by Timothy D Padgett
Breakpoint
In a fit of irrationality quite befitting our irrational age, millions of people recently celebrated the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. What is more, they were inspired to do so because they saw him as the hope for a better world. Faced with the corruptions accompanying capitalism, they see the hirsute philosopher as a moral compass, pointing to a more egalitarian society.
Given the dismal record his ideas earned in the last century, both practically and morally, this is rather like vegetarians honoring a celebrity veal chef who couldn’t boil water. Wherever his ideas have been put into practice the end result has been oppression, poverty, and general dehumanization. As Christians we need to remember that his worldview and our own are decidedly distinct.
Now, it’s one thing for the naïve college student to be sporting a Che Guevara shirt bought on Amazon. He hasn’t yet learned where the road of good intentions too often leads. It’s also something else for the Western elites to flirt with Marx from their capitalist endowed sinecures. They are as committed as he was to solving life’s troubles through expert management.
It gets a bit more troubling when we find Christians turning to Marx for guidance. On the one hand, it’s quite natural. When we look around the world and see corruption, oppression, and tyranny, it is makes sense to long for a better world. Although it is not nearly so popular today as it once was, there’s a tug in many hearts to “plunder the Egyptians” by gleaning insights from Marx as we attempt to create a foundation for biblical justice and a lived-out Christian Worldview.
On the surface, there’s much to be commended in doing that. After all, Christianity and Marxism share certain characteristics. Both are worldviews, explanations for the nature of the cosmos and humanity, and both have a strong prophetic call against injustice, and both provide a totalizing understanding of life. While they have radically different answers for the world, they are equally self-defined as the ultimate interpretation of the nature of humanity, its problems, morality, and both contain the promise of an Eschaton when all will be made right.
However, there are dangers in these particular waters. Despite the surface beauty of their Siren’s call, Marxism and its ideological children have certain characteristics which make accommodation with Christianity impossible. The ideas of Marx and those of the Bible are not merely inconsistent with one another; they are mutually exclusive.
There are many contradictions between the two faiths, but we’ll stick to three for now. The first of these is Marx’s shallow view of the human condition, that he drastically underestimated the depth and extent of evil. Marx saw life’s problems, and therefore its solutions, as fundamentally economic. Like a 19th century version of Star Trek, once financial and industrial resources were owned “communally,” things like greed, crime, and corruption would fade away for lack of nourishment. Today’s “Neo-Marxists” may have modified this to embrace gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, but the point is the same. Rearrange society, and social evils will dissipate.
Though tempting, this ignores the biblically informed reality of the Fall. Human evil is indeed shaped by meta-systems but it is not caused by them. Human beings, left to themselves without any grand system to guide them, would find new ways of doing evil, oppressing others, and exploiting the powerless. The problem wasn’t that the wrong people were in charge; the problem was that human beings were involved at all. Marx thought that changing the external system would create a new man, but apart from God, there is no new man.
This brings us to our next point. With the whole of humanity corrupted by the Fall, there is no political order immune to the dangers of tyranny. Marx not only ignored the ubiquity of human sin, but his ideas led inevitably towards the concentration of power in the hands of the few. Everywhere his ideas were put into practice, oppression followed.
Despite the protestations of his defenders, this tyranny is not accidentally a part of Marxist politics; it’s an intrinsic and intentional characteristic. Seeing the human problem as fundamentally cosmetic, he had no qualms with revolutionary violence and looked with admiration on the terrorism of the French Revolution. Get rid of the bad apples, and all will be well.
In this way, virtue and vice were reduced to how well the interests of the revolution were served. Morality was not restored but merely inverted. Denying the rights of the innocent in the old regime was injustice and a cause for revolution; denying them to a new group after the revolution was justified in the cause of the same. Oppression did not end but merely changed out its victims. We can no more have a Marxism without tyranny than we could have Nazism without racial supremacy.
Finally, Marx not only set aside the warning of Christianity about humanity’s Original Sin but he ignored the glory of Christianity’s emphasis on the Image of God in Man. Marx looked at human beings solely as the products of class. Human dignity became an uncertain thing, entirely dependent on one’s economic status and the will of the revolutionary powers that be. Far more than any stereotype of a corporate cog, you were your job. Your rights, your privileges, your dignity: all of these were derived from your social status.
Marx didn’t undermine class; he emphasized it. He didn’t overturn tyranny; he accelerated it. He didn’t stand against human corruption; he ignored its depths. His insights aren’t helpful suggestions we can fit into our Christian Worldview. At best hey’re watered-down versions of Christian truth. At worst they’re mutually exclusive denials of biblical revelation. We have no need of Christian heresies when we have the real thing.
We’re not immune to this in our world. We see one another not as unique individuals, equally bearing the image of Almighty God, but only as our social status demands. You aren’t Daniel; you’re a straight, white male. You aren’t Sarah; you’re a gay Latina. When you differ from the prevailing sentiment, you aren’t speaking out of the conviction of your heart and the result of careful study; you’re just parroting what your upbringing dictates.
Instead of opposing the divisions of race, class, and gender, this enhances them as we stop being the single family of Adam and become only whatever sub-group we currently identify with. Instead of undermining the grasping nature of a divided humanity, this accelerates the self-centered combat of social relations as we each fight it out for our special in-group. Instead of restoring justice to a world gone mad, this subverts morality by redefining oppression into what “they” do and justified discrimination what “we” do. This is not the message of the Bible.
Human dignity and ethics are rooted not in our job, race, or victim status but entirely the character of God and His image in us all. When we assign worth to people based on their social status, we’re no more Christian when we do it in deference to the elite than if we do it for the marginalized. There is no virtue in being the victim. Neither is there any cause for shame. We don’t, as Christians, work to lift the poor out of poverty, the ethnic minority out of discrimination, the exploited out of oppression because of their shame but because of their glory. We do it because they bear the image of God. We do it because we recognize the glory they have already.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Racial Reconciliation: What We (Mostly, Almost) All Agree On, and What We (Likely) Still Don’t Agree On
by Kevin DeYoung
The Gospel Coalition
There may not be any subject more difficult to talk about publicly in this country than racial reconciliation. And in writing that first sentence, I realize some people don’t even like the term racial reconciliation! So feel free to substitute “race,” “racism,” “ethnicity,” or another term that says we’re “talking about Black-White tensions in this country.”
Of course, those aren’t the only racial tensions worth exploring, but Black-White is the racial relationship most fraught with pain and difficulty in American history. While many things in this post are relevant to a variety of majority-minority relationships, what I have chiefly in view is the relationship between African Americans and white descendants of Western European nations (i.e., people like me).
One more definition before getting to the point. The “we” in my title refers to Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, gospel-celebrating, sanctification-seeking, church-going Christians. “Evangelical” is what I have in mind by “we,” but I understand that this term is problematic for many. Nevertheless, I want to make clear that I’m not writing about Americans in general. I’m writing about Christians. And not just any Christians, but serious and sincere Christians—the sort of people, I’d like to think, who read blogs like this one. I have in mind honest, humble Bible men and women who are willing to thoughtfully listen and candidly engage in this difficult conversation, without trying to score cheap points or demonize those who disagree.
With all that by way of preface, let me be so bold (or foolish) as to attempt a list of things we (mostly) agree on and things we (probably) still don’t agree on. I don’t offer this as a comprehensive summary of recent conversations, nor do I list these things because they are the only things that matter (let alone, to suggest that the disagreements don’t really matter). What’s more, I don’t presume that the disagreements necessarily break down along racial lines. We mustn’t think that any racial or ethnic group is monolithic. These are disagreements I see among American Christians (of all kinds) about racial reconciliation, not necessarily divisions between Blacks and Whites (though they often are that too). I admit that my criteria for determining “agree” and “disagree” is subjective (e.g., blogs I’ve read, tweets I’ve seen, messages I’ve heard, conversations I’ve had). But perhaps working through an imperfect list like this can help us see how much we do agree on already and help us clarify what our continuing arguments are really about.
1. Racism
We agree that all people are made in the image of God and deserving of honor, respect, and protection. Every notion of racial superiority is a blasphemous denial of the imago dei (Gen. 1:27). There is no place for racial prejudice and ethnic favoritism in the church (Gal. 3:28; James 2:1). Where bigotry based on skin color exists, it should be denounced and repented of (Eph. 2:14; 1 John 3:15).
We do not agree on what else counts as racism or the degree to which our cultural, civic, and ecclesiastical institutions are basically race-blind, racialized, or outright racist.
2. Racial Disparities
We agree that there are deep and disturbing differences between Blacks and Whites when it comes to a variety of statistical measurements, including: education, employment, income, incarceration, home ownership, standardized test scores, single-parent households, and participation at the highest levels of leadership in business, academics, athletics, and politics.
We do not all agree on the reasons for these disparities, whether they are owing to personal choices, cultural values, families of origin, educational opportunities, structural racism, legacy of oppression, or a combination of these and other factors. Likewise, we do not agree on the best approach to closing these gaps. Some favor political measures, others focus on educational reform, others emphasize church planting and discipleship, while others work for cultural renewal and community development. Many Christians see the need for all of the above, but even here there is disagreement about what the church’s focus should be.
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
We agree that MLK was a courageous civil-rights activist worth remembering and celebrating. MLK was used by God to help expose racial bigotry and overturn a corrupt system of Jim Crow segregation. King’s clearsighted moral convictions about racism, his brilliant rhetoric, and his example of non-violence in the face of intense hatred make him a heroic figure in American history.
We do not agree on how gospel Christians should celebrate this legacy. While most people acknowledge that King held unorthodox theological positions and was guilty of marital infidelity, we are not of one mind on how these matters should be discussed or how they relate to his overall contribution to American and ecclesiastical life. In a similar vein, we do not agree on how to evaluate the legacy of clay-footed theologians like Jonathan Edwards or Robert Lewis Dabney.
4. American History
We agree that our history has much to celebrate: far-sighted leaders, Judeo-Christian ideals, commendable heroes, technological innovation, and military sacrifices. There are many reasons we can be proud to be Americans.
We do not agree on whether our history should be remembered chiefly as one of liberty and virtue (spotted with tragic failures and blind spots), or whether our national story (despite many noble exceptions) is more fundamentally one of hypocrisy, prejudice, and oppression.
5. Current State of Affairs
We agree that race relations have come a long way in the past 50 years. Things are better than they used to be. We also agree that racism still exists and that even if we play by the rules and pursue the American Dream with the same effort, we do not all begin at the same starting line or experience the same success.
We do not agree on whether our cultural, political, and academic institutions are basically fair (with exceptions) or basically rigged and in need of structural change (with repentance for the majority’s part in perpetuating systemic bias). For example, in just the last year I read a thoughtful book by a white man arguing that the deck is stacked (by Whites), and has always been stacked (by Whites), against African Americans. I also read a thoughtful book by a black man arguing that racism is largely a thing of the past and that focusing on Black victimhood is self-defeating. (I realize, of course, that neither book is representative of the way most Whites and Blacks think, respectively, of the issue.)
6. Corporate Responsibility
We agree that it is appropriate, in some situations, for Christians, for Christian institutions, and for churches to be rebuked for corporate sins and to repent of corporate failures. The Old Testament prophets often denounced the nation of Israel, even though individuals within the nation were certainly living in holiness and integrity. Likewise, we see that Daniel offered a prayer of confession for his people, even though he likely was not personally guilty of all the sins he confessed (Dan. 9:1-19). In the New Testament, we see that the Jews were held responsible for Christ’s death, even though some Jews followed Jesus and lamented his death.
We do not agree when and how—and in many situations whether—this corporate accountability and repentance should take place. We do not agree on how (or if) the passage of time, racial identity, and ecclesiastical affiliation should shape these matters. Similarly, we do not agree what should be done, if anything, beyond repenting for corporate sin.
7. Politics and the Church
We agree that the church of Jesus Christ must not be beholden to any political party. We agree that the church is neither competent nor called to offer opinion on the specifics of every political debate or policy discussion. Preachers should, as a general rule, preach verse by verse through the Bible, letting God’s word set the agenda, rather than riding hobby horses or trying to respond to the latest controversy. At the same time, we agree that Christians, churches, and pastors should not be silent on matters of justice about which the Bible clearly speaks.
We do not agree on how the “spirituality of the church” applies in every situation (or if it is a biblical idea in the first place). At its best, the “spirituality of the church” roots us in the explicit teaching of Scripture and helps us keep the main thing the main thing. At its worst, the “spirituality of the church” has been used to ignore evil in our midst and sidestep issues of biblical obedience. While we recognize that the gospel is of first importance and that the gospel has public ramifications, we do not always agree on how these two convictions play out side-by-side in real time. There is little agreement on which issues are “moral” and “biblical” and which are merely “political.”
8. Systemic Injustice
We agree that sin is not just a matter of individual responsibility. It is possible for systems and structures to be unjust even when the people inhabiting those systems and structures may not have personal animus in their hearts.
