as well go ahead and get it done.

The last two sentences were written with my tongue in my cheek.  Obviously, I do not have the market cornered on the modesty debate, and I am certainly not one who is qualified to settle the arguments.  I will freely admit that I chose the title of this article for the sole purpose of catching your attention and surreptitiously inducing you to read what I have to say.  So far, my ploy appears to have worked in light of the fact that you have read all the way to this point.  In reality, my intent in this article is far less ambitious than my title would have you believe.  I would simply like to offer my own two cents about this issue.  I will accomplish this by dividing my comments into two sections.  Read them and do with them what you will.

Section One - My Personal Interpretation of the Biblical Guidelines for Women's Clothing

Ignoring for the time being the fact that discussions about modesty and dress choices almost always omit any mention of boys'/men's clothing, I would like to tell you what I believe the Bible teaches about girls'/women's clothing.  This is also what I plan on teaching my children (my daughter in particular) about this area.  I will be forthright with you, Reader, and admit that I have not spent a great deal of time studying the issue in all of its intricate nuances.  I have, however, done a fair amount of marinating on the passage in I Timothy 2:9-10, as this seems to me to be the primary passage in which God has given clear instructions about female clothing choices.  Many will argue with me and assert that the Bible contains a great deal more instruction about clothing, but I am always a bit wary when someone has to resort to an obscure, context-stripped verse in Hezekiah 45:11 for support.  (Yes, I know that there is no such verse as Hezekiah 45:11.  Everyone knows there's only 44 chapters in that book.)  Based on my marination on the passage in I Timothy, I have formulated the following 4 principles about female clothing choices:

1.  God's expectations in this area appear to focus far more on the heart attitude of the wearer than they do the specific clothing styles that the wearer chooses.  Even the passage in I Peter 3:3-4 (which is the other location in which we find mention of female clothing choices) puts the focus squarely on the inward rather than the external.  God's primary concern seems to be the attitude behind and the motive with which a woman wears her clothes.  One of the aspects of the I Timothy passage that I was quite surprised to discover is the fact that the idea of modesty is more accurately applied to the attitude of the wearer than it is to the clothes themselves.  In other words, it's not necessarily the clothes that should be modest but the person wearing them.  Certain Bible versions seem to be the culprits in propagating the semantical misconception that clothes themselves can be modest in the sense of humble and meek.  The ESV translates the clothing guideline as "respectable apparel" with the accompanying attitude of modesty and self-control.  To be sure, God did make a statement about the clothes themselves, and I will say more about that farther down the page.  At this point, however, I would simply like to point out that the majority of what God says about the issue deals with an inward state of the soul rather than a particular guideline about style.  It seems to me that our teaching on this topic should reflect that emphasis as well.

2.  There is nothing inherently wrong about a girl/woman dressing in a way that flatters and beautifies the body God has given her.  One of the bothersome (to me at least) aspects of the numerous modesty articles I have read recently is the implicit declaration to girls/women that their body is something to be hidden, camouflaged, or even ashamed of because of its alleged power over the male mind.  The female body is a powerful image and presence, to be sure.  (More on that later.)  I do not, however, subscribe to the notion that this power requires a woman to stifle the inherent physical beauty God has given to her or to limit the flattering/beautification process to only those parts of her body above her neck or below her knee (or ankle in some circles).  I find it revealing (almost no pun intended) that I Timothy 2:8 actually instructs women to adorn themselves.  This word does not simply mean to clothe.  It carries the idea of "decorating" or "beautifying."  In my mind, this seems to imply that there is nothing wrong with wearing clothing that flatters a girl's body and enhances her natural beauty.  I Peter 3 makes it clear that this adornment should not be exclusively external (refer to point 1 above for more details), but I do not believe God has prohibited girls/women from wearing styles that accentuate and decorate their bodies.  I do believe there is an appropriate and inappropriate way to do that, but I am going to save those thoughts for my big finish down in point number 4.  Before we get to that, however, let me present number 3...

3.  If, as I have posited above, modesty is an internal heart issue, then a woman who does not have this attitude is not fulfilling the requirements of the verse, regardless of what she is or isn't wearing.  This, in my moderately humble opinion, is where many a well-meaning follower of Jesus has missed the proverbial boat.  In some circles of American Evangelicalism an assumption is firmly entrenched in the minds of moms, dads, youth pastors, youth pastor's wives, and Christian school principals that their girls are just plain better off with "safer" or "higher" dress standards.  A girl's heart may be as far from modest as you can get, but at least her necklines and hemlines are appropriate.  If I am understanding Paul's inspired instructions in I Timothy correctly, then it is accurate for me to say that it doesn't really matter what clothes a woman is wearing or not wearing.  If her spirit is not one of "modesty" and "self-control", then she is not in adherence to the Biblical standard.  Dress codes certainly have their place in various contexts, but it is time to stop assuming that adherence to a dress code somehow puts a girl in a better place spiritually even though her soul is far from being spiritually healthy.  Even as some of you are reading those sentences the word "But..." is forming on your lips so I will hasten on to my finale...

4.  There is a standard of respectability and appropriateness for female clothing choices. If a girl does not meet this requirement, she is out of harmony with God's expectations, regardless of what her attitude and motive might be.  This, in my moderately humble opinion, is where many a well-meaning follower of Jesus has missed the proverbial boat. (Yes, I intentionally chose to repeat the same sentence I used in number 3, and I did it for dramatic effect.)  One of the problems that I have sensed in the comments and writings of those who argue against the "modest clothing" approach is the implicit idea that it doesn't really matter what a girl is wearing as long as her heart is modest and her intention is pure.  I do not agree.  Let us not forget that God did issue an instruction in the I Timothy passage about the clothes themselves.  The standard is listed in the ESV as "respectable apparel."  This implies that there exists in this universe styles we can call "un-respectable or unacceptable apparel."   If I am understanding Paul's inspired instructions in I Timothy correctly (Yup, I did it again.), then it is accurate for me to say that it doesn't really matter what a girl/woman's attitude or motive is.  If her clothes can be deemed to be inappropriate or lacking in respectability, then she is not in adherence to the Biblical standard.  Now, the crux of the issue comes when we ask the question, "What should be considered respectable clothing?"  You may not be surprised to discover that I have some ideas about that.  However, it has taken me a lot longer to type this much than I thought it would, so I think I will save those ideas and the rest of Section 2 for a follow-up post in a few days...

