"I am the pater familias! "
- Ulysses Everett McGill
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ - Revelation 2:7
This is the first post of what may end up being a series, but maybe not.
First, two anecdotes, a quote, and a disclaimer.
Anecdote 1: I recently taught a series on the letters to the seven churches of Revelation. I really enjoyed teaching it. I was repeatedly drawn to Christ's exhortation to the members of each church to "overcome" or "conquer".
Anecdote 2: Awhile ago, some older relatives of mine were describing their lives as newlyweds, many years ago. They had very little money and couldn't pay for any kind of entertainment. So they would set up salt shakers on their kitchen floor and together they would go "bowling" with a little rubber ball. They described all this, plus other hardships, with smiles on their faces. At one point my sister exclaimed "didn't you ever just get overwhelmed and break down?"
Confused looks . . . "Why would we have done that?" Then they continued on with their story.
A different, and greater, generation than ours.
Now the quote, excerpted from an otherwise excellent article quoted in a recent post here:
"A new generation who refuse to use the Christian "F word," fine. (How's life? Fine. How's your marriage? Fine.) The days where you could pretend that being a Christian meant you were perfect are numbered."
Finally a disclaimer. I reject any gospel that claims riches and ease for Christians. Christ promised us trouble on this earth.
Now, to my initial point, prompted by that quote (and I'm even going to leave the glaring false dichotomy in it alone). This post will be a short one, but I may well expand on it in other posts or in the comments thread of this one, if this generates any comments.
Christ promised us trouble in life.
He didn't, to use an example, promise us troubled marriages. Granted, your marriage or my marriage may be troubled, and it may be no fault of our own. It may even be a test of some sort.
But if another Christian tells you that their marriage is fine, or that their circumstances currently are pretty good, or whatever, that doesn't mean that they are lying or that they are being "inauthentic".
Consider, with grace, the possibility that they are telling you the truth.
If you drop your cynicism and look deeper, you might even find that they are going through trouble like you've never known. But in that trouble they have found seeds of joy and gems of grace from the Lord, and because of that, they are fine. Maybe they are overcoming. Maybe being a child of God is better than anything this world offers, and so the troubles of this life pale in comparison.
Or maybe they said "fine" because they share their deepest troubles with trusted people who are much closer to them, and who aren't part of the new, authentic, my-life-stinks generation, because, egad, you're discouraging as hades.
Maybe they just need you to give them a break.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6022.
Comments on "Christian Defeatism, Part 1 of ?":
2. Shrode
- 06/17/2010 12:31 am CDT
Hmmmm.
I'm interested in this topic. I hope you write more.
There are times when to tell someone how you are really doing is inappropriate or inconvienient. Let's just say, I just had a fight with my wife and I'm mad about it. Should I start telling that story to the Gas station attendant who asks me how I'm doing? He's got work to do. He doesn't have time to listen. "How are you doing" is a social nicety. And "fine" is sometimes the socially acceptable response.
And I think, with the power of the Gospel and of being content in ALL circumstances say "fine" or even "I'm great" even if your circumstances stink.
Good thoughts Bill.
That said, if I'm too busy to listen, I don't ask people how they are doing. Really. If I know I'm not prepared for a negative answer, and someone asks me how I am, I say, "Fine. Thanks for asking." But I don't throw the question back.
I want to be sure that if I ask the question, that I have the time to listen if things are not so fine. So now I don't ask unless I really want to know at that moment.
So if you ever meet me, and I say "How are you?" You'll know I really mean it and want to know. ;-)
3. Bill
- 06/17/2010 5:20 am CDT
Shrode,
After reading Evan's comment on your previous post, I realize I should have just written "What Evan said" :-)
Karl,
I understand. The sin you describe, where Christians are never allowed to admit fault or flaw, is a terrible one. But I have grown tired of the repeated pushing of the pendulum too far the other way. Balance is such a blessed thing. I think we're now too far the other way and need a corrective.
This subject is difficult to write on (and it goes way beyond the mere peeve I have about "don't ever tell people you're fine, because your NOT" command from some corners). Hence the "Part 1 of ?" - there are about ten more posts in me on this subject.
One reason the quote I referenced got me going: I have a great marriage. I didn't earn it, I don't deserve it, but that's what I have. It irritates me to think that half the people reading that statement are nodding knowingly and saying "suuuuure you do." Or assigning to me some kind of pride.
