Progressive Belief

Over chilly cans of Beck’s, a good friend and I were discussing love and commitment. He has come to the place where he believes it is in his own best interest to disengage from his family: he is separating from his wife.

I was saying that we gain the most personally not by seeking our own satisfaction, but by it's opposite: self-sacrifice. This includes the often-monotonous everyday hassles of life. I don’t think we agreed about this. I have the conviction that if my goal is me, I will get just that. That’s an ugly loneliness.

I suppose I have the same opinion about life in general. In the end, we get what we really want. I find it hard to believe that as we are ushered from this life to the next, we will try to make a case for unfair treatment due to a lack of understanding. If we ignore what we already know, God may “protect” us from further culpability by allowing us to darken our own understanding. But that’s not an excuse. Somewhere along the line, we ignored. The drunk didn’t know what he was doing when he grabbed the keys, then ran headlong into an SUV with a young mom and baby girl. But don’t try to tell him it wasn’t his fault. He lives guilt now. He did make the decision to keep drinking, and he knows he owns it, even if it's not as awful as intentionally doing it.

Life with or without God is a progressive acceptance or denial. Sin itself is progressive in the same way. Who or what is our God?

The Challenge

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Creative Diversion

Had a great deal of fun re-arranging the site format today. I hope it's easier to read. In any case, it's more my preference than the former.

Unforgivable

I believe there really is a sin that cannot be forgiven. No one is exempt. From the holiest to the most lowly (although, there is truly no difference).

The unforgivable sin is this: final refusal of God's forgiveness. In daily life, I think this usually takes the form of denial of the need to be forgiven. Even when we acknowledge our desperate situation, we often believe that God is unwilling to forgive.

We are busy about justifying our actions, mindset, activity … or lack of it. When we look honestly at ourselves and see the selfishness that motivates our actions, we become free to call our situation as it is.

I watch my 12-year-old son frequently, and with remarkable conviction, deny his own wrongs. So much so, that he really believes his own excuses. My heart goes out to him. He is just a smaller version of me. But his struggle is an important one -- I know he needs to go through it. He (like us) needs to understand his actions (and lack of action), and the consequences. We need to be honest with ourselves and our maker about these things. It is impossible to really grab the rope if you don’t believe you are drowning.

For many of us, trusting that God is going to hold the rope tight is a daily struggle. I wrestle with this a great deal. I think it’s the root of why I don’t pray. On some level, I just don’t think God gives a crap. The only way out (that I can tell) is when I trust God with my will, in spite of how I feel. Exercising that muscle seems to lend to freedom of use. It may sound trite, but I simply need to be faithful in the small daily things. I can’t think my way into faith, or shortcut this process. I’ve tried it, and it doesn’t work.

That's what I'm talkin about ...

Fear

In a conversation at work last Friday with Karen and Laurie, I asked why people often seem afraid to be direct with me. They both let me know that it was because I am “too nice”. I know they didn’t mean that I needed to be more of a jerk (were that possible), they meant that when I’m not direct with other people, they don’t feel comfortable being direct with me. I qualify and cushion any negative comments so much that you can hardly get my point, and people wonder what I’m really thinking. Some of the guys have cared enough to let me know the same.

I have a friend named Mark who hails from upstate NY. Maybe that geography is not relevant, but the thing I really appreciate about this guy is his brutal authenticity. You don’t always like what he says, it’s not always favorable, but you know exactly where he stands. And when he communicates concern you know he means it.

I want to be more like Mark. I think I’m mainly too afraid to say what I really think. I’ve known for as long as I can remember that I am a slave to social approval. Not in every case, but too much. Need to work on that.

Joe

Like most, I nurture a long and convivial addiction. Perfect mix of ritual, fragrance, flavor, habit, and stimulant. I could easier give up beer than java, and that’s saying something. I have been told that the precaffeinated Gar is somewhat less than (ahem) amicable. Feck ‘em. If anyone wishes social intercourse, I must be sufficiently aroused, or sedated …

Beer and smokes with the guys. A martini in the early evening with my wife while she makes dinner (that’s one sweet deal). Seems like this drug-and-conversation shtick isn’t just me, but I’m surprised how powerful it is. The atmosphere is so essential, and much of that is the drink. We can communicate without it (one would hope), but there is some sort of distraction about it that brings the guard down, apart from the physiological effect.

I was watching a History Channel program about moonshining during the prohibition, and they observed that if government attempts to remove booze from a culture, it finds it’s way back almost immediately and with remarkable efficiency. Been that way for 7000 years. They also pointed out how during the early colonial period more alcohol was consumed per person (including children!) than at any other time in US history: something like a whopping 50 gallons of beer per person per year. I almost choked on a chip: that don’t seem like much … perhaps it was the Golden Monkey? Those puritans knew how to party.

Leadership vs. Dominance Part II

The last post on this topic was a bit brief. I thought I'd expand ...

God is our Father. The Church is a family, reflecting God's own nature: relationship. Any good parent has the right and responsibility to direct their children's actions via command and prohibition. As time goes on, and maturity takes place, this direction becomes more like consultation. The child no longer follows rules simply fearing the consequences of disobedience (compelled behavior), they see the reasons and principles behind the instruction, decide to embrace that, and choose appropriate directions themselves (induced behavior).

I read an article recently that seemed to imply that hierarchical command-and-control management is really ineffective and dishonoring. Preference should be given to "chaordic" leadership, where leadership spontaneously appears from different individuals to address the need of the moment.

"Induced behavior is the essence of leader/follower. Compelled behavior is the essence of all the other relational concepts. Where behavior is compelled, there you will find tyranny, however benign. Where behavior is induced, there you will find leadership ..." -- The Art of Chaordic Leadership, Dee Hock

This is correct, but the author fails to explain why. The growth process which begins with "command management" (early parenting) needs to take place to facilitate the process of maturity. When this process is cut short, growth cannot occur. This is relevant to our personal emotional maturity, our personal spiritual growth, and corporate spritual growth of the church.

The law is not eliminated by the gospel, it is fulfilled by it. In the New Covenant, the Spirit's presence, direction, and power now rest permanently within the individual follower and within the church at large, to enable us to genuinely act from the motive of self-sacrificial love. But we don't necessarily always rely on that direction and power. Sometimes we ignore it.

Is fear (and behavior compelled by it) wrong? No, just immature. Are we really so far along as individuals or as church that we can disregard God's commands? Don't we occasionally look to the law to keep our selfish tendencies in check? No matter how much growth takes place, to some degree we are always spiritual children. We simply need to continue the process of growing up. I would argue that disregarding the usefulness and validity of law will stunt growth, not facilitate it. Law was never intended to provide salvation; commands are not a replacement for mature motivations. The law cannot save us, because the law only describes love: as measure to compare our actions to. It does not enable us to love.

Form Over Content

Politics has become an art of form-over-content. Religious messages have taken the same tack. It is taboo to really suggest that x or y is true. The majority of effort is invested in making sure the listener/recipient will respond positively. To hell with the veracity of the content. Will the ratings go up? Will the election be won? Will our numbers grow? Tickle, tickle.

There are times when speaking truth draws harsher reactions than just criticism. But that is also not the issue. There is not so much a fear of negative response, as much as a fear of loss of sales. We have all become religious and political consumers. Perhaps it has always been so?

I don't know what the hell happened to my 10/15 blog, but many of the ideas are represented here: www.soulhorizon.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=6514&sid=1fa26c81afbc24e46090f4fb0202213b

ips

Leadership vs. Dominance