Please be honest but kind in any comments you may choose to submit...

(Read part 2 of this article by clicking here.)

You Don't Know What You're Missing, Part II

"Have you ever eaten at Morton's Steakhouse?"
"No."
"Oh!  Well let me tell you, you don't know what you are missing!  It's fantastic!"


Have you ever taken part in a conversation like this one?  Most of us probably have at some point.  We use phrases like "You don't know what you're missing!" to try to convince the person to whom we are talking that they really are missing something great.  It's kind of a funny thing to say if you think about it.  If it is true that they really don't know what they are missing, telling them this doesn't really accomplish much.  The only way to induce them to try Morton's Steakhouse (or whatever the subject at hand may be) is to somehow get them to recognize and appreciate the greatness of which they have been ignorant up to that point.


This, in essence, is the idea we considered in Part I of this post.  The only way that the Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day would have called so adamantly for His execution was the fact that they did not recognize or appreciate the truth of which they were ignorant, namely, that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.  All things being equal, this was a truth that the Pharisees could have and should have known.  (I understand and agree completely with the idea that their actions were part of God's bigger plan of redemption and that the crucifixion for which they called was an essential component of God's will for Jesus.  I do not believe, however, that this excludes them from culpability for missing and refusing the Christ.)  The warning sounds out to all believers--Well-meaning and well-studied individuals can miss important truths without even realizing it.  (The warning becomes even more appropriate when you consider the fact that even Jesus' own disciples did not understand the full-scope of His Messianic position until after His earthly sojourn--see Luke 24:13-35.)


As stated in the previous post, the key to avoiding such costly oversights is to honestly and regularly ask the question, "What are we missing and where are we missing it in Christianity?"  (Perhaps it would be even more beneficial to phrase the question in 1st person.)  Either way, it is the starting point in a journey of reflection, evaluation, and discovery which every believer needs to take.


Before beginning that journey, however, I feel strongly that there are two preliminary ideas you must consider:


Your Motive - Questioning and evaluating your own beliefs, the beliefs of your church, or even the beliefs of Christianity at large is a dangerous thing.  At least, that is what many a believer will tell you.  Looking for genuine is often denigrated as simply "rocking the boat," "opening up a can of worms," or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." (How's that for a trio of metaphors?)  In many circles, questioning established traditions and beliefs is frowned upon (particularly by those in positions of authority) because it often results in reformulation (or even outright rejection) of ideas and traditions long held by the masses.  Change is something of which many people are afraid--particularly in the realm of religious doctrine and practice.


Armed with this understanding of people's nervousness about a questioning spirit, it is critical for you as the questioner to examine and purify your motives.  Don't begin this process with the idea of becoming some rouge iconoclast bent on demolishing anything that even hints of being "traditional" or "old-school thinking."  The point is not to prove that everything we have ever believed or been taught is wrong and must be changed.  This is how many people perceive those of us who raise questions.  Let's do all we can to change that perception.  The purpose in this process is not to act as a proof-reader, armed with a red-pen, bent on finding and highlighting every minute mistake we can find.  Rather, we are trying to serve as investigators or inspectors who honestly evaluate all that "comes down the line"--approving what is good and exposing what is not. (See Ephesians 5:10-11 and I Thessalonians 5:21)  In short, your motive should not be to cause trouble but to find truth.  Personally, I believe that much of what I have been taught is true and correct.  That does not, however, preclude the possibility that I and those around me are missing some key ideas.


Your Weaknesses - If we come back to the story of the Pharisees and the disciples for a moment, we can see it's obvious they did not know what they were missing.  The deeper issue emerges, however, when we ask the question, "Why didn't they know what they were missing?" or "How could they miss something so important (and so obvious, I might add)?"  The fact is, several forces were at work in their lives that were contributing to their ignorance.  A necessary prerequisite to beginning your own journey of evaluation is to determine if and how these same weaknesses may be influencing your ability to see the truth.  Here is a short list of some of the contributing factors to the spiritual and religious miscalculation of the Pharisees.  How many are applicable to you?


1.  Pride - one of the primary reasons the Pharisees never accepted Jesus as Messiah or even considered the possibility that He might be so was their stubborn pride.  Even in the face of clear, conclusive evidence and persuasion (including one of their own--Nicodemus--challenging them to at least give Jesus a chance), the Pharisees' arrogance and foolish stubbornness would not allow them to open their eyes.  Pride blinds and pride hardens.  Very few vices have as negative an impact on the human soul as pride, and very few forms of pride are as hard to unseat as religious pride.


2.  Cultural Conditioning - I use the term "culture" here in a very broad sense.  Your "culture" can refer to everything from the region in which you live to the type of church you attend to the family in which you were born and reared.  All of these (and more) strongly influence the way we think.  In the case of the Pharisees and the disciples, Jesus' failed to fit in the box into which the prevailing culture of the day taught them the Messiah would fit.  Jesus didn't meet their expectations as Messiah--plain and simple.  Rather than reevaluate their inherited belief system (as I am suggesting we do), they simply dismissed Jesus as a fake.  Cultural conditioning is very hard to detect and even harder to eliminate, but we must do both when the truth breaks the mold by which we have been formed.


3.  Inaccurate Interpretation of Scripture - I fully believe that many Pharisees in those days could have given you scriptural reasons for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah.  (One of them would very likely have been the fact that He was Jesus of Nazareth.)  The religious Jews were students of the Word, but the problem was that their approach to and conclusions about the Word were often flawed.  As much as we hate to admit it, Biblical Hermeneutics (interpretation) is an inaccurate art subject to the foibles of human depravity.  We can and we must regularly evaluate our interpretations of Scripture to be as accurate as possible.  (Part of doing that is being willing to consider the interpretations and ideas of those who have reached different conclusions than we.)


4.  The Fallen Human Condition - We all naturally have our "own way."  We all naturally gravitate toward untruth and error.  We all tend to live unexamined lives.  We all tend to be subject to inertia--both literal and figurative.  Simply put, the Pharisees and disciples were subject to the Fall of Man (just as we are) and, as such, they had the current of human depravity working against them (just as we do).  The good news is that God is in the business of redeeming humanity, and He has provided us with everything we need to know Him, to love Him, and to obtain and live His truth.