Counting one's blessings does not make one prideful or a liar. Trust me, there are plenty of other areas in my life where things are notso hotso. But God has blessed me greatly, and I'm not going to pretend He hasn't. That's worse than apparent pride. It's ungratefulness and dishonor and I can't go there. I get tired of being told I have to.
4. Bobbi
- 06/17/2010 11:16 am CDT
If you are homeless, clotheless,foodless you are still "fine" if you have the Lord. Think of those Christians around the world who are suffering for their faith--some count it all joy. But then I think of David who almost blew it because he almost killed Abigail's family. He was a man after God's own heart.
5. Karl
- 06/17/2010 11:34 am CDT
Bill, I am with you in desiring balance. Where I resonate with that push for authenticity is not in the place of its cynicism ("nobody can really have a good marriage, or kids, or parents, whatever"). Nor is it in the seeming suggestion that we should tell EVERYBODY all our junk whenever asked a simple "how are you" - that's oversharing.
No, where I resonate with those kinds of comments is in its reaction against the still all too common situation where a church member feels safe telling NO ONE in the church his junk because nobody ever shares anything really bad or unpleasant or gives any sense of struggle, pain or doubt except in the past tense ("yes, years ago I had some doubts/experienced marital strife/had trouble with my kids and that was really tough, but praise the Lord that's all behind me now").
And of course that last example I just gave MAY BE TRUE for someone and they should be able to praise God for getting them through a hard time and that they are in a good place. But when the entire church population is giving that impression, something ain't right.
I think we are in pretty much the same place although approaching it from opposite directions - or wanting to protect vs. opposite ills.
6. nhe
- 06/17/2010 7:57 pm CDT
Bill, you said:
If you drop your cynicism and look deeper, you might even find that they are going through trouble like you've never known. But in that trouble they have found seeds of joy and gems of grace from the Lord, and because of that, they are fine. Maybe they are overcoming. Maybe being a child of God is better than anything this world offers, and so the troubles of this life pale in comparison.
Amen! But, here's the thing. Some Christians live in the ditch and tell their stories (seemingly perpetually) from the ditch. That's why we need the people you refer to above (who rise above the ditch, even if circumstances dictate that they should be in it) to tell their stories too! Their stories are about victory and triumph and eyes off self and onto others.
I don't think those people you talk about above would say "fine". They would point to Jesus.
The people that constantly tell their stories from the ditch are the "faint-hearted" and "weak" that we are told to "encourage" and "help" in I Thess 5.
True community is all of the above. It consists of the ditch-dwellers, the over-comers, and the folks who say they're fine.
However, the folks who say they're fine are not the folks I want to have a beer with. I do equate "I'm fine" with someone who is generally closed, or at least uninteresting and not real concerned about Jesus transforming them.
7. Bill
- 06/17/2010 8:10 pm CDT
Karl, yes, I think we're approaching from different angles. As long as we find balance and truth, I'm cool.
nhe - I was tracking pretty well with you until this:
However, the folks who say they're fine are not the folks I want to have a beer with. I do equate "I'm fine" with someone who is generally closed, or at least uninteresting and not real concerned about Jesus transforming them.
Christian defeatism has a very wide legalistic streak to it. I noticed it first when reading the forgettable and unbiblical Wild at Heart book and learning that if I didn't admit my "father wound" I was not a real man.
What you just said is a great example of what I'm talking about. I simply don't get it. "Not real concerned about Jesus transforming them"? You know the hearts of others so well? Up till now, I would have thought you and I would probably get along just fine over our favorite beverage, but I don't think you'd dig the company so much now. I'm really taken aback by what you said.
If you asked me today how I was doing, I'd say "fine". I love my wife, all four kids are back home from school and with us, our College/Young Singles ministry is a blessing beyond blessing right now, and - to add to it - I had a really good day at work. Plus I'm on day 10 of a 10 day cleanse and really looking forward to being able to eat again :-)
Now, I know for a fact that everything above can be yanked away in a second. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. But - wow - blessed be the name of the Lord. I didn't earn it, I don't deserve it, but I can't deny it. Trust me, I've spent my time in the ditch too, but today, I'm fine. Which, from what you're telling me, means I'm excluded too.
8. Bill
- 06/17/2010 8:49 pm CDT
Karl,
Ironically, on my other blog this is the quote of the day: "If we escape one error, we usually glide into its opposite." - C.H. Spurgeon
9. nhe
- 06/17/2010 10:18 pm CDT
Bill, I'm not sure what you're taking issue with. I was simply making the point that your version of the person who says they're "fine" is someone I would like.