We do not agree on whether disparities themselves indicate systemic and structural injustice (see above). Likewise, we do not agree on the best remedies for institutional racism where it exists.
9. Police and Judicial System
We agree that our country imprisons far more of its citizens than any other nation does. We also recognize that minorities are imprisoned at rates disproportionate to their population as whole. The presence of mass incarceration has a deleterious effect on many minority communities and families, as well as in the lives of those who are imprisoned.
We do not agree on the reasons for mass incarceration or whether the disproportionate imprisonment of minorities is a sign of entrenched bias. We do not agree on the nature of policing nor on the state of our judicial system, whether both are (largely) fair and colorblind or whether both are prejudiced (intentionally or unintentionally) against persons of color. By the same token, we often respond differently to stories involving the police and African Americans, either siding instinctively with law enforcement officers or assuming that each questionable encounter is another example of pervasive police brutality.
10. Sunday Morning
We agree that the biblical vision of heaven is a glorious picture of a multi-ethnic throng gathered in worship of our Triune God. We would rejoice to see our churches reflect this biblical vision more and more. To that end, we lament our cultural blind spots (and don’t know we have!), which make it more difficult for people unlike us to feel at home and be in positions of leadership and influence in our churches.
We do not agree to what degree this “segregation” on Sunday morning is the result of present sin, historical sin, personal preference, unfortunate cultural ignorance, or understandable and acceptable differences in worship and tradition. We do not agree on whether all churches must be multi-ethnic, should at least strive to be multi-ethnic (as their location allows), or whether there are ever justifiable reasons (and if so, what those reasons are) for a church to be entirely (or nearly) mono-cultural. And if the pursuit of racial diversity is desirable, we do not agree on whether this multi-ethnic vision is just for predominately White congregations, conferences, and communities or if it also applies to historically Black churches, conferences, and communities.
11. The Church and the World
We agree that the Bible calls the church to be honest about its own sins (1 Peter 4:17) and to keep itself unstained from the world (James 1:27). As salt and light, we should be distinct from the world, while at the same time having a salutary effect on the world.
We do not agree on which is the more urgent need of the hour, to repent of our sin and renew our witness in the world, or to spotlight sin in the world and keep ourselves free from its corrupting influence. We know both are necessary, but our personal and corporate inclinations often lean in one direction more than the other. Likewise, we often disagree on what urgency looks like in racial reconciliation and whether this conversation should or shouldn’t take precedence over other moral issues like protecting the unborn and defending biblical marriage and sexuality.
Why This Matters
I’m sure I missed some important categories, and some of my own leanings probably show through in the way I’ve framed the issues. But as much as possible, I tried to state the agreements and disagreements fairly and matter-of-factly.
“To what end?!” You may ask. Toward several ends.
First, in laying out a list like this, perhaps we’ll be able to better isolate what we are arguing about at any given moment. With racial matters, we are often guilty of making every conversation about everything else. So even though the disagreement started off by talking about colonial American history, we ended up arguing about Donald Trump, mass incarceration, and corporate repentance. To be sure, sometimes everything is connected to everything, but I still maintain that our conversations will produce more light than heat if we can focus in on one argument at a time.
Second, my hope is that if we can focus on specific disagreements, rather than meta-complaints, we’ll have a better chance of putting forward constructive criticisms and thoughtful rejoinders. I don’t deny that “racism” is a thing, just like “cultural Marxism” is a thing, but let’s be careful not to smother our opponents in labels when we should be respectfully piling up facts and arguments instead. Being “slow to speak” doesn’t mean we can never say anything. It means we try to understand, try to sympathize, and try to explain instead of dismissing our (good faith) interlocutors out of hand or stigmatizing them with unwanted names and isms.
And finally, maybe a list like this can help us put our arguments in the appropriate categories. Let me be clear: all of the disagreements above are important, and Christians should be engaged in all of these debates. By laying out these disagreements, I’m not suggesting we now ignore them or act as if no answer is better than another. And yet, we ought to recognize that some of these disagreements are biblical and theological (e.g., the nature of corporate repentance, the entailments of the gospel, the dignity of all image bearers), while others are matters of history or policy, while still others require a good deal of expertise on sociology, law, economics, and criminology. By more carefully isolating our real disagreements we will be better equipped to talk responsibly, listen respectfully, find common ground, and move in the direction of possible solutions.
The Gospel Coalition
There may not be any subject more difficult to talk about publicly in this country than racial reconciliation. And in writing that first sentence, I realize some people don’t even like the term racial reconciliation! So feel free to substitute “race,” “racism,” “ethnicity,” or another term that says we’re “talking about Black-White tensions in this country.”
Of course, those aren’t the only racial tensions worth exploring, but Black-White is the racial relationship most fraught with pain and difficulty in American history. While many things in this post are relevant to a variety of majority-minority relationships, what I have chiefly in view is the relationship between African Americans and white descendants of Western European nations (i.e., people like me).
One more definition before getting to the point. The “we” in my title refers to Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, gospel-celebrating, sanctification-seeking, church-going Christians. “Evangelical” is what I have in mind by “we,” but I understand that this term is problematic for many. Nevertheless, I want to make clear that I’m not writing about Americans in general. I’m writing about Christians. And not just any Christians, but serious and sincere Christians—the sort of people, I’d like to think, who read blogs like this one. I have in mind honest, humble Bible men and women who are willing to thoughtfully listen and candidly engage in this difficult conversation, without trying to score cheap points or demonize those who disagree.
With all that by way of preface, let me be so bold (or foolish) as to attempt a list of things we (mostly) agree on and things we (probably) still don’t agree on. I don’t offer this as a comprehensive summary of recent conversations, nor do I list these things because they are the only things that matter (let alone, to suggest that the disagreements don’t really matter). What’s more, I don’t presume that the disagreements necessarily break down along racial lines. We mustn’t think that any racial or ethnic group is monolithic. These are disagreements I see among American Christians (of all kinds) about racial reconciliation, not necessarily divisions between Blacks and Whites (though they often are that too). I admit that my criteria for determining “agree” and “disagree” is subjective (e.g., blogs I’ve read, tweets I’ve seen, messages I’ve heard, conversations I’ve had). But perhaps working through an imperfect list like this can help us see how much we do agree on already and help us clarify what our continuing arguments are really about.
1. Racism
We agree that all people are made in the image of God and deserving of honor, respect, and protection. Every notion of racial superiority is a blasphemous denial of the imago dei (Gen. 1:27). There is no place for racial prejudice and ethnic favoritism in the church (Gal. 3:28; James 2:1). Where bigotry based on skin color exists, it should be denounced and repented of (Eph. 2:14; 1 John 3:15).
We do not agree on what else counts as racism or the degree to which our cultural, civic, and ecclesiastical institutions are basically race-blind, racialized, or outright racist.
2. Racial Disparities
We agree that there are deep and disturbing differences between Blacks and Whites when it comes to a variety of statistical measurements, including: education, employment, income, incarceration, home ownership, standardized test scores, single-parent households, and participation at the highest levels of leadership in business, academics, athletics, and politics.
We do not all agree on the reasons for these disparities, whether they are owing to personal choices, cultural values, families of origin, educational opportunities, structural racism, legacy of oppression, or a combination of these and other factors. Likewise, we do not agree on the best approach to closing these gaps. Some favor political measures, others focus on educational reform, others emphasize church planting and discipleship, while others work for cultural renewal and community development. Many Christians see the need for all of the above, but even here there is disagreement about what the church’s focus should be.
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
We agree that MLK was a courageous civil-rights activist worth remembering and celebrating. MLK was used by God to help expose racial bigotry and overturn a corrupt system of Jim Crow segregation. King’s clearsighted moral convictions about racism, his brilliant rhetoric, and his example of non-violence in the face of intense hatred make him a heroic figure in American history.
We do not agree on how gospel Christians should celebrate this legacy. While most people acknowledge that King held unorthodox theological positions and was guilty of marital infidelity, we are not of one mind on how these matters should be discussed or how they relate to his overall contribution to American and ecclesiastical life. In a similar vein, we do not agree on how to evaluate the legacy of clay-footed theologians like Jonathan Edwards or Robert Lewis Dabney.
4. American History
We agree that our history has much to celebrate: far-sighted leaders, Judeo-Christian ideals, commendable heroes, technological innovation, and military sacrifices. There are many reasons we can be proud to be Americans.
We do not agree on whether our history should be remembered chiefly as one of liberty and virtue (spotted with tragic failures and blind spots), or whether our national story (despite many noble exceptions) is more fundamentally one of hypocrisy, prejudice, and oppression.
5. Current State of Affairs
We agree that race relations have come a long way in the past 50 years. Things are better than they used to be. We also agree that racism still exists and that even if we play by the rules and pursue the American Dream with the same effort, we do not all begin at the same starting line or experience the same success.
We do not agree on whether our cultural, political, and academic institutions are basically fair (with exceptions) or basically rigged and in need of structural change (with repentance for the majority’s part in perpetuating systemic bias). For example, in just the last year I read a thoughtful book by a white man arguing that the deck is stacked (by Whites), and has always been stacked (by Whites), against African Americans. I also read a thoughtful book by a black man arguing that racism is largely a thing of the past and that focusing on Black victimhood is self-defeating. (I realize, of course, that neither book is representative of the way most Whites and Blacks think, respectively, of the issue.)
6. Corporate Responsibility
We agree that it is appropriate, in some situations, for Christians, for Christian institutions, and for churches to be rebuked for corporate sins and to repent of corporate failures. The Old Testament prophets often denounced the nation of Israel, even though individuals within the nation were certainly living in holiness and integrity. Likewise, we see that Daniel offered a prayer of confession for his people, even though he likely was not personally guilty of all the sins he confessed (Dan. 9:1-19). In the New Testament, we see that the Jews were held responsible for Christ’s death, even though some Jews followed Jesus and lamented his death.
We do not agree when and how—and in many situations whether—this corporate accountability and repentance should take place. We do not agree on how (or if) the passage of time, racial identity, and ecclesiastical affiliation should shape these matters. Similarly, we do not agree what should be done, if anything, beyond repenting for corporate sin.
7. Politics and the Church
We agree that the church of Jesus Christ must not be beholden to any political party. We agree that the church is neither competent nor called to offer opinion on the specifics of every political debate or policy discussion. Preachers should, as a general rule, preach verse by verse through the Bible, letting God’s word set the agenda, rather than riding hobby horses or trying to respond to the latest controversy. At the same time, we agree that Christians, churches, and pastors should not be silent on matters of justice about which the Bible clearly speaks.
We do not agree on how the “spirituality of the church” applies in every situation (or if it is a biblical idea in the first place). At its best, the “spirituality of the church” roots us in the explicit teaching of Scripture and helps us keep the main thing the main thing. At its worst, the “spirituality of the church” has been used to ignore evil in our midst and sidestep issues of biblical obedience. While we recognize that the gospel is of first importance and that the gospel has public ramifications, we do not always agree on how these two convictions play out side-by-side in real time. There is little agreement on which issues are “moral” and “biblical” and which are merely “political.”
8. Systemic Injustice
We agree that sin is not just a matter of individual responsibility. It is possible for systems and structures to be unjust even when the people inhabiting those systems and structures may not have personal animus in their hearts.
We do not agree on whether disparities themselves indicate systemic and structural injustice (see above). Likewise, we do not agree on the best remedies for institutional racism where it exists.
9. Police and Judicial System
We agree that our country imprisons far more of its citizens than any other nation does. We also recognize that minorities are imprisoned at rates disproportionate to their population as whole. The presence of mass incarceration has a deleterious effect on many minority communities and families, as well as in the lives of those who are imprisoned.
We do not agree on the reasons for mass incarceration or whether the disproportionate imprisonment of minorities is a sign of entrenched bias. We do not agree on the nature of policing nor on the state of our judicial system, whether both are (largely) fair and colorblind or whether both are prejudiced (intentionally or unintentionally) against persons of color. By the same token, we often respond differently to stories involving the police and African Americans, either siding instinctively with law enforcement officers or assuming that each questionable encounter is another example of pervasive police brutality.
10. Sunday Morning
We agree that the biblical vision of heaven is a glorious picture of a multi-ethnic throng gathered in worship of our Triune God. We would rejoice to see our churches reflect this biblical vision more and more. To that end, we lament our cultural blind spots (and don’t know we have!), which make it more difficult for people unlike us to feel at home and be in positions of leadership and influence in our churches.
We do not agree to what degree this “segregation” on Sunday morning is the result of present sin, historical sin, personal preference, unfortunate cultural ignorance, or understandable and acceptable differences in worship and tradition. We do not agree on whether all churches must be multi-ethnic, should at least strive to be multi-ethnic (as their location allows), or whether there are ever justifiable reasons (and if so, what those reasons are) for a church to be entirely (or nearly) mono-cultural. And if the pursuit of racial diversity is desirable, we do not agree on whether this multi-ethnic vision is just for predominately White congregations, conferences, and communities or if it also applies to historically Black churches, conferences, and communities.