Building upon these foundational ideas, I believe that every Christian can and should embark on their own journey of evaluation and discovery.  Every Christian can embrace the spirit of the believers at Berea (Acts 17:10-12).  Every follower of Jesus should be on their own mission to find the genuine.


What are you waiting for?


(By the way, if you have never been to Morton's Steakhouse, you don't know what you're missing!  It is really, really good!)

You Don't Know What You're Missing, Part I

The following post is a summary of the introductory lesson I taught for a series I am presenting to a Young Marrieds Sunday School class this summer.  Hopefully I will articulate my ideas more clearly here than I did in the classroom.


I am a big fan of dramatic irony in literature and film.  Whether it's Peyton Farquhar from "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" or Henry Bemis from a classic episode of The Twilight Zone, I relish the ironic twist ending.


Perhaps this is one reason why I find the story recorded in Luke 23 (and the other Gospels) so compelling.  This passage recounts the familiar story of Pilate's interaction with the crowd on the day of Jesus' crucifixion:

Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him.  Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him.  I will therefore punish and release him.” But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas!”  Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.”  But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed.

If ever there was a sterling example of dramatic irony, this is it.  The key to recognizing it is to remember that the people demanding the execution of Jesus were not God-hating, Satan-worshipping pagans with a desire to plunge the world into a cesspool of debauchery and unspeakable evil.  On the contrary, the people shouting at Pilate that day were God-fearing, God-loving, and (ostensibly) God-pleasing religious devotees who desired more than anything to see God's name made great in the world.  The were the obsessively religious Jews that we refer to most generally as Pharisees, and the irony of the moment was that they were rejecting the very Messiah for whom they were all looking so earnestly.


How sad!  How tragic!  How...ironic!  These well-meaning folks made one of the most infamous mistakes in history, and the truly ironic part is that it could have been very easily avoided.  To say it tritely--they should have know better.  Of all the people living during the time of Christ, the Pharisees should have been first in line to recognize and honor Jesus as the Christ.  This is the one thing they should not have missed.  Perhaps some readers would come to their defense and say, "Well, it's easy for you to judge them because you have the advantage of looking back on their story.  Hindsight is always 20/20."  To that, I respond, "Yes, but they had the advantage of being thoroughly trained in the Old Testament prophecies.  They had the advantage of seeing the sign miracles in person.  They had the advantage of hearing Jesus brilliantly defend His Messiahship first hand." (See John 5 and Luke 11 for examples)  Disagree if you will, but I am convinced that these religious experts had more than sufficient evidence before them to prove the legitimacy of Jesus as the Christ. They could have and should have believed.  But...they didn't.  They dismissed Jesus as a fraud and a rabble-rouser.  Quite literally, they missed the very "finger of God" when it was right under their noses. (Luke 11:20)


Now, the point in making that point is simple--I believe there is a latent but solemn warning for us in the story of the Pharisees.  I personally believe that one of the reasons why the Pharisees appear so often in the story of the Gospel is because they are we...or we are they. (However you want to put it.)  That is--Pharisaism is not something that only first-century Jews were faced with.  It's not a Jewish problem.  It's a human problem.  Pharisaism is the default setting of the fallen human heart.  If that is true, then the irony of the Jews' case of mistaken identity with Jesus should not be lost on us.  If they could be so sincere and so well-meaning and yet miss something so critical, where does that leave us?  Well-meaning though we may be, the possibility of us missing key doctrines or ideas in our own time is very, very high.


The purpose of this post, the next post, and the Sunday School series I am currently teaching is two-fold--1) To learn what we can from the mistakes of the Pharisees so as not to repeat them, and 2) To open a dialogue in which we confront ourselves with this question, "What are we missing and where are we missing it as followers of Jesus?"  You see, the real problem for the Pharisees was that they didn't know what they were missing.  They had no idea that they were calling for the crucifixion of the real Messiah!  If they had realized the truth they were missing they would no doubt have reacted differently.  Unfortunately for them, however, they didn't realize it.  They were completely blind to their own misinformation and bad doctrine.  The problem with not knowing what you are missing is that you have no motivation to correct the situation.  Who goes looking for their keys, their purse, or the remote control before they realize these items are lost?  Nobody!  Only when the reality that you have misplaced one of these things dawns on your mind do you begin looking for them.  That reality will only dawn on your mind when you open your eyes, look around you, and recognize that something is missing.


So...that is what I am attempting to do in this two-part post, in my Sunday School class, in this blog, and in my life.  It is something that needs to be a regular exercise in Christianity on both a personal and corporate level.  We need to open our eyes, look around us, and ask ourselves, "Have we misplaced our keys?"


I will share with you how to start that process in the next segment...

Yours, Mine, or Ours?

One of our human idiosyncrasies is the fact that we are very territorial.  This tendency is quite obvious to me as a parent of young children.  Children 6 and under have a very specific and complicated set of unwritten rules about possession and ownership.  Nowhere are these rules more evident than in the quintessential cry of the toddler, "THAT'S MINE!"

As we grow older, we leave many of the tendencies of childhood behind.  Our possessiveness, however, is not one of them.  Comedian Brian Regan touches on this in his routine about a child losing his balloon. (Look for it on YouTube if you haven't seen it.)  Adults have their own set of rules about possession and ownership.  We just have the tactfulness to refrain from saying "THAT'S MINE!" out loud--most of the time.

Christians are no exception to the previous comments.  I was thinking today about how possessive believers (including the one typing this) can be at times.  Here are a few examples for you to chew on:

1.  The United States of America - as election season heats up, you can almost hear the Christians of our country chanting, "THAT'S MINE!"  Any candidate who includes ideas about reclaiming America for God or restoring America to her Christian heritage is bound to receive enthusiastic support from the Religious Right.  There appears to be an underlying assumption in American Evangelicalism that this country is ours and that we need to win it back from the Left.  This assumption is most often predicated upon the idea that our nation was founded upon the Bible and Christian principles.  Even if this notion is granted (which I don't think it should be categorically), the fact is, our nation was constituted in such a way that we don't really have the basis for claiming the US for Christianity at the expense of other religions and beliefs.  Like it or not, the atheist has just as much a right to believe and share his faith as the Baptist.  The same could be said for a variety of lifestyles and religious persuasions.  I understand the desire to promote righteousness and absolute truth.  I just don't feel that the courtroom, the legislative chamber, or the public school classroom is the appropriate venue for doing so.  Even if the Religious Right is somehow able to reclaim this nation the way they want to (which is doubtful), I think they may find it in the long run to be a Pyrrhic victory.