Also, I didn't flesh out that last thought completely......I'm referring to the people who seem to be at church so that they can mark off "weekly spiritual input" from their checklists.
.....and I don't exclude them, but I do admit I struggle with how to reach them.
10. Bill
- 06/17/2010 10:52 pm CDT
I'm referring to the people who seem to be at church so that they can mark off "weekly spiritual input" from their checklists.
.....and I don't exclude them, but I do admit I struggle with how to reach them.
My guess is we're talking about two totally different things then.
Let me rephrase the question, just to see if we're aligned: What if someone really is doing pretty well: relationship with God is good, they're in fruitful ministry, life circumstances stable or improving, etc. How would you react to such a person?
11. nhe
- 06/18/2010 7:47 am CDT
Let me rephrase the question, just to see if we're aligned: What if someone really is doing pretty well: relationship with God is good, they're in fruitful ministry, life circumstances stable or improving, etc. How would you react to such a person?
Honestly, if I was having lunch with this person one-on-one, I wouldn't expect him to give the one word answer of "fine" to the question - how are things going? The person you describe would be gracious and open enough to give me some details.
I know some people though (in the church) who would not go much beyond the one word answer.....I don't understand those people.
12. Bill
- 06/18/2010 8:59 am CDT
This conversation is probably derailing off my main point, but I find it intriguing.
I also realize that we are likely stuck in the semantics swamp, which is where I always seem to find myself. Though I don't think I'm wrong here, perhaps I'm barking up a tree that's not even in most people's forest. I realize that is a possibility.
But let me continue: what if there are people who are so others-focused that they don't really want to talk about themselves?
Here's what I've on about (to get back to my main point, and there are more posts coming on this unless everyone gets tired of my blathering (Jared and Phil may order me to cease and desist) :-) - my initial frustration is with people who won't give grace to other people in the following ways:
a) people who refuse to believe that a Christian could actually be telling the truth when they relay that they are doing well
b) people who feel that saying "I'm doing well" is somehow prideful or a failure to acknowledge that we are all broken, sinful creatures (which is true enough, but what of the redemption? What of the new creation?)
c) people who, at least in practice, if not in theology, deny that sanctification is a real process which can be observed
d) people who don't understand that sometimes a sense of modesty, propriety, or - in many cases - just the fact that they haven't yet earned the right to intimacy gives the one questioned the right to hold back details of their life without being accused of being inauthentic or a liar (or someone who is "not real concerned with Jesus transforming them")
e) people who don't understand that there are some individuals who have arrived at a level of humility that they really just aren't that interested in talking about themselves.
As a corrective to this: Yes, of course, I realize that there are people in our churches who hide their secret miseries, who aren't open to community, who paint a veneer over a sinful life.
My reaction is to the troubling repetition of the meme in the quote that prompted this post: that anyone who says he/she is doing fine is really hiding something.
13. nhe
- 06/18/2010 9:46 am CDT
Yeah, I guess it is semantics Bill.
I know letter d is a tad directed at my earlier statement, but I agree with how you have said it here.
Where I sort of disagree with your general premise is I think that our churches are full of people who aren't interested in transformation.
The people who are calling for "authenticity" and "organic", grass-roots, life-on-life ministry are reacting against this. I think their hearts are in the right place.
So yes, some of them are guilty of the things you mention, but I don't fault their methods or motivation.
14. Bill
- 06/18/2010 1:34 pm CDT
nhe,
Thanks for the comment. A few notes:
Where I sort of disagree with your general premise is I think that our churches are full of people who aren't interested in transformation.
Well, my comment didn't really assert that :-) - I agree with you here, for what it's worth (I'm just not sure, person to person, whether I'm that good of a judge of hearts to tell who really doesn't have interest, etc. I'm too busy wondering how much transformation I really want).
The people who are calling for "authenticity" and "organic", grass-roots, life-on-life ministry are reacting against this. I think their hearts are in the right place.
They are OVER reacting to this, in my opinion, and making an equal error the other way (and why is that OK?). But I also think their hearts are in the right place (well, most of them, anyway).
Don't get me wrong. I value community greatly, desire to see it growing in the ministry where I serve as a layperson (and it is - in big ways!) and I want people to be honest with their issues.