11. The Church and the World
We agree that the Bible calls the church to be honest about its own sins (1 Peter 4:17) and to keep itself unstained from the world (James 1:27). As salt and light, we should be distinct from the world, while at the same time having a salutary effect on the world.
We do not agree on which is the more urgent need of the hour, to repent of our sin and renew our witness in the world, or to spotlight sin in the world and keep ourselves free from its corrupting influence. We know both are necessary, but our personal and corporate inclinations often lean in one direction more than the other. Likewise, we often disagree on what urgency looks like in racial reconciliation and whether this conversation should or shouldn’t take precedence over other moral issues like protecting the unborn and defending biblical marriage and sexuality.
Why This Matters
I’m sure I missed some important categories, and some of my own leanings probably show through in the way I’ve framed the issues. But as much as possible, I tried to state the agreements and disagreements fairly and matter-of-factly.
“To what end?!” You may ask. Toward several ends.
First, in laying out a list like this, perhaps we’ll be able to better isolate what we are arguing about at any given moment. With racial matters, we are often guilty of making every conversation about everything else. So even though the disagreement started off by talking about colonial American history, we ended up arguing about Donald Trump, mass incarceration, and corporate repentance. To be sure, sometimes everything is connected to everything, but I still maintain that our conversations will produce more light than heat if we can focus in on one argument at a time.
Second, my hope is that if we can focus on specific disagreements, rather than meta-complaints, we’ll have a better chance of putting forward constructive criticisms and thoughtful rejoinders. I don’t deny that “racism” is a thing, just like “cultural Marxism” is a thing, but let’s be careful not to smother our opponents in labels when we should be respectfully piling up facts and arguments instead. Being “slow to speak” doesn’t mean we can never say anything. It means we try to understand, try to sympathize, and try to explain instead of dismissing our (good faith) interlocutors out of hand or stigmatizing them with unwanted names and isms.
And finally, maybe a list like this can help us put our arguments in the appropriate categories. Let me be clear: all of the disagreements above are important, and Christians should be engaged in all of these debates. By laying out these disagreements, I’m not suggesting we now ignore them or act as if no answer is better than another. And yet, we ought to recognize that some of these disagreements are biblical and theological (e.g., the nature of corporate repentance, the entailments of the gospel, the dignity of all image bearers), while others are matters of history or policy, while still others require a good deal of expertise on sociology, law, economics, and criminology. By more carefully isolating our real disagreements we will be better equipped to talk responsibly, listen respectfully, find common ground, and move in the direction of possible solutions.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
You Can Forget to Be Irritated
Scotty Smith
Desiring God
The more I remember God’s lavish, unwavering, inexhaustible love for us in Jesus, the more I forget to be irritated with others.
Unfortunately, I often remember to be irritated. But where I am weak, God is gracious to remind me of what I need to forget.
In any given day, hour, or moment, our thought-life greatly determines our heart-response (which flows out in our words and behavior). Being a broken person in a broken world among broken people, provocation is inevitable. What isn’t inevitable is a godly response. Thus, “fools show their annoyance at once” (Proverbs 12:16 NIV) and are “quick in (their) spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the heart of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9).
Anger lodges in the heart of fools — the Holy Spirit used that phrase recently to convict me about the way I’d been rolling out the welcome mat, providing hospitality, a warm bed, and nourishment for thoughts that always prove to be horrible houseguests.
Writing to believers in Corinth, the apostle Paul described this dynamic in the language of warfare:
Indeed, to work for one another’s joy (2 Corinthians 1:24) is to wage war for each other’s thinking and feeling.
Here’s how I’ve learned to apply this text to the daily issue of my attitude, specifically to irritation, and its ugly siblings (aggravation, grumpiness, self-pity, resentment, and more). Notice three elements in this passage: strongholds to be named, opinions to be destroyed, and thoughts to be captured.
What kinds of things have irritated me? What moved my wife of 46 years to ask me the same question Paul asked the Galatians, “What has happened to all of your joy?” (Galatians 4:15 NIRV). It’s not a very noble list, so here’s to transparency and vulnerability.
What might your list of idolatrous provocations look like? It helps to name them.
In context, he was talking about false teachers who infiltrated the church of Corinth. But all thinking that contradicts the gospel falls under the same judgment. To a certain extent, I was functionally believing that
What might your list of functional beliefs look like? It helps to name them.
We will “forget to be irritated” to the extent we are remembering Jesus. Our primary calling is to “remember” Jesus — to re-member, to reconnect and stay connected with Jesus. We who are in union with Jesus must stay in communion with him.
Jack Miller, my spiritual father of 21 years, referred to this as the discipline of “preaching the gospel to your heart.” That is, cultivating a fascination and preoccupation with the person and work of Jesus.
This isn’t “mind over matter,” but Jesus over all things — Creator and Sustainer, Lamb of God, Lord of lords, Lamp of the city. It’s not “the power of positive thinking,” but the joy of focused gazing — seeing and savoring more of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. It’s not denial of pain, but delight in the Lord; not the absence of storms, but the presence of Jesus in those storms. It isn’t stoic resolution, but grateful adoration. Indeed, the gospel doesn’t make us less human or superhuman, but fully human.
Our ultimate goal is not being less irritated, but more like Jesus. It isn’t the promise to do better, but the commitment to repent quicker. The more we are remembering Jesus, our repentances won’t be fewer, but quicker, and more joyful.
What do you need to remember about Jesus when you are tempted to irritation? Once again, it helps to name those truths.
If you, like me, struggle with sinful irritation, name the strongholds, destroy the idolatrous opinions, and recapture any wandering thoughts for Christ. Ask God to remind you of what you need to forget, and then ask him to show you all you need to remember.
Desiring God
The more I remember God’s lavish, unwavering, inexhaustible love for us in Jesus, the more I forget to be irritated with others.
Unfortunately, I often remember to be irritated. But where I am weak, God is gracious to remind me of what I need to forget.
In any given day, hour, or moment, our thought-life greatly determines our heart-response (which flows out in our words and behavior). Being a broken person in a broken world among broken people, provocation is inevitable. What isn’t inevitable is a godly response. Thus, “fools show their annoyance at once” (Proverbs 12:16 NIV) and are “quick in (their) spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the heart of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9).
Anger lodges in the heart of fools — the Holy Spirit used that phrase recently to convict me about the way I’d been rolling out the welcome mat, providing hospitality, a warm bed, and nourishment for thoughts that always prove to be horrible houseguests.
Weapons Against Irritation
I’m not a loud, fist-pounding, explosive type. But I can easily drift (at times even jump) into passive-aggressive, actively-harmful, joy-pillaging attitudes. Inevitably, I can trace those attitudes back to gospel-amnesia. What I mean is, in any given season (or second) of life, I’m either remembering the gospel and marinating in its implications, or I’m forgetting the gospel and letting my thoughts get hijacked by all kinds of foolishness and sin.Writing to believers in Corinth, the apostle Paul described this dynamic in the language of warfare:
The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4–5)
Indeed, to work for one another’s joy (2 Corinthians 1:24) is to wage war for each other’s thinking and feeling.
Here’s how I’ve learned to apply this text to the daily issue of my attitude, specifically to irritation, and its ugly siblings (aggravation, grumpiness, self-pity, resentment, and more). Notice three elements in this passage: strongholds to be named, opinions to be destroyed, and thoughts to be captured.
Name the Strongholds
I wish bad attitudes were only episodic “oops” moments or “loose-holds,” rather than strongholds. But the truth is that bad attitudes often reveal that something or someone has more power over our hearts than the glory and grace of God. Some expression of the stronghold of self-idolatry is on display.What kinds of things have irritated me? What moved my wife of 46 years to ask me the same question Paul asked the Galatians, “What has happened to all of your joy?” (Galatians 4:15 NIRV). It’s not a very noble list, so here’s to transparency and vulnerability.
- The colorful spinning disk on my computer screen, mocking me with, “Not yet”;
- Road construction on my main route interfering with my precious schedule;
- An empty peanut butter jar on the pantry shelf and empty milk carton in the frigde;
- Loud talkers in a quiet restaurant, and slow waiters fishing for a big tip;
- Delayed flights and deflated bike tires;
- Forgotten passwords and anonymous critics;
- Misplaced stuff and hidden charges.
What might your list of idolatrous provocations look like? It helps to name them.
Destroy the Opinions
So how do these normal, daily incidents of life in a broken world generate super-sized irritation? What was I remembering (believing) during that stretch? Notice, in our passage, Paul says certain opinions need to be exposed and destroyed, not ignored or coddled.In context, he was talking about false teachers who infiltrated the church of Corinth. But all thinking that contradicts the gospel falls under the same judgment. To a certain extent, I was functionally believing that
- I’ve earned the right to an uninterrupted, manageable, and hassle-free life;
- If people would just do their jobs, and be responsible, my life would be easier;
- When it comes to my plans and preferences, the effects of the fall should be suspended;
- I’m a spiritual orphan, without a sovereign heavenly Father.
What might your list of functional beliefs look like? It helps to name them.
Capture the Thoughts
What do I tend to forget (or refuse to believe) when I lapse into irritability? Notice the main thing Paul emphasizes in this passage is the ongoing discipline of obeying Jesus with our thinking — that is, having our thought-life captured by Jesus and captivated with Jesus.We will “forget to be irritated” to the extent we are remembering Jesus. Our primary calling is to “remember” Jesus — to re-member, to reconnect and stay connected with Jesus. We who are in union with Jesus must stay in communion with him.
Jack Miller, my spiritual father of 21 years, referred to this as the discipline of “preaching the gospel to your heart.” That is, cultivating a fascination and preoccupation with the person and work of Jesus.
This isn’t “mind over matter,” but Jesus over all things — Creator and Sustainer, Lamb of God, Lord of lords, Lamp of the city. It’s not “the power of positive thinking,” but the joy of focused gazing — seeing and savoring more of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. It’s not denial of pain, but delight in the Lord; not the absence of storms, but the presence of Jesus in those storms. It isn’t stoic resolution, but grateful adoration. Indeed, the gospel doesn’t make us less human or superhuman, but fully human.
Our ultimate goal is not being less irritated, but more like Jesus. It isn’t the promise to do better, but the commitment to repent quicker. The more we are remembering Jesus, our repentances won’t be fewer, but quicker, and more joyful.
What do you need to remember about Jesus when you are tempted to irritation? Once again, it helps to name those truths.
If you, like me, struggle with sinful irritation, name the strongholds, destroy the idolatrous opinions, and recapture any wandering thoughts for Christ. Ask God to remind you of what you need to forget, and then ask him to show you all you need to remember.
The Greatest Challenge in Discipleship Today
by Barry Cooper
Desiring God
Last year I had the privilege of traveling to five continents in three weeks. I did this as the writer and presenter of an eight-episode documentary series on Philippians called Discipleship Explored. The idea was to interview believers all over the world, many of whom had faced severe persecution, to show the difference Philippians has made to them in their Christian lives.
However, I must confess to some ambivalence about the word “discipleship.”
As one of my friends points out, although the Greek word “disciple” most definitely appears in Scripture, the word “discipleship” does not. And when we use that word, often what we mean is something like “the art or craft of being a disciple.” Almost inevitably, then, the word inclines us toward thinking in terms of methods and techniques, and focusing on the things we should be doing rather than on the one we are following.
In other words, we can be experts in disciple-ship, and never actually be a disciple.
That was ten years ago, but the shallowness persists. Could it be at least partly because so much of our training in discipleship amounts to little more than a list of disciplines one is supposed to master?
Imagine a dancer. She’s dancing with grace and joy and rhythm. As you look closer, you see what drives all this beautiful movement: she has her earbuds in, hearing the music she loves best in all the world, and it’s transporting her. She’s captivated and enthralled by it. It’s almost as if she can’t stop dancing.
Now imagine a second person walks into the room. She looks at the dancer and thinks, “I’d love to be able to dance like that!” But she can’t hear the music. So, she tries to copy the moves. The technique. And it actually seems to be working, at least for a time. But because she hears no music, the movement is clunky, hesitant, and self-conscious. She doesn’t seem to enjoy dancing the way the first dancer does. Before too long, she’s exhausted, while the first dancer is still going strong.
What if much of our well-intentioned disciple training is actually forcing people to be that second dancer? Telling them to copy all the right moves — read your Bible, pray, go to church, love others, share the gospel — while doing relatively little to help them “hear” the beautiful music that must drive it all: joy in Christ.
None of this, of course, is meant to imply that the Christian life involves no actual “doing.” One author rightly likens the Christian life to sailing, and there are plenty of things you need to do when sailing. You break a sweat. You have to stay attentive. You can’t just sit back and do nothing.
But there are two things you cannot control on a sailboat, and they make all the difference in the world: the tide and the wind.