2.  Churches - I am becoming more and more convinced that one of the most detrimental developments in the ongoing saga of the church is the idea of dedicated church facilities.  Whereas the earliest Christians probably met in homes, the ensuing centuries have brought about the idea of sanctuaries and church property.  Many a congregation has been guilty of shouting, "THAT'S MINE!" with regard to these facilities.  It's kind of funny if you think about it.  Most church buildings sit empty and idle for all but maybe 9 or 10 hours out of the 168 in a week.  Isn't there a more efficient approach to the stewardship of our buildings and possessions to be found?  Could many of our churches find ways to put their facilities to  use outside of the grid of the traditional ideas?  I think the answer here is, "Yes!"  Personally, I like the idea of churches having a Gymnatorium or Multi-Purpose Room over the idea of a Sanctuary.  I think it helps us keep the right perspective about our facilities (and it's more doctrinally accurate--I Peter 2:5).  I remember a friend of mine from seminary talking about starting a church in a building that could be used as a restaurant during the week.  He would pastor the church and run the restaurant.  Although many believers might scoff at such an idea, I think he just might be onto something.

3.  God - Believing in a Higher Being is something inherent to our human nature.  Cultures and people groups throughout history have developed their individual ideas about God and religion.  These ideas about the Divine are as diverse as those who hold to them.  Over the last several years, I have come to recognize that many Christians are very possessive about God and will vehemently proclaim, "THAT'S MINE!" when confronted with ideas outside of the scope of their beliefs about Him.  This possessiveness manifests itself in two ways.  It comes out in the way we relate to people of other religions and beliefs.  I feel compelled to say that I am not advocating a relativistic, "all-roads-lead-to-heaven," "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere" approach.  I do believe there to be only one way, one truth, and one life.  Anything outside the scope of this truth is not valid, no matter how heartily it is believed.  This, however, does not mean we as Christians have the prerogative to take the beliefs of others lightly or dismiss them with a cavalier attitude.  Many Christians do not understand the beliefs of others or the comfort others take from their beliefs about God.  We are very possessive and even arrogant about "our God."  Handling this idea with balance is a tricky proposition, to be sure.  The other way our possessiveness about God reveals itself is in how we relate to others who live under the big umbrella of Christendom.  By this, I am simply referring to those who believe in the God of the Bible, but hold differing views about some of the specifics of His workings and His word.  Again, I am not saying that any belief or teaching that comes down the pike is valid.  Some ideas about God are non-negotiable and mutually exclusive to other opposing ideas.  Yet, the fact remains that so much of the disagreement between denominations and segments in Christianity relates to the non-essentials of the faith.  The territorial immaturity that comes out in these debates is, for the most part, useless and unhealthy.  The longer I live, the more I am coming to see that God is so much bigger than the boxes we have created for Him.

To conclude, I think believers would do well to loosen their grip and evaluate how their possessiveness may be hindering their ability to shine in the darkness.  When all is said and done, "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it!" (Psalm 24:1)

What If?

Have you ever played the "What if?" game with yourself?  You know, it's when you run different scenarios through your mind and try to figure out what the result would be if things were different.  Usually, we play this game (or put ourselves through this torture, as the case may be) when looking backward to the past.  We are particularly prone to do this when looking back on something negative such as a personal failure or tragedy.  We wonder things like, "What if I had gotten there 5 minutes later?" or "What if I had gotten that text message sooner?"  It's natural to do this, although I don't know that it is particularly healthy.

Lately, I have been playing the "What if?" game in the other direction.  I have been trying to figure out what the results would be in the future if things were different now.  Specifically, I have been pondering my Christian walk and my relationship to God and those around me.  As I have been growing in grace over the last months and years, I find myself wondering how our homes, our churches, our communities, our nation, and our world would be different if Christians thought differently and acted differently.  I am not claiming to know all of the problems and/or solutions of modern Christianity.  I am just wondering..."What if?"  Several ideas have come to mind.  Many of them are based on specific passages of scripture.  Some of them are just my own conjecture and theory.  All of them, at the very least, are interesting to think about and ponder...

So, I am going to do my best John Lennon impression and ask you to imagine.  Imagine what it would be like.  Imagine how our lives might be different.  Imagine how our impact on the world might increase.  Imagine how much more glory and honor God might receive. (It's easy if you try.)

What if...

We were truly convinced that God Himself is the highest and greatest good to which mankind can aspire?

We lived on a daily basis in full recognition of and appreciation for the finished work of Christ in our lives?

We viewed every person around us (friend or foe, believer or not) as a soul created by God in His image and infused with value and worth?

We allowed our brothers and sisters in Christ the freedom to be themselves in their walk with Christ?

We reached the conclusion that there are relatively few things in the scope of Christianity for which it is worth separating from other Christians?

We stopped trying to produce spiritual fruit (in ourselves or in others) through external, artificial means and started allowing Christ to live His life out through us?

We stopped viewing our nation as a battlefield to be conquered through political activism and radical separatism and started viewing it as a mission field to be lived in and exposed to the power of God's love in the Gospel?

We began to believe that every perfect gift is from God and that, for a Christian, there is no such thing as sacred or secular?

We stopped trying to define our spirituality in terms of all that we do or don't do?

We related to others the way God relates to us?

We all were honest with ourselves and others about how dark our hearts really are?

We truly understood that God views each Christian through the lens of Christ and that His love and acceptance for us are completely independent of our actions?

We came to accept that grace really is as good as it sounds?

What if?

Can you imagine?

IFB...R.I.P.

So it all comes down to just three letters--three letters and all that they represent.

It's amazing how drastically a three-letter label can impact your view of a person or organization. For instance, reading the words "Andrew D. Doan" may bring certain thoughts to your mind (hopefully they are positive thoughts). If, however, we attach the three-letter label "CIA" to the name "Andrew D. Doan" this creates a completely different perception in your mind about the person behind the label--which just so happens to be me. The point is--labels matter. They create an understanding in the minds of those who hear or see them. The understanding they create may or may not be accurate, but labels do their work nonetheless.

That's why I am writing this post that, essentially, can be boiled down to three letters--a three letter label:

I...F...B...