So yes, some of them are guilty of the things you mention, but I don't fault their methods or motivation.
I don't fault motivation, but I do fault the methods of some.
Now, why am I making such a big deal of this? Here's why. This is legalism, when you boil it down.
There is a legalism in some churches that forces members to never admit that they have a problem, that won't let people mourn the dead because they should be "celebrating", that makes members put on a show that they are always victorious. This is very, very bad.
But there is a softer legalism emerging, however, on the other, reactant side, that is suspicious of anyone who doesn't wear their heart on their sleeve, or doesn't admit deep wounds from their childhood, or doesn't have secret and besetting sins, or who is apparently growing in Christ and walking in victory.
Maybe it's nothing more than a peeve of mine, but I find, in its worst instances, that this attitude in effect (if not intention) denies the power of Christ, is cynical and extremely human focused and circumstantially focused.
More on my thoughts here (maybe) to come later.
15. Ian
- 06/18/2010 8:37 pm CDT
Bill, I think I get what you're saying, but I still agree with the others that those who are "Doing Fine" sort of owe something else to those who are currently in a ditch. If you ask me how I'm doing and I share something I'm going thru (perhaps you'd even say "TMI") and then you simply reply when I reciprocate with "I'm fine," dude, that is just mean. Like someone else said, I need to hear your story -- or should I say "God's Story" in your life. How the Lord has been faithful even during rough times, when to all worldly wisdom you ought to be despairing, but you have instead been encouraged by the power, love, and faithfulness of God. You gotta tell 'em the Truth, if they're believing a lie (ie, despairing).
16. nhe
- 06/19/2010 6:59 am CDT
They are OVER reacting to this, in my opinion, and making an equal error the other way (and why is that OK?). But I also think their hearts are in the right place (well, most of them, anyway).
I don't think it's possible to overreact to Christian moralism. I don't think Jesus did either.
By Christian moralism, for the purpose of the discussion, I just mean those who define their goodness by what they abstain from, who they vote against, and how consistently they check off the completion of some spiritual disciplines (on their virtual spiritual checklist) that they think are important.
17. Bill
- 06/19/2010 7:38 am CDT
I don't think it's possible to overreact to Christian moralism. I don't think Jesus did either.
By Christian moralism, for the purpose of the discussion, I just mean those who define their goodness by what they abstain from, who they vote against, and how consistently they check off the completion of some spiritual disciplines (on their virtual spiritual checklist) that they think are important.
nhe,
You and I are talking past each other, and talking about two different things. I've found this subject difficult to discuss, both in person and on the blog, because everyone brings to it a bunch of baggage that tilts the two sides of the conversation away from each other.
I'm probably going to put out another post on this soon (maybe today) that might help clarify what I'm talking about. For now, I'm good with dropping the conversation on an agreeable note.
Though I think it's possible to overreact to everything (being pedantic here, killing people you describe would be an overreaction, right? :-) - I too agree that Christian moralism that's based on the things you describe is far from the gospel. If we define our righteousness by anything other than Jesus we're missing the whole point.
Peace
b
19. Bill
- 06/19/2010 8:33 am CDT
nhe,
Of course I may be wrong in this. I knew this post wouldn't be popular and it isn't. I may clarify some more (or dig myself deeper, depending on your pov) in some followups so a good time will be had by all :-)
The "arguing past" part has to do with your contention that I'm somehow "for" what you're referring to as "Christian moralism" (feeling justified by what one is against, or what one does, etc). I'm not for that at all - although I am for Christian morals, but that's another topic entirely - but if you want to think that, I doubt I'll be able to dissuade you and it's probably not worth trying.
So, point, set and match on this post to you, and I'll try again at a later time. :-)
21. Bill
- 06/19/2010 9:12 am CDT
Thanks nhe,
Yes, probably. My hope is that we don't disagree as much as it may appear. Again, I'll need to gather my thoughts and take another run at this.
Leave a Comment:
In a comment to the (related) post below, Evan says: "So yes, hiding and denying our sins is destructive. But so is a form of celebrating them . . ."
I would ask: but which of those two equal-but-opposite errors was the church you grew up in most prone to?
For me, and for folks like Jon Acuff, the church we were acquainted with growing up was WAY more likely to push people into hiding and denying sins, fostering a false projected image of near-perfection, than it was to celebrating sin or "oversharing." If the pendulum has swung too far the other direction in some circles these days (and I believe it has) there is nevertheless a reason this has happened.