Why is it, then, that so much of our discipling amounts to sitting people down in a boat and telling them to make it move by blowing into the sail? It shouldn’t be a surprise to us if many budding followers of Christ bail out, get burned out, or never make it out of the shallows.
That first year, when Christ was new to me, was like the first time I heard my all-time favorite piece of music. Perhaps you remember the first time you heard yours — how besotted you were by it, how you put it on repeat and listened to it endlessly. You told your friends, “You have to hear this — seriously, it’s amazing.”
That was my Christian life in that first year. Effervescent. Overflowing.
And can I be honest with you? I’m not sure it’s been quite the same since. I suspect that’s partly because, as we go on in the Christian life, we often stop attending to the music that first moved us and begin trying to dance in silence.
We start focusing on the moves we’re supposed to be performing as disciples. The “quiet times,” the prayer meetings, the Bible study, the evangelism, and so on. Again, I want to stress that these are wonderful and appropriate things for a follower of Jesus to be doing. But without the music of the gospel to drive them, they become hollow — mere technique and artifice, the moves of a dancer, but with none of the joy, none of the energy, and none of the grace.
When Paul wrote to the young disciples in Philippi, seeking to build them up in the context of a culture which actively opposed them, he didn’t present them with a list of discipling to-dos. Instead, he filled the letter with the statement and restatement of one glorious reality: the supreme worth of Christ. He knew full well that all genuine Christian “doing” flows from that music. Yes, he tells them to “work out your own salvation” (Philippians 2:12), but in the very next verse immediately reminds them that the power to do so comes not from them, but from God who works in them “both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
As we make disciples for Christ, let’s do everything we can to turn up the music of the gospel. Let’s recapture our first love, and remember how to dance.
Desiring God
Last year I had the privilege of traveling to five continents in three weeks. I did this as the writer and presenter of an eight-episode documentary series on Philippians called Discipleship Explored. The idea was to interview believers all over the world, many of whom had faced severe persecution, to show the difference Philippians has made to them in their Christian lives.
However, I must confess to some ambivalence about the word “discipleship.”
As one of my friends points out, although the Greek word “disciple” most definitely appears in Scripture, the word “discipleship” does not. And when we use that word, often what we mean is something like “the art or craft of being a disciple.” Almost inevitably, then, the word inclines us toward thinking in terms of methods and techniques, and focusing on the things we should be doing rather than on the one we are following.
In other words, we can be experts in disciple-ship, and never actually be a disciple.
Do We Dance to the Music of Joy?
Perhaps that helps to explain the sad reality noted by John Stott when he was asked to assess the growth of the evangelical church:The answer is “growth without depth.” None of us wants to dispute the extraordinary growth of the church. But it has been largely numerical and statistical growth. And there has not been sufficient growth in discipleship that is comparable to the growth in numbers.
That was ten years ago, but the shallowness persists. Could it be at least partly because so much of our training in discipleship amounts to little more than a list of disciplines one is supposed to master?
Imagine a dancer. She’s dancing with grace and joy and rhythm. As you look closer, you see what drives all this beautiful movement: she has her earbuds in, hearing the music she loves best in all the world, and it’s transporting her. She’s captivated and enthralled by it. It’s almost as if she can’t stop dancing.
Now imagine a second person walks into the room. She looks at the dancer and thinks, “I’d love to be able to dance like that!” But she can’t hear the music. So, she tries to copy the moves. The technique. And it actually seems to be working, at least for a time. But because she hears no music, the movement is clunky, hesitant, and self-conscious. She doesn’t seem to enjoy dancing the way the first dancer does. Before too long, she’s exhausted, while the first dancer is still going strong.
What if much of our well-intentioned disciple training is actually forcing people to be that second dancer? Telling them to copy all the right moves — read your Bible, pray, go to church, love others, share the gospel — while doing relatively little to help them “hear” the beautiful music that must drive it all: joy in Christ.
Discipleship Is About Being Mastered
What would it look like if our discipling of others was less an act of technique-teaching, and more an act of “turning up the music”? What if it were less about mastering, and more about being mastered? What if our focus was on captivating and enthralling would-be disciples with the music of God’s surpassing love for us in Christ?None of this, of course, is meant to imply that the Christian life involves no actual “doing.” One author rightly likens the Christian life to sailing, and there are plenty of things you need to do when sailing. You break a sweat. You have to stay attentive. You can’t just sit back and do nothing.
But there are two things you cannot control on a sailboat, and they make all the difference in the world: the tide and the wind.
Why is it, then, that so much of our discipling amounts to sitting people down in a boat and telling them to make it move by blowing into the sail? It shouldn’t be a surprise to us if many budding followers of Christ bail out, get burned out, or never make it out of the shallows.
The Gospel Music
I’ve been a Christian now for 26 years. The great adventure began on Easter in 1992, at the end of my second term at university. And I have to say, I look back on that first year as being one of the most fruitful years of my Christian life. The passion for evangelism. The eagerness with which I opened my Bible. The joy with which I said my prayers. The expectancy with which I came to church.That first year, when Christ was new to me, was like the first time I heard my all-time favorite piece of music. Perhaps you remember the first time you heard yours — how besotted you were by it, how you put it on repeat and listened to it endlessly. You told your friends, “You have to hear this — seriously, it’s amazing.”
That was my Christian life in that first year. Effervescent. Overflowing.
And can I be honest with you? I’m not sure it’s been quite the same since. I suspect that’s partly because, as we go on in the Christian life, we often stop attending to the music that first moved us and begin trying to dance in silence.
We start focusing on the moves we’re supposed to be performing as disciples. The “quiet times,” the prayer meetings, the Bible study, the evangelism, and so on. Again, I want to stress that these are wonderful and appropriate things for a follower of Jesus to be doing. But without the music of the gospel to drive them, they become hollow — mere technique and artifice, the moves of a dancer, but with none of the joy, none of the energy, and none of the grace.
Our Greater Challenge
Much has been written about the threat to Christian disciples from an increasingly secular society. That’s true, no doubt. But is it possible that there is also — because of the way we disciple others, and ourselves — a significant threat inside the church too?When Paul wrote to the young disciples in Philippi, seeking to build them up in the context of a culture which actively opposed them, he didn’t present them with a list of discipling to-dos. Instead, he filled the letter with the statement and restatement of one glorious reality: the supreme worth of Christ. He knew full well that all genuine Christian “doing” flows from that music. Yes, he tells them to “work out your own salvation” (Philippians 2:12), but in the very next verse immediately reminds them that the power to do so comes not from them, but from God who works in them “both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
As we make disciples for Christ, let’s do everything we can to turn up the music of the gospel. Let’s recapture our first love, and remember how to dance.
Why Is the Abortion Industry Run by Women?
by Rebekah Merkle
Desiring God
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
So goes the ancient pagan proverb in a flash of what could almost be Solomonic wisdom.
Think of the destructive insanity of the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9. He is writhing on the ground, foaming at the mouth, and perpetually throwing himself into the fire. Everyone in that story, from the father to the apostles to the crowds, knew that something was fundamentally wrong with the situation. It’s not a tricky diagnosis — ordinary, healthy people don’t behave in that way.
Ephesians tells us that “no man ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29). The insanity and brutality of the demon manifests by subverting all natural categories and causing the “self” to be attacked as if it’s an enemy. And of course, while in the grip of this demon, the boy actually is his own worst enemy.
Any sane person would instinctively fight to keep himself out of the fire or to save himself from drowning. This isn’t an indication of virtue. It’s simply the behavior of a normal human. But on the other side, the unnatural state that boy was in could only be caused by a massive spiritual problem — in this case, a demon so ferocious that not even the disciples could cast it out. Christ tells them later, “that kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.”
Imagine what perspective a future generation might have as they look back at us. What possible explanation could we offer for our actions? Think of a history professor trying to explain to the students, “I know this seems unbelievable, but women in the twenty-first century demanded that they should be allowed to murder their own babies and sell the body parts — and if anyone tried to get in the way of this they were accused of being tyrannical abusers.”
What? Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
But meanwhile, in another corner of the animal kingdom . . . a man tears apart a woman’s child, inside her womb, and all the other women applaud. In any normal world — not even a virtuous world, just a normal world — how would the other women respond to that situation? Obviously, we would weep for her. Grieve for her. Demand justice for her.
Instead, the women of America band together, wear pink hats, and demand that they be allowed to pay the man to do it again to someone else. Further, they insist that everyone be required to chip in and pay for him to do it to millions of other women.
What has happened to us? How can we, modern, enlightened Americans, contemplate a child being violently torn from his mother’s womb, and rather than seeing a shocking and unspeakable horror, we see it as empowerment for the mother?
This is an industry that takes the violence and the butchery of the battlefield and brings it into women’s bodies. But who are the villains who are responsible? The women themselves. It’s the women who are demanding that they be allowed to be violated in this way, women who are running the ad campaigns, women who are the CEOs, women who are marching in the streets, women who are lobbying Washington, and women who are operating the vile trade in infant body parts. It is women who are tearing at themselves and throwing themselves into the fire.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad — and those gods always wish to destroy. But Christ came to this sorry, self-destructive planet, this planet hell-bent on throwing itself into the fire, and cast out the demon. “And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, the spirit came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, ‘He is dead.’ But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose” (Mark 9:26–27).
We can’t debate our way out of this madness because self-destructive frenzy can only be dealt with by prayer and fasting. Rational arguments and reasoned discourse don’t work on insanity. But we can look to Christ who is certainly capable of taking us by the hand and lifting us up.
Lord, we believe; help our unbelief.
Desiring God
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
So goes the ancient pagan proverb in a flash of what could almost be Solomonic wisdom.
Think of the destructive insanity of the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9. He is writhing on the ground, foaming at the mouth, and perpetually throwing himself into the fire. Everyone in that story, from the father to the apostles to the crowds, knew that something was fundamentally wrong with the situation. It’s not a tricky diagnosis — ordinary, healthy people don’t behave in that way.
Ephesians tells us that “no man ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29). The insanity and brutality of the demon manifests by subverting all natural categories and causing the “self” to be attacked as if it’s an enemy. And of course, while in the grip of this demon, the boy actually is his own worst enemy.
Any sane person would instinctively fight to keep himself out of the fire or to save himself from drowning. This isn’t an indication of virtue. It’s simply the behavior of a normal human. But on the other side, the unnatural state that boy was in could only be caused by a massive spiritual problem — in this case, a demon so ferocious that not even the disciples could cast it out. Christ tells them later, “that kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.”
How Will Teachers Explain Us?
This sort of madness which demands self-destruction can happen not just to individuals but to societies as well. And we are right in the midst of watching it happen. The frenzy of self-annihilation that our nation is currently undergoing holds all the same inexplicable confusion of basic categories as the boy throwing himself into the fire.Imagine what perspective a future generation might have as they look back at us. What possible explanation could we offer for our actions? Think of a history professor trying to explain to the students, “I know this seems unbelievable, but women in the twenty-first century demanded that they should be allowed to murder their own babies and sell the body parts — and if anyone tried to get in the way of this they were accused of being tyrannical abusers.”
What? Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Applauding Madness
In any ordinary and natural society, a woman who had her baby murdered would actually be the one we would feel sorry for. Right? Even in the animal kingdom, we know this to be fundamentally true. If we were watching a nature documentary and a mother panda lost her baby in some violent attack, we would all understand that we had just witnessed a tragedy. We’d even feel sorry for a mother snail who had her baby snail eaten by a bird.But meanwhile, in another corner of the animal kingdom . . . a man tears apart a woman’s child, inside her womb, and all the other women applaud. In any normal world — not even a virtuous world, just a normal world — how would the other women respond to that situation? Obviously, we would weep for her. Grieve for her. Demand justice for her.
Instead, the women of America band together, wear pink hats, and demand that they be allowed to pay the man to do it again to someone else. Further, they insist that everyone be required to chip in and pay for him to do it to millions of other women.
Who Are the Villains?
Imagine a zoo in which all the mother bears inexplicably began killing all their own offspring. Just think of the publicity crisis. Imagine the anxious zoo-keepers frantically working to figure out what had gone wrong, searching for the cause of the insanity, and desperately trying to shield the traumatized onlookers from the situation.What has happened to us? How can we, modern, enlightened Americans, contemplate a child being violently torn from his mother’s womb, and rather than seeing a shocking and unspeakable horror, we see it as empowerment for the mother?
This is an industry that takes the violence and the butchery of the battlefield and brings it into women’s bodies. But who are the villains who are responsible? The women themselves. It’s the women who are demanding that they be allowed to be violated in this way, women who are running the ad campaigns, women who are the CEOs, women who are marching in the streets, women who are lobbying Washington, and women who are operating the vile trade in infant body parts. It is women who are tearing at themselves and throwing themselves into the fire.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Help Our Unbelief
Christ’s words when confronted with the demon-possessed boy are especially poignant when applied to us, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?” (Mark 9:19). But when the boy’s father begs for Christ to have compassion, he is told, “All things are possible for one who believes” (Mark 9:23). The man famously cries out with tears, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). And Christ casts the demon out and the boy is healed.Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad — and those gods always wish to destroy. But Christ came to this sorry, self-destructive planet, this planet hell-bent on throwing itself into the fire, and cast out the demon. “And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, the spirit came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, ‘He is dead.’ But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose” (Mark 9:26–27).