What understanding is created in your mind when you read these three letters in conjunction with one another? Of course, there are many different words these letters could represent in the acronym, but in this instance I am using them as follows:

Independent

Fundamental

Baptist

I grew up in IFB churches and considered myself to be an "IFBer" for most of my life. The vast majority of my experiences in this religious movement were positive in nature. I am thankful for my religious heritage as it was through IFB churches and related ministries that I was given the truth of the Gospel. (No less important is the fact that I met my wife at an IFB college.) I consider myself to be fairly well-versed in the culture and inner-workings of a typical IFB church. Many of my friends and former college-mates are either pastors of or working in an IFB ministry. Let it suffice to say that the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement has played an integral role in the first 30 years of my life.

Over the last several years, a number of events and personalities have wormed their way into the media (and, consequently, the attention of the masses) that have cast a pall over the IFB label. These events range from Koran-burnings in Florida to funeral protests in Kansas. Most recently, the IFB label has come under scrutiny through an ABC News investigation and report about an IFB church in Concord, NH. While not all of these examples come from IFB churches, they seem to have affected the popular perception of churches in general and independent churches in specific. The increasing hostility and suspicion that many Americans hold toward IFB churches and similar organizations have left moderate "IFBers" all wondering the same thing:

"How do I disassociate myself with all of the negativity about IFB while maintaining my religious identity before the world?"

In other words, many moderate (often young) Fundamentalists are trying to figure out how they can salvage the IFB label and restore it to a position of respect. This post is my opinion on and answer to that question. Are you ready? Here it is...

Don't.

That's it. Just don't. Don't even try. I am not a certified medical examiner, but I am gonna step out on a limb and officially declare the IFB label to be deceased. Well, at least it should be deceased. We can hold a memorial service and have a few nice eulogies about it, but the reality is that we should retire its number and a hang a commemorative jersey from the rafters. Yes, I know I am mixing my metaphors, but the point I am trying to make is that I believe the time is approaching (it may have already come and gone) when we should cut the IFB label loose...for good.

The reason for this is simple. It's just not worth it. There is too much other important work to be done for Christ's kingdom. There is no sense in stubbornly holding on to a label that has become too much of a loose cannon to be redeemed. Ask any major corporation that has had to do PR resuscitation for a particular brand. Ask the Catholic Church. Changing the popular perception of a label once it has been soiled in the public eye is a very costly and time-consuming process. Independent Fundamentalism does not have the resources to accomplish such a feat. The fact is--it doesn't need to. "IFBers" can still believe what they believe, preach what they preach, and do what they do without having to be know as an "IFBer". Personally, I think there is much about what they believe, preach, and do that needs to be refined, but that is not the focus of this article.

I am arguing here for more than just keeping the IFB label quiet. As in, keep it but don't make a big deal about it. I don't think that is good enough. The fact is, carrying that label before the public can actually harm the cause of Christ. I am of the opinion that IFB ministry leaders should take active measures to disassociate themselves with IFB. As in, change the name of your church. Withdraw your membership from IFB organizations. Do all that you can before the public to NOT be know by this increasingly-toxic label.

In reality, this should come quite easily to a movement that has, from its inception, been characterized by separation. Fundamentalists have always been more than willing to separate from any person, organization, or label that has been deemed unworthy of the cause. (The near-paranoia about Billy Graham and "New Evangelicalism" is a case in point as is the attitude about Rick Warren or Willow Creek.) What is stopping the current generation of Fundamentalists from separating from the IFB label? I really don't know. Maybe they are ignorant (either willingly or unwillingly) of all the baggage the label brings with it. Maybe they feel that to drop the label is a form of compromise (which is a cardinal sin in IFB). Maybe they just want to pay homage to the great Fundamentalists of the past. Whatever the reason, I think IFB ministry leaders need to give serious thought to where this label will take them in the next 10 to 15 years.

Here's an illustration of what I am trying to say. Think about the word "gay" for a minute. With what do most (if not all) Americans associate this word? You are probably familiar with the fact that this word used to refer to a feeling of happiness and bliss or a carefree attitude. Over time, however, the popular perception of this word has changed. How foolish would it be for someone to claim the word "gay" as a label to describe themselves and insist that it means "happy or carefree" instead of "homosexual"? The individual might mean it in the older sense, but that is NOT how people will perceive them when they hear the term. Words and phrases evolve in their meanings and connotations over time. To refuse to recognize such changes is just silly. There comes a time when a certain label's connotation has evolved to such a point that you just have to separate from it.

Personally, I have already reached this point of separation. I have come to terms in my relationship with IFB. I have said my goodbyes. I am not a Fundamentalist nor do I care to be known as one. Do I believe the fundamentals? Yes. Am I independent? I suppose so. Am I a Baptist? For the time being. Do I want to put those three names together and smack the IFB label on my forehead? Not on your life.

The question, of course, will be raised by some, "What label would you have us use instead?" This is not easily answered. Truthfully, I don't know. Every label is going to carry some baggage with it. No label will perfectly portray to a hostile world exactly who and what you are. That is why I used to jokingly tell my fellow seminary students that I was going to start a church and just call it "Church." Unfortunately, even that label has its problems.

No, there is no ideal alternative to IFB. Maybe you can think of one. In the meantime, however, I stand by my assertion that the Independent Fundamental Baptist name (particularly the Fundamental part) should be laid to rest and given a decent burial. Stubborn refusal to do so may just be another example of the Fundamentalist penchant for defending mountains that aren't worth dying on. We've all got bigger fish to fry.

In the meantime,

Rest In Peace, IFB.

Gotta Give?

I have been thinking on and off over the last several months about Christian giving. For some reason, the subject has come up on several different occasions recently.

It started a few months back when I was covering II Corinthians with my 11th and 12th Grade Bible class. Using chapter 9, verse 7 as my basis, I made the statement to the group of 24 teenagers that I do not believe that tithing (in its truest sense of giving 10%) is required of New Testament believers. I told them that, as far as I could tell, the primary requirement for NT giving is a willing heart. This was a novel idea to many of them and several were quite skeptical of this strange, new doctrine. One student in particular talked with me personally on several occasions with questions about my view. Apparently, he had mentioned our class discussion to one of his mentors who did not agree with my estimation of the Biblical teaching about giving. As I always try to do when confronted about a particular point of my belief system, I spent the next several days re-evaluating my position.

From there, it seems that giving (and the larger discussion of stewardship) has come around for discussion and meditation again and again. Our Sunday School class talked about it last week. I jumped into a Facebook thread about giving the week before. Even today, I found myself thinking about these ideas as I shoveled 14 inches of snow off of my driveway.

As you might have guessed, I have a few questions and opinions about this important topic.

Question 1 - "Why do so many Christians accept the axiom that believers are required by God to tithe?"

In the minds of many, questioning whether believers must tithe is akin to questioning whether the earth is round. "What do you mean?" they exclaim, "Of course we have to tithe! That's what committed Christians do! After all, it's in the Bible." I concur that many committed Christians do give at least 10% of their income. (We won't go into the question of whether we must figure 10% of the gross or net income.) I also agree that tithing is in the Bible. My questions relate to whether God requires those Christians to give their 10% and where in the Bible tithing is found. From what I have been able to find (thanks to my handy-dandy new Logos Bible Software), tithing is an old covenant (aka-Old Testament) stipulation. Even when tithing is mentioned in the NT books, I have been unable to find any context where it is levied as an expectation upon the church. What I find instead is wording such as the following, "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." I find no mention of 10% here. Is that a reasonable amount for most Christians to give regularly? How would I know? It seems like it is, but the only financial situation I am familiar with is my own...and that's none of your business! (Insert smiley emoticon here.)

Question 2 - "How do we determine what qualifies as giving to God?"

I use a financial software program on my laptop that helps me keep track of our money. One of the line items in my checking account is called "Giving to God." (I gave it this moniker.) Sometimes, I wonder to myself, "Should the money from that fund be given exclusively to my church or another 'ministry'? Can I or should I use that money for other non-church-ifed giving? For instance, on a recent lunch excursion to Olive Garden with my family, I decided to give my server a rather substantial tip. (That is--substantial in terms of percentage.) I did this because she was extremely helpful in the service of our meal. I also did this because she mentioned that she had just graduated from college and had only recently gotten a job after an extended time of looking. I felt as though I might encourage and help her in a small way by increasing the amount of her gratuity. "Nothin' wrong with that," you say. I agree. My question is, does this "count" as giving to God? Should I pull the money for that tip from the aforementioned line in my budget? (I will let you, the reader, guess as to whether I did or not.) What about donations made to the Red Cross, Meals-on-Wheels, or other such charitable organizations? If I give my money in a spirit of gratitude and worship, does the Almighty view my donations as gifts to Him? I know what I think, but I wonder how other believers feel?

Question 3 - "Is it wise to view our giving and our stewardship as Christians in terms of investments and returns?"

Mutual funds, investments, 401(k)s, and day-trading seem to be all the rage these days. (Thanks in part to those silly E-Trade babies!) It seems that this "Charles Schwab" mentality has crept into our thinking as Christians. We want to give, but we only want to give to people or organizations that are "safe." Our churches have food pantries, but the resources therein are only available to church members or individuals who agree to come to church first. (In truth, I have been pondering much of the typical church philosophy regarding resources, and I have several questions about this area.) We may give our money to help the poor and underprivileged, but only if we can guarantee that the funds are used "wisely." A corollary of the "investment mindset" is the idea that the more we give the more we will get in return. Truthfully, the Bible does talk on several occasions about reaping bountifully when we give bountifully. Do you think this implies only physical, material reaping? I am not so sure. There's no doubt that God wants us to be wise stewards with all that He has given us. I know I still need to do some searching on this particular question, but I just can't help feeling like many Christians (including the one writing this post) and churches are sitting on their nest eggs and missing incredible opportunities to serve others through cheerful, open-hearted giving--even to those who don't necessarily deserve it.

For the record, I do believe Christians should be giving regularly. I also believe that believers bear the responsibility of meeting the needs of those who labor in the Word as the elders of the church. Beyond that, however, I wonder if maybe our giving (and the motives driving it) may need re-examination and refinement. I, for one, will continue to seek God's guidance in this important area.

Testiphony

"We want to be a good testimony."

This is something that has been emphasized to me for most of my life as a member of the Christian sub-culture. It is something that parents, preachers, teachers, mentors, family, and friends have said to me more times than I can count. It is something that I have said to myself more times than I can count. It is one of the standard tenets of my brand of American Christianity that is inculcated into our thinking with relentless zeal. As Christians, one of our main duties is to be a good testimony to unbelievers around us.

My purpose here is not to disagree with the preceding statement. In fact, I earnestly concur with it. There is no shortage of verses that clearly indicate that we are to shine as lights against the backdrop of darkness in the world around us. My purpose in these few paragraphs is instead to ask, "How are we to do this?" or more specifically, "What does a 'good testimony' really look like?" As always, what follows are simply my thoughts and opinions and are subject to disagreement and/or dialogue as you see fit. After all, I could be wrong.

Let me frame my comments around two primary theses:

1. To most Christians, a "good testimony" comprises two things--word-of-mouth Gospel sharing and Christian living.

2. Our traditional views of Christian living as the basis for a "good testimony" may need some refinement.

Concerning the first statement...

I believe these words to be true because that is how the concept of a "good testimony" has been presented to me for most of my 30 years. Beyond that, however, I think it is true because the Bible supports the idea. What tools do we have at our disposal to fulfill Christ's command to "make disciples of all nations"? We have our words and our actions, of course. We can verbally share the truths of the Gospel with the unsaved, and we can live our lives in such a way that unbelievers "see our good works and glorify our Father which is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) On this, I believe most Christians would agree.

How can we best put these two tools to our advantage in reaching the lost? Ah! That is where the Christian consensus is lost. Obviously, there are many prevailing theories out there about how to best present the gospel verbally to someone. For the time being, I am choosing to skirt those particular discussions. I want to focus on how we can present the Gospel non-verbally through our everyday lives. What is the best way to "be a good testimony?" That, my friend, is the question, and it leads us to the second of my opening propositions.

Concerning the second statement...

For starters, I should probably define what I mean by "traditional views of Christian living." I have to say, this is the point of discussion that was the catalyst for this post. Some recent conversations with fellow Christians prompted me to begin wondering. As I thought about it, it occurred to me that the traditional view of a "good testimony" revolves primarily around what we do or don't do as Christians. "We go to church 3 times a week." "We don't have wild parties at our house." "We wear (or don't wear) a certain style of clothing." In the minds of many, these things (and others like them) are a good testimony to the unsaved. That is what has been preached and practiced in many churches for many years.