We can’t debate our way out of this madness because self-destructive frenzy can only be dealt with by prayer and fasting. Rational arguments and reasoned discourse don’t work on insanity. But we can look to Christ who is certainly capable of taking us by the hand and lifting us up.
Lord, we believe; help our unbelief.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Jesus Is Not Colorblind
by Cole Brown
The Gospel Coalition
If you met me in the mid ’90s you would have found me walking the halls of my high school in bright purple jeans and a famous white T-shirt that read, “Love Sees No Color.” Thankfully, the clothing was a fad that quickly passed away. Unfortunately, the idea that colorblindness is a virtue still remains.
A colorblind mentality contradicts both the nature of the God we worship and also the Scriptures we treasure. It does this in at least six ways.
The same can be said of our ethnic and cultural differences. This is why Christianity can fit in any culture (since all cultures reflect God’s image imperfectly) and also why our expression of Christianity often must be adapted when transferred from one culture to another (since all cultures reflect God’s image uniquely). Thus, to be colorblind is to be willfully blind to God’s image as it is distinctly revealed in each ethnicity and culture.
Some use Galatians 3:28 to argue that our ethnic identity disappears once we are united to Christ. Yet this is clearly not what Paul is communicating, as he himself so deeply valued his identity as an ethnic Jew that he wrote he would rather personally be cut off from Christ than see “my people, those of my own race” without Christ (Rom. 9:2–4).
When one person tells a person of another ethnicity, “I don’t see color,” they might as well be saying, “I don’t see that part of you that is incredibly important to you and your culture, your family history, your life experience, and your personal identity.” This is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t see you”—intended or not.
We are not the same.
We are different.
And that’s what makes our unity in Christ all the more glorious.
One of the reasons colorblindness is attractive is because part of us believes that the basis for unity is similarity. But it’s not. The basis for our unity is Christ. Our differences don’t hinder that truth; they magnify it.
If you don’t notice the differences in musical notes, you can’t hear the beauty of harmony when different notes are artfully brought together. In the same way, if you don’t notice the differences in our ethnicities, you can’t behold the beauty of the gospel when different ethnicities are powerfully brought together.
As people created in his image, we are to reflect the same qualities. Of course, millions of Christians take this call seriously, which is why so many are committed to fighting injustices such as sex trafficking, abortion, and issues related to homelessness.
This is good. But it’s not good enough.
Because if we are colorblind, we will by definition be incapable of seeing injustice everywhere it resides. We won’t notice that certain groups are policed, tried, or incarcerated differently than others; nor will we see the correlation between skin tone and which neighborhoods, businesses, and people our banks, real-estate agencies, or governments strategically invest and disinvest in; nor will we note the discrepancies in public education and employment opportunities that result. Seeing disparities between racial groups requires us to actually see color.
This is certainly the model we see in Acts 6:1–7. Though the categories of race as we know them hadn’t yet been invented, the early church ran into a related issue that provides insight into how Christians might handle contemporary racial injustice. The division was based on the cultural categories of Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews. Hellenistic Jews observed that while the Hebraic widows were receiving the necessary financial support from the church, the Hellenistic widows were not. They were being neglected despite the fact that Hellenistic Jews contributed to the church just like Hebraic Jews.
The apostles didn’t respond to this injustice with a culture-blind (or, for our purposes, colorblind) solution. They appointed seven Spirit-filled men to ensure both groups received equitable resources. And yet they didn’t randomly select just any Spirit-filled men. They intentionally chose seven Spirit-filled men who were also Hellenestic. Without question, there were Spirit-filled Hebraic Jews who could have fulfilled the job requirement. Yet the apostles chose to confront the injustice from a color-conscious perspective. They did this to bring justice where there was injustice, ensuring not only that Hellenistic widows would receive the same support as the Hebraic widows, but also that the Hellenistic community as a whole would have power and influence within the church.
Thus, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul is saying that he not only notices ethnic differences, but also that those ethnic differences guide his gospel ministry to each respective group. This isn’t racism. This is the exact opposite of racism. Paul so values those of other ethnicities and so recognizes their unique identity that he gladly lays aside his own identity to make the message comprehensible and compelling to those who aren’t like him.
There is only one alternative to this approach. If we don’t intentionally adapt to those who aren’t like us to ensure the gospel is heard, we will require that others adapt to us to hear the gospel. It’s clear which approach most accurately reflects the image of the God who laid aside his privileges and came for those unlike him.
That shirt I wore in the ’90s said “Love Sees No Color,” but our Bible says just the opposite. Let us love the way our barrier-crossing Savior loves us.
The Gospel Coalition
If you met me in the mid ’90s you would have found me walking the halls of my high school in bright purple jeans and a famous white T-shirt that read, “Love Sees No Color.” Thankfully, the clothing was a fad that quickly passed away. Unfortunately, the idea that colorblindness is a virtue still remains.
A colorblind mentality contradicts both the nature of the God we worship and also the Scriptures we treasure. It does this in at least six ways.
1. To be colorblind is to be blind to God’s image on display
One implication of Genesis 1:27 is that God’s image can’t be fully reflected by males alone or females alone. Rather, the qualities of each gender reflect a different aspect of who God is and, when brought together, offer a fuller reflection.The same can be said of our ethnic and cultural differences. This is why Christianity can fit in any culture (since all cultures reflect God’s image imperfectly) and also why our expression of Christianity often must be adapted when transferred from one culture to another (since all cultures reflect God’s image uniquely). Thus, to be colorblind is to be willfully blind to God’s image as it is distinctly revealed in each ethnicity and culture.
2. To be colorblind is to be blind to another’s identity
Our ethnicities and cultures aren’t accidents. They’re part of God’s sovereign plan for us. They’re part of who we are, our identity. And, as Acts 17:26–27 makes clear, they also shape our life experiences according to God’s intentions.Some use Galatians 3:28 to argue that our ethnic identity disappears once we are united to Christ. Yet this is clearly not what Paul is communicating, as he himself so deeply valued his identity as an ethnic Jew that he wrote he would rather personally be cut off from Christ than see “my people, those of my own race” without Christ (Rom. 9:2–4).
When one person tells a person of another ethnicity, “I don’t see color,” they might as well be saying, “I don’t see that part of you that is incredibly important to you and your culture, your family history, your life experience, and your personal identity.” This is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t see you”—intended or not.
3. To be colorblind is to be blind to the uniting power of the gospel
It’s ironic that so many of us want to avoid seeing our differences when God goes out of his way to call attention to our differences. Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14–16, Revelation 5:9, and Revelation 7:9 are just some of the passages where God calls attention to our ethnic and cultural differences in order to demonstrate the unifying power of Christ and his gospel.We are not the same.
We are different.
And that’s what makes our unity in Christ all the more glorious.
One of the reasons colorblindness is attractive is because part of us believes that the basis for unity is similarity. But it’s not. The basis for our unity is Christ. Our differences don’t hinder that truth; they magnify it.
If you don’t notice the differences in musical notes, you can’t hear the beauty of harmony when different notes are artfully brought together. In the same way, if you don’t notice the differences in our ethnicities, you can’t behold the beauty of the gospel when different ethnicities are powerfully brought together.
4. To be colorblind is to be blind to injustice
God is just. This doesn’t mean he’s only committed to justly judging those who perpetrate injustice (though he is); it also means he’s aware of those who suffer injustice. He is present with them in their pain. In passages such as Psalm 146 and Amos 5:21–24, it seems God even grants special favor to those society mistreats.As people created in his image, we are to reflect the same qualities. Of course, millions of Christians take this call seriously, which is why so many are committed to fighting injustices such as sex trafficking, abortion, and issues related to homelessness.
This is good. But it’s not good enough.
Because if we are colorblind, we will by definition be incapable of seeing injustice everywhere it resides. We won’t notice that certain groups are policed, tried, or incarcerated differently than others; nor will we see the correlation between skin tone and which neighborhoods, businesses, and people our banks, real-estate agencies, or governments strategically invest and disinvest in; nor will we note the discrepancies in public education and employment opportunities that result. Seeing disparities between racial groups requires us to actually see color.
5. To be colorblind is to be unable to fight injustice
Once a race-based injustice is recognized, it requires a solution that is correspondingly race-based. Only color-conscious strategies—not colorblind strategies—can successfully address color-based inequities.This is certainly the model we see in Acts 6:1–7. Though the categories of race as we know them hadn’t yet been invented, the early church ran into a related issue that provides insight into how Christians might handle contemporary racial injustice. The division was based on the cultural categories of Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews. Hellenistic Jews observed that while the Hebraic widows were receiving the necessary financial support from the church, the Hellenistic widows were not. They were being neglected despite the fact that Hellenistic Jews contributed to the church just like Hebraic Jews.
The apostles didn’t respond to this injustice with a culture-blind (or, for our purposes, colorblind) solution. They appointed seven Spirit-filled men to ensure both groups received equitable resources. And yet they didn’t randomly select just any Spirit-filled men. They intentionally chose seven Spirit-filled men who were also Hellenestic. Without question, there were Spirit-filled Hebraic Jews who could have fulfilled the job requirement. Yet the apostles chose to confront the injustice from a color-conscious perspective. They did this to bring justice where there was injustice, ensuring not only that Hellenistic widows would receive the same support as the Hebraic widows, but also that the Hellenistic community as a whole would have power and influence within the church.
6. To be colorblind is to be missionally ineffective
Paying attention to the categories of ethnicity and culture is key to being an effective missionary. Paul describes this famously in 2 Corinthians 9:19–23, where he explains that he became a Jew to the Jews, and one without the law to those without the law, so that “by all means [he] might save some.” The distinction between the Jews and those not under the law isn’t merely religious; it’s also ethnic. Those “not having the law” were Gentiles, a catch-all ethnic category for those who weren’t ethnic Jews.Thus, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul is saying that he not only notices ethnic differences, but also that those ethnic differences guide his gospel ministry to each respective group. This isn’t racism. This is the exact opposite of racism. Paul so values those of other ethnicities and so recognizes their unique identity that he gladly lays aside his own identity to make the message comprehensible and compelling to those who aren’t like him.
There is only one alternative to this approach. If we don’t intentionally adapt to those who aren’t like us to ensure the gospel is heard, we will require that others adapt to us to hear the gospel. It’s clear which approach most accurately reflects the image of the God who laid aside his privileges and came for those unlike him.
That shirt I wore in the ’90s said “Love Sees No Color,” but our Bible says just the opposite. Let us love the way our barrier-crossing Savior loves us.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Seven Things to Pray for Your Children
by Jon Bloom
Desiring God Blog
Some years back a good friend shared with me seven Scripture texts that he and his wife prayed for their two daughters from the time they were infants. The girls are now grown. And it’s beautiful to see how God has answered and still is answering the faithful, specific prayers of faith-filled parents in the lives of these young, godly women.
I have frequently used these prayers when praying for my own children. And I commend them to you.
But, of course, prayers are not magic spells. It’s not a matter of just saying the right things and our children will be blessed with success.
Some parents earnestly pray and their children become gifted leaders or scholars or musicians or athletes. Others earnestly pray and their children develop a serious disability or disease or wander through a prodigal wilderness or just struggle more than others socially or academically or athletically. And the truth is, God is answering all these parents’ prayers, but for very different purposes.
That’s why Scriptures like John 9:1–3 are in the Bible. We must not too quickly assess God’s purposes because they can be the opposite of our perceptions. God measures success differently than we do, which is why he often answers our prayers in ways we don’t expect.
So, pray for your children. Jesus promises us that if we ask, seek, and knock, the Father will give us good in return (Luke 11:9–13), even if the good isn’t apparent for forty years. And because Jesus regularly asked those who came to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51), we know that he wants us to be specific with our requests.
So, here are seven helpful, specific things to pray for your children.
1. That Jesus will call them and no one will hinder them from coming.
2. That they will respond in faith to Jesus’s faithful, persistent call.
3. That they will experience sanctification through the transforming work of the Holy Spirit and will increasingly desire to fulfill the greatest commandments.
4. That they will not be unequally yoked in intimate relationships, especially marriage.
5. That their thoughts will be pure.
6. That their hearts will be stirred to give generously to the Lord’s work.
7. That when the time is right, they will GO!
Desiring God Blog
Some years back a good friend shared with me seven Scripture texts that he and his wife prayed for their two daughters from the time they were infants. The girls are now grown. And it’s beautiful to see how God has answered and still is answering the faithful, specific prayers of faith-filled parents in the lives of these young, godly women.
I have frequently used these prayers when praying for my own children. And I commend them to you.
But, of course, prayers are not magic spells. It’s not a matter of just saying the right things and our children will be blessed with success.
Some parents earnestly pray and their children become gifted leaders or scholars or musicians or athletes. Others earnestly pray and their children develop a serious disability or disease or wander through a prodigal wilderness or just struggle more than others socially or academically or athletically. And the truth is, God is answering all these parents’ prayers, but for very different purposes.
That’s why Scriptures like John 9:1–3 are in the Bible. We must not too quickly assess God’s purposes because they can be the opposite of our perceptions. God measures success differently than we do, which is why he often answers our prayers in ways we don’t expect.
So, pray for your children. Jesus promises us that if we ask, seek, and knock, the Father will give us good in return (Luke 11:9–13), even if the good isn’t apparent for forty years. And because Jesus regularly asked those who came to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51), we know that he wants us to be specific with our requests.
So, here are seven helpful, specific things to pray for your children.
1. That Jesus will call them and no one will hinder them from coming.
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away. (Matthew 19:13–15)
2. That they will respond in faith to Jesus’s faithful, persistent call.
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
3. That they will experience sanctification through the transforming work of the Holy Spirit and will increasingly desire to fulfill the greatest commandments.
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37–39)
4. That they will not be unequally yoked in intimate relationships, especially marriage.
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
5. That their thoughts will be pure.
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Philippians 4:8)
6. That their hearts will be stirred to give generously to the Lord’s work.
All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the Lord had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the Lord. (Exodus 35:29)
7. That when the time is right, they will GO!
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20)
Thursday, March 08, 2018
The Real Reason You Love Music
by Gavin Ortlund
The Gospel Coalition
I love music. I have more than 500 CDs of Dave Matthews Band concerts, and I have vivid memories of specific moments in my life listening to them. For example, I remember listening to the long buildup of “Seek Up” in June 2004, while driving to a dinner event at the church I was working at in Chattanooga. It is burned into my memory as if it were yesterday.
Many of us have similar memories. When we think about favorite music—whether classical or country, Beethoven or Bono—we have memories and associations that touch on the deepest emotions and experiences of life.
Recently I wondered: Why? As someone who studies theology, I’m interested in the philosophy of music. What does music mean? Is it merely pleasant—“auditory cheesecake,” as Steven Pinker puts it—or does it actually have a significance that corresponds to its effect on us?
As a thought experiment, here are two different ways to answer this question.
Neuroscientists note that music accesses the same parts of the brain as sex, food, and addictive drugs. At the same time, they recognize that there is no obvious evolutionary basis for our enjoyment of music (as there conceivably is, for instance, with food, sex, and sleep). It’s not clear how music could help our ancestors survive. So, from an evolutionary standpoint, why do we like it?
One of the most popular theories on the market says it’s all about anticipation: the brain expects what is coming next, and gets dopamine when it’s right. In other words, it’s about pattern recognition. Another hypothesis is that music mirrors speech, and thus essentially fools our brains into reacting the way we react to speech (in which we often mirror the emotions of the person speaking). These ways of trying to explain music all approach it as essentially what Stephen Jay Gould called an “evolutionary spandrel”—something not directly the result of an adaptive process, but rather its byproduct. It’s a kind of “spin off” of evolution. In other words: it’s an accident.
Most of us find these explanations deeply unsatisfying, even if they tell part of the story. Just listen to this and try to imagine: I only like this because it helped animals survive. If the tides had rolled in differently, I might not like it.
Beautiful music like this communicates a sense of transcendence and significance. Music whispers, I mean something. I am telling you about something Profound and Beautiful. But meaning and transcendence are, of course, precisely what a nihilistic worldview disallows. Thus, when nihilism is confronted by the power conveyed through, say, the work of Hans Zimmer, it must ultimately interpret this experience as illusory.
If reality is blind and indifferent, and human life is ultimately meaningless and insignificant, then music is, in a way, deceiving you. It is like an opiate: its value is numbing you, directing you away from reality.
One way to define music is an organized combination of melody, harmony, and rhythm. But surely this can’t encapsulate all music means, any more than love simply means chemicals in the brain, or time means the noises of a clock. What is the essence of music?
If a triune God created the world as a work of art—not out of necessity, but out of love and freedom—then music can be understood, along with everything beautiful in the world, as a faint reflection of the pre-temporal glory of God. It is a tiny echo of what was happening before time and space.
Viewed in this way, music is not a distraction away from reality, but rather a clue toward it. It is not like an opiate to a man on his deathbed, but like a window to a man in a cellar—a light shining into the darkness, revealing something beyond. In this respect I associate music with art, reason, and sex. They are like little windows through which transcendence touches our lives, whispering to us of a world we have never dreamed.
Something of this worldview is implicit in Johann Sebastian Bach’s famous quip: “I play the notes as they are written, but it is God who makes the music.” This is an eloquent way of expressing a non-physicalist view of music. It’s more than the notes. It’s something God is doing through the notes.
A friend recently reminded me that J. R. R. Tolkien portrayed the world’s creation in The Silmarillion as, essentially, a work of music:
What effects the transition from the “Void” to a state of “not void” is, basically, harmony. And Tolkien portrays the intrusion of evil as a kind of discord and monotonous unity, with Melkor’s desire for self-glory producing a “clamorous unison as of many trumpets braving upon a few notes.”
What does all this mean? Perhaps not that music proves God (though that may also be true, for all I know—smarter philosophers than I, like this one or this one, have used aesthetic considerations to further theism). What I am saying is more like this: If you believe in God, you have a framework for enjoying music that is more satisfying to heart and mind, and more authentic to the actual experience of that enjoyment.
So imagine that man in the cellar. It’s dark. Stuffy. He has no clue what the outside world is like. He has never seen redwood trees soaring into the sky, or thundering cascading waterfalls, or the night sky lit up with stars. He knows nothing of this. But he can look up and see the light pouring in through the window, and sense that there “must be something more.”
What if music, and the nostalgic stab of longing it provokes, is like that window? What if we are the man in the cellar?
The Gospel Coalition
I love music. I have more than 500 CDs of Dave Matthews Band concerts, and I have vivid memories of specific moments in my life listening to them. For example, I remember listening to the long buildup of “Seek Up” in June 2004, while driving to a dinner event at the church I was working at in Chattanooga. It is burned into my memory as if it were yesterday.
Many of us have similar memories. When we think about favorite music—whether classical or country, Beethoven or Bono—we have memories and associations that touch on the deepest emotions and experiences of life.
As a thought experiment, here are two different ways to answer this question.
1. In a nihilistic worldview, music is like an opiate to a dying man.
Neuroscientists note that music accesses the same parts of the brain as sex, food, and addictive drugs. At the same time, they recognize that there is no obvious evolutionary basis for our enjoyment of music (as there conceivably is, for instance, with food, sex, and sleep). It’s not clear how music could help our ancestors survive. So, from an evolutionary standpoint, why do we like it?
One of the most popular theories on the market says it’s all about anticipation: the brain expects what is coming next, and gets dopamine when it’s right. In other words, it’s about pattern recognition. Another hypothesis is that music mirrors speech, and thus essentially fools our brains into reacting the way we react to speech (in which we often mirror the emotions of the person speaking). These ways of trying to explain music all approach it as essentially what Stephen Jay Gould called an “evolutionary spandrel”—something not directly the result of an adaptive process, but rather its byproduct. It’s a kind of “spin off” of evolution. In other words: it’s an accident.
Most of us find these explanations deeply unsatisfying, even if they tell part of the story. Just listen to this and try to imagine: I only like this because it helped animals survive. If the tides had rolled in differently, I might not like it.
Beautiful music like this communicates a sense of transcendence and significance. Music whispers, I mean something. I am telling you about something Profound and Beautiful. But meaning and transcendence are, of course, precisely what a nihilistic worldview disallows. Thus, when nihilism is confronted by the power conveyed through, say, the work of Hans Zimmer, it must ultimately interpret this experience as illusory.
If reality is blind and indifferent, and human life is ultimately meaningless and insignificant, then music is, in a way, deceiving you. It is like an opiate: its value is numbing you, directing you away from reality.
2. If a Trinity spawned the world, music is like a window to a man in a cellar.
One way to define music is an organized combination of melody, harmony, and rhythm. But surely this can’t encapsulate all music means, any more than love simply means chemicals in the brain, or time means the noises of a clock. What is the essence of music?
If a triune God created the world as a work of art—not out of necessity, but out of love and freedom—then music can be understood, along with everything beautiful in the world, as a faint reflection of the pre-temporal glory of God. It is a tiny echo of what was happening before time and space.
Viewed in this way, music is not a distraction away from reality, but rather a clue toward it. It is not like an opiate to a man on his deathbed, but like a window to a man in a cellar—a light shining into the darkness, revealing something beyond. In this respect I associate music with art, reason, and sex. They are like little windows through which transcendence touches our lives, whispering to us of a world we have never dreamed.
Something of this worldview is implicit in Johann Sebastian Bach’s famous quip: “I play the notes as they are written, but it is God who makes the music.” This is an eloquent way of expressing a non-physicalist view of music. It’s more than the notes. It’s something God is doing through the notes.
A friend recently reminded me that J. R. R. Tolkien portrayed the world’s creation in The Silmarillion as, essentially, a work of music:
Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lyres, and pipes and trumpets, and viols and organs, and like unto countless choirs singing with words began to fashion the theme of Iluvatar to a great music; and a sound arose of endless interchanging melodies woven in harmony that passed beyond hearing into the depths and into the heights, and the places of the dwelling of Iluvatar were filled to overflowing, and the music and the echo of the music went out into the Void, and it was not void.
What effects the transition from the “Void” to a state of “not void” is, basically, harmony. And Tolkien portrays the intrusion of evil as a kind of discord and monotonous unity, with Melkor’s desire for self-glory producing a “clamorous unison as of many trumpets braving upon a few notes.”
What does all this mean? Perhaps not that music proves God (though that may also be true, for all I know—smarter philosophers than I, like this one or this one, have used aesthetic considerations to further theism). What I am saying is more like this: If you believe in God, you have a framework for enjoying music that is more satisfying to heart and mind, and more authentic to the actual experience of that enjoyment.
So imagine that man in the cellar. It’s dark. Stuffy. He has no clue what the outside world is like. He has never seen redwood trees soaring into the sky, or thundering cascading waterfalls, or the night sky lit up with stars. He knows nothing of this. But he can look up and see the light pouring in through the window, and sense that there “must be something more.”
What if music, and the nostalgic stab of longing it provokes, is like that window? What if we are the man in the cellar?
Thursday, March 01, 2018
Lost in Space
By William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith
Q:
Dear Dr. Craig,
I am having difficulty bringing myself to earnestly believe in Christianity. I have believed in the past with the intensity of a zealot, but of late I look to the stars and find that I cannot bring myself to truly believe in Christ as God. I believe in God, and I rationally believe this God to be one, but I cannot believe that God could truly concern himself with us in this way, that He would dangle the heavens above our heads and deny us from reaching them. The earth is a speck in a galaxy that is naught but a speck in the void, a void we can never reach or explore. We are certainly not alone in the universe. How can I believe, not in a personal God, but in a God that is focused on humanity? It feels as though all is in flux, and that I am only riding the currents of society which is lain on subjective ground. All in this modern age is subjective, and if mankind is not alone in the universe then all that we are is subjective as well. If that makes sense. I was truly happy when I believed, and I truly want to. Belief in some vague 'deity' is no help to me however. I seek Christ but I am pulled away. What am I to do, Dr. Craig? You're a much smarter man than I am. Your thoughts on this could help me greatly.
My deepest thanks,
Tom
United States
***
A:
Tom, I resonate with how you feel. When I look at photographs revealing to us the incomprehensible immensity of the universe and our virtually infinitesimal tininess by comparison, I feel almost overwhelmed by our utter insignificance. A sort of vertigo sets in, with an attendant loss of confidence in human significance.
But it’s clear that this reaction to our physical size relative to the cosmos is purely emotional. Rationally, one of the implications of the study of the fine-tuning of the universe for embodied, conscious agents like ourselves is that the universe must be as old as it is in order for us to have evolved. For the heavy elements like carbon that compose our bodies need to be forged in the interior of the stars and then distributed throughout the cosmos by supernovae explosions in order to form planets where carbon-based life forms may come to exist. But now think: if the universe must be as old as it is, then, since it has been constantly expanding since its inception in the Big Bang, it must also be as big as it is. Thus, far from undercutting the significance of human life, the enormous size of the cosmos is actually a function of human life! Unbelievable! The very size of the cosmos which dwarfs us is actually testimony to the Creator’s care for us, to fine-tune a universe suitable for our existence.