I am not here to suggest that this preaching or the thinking behind it is wrong. I am not saying unequivocally that these things aren't a good testimony. I am simply wondering if the conventional wisdom is true that says unequivocally that they are a good testimony always and without exception . I wonder if some of our Christian badges of honor that we wear so proudly before an unbelieving world are really accomplishing the good that we think they are. Yes, the Bible refers to the world seeing our "good works" and glorifying God, but that verse seems to be predicated upon the unbelievers recognizing the works as "good." What if they don't see our "good works" as being particularly good? What happens to our good testimony then? We get frustrated because our unsaved friends and family don't accept Christ, and our unsaved friends and family get frustrated because we distance ourselves from them through all of our do's and don'ts. We appear to think and act as though we are better than them. Our "testi-mony" becomes more of a "testi-phony." I have had several opportunities in the last year or so to talk to unsaved friends and family, and that idea of "Christian elitism" appears to be a commonly-held opinion among them.

Let me mention two examples. Consistent church attendance is something that many Christians would include in their "Good Testimony Resume." This can, at times, be true. It may not always be true, however. Not every unbeliever looks at a Christian who attends services habitually and says, "Wow! I want what they have!" To them, it's just some religious thing that you do similar to the way Muslims pray or Catholics confess. It doesn't necessarily draw them to Christ. I am not suggesting that we stop attending church faithfully. I am suggesting that we open our eyes and realize that church attendance alone is not guaranteed to shine as a light to your unsaved neighbor. We need more than just that. I am also suggesting that you consider the possibility that there may be times when forgoing attendance at a service may actually provide you with a better opportunity to be a "good testimony" than stubbornly insisting that you have to be in your pew.

Here is a second example. Many Christians (including me) have refused to attend a family function, work party, or other social event because of the fact that certain "worldly" elements would be present (alcohol, rock music, dancing, smoking, etc...). Our refusal to attend demonstrates our devotion to our faith and shines brightly as a testimony to the lost--or so the traditional thinking goes. Now, I realize that this is a tricky example because there are any number of contingencies that create any number of possibilities as to what a Christian ought to do or not do. (Translation--there is no "cookie-cutter" answer.) I do think, however, that we might need to reevaluate the maxim that says, "Don't drink, smoke, or chew or run with those who do." The Pharisees in Jesus' day were very good at this, but the spiritual impact they had on their world was nothing we would want to emulate. I fear that many unbelievers view our lack of attendance (notice I did not say lack of participation) as nothing more than religious snobbery. Perhaps, instead of relying on not going at all to serve as a good testimony, we should consider the possibility of going for the purpose of being a good testimony. There are many ramifications of this, I know, but I don't think it hurts to at least consider it.

Those are just two examples of many that could be given. In conclusion, let me just say that I think it is a bit lazy and a bit naive to rely upon our separation from the world as our primary means of reaching it. We must use our words and our lives to preach the Gospel to every creature. Perhaps it is time we took stock of how we can best use our lives to shine as a glowing testimony for Christ. Remember, Jesus didn't pray that God would take us out of the world, but that God would keep and protect us while we are in it (John 17:15). Maybe all of us could stand to get a little more "in the world" and be a good testimony while we are there.

Ashamed (Read the whole post before you comment)

Well, it happened again. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does I really, really don't like it. It is not an emotion I enjoy having--shame. That is, however, the only word to describe it. Let me explain.

I am not exactly what you would call a news junkie. I catch the local evening news every once and a while, and I try to read a few headlines on the Internet when I can, but I don't really keep up with all the goings on. In recent weeks, I remember hearing something about someone burning Korans somewhere, but I really didn't give it much attention--until this last Friday morning. I was watching the morning news shows and nearly all of them were highlighting the story of Reverend Terry Jones from Gainesville, Florida. As I crunched on my Wheat Chex, listened to the talking heads on the screen, and saw the images (including signs from Jones' church that said "Islam is of the Devil" and "Burn a Koran Day"), I felt it in the pit of my stomach. I have to say, at that moment, sitting in my living room, I was ashamed to be a Christian. I know that sounds extreme, but that is the truth. Let me clarify. I was not ashamed of Christ or my faith in Him as my savior. I was not ashamed of the Bible or even the fact that I attend church regularly. I was ashamed to be known as a Christian because of how I saw that word being represented on the screen before me. I sat there and wondered how any good for the cause of Christ could come from either Rev. Jones' demands that the mosque be moved or his threats to burn copies of the Islamic scriptures. As I walked to work that morning, I thought, "If that is what people will think of when they hear that I am a Christian, I am not so sure that I want to be known as a Christian." I was...ashamed.

This is not the only time I have felt this. In recent years, I have found myself wanting to be more and more disassociated with the American Christian sub-culture. When I hear about things like Rev. Jones and his Koran-burning, I feel ashamed. When I read on the Internet about a church in Kansas that protests the funerals of soldiers in the name of God, I feel ashamed. When I hear of churches whose greatest badge of honor is their fight against Contemporary Christian Music or women wearing pants or the use of certain English translations, I feel ashamed. When I see churches and the people in them investing such time, effort, and money into winning culture wars like the gay marriage issue or the teaching of evolution in public schools, I feel ashamed. (Not because I support gay marriage or the teaching of evolution, but because I think that approach misses the point.) When I hear of families where the father no longer attends church because of the way he has been treated by some autocratic pastor, I feel ashamed. When I hear the stories of young people who have rejected their godly heritage and upbringing because of a graceless, legalistic approach to the Christian walk, I feel ashamed. When I watch a film like Lord Save Us from Your Followers and see what most Americans think it means to be a Christian, I feel ashamed...and sometimes I even feel angry.

But then, I start thinking about myself and my life. That is when the tables begin to turn. When I think of all the times I have failed my Lord and my family, I feel ashamed. When I think of all the times I have been prejudiced, proud, or arrogant in my beliefs, I feel ashamed. When I think of every instance when I have allowed lust to rule my mind or my eyes, I feel ashamed. When I think of all the impatience, laziness, selfishness, anger, materialism, and every other vice that has worked its way into my heart, I feel...ashamed and discouraged.