Moreover, maybe we are not alone in the cosmos. That we are, indeed, alone in the universe may be the almost inevitable conclusion on naturalism, but on theism—which is implied by the origin and fine-tuning of the universe—it’s not at all improbable that the Creator has created embodied, conscious agents throughout the cosmos. If they, too, have fallen into sin, then God will have a plan for their salvation as well—who knows, perhaps even multiple incarnations of the cosmic Christ! If the second person of the Trinity can assume a human nature in addition to his divine nature, then why not also multiple natures? The vast and perhaps unbridgeable distances separating intelligent life forms may actually be a manifestation of God’s mercy. The record of homo sapiens on this planet is pretty appalling. It may be a really good thing that extraterrestrial life forms are safely sequestered from homo sapiens as we launch out into space, lest the contagion of our violence and evil spread.
Such moral considerations prompt an additional point: a thing’s moral worth is not measured by its physical size. I recall the great philosopher Frederick Copleston once commenting that a single human person is worth more than the entire physical universe put together. That is self-evidently true: a moral agent like a human person has intrinsic moral value, whereas mere matter and radiation, no matter how much of it, is morally neutral, having no intrinsic value. This point alone changes everything. One little girl or boy outranks the cosmos in terms of moral worth. So why shouldn’t God be concerned? What does size matter?
Moreover, why not take the enormity of the cosmos to redound to the majesty and greatness of the God who created it? I think of God like a cosmic artist extravagantly splashing His canvas with colors and shapes that may serve no practical purpose but are aesthetically beautiful. He isn’t playing with us by “dangl[ing] the heavens above our heads and deny[ing] us from reaching them.” No, He’s putting on a show! And as mankind probes the mysteries of the cosmos, we come to see more and more the beauty and grandeur of the mind which created it. We need not be able to achieve intergalactic space travel in order to study the depths of the cosmos scientifically and to learn its laws and marvels. Aren’t you glad all this is out there for us to probe? I am!
So I don’t see how the daunting size of the cosmos does anything rationally to undermine belief in the incarnation. Scripture has always emphasized what enormous act of condescension this was on Christ’s part, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2.6-8). That point is only driven home by what we’ve talked about.
Your final reflections, Tom, on the subjectivity of modern society are even more beside the point. You’re thinking like a naturalist, not like a theist, who has an objective basis for what we believe. I think you need to shake yourself loose of the non-rational, emotional way in which you’re reacting to the size of the cosmos and think rationally about it. Perhaps you need to review the evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. Then the size of the cosmos may actually lead you to praise and worship of God and Christ.
Reasonable Faith
Q:
Dear Dr. Craig,
I am having difficulty bringing myself to earnestly believe in Christianity. I have believed in the past with the intensity of a zealot, but of late I look to the stars and find that I cannot bring myself to truly believe in Christ as God. I believe in God, and I rationally believe this God to be one, but I cannot believe that God could truly concern himself with us in this way, that He would dangle the heavens above our heads and deny us from reaching them. The earth is a speck in a galaxy that is naught but a speck in the void, a void we can never reach or explore. We are certainly not alone in the universe. How can I believe, not in a personal God, but in a God that is focused on humanity? It feels as though all is in flux, and that I am only riding the currents of society which is lain on subjective ground. All in this modern age is subjective, and if mankind is not alone in the universe then all that we are is subjective as well. If that makes sense. I was truly happy when I believed, and I truly want to. Belief in some vague 'deity' is no help to me however. I seek Christ but I am pulled away. What am I to do, Dr. Craig? You're a much smarter man than I am. Your thoughts on this could help me greatly.
My deepest thanks,
Tom
United States ***
A:
Tom, I resonate with how you feel. When I look at photographs revealing to us the incomprehensible immensity of the universe and our virtually infinitesimal tininess by comparison, I feel almost overwhelmed by our utter insignificance. A sort of vertigo sets in, with an attendant loss of confidence in human significance.
But it’s clear that this reaction to our physical size relative to the cosmos is purely emotional. Rationally, one of the implications of the study of the fine-tuning of the universe for embodied, conscious agents like ourselves is that the universe must be as old as it is in order for us to have evolved. For the heavy elements like carbon that compose our bodies need to be forged in the interior of the stars and then distributed throughout the cosmos by supernovae explosions in order to form planets where carbon-based life forms may come to exist. But now think: if the universe must be as old as it is, then, since it has been constantly expanding since its inception in the Big Bang, it must also be as big as it is. Thus, far from undercutting the significance of human life, the enormous size of the cosmos is actually a function of human life! Unbelievable! The very size of the cosmos which dwarfs us is actually testimony to the Creator’s care for us, to fine-tune a universe suitable for our existence.
Moreover, maybe we are not alone in the cosmos. That we are, indeed, alone in the universe may be the almost inevitable conclusion on naturalism, but on theism—which is implied by the origin and fine-tuning of the universe—it’s not at all improbable that the Creator has created embodied, conscious agents throughout the cosmos. If they, too, have fallen into sin, then God will have a plan for their salvation as well—who knows, perhaps even multiple incarnations of the cosmic Christ! If the second person of the Trinity can assume a human nature in addition to his divine nature, then why not also multiple natures? The vast and perhaps unbridgeable distances separating intelligent life forms may actually be a manifestation of God’s mercy. The record of homo sapiens on this planet is pretty appalling. It may be a really good thing that extraterrestrial life forms are safely sequestered from homo sapiens as we launch out into space, lest the contagion of our violence and evil spread.
Such moral considerations prompt an additional point: a thing’s moral worth is not measured by its physical size. I recall the great philosopher Frederick Copleston once commenting that a single human person is worth more than the entire physical universe put together. That is self-evidently true: a moral agent like a human person has intrinsic moral value, whereas mere matter and radiation, no matter how much of it, is morally neutral, having no intrinsic value. This point alone changes everything. One little girl or boy outranks the cosmos in terms of moral worth. So why shouldn’t God be concerned? What does size matter?
Moreover, why not take the enormity of the cosmos to redound to the majesty and greatness of the God who created it? I think of God like a cosmic artist extravagantly splashing His canvas with colors and shapes that may serve no practical purpose but are aesthetically beautiful. He isn’t playing with us by “dangl[ing] the heavens above our heads and deny[ing] us from reaching them.” No, He’s putting on a show! And as mankind probes the mysteries of the cosmos, we come to see more and more the beauty and grandeur of the mind which created it. We need not be able to achieve intergalactic space travel in order to study the depths of the cosmos scientifically and to learn its laws and marvels. Aren’t you glad all this is out there for us to probe? I am!
So I don’t see how the daunting size of the cosmos does anything rationally to undermine belief in the incarnation. Scripture has always emphasized what enormous act of condescension this was on Christ’s part, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2.6-8). That point is only driven home by what we’ve talked about.
Your final reflections, Tom, on the subjectivity of modern society are even more beside the point. You’re thinking like a naturalist, not like a theist, who has an objective basis for what we believe. I think you need to shake yourself loose of the non-rational, emotional way in which you’re reacting to the size of the cosmos and think rationally about it. Perhaps you need to review the evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. Then the size of the cosmos may actually lead you to praise and worship of God and Christ.
- William Lane Craig
Does God Know How a Pineapple Tastes?
by William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith
Q:
Dr. Craig,
I have recently been studying Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. As you know, it suggests that there is a kind of knowledge that is a posteriori -- an experiential knowledge that cannot be had until the relevant experience is had. This kind of knowledge is usually described as a "what it is like" kind of knowledge. As Locke points out, I can only know what the taste of pineapple is like when I have actually tasted pineapple. I tend to agree with this intuition concerning knowledge. But, it raises a few questions for me regarding God's omniscience: 1. If God is omniscient (and I believe He is), how do we account for His having this kind of a posteriori knowledge? Should we conclude that God could have this knowledge without experience because of His infinite cognitive abilities as compared to our finite abilities? 2. Does the statement of the Hebrews penman in Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;" have any bearing on this question? Does this verse teach that Jesus, though God, gained experiential knowledge by taking human form? If so, would this imply that God lacked this kind of knowledge prior to Jesus' becoming flesh? 3. Does God know what it is like for a sinner to revel in sin or to desire to sin? Could He know that feeling without feeling that feeling? 4. Could God have been justified in creating man if He did not first have this "what it is like" (intentional) knowledge? Thank you for your work. It has been a tremendous help to my faith!
Nathan
United States
***
A:
These are difficult questions, Nathan, which we discuss in my class on divine omniscience.
Divine omniscience is defined in terms of propositional knowledge, e.g., for any proposition p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe not-p. Such a definition is meant to capture the intuitive idea that God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. This kind of knowledge is knowledge “that ____.”
By contrast the kind of knowledge you are talking about (what it is like) is non-propositional knowledge. It is not true or false. For example, knowing how a pineapple tastes is not true or false and so is non-propositional. There is something to be known here, but it is not a truth.
Omniscience, being defined in terms of propositional knowledge, does not require God to have non-propositional knowledge. He must know all truths about how a pineapple tastes, e.g., that a pineapple tastes tart, that a pineapple tastes refreshing, etc., but He needn’t have non-propositional knowledge of how a pineapple tastes.
It once seemed to me that God does not have the sort of non-propositional knowledge you describe because He lacks the requisite experiences. But then I got to thinking about a remark by David Lewis that there must be some sort of mental state that someone who is experiencing the taste of a watermelon is in. You could be in such a mental state without actually eating the watermelon. So why, it occurred to me, couldn’t God put Himself into such a mental state so as to know how a watermelon tastes? It seems to me that this is clearly possible. In that case God could have non-propositional knowledge of tastes, colors, feels, sounds, etc., in addition to His propositional knowledge of such things. God’s greatness is thereby exalted, for it turns out that God’s cognitive excellence is even greater than omniscience!
So in answer to your questions:
1. “If God is omniscient, how do we account for His having this kind of a posteriori knowledge?” God’s non-propositional knowledge is not a function of His omniscience. His omniscience gives Him all propositional knowledge. If He has as well non-propositional knowledge such as you describe, it will be a function of His ability to assume the same mental state as someone having such an experience. Does God have “this knowledge without experience”? Yes and no; He can have the experience of tasting a pineapple but without actually eating a pineapple or having taste buds. Is this because of “His infinite cognitive abilities as compared to our finite abilities?” No, we can imagine a neuroscientist’s stimulating a person’s brain such that the person is put into a mental state of tasting a pineapple. God could do this Himself at will. Of course, to have the unlimited range of non-propositional knowledge you’re thinking of, God’s cognitive abilities must be infinite.
2. “Does the statement in Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;" have any bearing on this question?” No, because in this case we’re talking about knowledge which the incarnate Son had in his human nature. Jesus obviously knew, e.g., what roast lamb tastes like. But I’m suggesting that such non-propositional knowledge may not be limited to the Son. Moreover, “learning obedience” isn’t a matter of acquiring non-propositional knowledge; it’s an idiom for the moral sanctification of his human nature.
3. “Does God know what it is like for a sinner to revel in sin or to desire to sin? Could He know that feeling without feeling that feeling?” As explained, I once doubted that God has this sort of non-propositional knowledge, since it is impossible for Him to sin. He could know every truth about how sinners feel, but He would not know how it feels to revel in sin. But now I’m inclined to think that God could have such non-propositional knowledge. For there is surely a mental state had by someone reveling in sin, and by putting Himself in that mental state God could know just how such a person feels. God would not Himself revel in sin or desire sin, but He would know how someone who does feels.
4. “Could God have been justified in creating man if He did not first have this ‘what it is like’ knowledge?” Well, why not? Why wouldn’t propositional knowledge be enough, in particular, knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions concerning creaturely free choices (middle knowledge)?
Reasonable Faith
Q:
Dr. Craig,
I have recently been studying Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument. As you know, it suggests that there is a kind of knowledge that is a posteriori -- an experiential knowledge that cannot be had until the relevant experience is had. This kind of knowledge is usually described as a "what it is like" kind of knowledge. As Locke points out, I can only know what the taste of pineapple is like when I have actually tasted pineapple. I tend to agree with this intuition concerning knowledge. But, it raises a few questions for me regarding God's omniscience: 1. If God is omniscient (and I believe He is), how do we account for His having this kind of a posteriori knowledge? Should we conclude that God could have this knowledge without experience because of His infinite cognitive abilities as compared to our finite abilities? 2. Does the statement of the Hebrews penman in Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;" have any bearing on this question? Does this verse teach that Jesus, though God, gained experiential knowledge by taking human form? If so, would this imply that God lacked this kind of knowledge prior to Jesus' becoming flesh? 3. Does God know what it is like for a sinner to revel in sin or to desire to sin? Could He know that feeling without feeling that feeling? 4. Could God have been justified in creating man if He did not first have this "what it is like" (intentional) knowledge? Thank you for your work. It has been a tremendous help to my faith!
Nathan
United States ***
A:
These are difficult questions, Nathan, which we discuss in my class on divine omniscience.