Then I remember. All of us who claim the name of Christ as our banner (including the Rev. Joneses of the world) are just broken, frail, fallen, confused, and scared sinners who have been rescued by the grace and mercy of a loving and patient Father. All of us have shortcomings. All of us bring our own unique set of baggage to the cross, and carry it with us as we make our pilgrimage through this life. All of us have failed and will do so again in the future. All of us as Christians are mere humans and are subject to the frailties of being such.

So then...I pray. I look to God and ask for His help. "God, help me to be what you want me to be, so that I can show those around me what it truly means to be a follower of Christ. Mold my thinking and my conscience to conform to your way and your logic. Teach me what it means to know you and to walk with you in every moment of life. Produce in me and through me the fruit that you desire to see. Help me, God. I cannot live as a true Christian on my own. I know that one day I will see you face to face and give account for the life I have been given by you. Do in me today what you must so that, on that day, I won't have to feel...ashamed."

Spirituality or Personality?

I am just about finished reading Coffee Shop Conversations--a book that is designed to help Christians improve their skills in conversing with unbelievers about their faith--the Christian's and the unbeliever's. It is a very good book that has challenged my thinking in a number of areas. I hope to put many of its principles to use in my future interactions with unbelievers.

I was thinking about the book and its ideas yesterday and it occurred to me that those who read the book may not experience the same level of success with its principles as the author (or in this case, authors) did. In fact, it is likely that many readers will not. This is not in anyway meant to denigrate the authors or their ideas. I'm simply recognizing the fact that the authors have personalities that are well-suited to approach the issue of "spiritual small talk" according to the methods in their book--obviously. They are, after all, the ones who had the ideas in the first place! Not everyone who reads this book (and I think many Christians should) will have personalities that are as well-suited for the type of conversations described in its pages. In their defense, the authors do not in any way market their book as a fool-proof method for personal evangelism nor do they make any ridiculous guarantees of success for those who buy and read a copy. Their approach is very conversational and easy-going in tone. However, my reading of the book and the thought-process it sparked do raise a point that I feel needs to be made.

There is a very common and very costly mistake that we as Christians make within the Christian community we know as the church (both in its universal and local manifestations). I can best summarize this mistake by quoting from none other than...myself. Several months ago, I placed the following sentence as a status on my Facebook page, "Andrew Doan has been wondering lately--if a person in our cultural context (21st century America) lived the Christian life exactly the way God meant it to be lived, what would it look like?" The question sprang out of a frustration at trying to sort through all of the advice we as Christians are inundated with through preachers, podcasts, and Christian book distributors. Everyone seems to have the principle to make it all work or the standard of success to which we all should aspire. For some time now I have been attempting to sift through the pulp and get to the genuine heart of Christianity--as the tag line of this blog indicates. While there is nothing wrong with this search itself, I (along with many others) are making a mistake when we assume that two individuals (or 2,000 for that matter) living the Christian life "the way it was meant to be lived" will manifest this in exactly the same way. It is a mistake to assume that "spirituality" (although I don't really like that term) will look exactly the same for each Christian. In fact, I would submit that it will not look exactly the same in any two individuals because no two individuals are exactly the same. We know that we are all different, but I fear that we forget this basic fact when it comes to determining a person's level of spiritual dedication. (Which, by the way, is something that is very difficult to do without sinning.) To put it simply, many of us as believers confuse spirituality with personality. This often occurs when we listen to a pastor, speaker, author, or other "Christian celebrity." We take the specific manifestations of their walk with God as it exhibits itself through their personality, and we assume that we, if we are going to be truly spiritual, must look and act the same way. I just don't believe that is true. Furthermore, I think it can be frustrating and unhealthy to try living this brand of "Mockingbird Christianity." I think that because I have tried it and found it to be frustrating and unhealthy.

What does God list as the true marks of spirituality? I can think of no better answer than the fruit of the Spirit as it is listed in Galatians 5. These attributes, as I understand them, are the natural outgrowth of a Christian who is walking in the Spirit and abiding in Christ moment by moment. The fruit of the Spirit is true spirituality. However, even these 9 items will not necessarily look the same in each person who exhibits them. Not everyone expresses love, joy, peace, etc...in exactly the same way. This is a simple concept that we all can understand. Yet, when we are told (or believe) that "good Christians will do such and such or act in such and such a way or fit a certain mold," we are ignoring one of the basic characteristics of our humanity as God created it--diversity. To assume that all good Christians will look and act the same is just as foolish as assuming that all evil people will look and act the same. Look at the fruits of the flesh that are listed just prior to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. Is it realistic to assume that every person who is angry or lustful or drunk or envious or a murderer will exhibit these vices in the same fashion? What if I were to preach that those who are "truly carnal" will look and act very much like an Adolf Hitler or a Ted Bundy? That is an outrageous and untrue statement, and that is why I typed it. I hope it causes you to think about the danger of confusing spirituality with personality.

My point is this--I think we need to allow people the freedom to express their individuality without questioning their spiritual dedication or commitment to Christ. As a teacher, I have been guilty of judging teenagers in this way many times, and it is wrong. To live a life that is in direct opposition to God's way and God's word is one thing. To walk with Christ according to the "beat of your own drum" is another. The first is sin. The second is...well, I guess I can say it's spirituality.

Just some thoughts for your consideration and comment if you feel so inclined.

As a brief appendix to this post, I would like to list several areas of our Christian walk where we tend to confuse spirituality with personality. Feel free to add more as you think of them...

1) Personal Evangelism/Witnessing - not everyone is the tract-passing, door-knocking, street-preaching type of person. Yet, to hear some talk, that is the only way truly spiritual Christians go about sharing their faith.

2) Corporate Worship - not everyone is the hand-raising, glory-shouting, amen-saying type of person. Someone (like myself) can be a bit a more reserved and private about their worship and still truly engage in this important activity.

3) Confession of Sin - not everyone is the chest-beating, tear-shedding, sackcloth-wearing type of person. Psalm 51:17 makes it clear that it is the condition of a person's heart attitude and not the external show of contrition that God is looking for.

One last thought--I am not saying that these personality-driven manifestations of spirituality are wrong. On the contrary, I think every Christian should live true to God and true to themselves at the same time. What I am saying is that a lack of similar manifestations should not be considered probable cause for a lack of sincerity or genuineness as a believer.

Okay...now I am done.