Divine omniscience is defined in terms of propositional knowledge, e.g., for any proposition p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe not-p. Such a definition is meant to capture the intuitive idea that God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. This kind of knowledge is knowledge “that ____.”
By contrast the kind of knowledge you are talking about (what it is like) is non-propositional knowledge. It is not true or false. For example, knowing how a pineapple tastes is not true or false and so is non-propositional. There is something to be known here, but it is not a truth.
Omniscience, being defined in terms of propositional knowledge, does not require God to have non-propositional knowledge. He must know all truths about how a pineapple tastes, e.g., that a pineapple tastes tart, that a pineapple tastes refreshing, etc., but He needn’t have non-propositional knowledge of how a pineapple tastes.
It once seemed to me that God does not have the sort of non-propositional knowledge you describe because He lacks the requisite experiences. But then I got to thinking about a remark by David Lewis that there must be some sort of mental state that someone who is experiencing the taste of a watermelon is in. You could be in such a mental state without actually eating the watermelon. So why, it occurred to me, couldn’t God put Himself into such a mental state so as to know how a watermelon tastes? It seems to me that this is clearly possible. In that case God could have non-propositional knowledge of tastes, colors, feels, sounds, etc., in addition to His propositional knowledge of such things. God’s greatness is thereby exalted, for it turns out that God’s cognitive excellence is even greater than omniscience!
So in answer to your questions:
1. “If God is omniscient, how do we account for His having this kind of a posteriori knowledge?” God’s non-propositional knowledge is not a function of His omniscience. His omniscience gives Him all propositional knowledge. If He has as well non-propositional knowledge such as you describe, it will be a function of His ability to assume the same mental state as someone having such an experience. Does God have “this knowledge without experience”? Yes and no; He can have the experience of tasting a pineapple but without actually eating a pineapple or having taste buds. Is this because of “His infinite cognitive abilities as compared to our finite abilities?” No, we can imagine a neuroscientist’s stimulating a person’s brain such that the person is put into a mental state of tasting a pineapple. God could do this Himself at will. Of course, to have the unlimited range of non-propositional knowledge you’re thinking of, God’s cognitive abilities must be infinite.
2. “Does the statement in Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;" have any bearing on this question?” No, because in this case we’re talking about knowledge which the incarnate Son had in his human nature. Jesus obviously knew, e.g., what roast lamb tastes like. But I’m suggesting that such non-propositional knowledge may not be limited to the Son. Moreover, “learning obedience” isn’t a matter of acquiring non-propositional knowledge; it’s an idiom for the moral sanctification of his human nature.
3. “Does God know what it is like for a sinner to revel in sin or to desire to sin? Could He know that feeling without feeling that feeling?” As explained, I once doubted that God has this sort of non-propositional knowledge, since it is impossible for Him to sin. He could know every truth about how sinners feel, but He would not know how it feels to revel in sin. But now I’m inclined to think that God could have such non-propositional knowledge. For there is surely a mental state had by someone reveling in sin, and by putting Himself in that mental state God could know just how such a person feels. God would not Himself revel in sin or desire sin, but He would know how someone who does feels.
4. “Could God have been justified in creating man if He did not first have this ‘what it is like’ knowledge?” Well, why not? Why wouldn’t propositional knowledge be enough, in particular, knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions concerning creaturely free choices (middle knowledge)?
- William Lane Craig
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
How to Cultivate Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride on Your Team
by David DeSteno
Harvard Business Review
As a leader, what traits should you cultivate in your employees? Grit – the ability to persevere in the face of challenges? Sure. A willingness to accept some sacrifices and work hard toward a successful future are essential for the members of any team. But I believe there’s another component that matters just as much: grace. I don’t mean the ability to move elegantly or anything religious. Rather, I mean qualities of decency, respect, and generosity, all of which mark a person as someone with whom others want to cooperate.
Consider the results of Google’s Project Oxygen, a multiyear research initiative designed to identify the manager qualities that enhanced a team’s success. What they found is that yes, driving a team to be productive and results-oriented mattered, but so did being even-keeled, making times for one-on-one meetings, working with a team in the trenches to solve problems, and taking an interest in employees’ social lives. In fact, these “character” qualities outranked sheer drive and technical expertise when it came to predicting success.
This makes sense. Innovation typically requires team effort. Expertise has to be combined to solve problems, necessitating cooperation. And cooperation requires a willingness to share credit and support one another as opposed to always striving to take credit for oneself.
So as a manager, what’s the best way to instill grit and grace in your team? My research shows that it’s about cultivating three specific emotions: gratitude, compassion, and pride.
These three emotions not only increase patience and perseverance, but also build social bonds. For most of human evolutionary history, the ability to succeed rested almost entirely on the ability to form relationships. People needed to be honest, fair, and diligent – qualities that required a willingness to inhibit selfish desires to profit at the expense of others. And it was moral emotions like gratitude, compassion, and an authentic pride that motivated these actions. For example, research has shown that when people feel grateful, they’re willing to devote more effort to help others, to be loyal even at a cost to themselves, and to split profits equally with partners rather than take more money for themselves. When they feel compassion, they’re willing to devote time, effort, and money to aid others. And when they feel proud – an authentic pride based on their abilities as opposed to a hubristic one – they’ll work harder to help colleagues solve problems. And all of these behaviors draw others to us. People who express gratitude, compassion, and pride are viewed positively by those around them.
These emotions also build grit. They increase the value people place on future goals relative to present ones, and thereby pave the way to perseverance. Work from my lab, for example, shows that people induced to feel grateful show double the patience when it comes to financial rewards. They’re twice as willing to forgo an immediate smaller profit so that they can invest it for a longer-term gain. In a similar vein, people made to feel pride or compassion are willing to persevere more than 30% longer on challenging tasks compared to those feeling other positive emotions, such as happiness, precisely because pride and compassion induce them to place greater value on future rewards.
Unlike using willpower to keep your nose to the grindstone, using these emotions also helps solve an increasingly common problem of professional life: loneliness. Today, loneliness has become an epidemic in the U.S., with 53% of American workers regularly reporting feeling isolated in their public lives — an immense problem given the toll loneliness takes on the both physical and mental health. Regularly feeling gratitude, compassion, and pride — because these emotions automatically make people behave in more communal and supportive ways — builds social connections. For example, people assigned to engage in simple interventions to feel and express gratitude show enhanced feelings of social connection and relationship satisfaction over time.
Because of the connection between these emotions and grit and social connection, managers who cultivate gratitude, compassion, and pride in their team will see increased productivity and wellbeing of their workers. As one example, Adam Grant and Francesca Gino examined perseverance in an environment that is rife with more rejection than almost any other: fundraising. Over a two-week period, they recorded the number of calls fundraisers made in an effort to solicit donations for a university. Between the first and second week, however, half of the fundraisers received a visit from the university’s director of annual giving, during which she expressed her appreciation for their work. To get a sense of how this expression of gratitude affected the fundraisers, Gino and Grant had them report how valued and appreciated they felt by their superiors.
Whereas the average performance of both groups had been virtually the same during the first week of the study, those who had heard the grateful message upped their fundraising efforts by 50% during the second week. What’s particularly interesting here is the way the benefits of gratitude and pride can feed off one another. In another study on fundraisers, Grant and Amy Wrzesniewski found that the gratitude managers expressed toward their employees stoked the employees’ pride, which in turn, bolstered their efforts.
Compassion, too, builds dedication. Surveying over 200 people working in different units within a large long-term care facility, Sigal Barsade and Mandy O’Neil found that those who worked in units characterized by higher feelings of social attachment, trust, acceptance, and support — a composite that could easily be called empathy and compassion — not only showed superior performance and engagement, but also increased work satisfaction, less exhaustion, and lower absenteeism.
Gratitude, compassion, and pride make us more willing to cooperate with and invest in others. But because they accomplish this feat by increasing the value the mind places on future gains, they also nudge us to invest in our own futures. In so doing, they make both teams, and the individuals who comprise them, more successful and resilient.
Harvard Business Review
As a leader, what traits should you cultivate in your employees? Grit – the ability to persevere in the face of challenges? Sure. A willingness to accept some sacrifices and work hard toward a successful future are essential for the members of any team. But I believe there’s another component that matters just as much: grace. I don’t mean the ability to move elegantly or anything religious. Rather, I mean qualities of decency, respect, and generosity, all of which mark a person as someone with whom others want to cooperate.
Consider the results of Google’s Project Oxygen, a multiyear research initiative designed to identify the manager qualities that enhanced a team’s success. What they found is that yes, driving a team to be productive and results-oriented mattered, but so did being even-keeled, making times for one-on-one meetings, working with a team in the trenches to solve problems, and taking an interest in employees’ social lives. In fact, these “character” qualities outranked sheer drive and technical expertise when it came to predicting success.
This makes sense. Innovation typically requires team effort. Expertise has to be combined to solve problems, necessitating cooperation. And cooperation requires a willingness to share credit and support one another as opposed to always striving to take credit for oneself.
So as a manager, what’s the best way to instill grit and grace in your team? My research shows that it’s about cultivating three specific emotions: gratitude, compassion, and pride.
These three emotions not only increase patience and perseverance, but also build social bonds. For most of human evolutionary history, the ability to succeed rested almost entirely on the ability to form relationships. People needed to be honest, fair, and diligent – qualities that required a willingness to inhibit selfish desires to profit at the expense of others. And it was moral emotions like gratitude, compassion, and an authentic pride that motivated these actions. For example, research has shown that when people feel grateful, they’re willing to devote more effort to help others, to be loyal even at a cost to themselves, and to split profits equally with partners rather than take more money for themselves. When they feel compassion, they’re willing to devote time, effort, and money to aid others. And when they feel proud – an authentic pride based on their abilities as opposed to a hubristic one – they’ll work harder to help colleagues solve problems. And all of these behaviors draw others to us. People who express gratitude, compassion, and pride are viewed positively by those around them.
These emotions also build grit. They increase the value people place on future goals relative to present ones, and thereby pave the way to perseverance. Work from my lab, for example, shows that people induced to feel grateful show double the patience when it comes to financial rewards. They’re twice as willing to forgo an immediate smaller profit so that they can invest it for a longer-term gain. In a similar vein, people made to feel pride or compassion are willing to persevere more than 30% longer on challenging tasks compared to those feeling other positive emotions, such as happiness, precisely because pride and compassion induce them to place greater value on future rewards.
Unlike using willpower to keep your nose to the grindstone, using these emotions also helps solve an increasingly common problem of professional life: loneliness. Today, loneliness has become an epidemic in the U.S., with 53% of American workers regularly reporting feeling isolated in their public lives — an immense problem given the toll loneliness takes on the both physical and mental health. Regularly feeling gratitude, compassion, and pride — because these emotions automatically make people behave in more communal and supportive ways — builds social connections. For example, people assigned to engage in simple interventions to feel and express gratitude show enhanced feelings of social connection and relationship satisfaction over time.
Because of the connection between these emotions and grit and social connection, managers who cultivate gratitude, compassion, and pride in their team will see increased productivity and wellbeing of their workers. As one example, Adam Grant and Francesca Gino examined perseverance in an environment that is rife with more rejection than almost any other: fundraising. Over a two-week period, they recorded the number of calls fundraisers made in an effort to solicit donations for a university. Between the first and second week, however, half of the fundraisers received a visit from the university’s director of annual giving, during which she expressed her appreciation for their work. To get a sense of how this expression of gratitude affected the fundraisers, Gino and Grant had them report how valued and appreciated they felt by their superiors.
Whereas the average performance of both groups had been virtually the same during the first week of the study, those who had heard the grateful message upped their fundraising efforts by 50% during the second week. What’s particularly interesting here is the way the benefits of gratitude and pride can feed off one another. In another study on fundraisers, Grant and Amy Wrzesniewski found that the gratitude managers expressed toward their employees stoked the employees’ pride, which in turn, bolstered their efforts.
Compassion, too, builds dedication. Surveying over 200 people working in different units within a large long-term care facility, Sigal Barsade and Mandy O’Neil found that those who worked in units characterized by higher feelings of social attachment, trust, acceptance, and support — a composite that could easily be called empathy and compassion — not only showed superior performance and engagement, but also increased work satisfaction, less exhaustion, and lower absenteeism.
Gratitude, compassion, and pride make us more willing to cooperate with and invest in others. But because they accomplish this feat by increasing the value the mind places on future gains, they also nudge us to invest in our own futures. In so doing, they make both teams, and the individuals who comprise them, more successful and resilient.
David DeSteno is a professor of psychology at Northeastern University and the author of Emotional Success: The Power of Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
God’s Call to Leave This American Mess
by John Piper
desiringGod.org
What does the present political climate in America have to do with world evangelization?
Recently I preached a message on the Great Commission as part of the annual missions focus at Bethlehem Baptist Church. During the first service Sunday morning, I said something in particular that I had not said in the other two services. I regularly pray, when I preach, that the Holy Spirit will bring things to my mind that may not be in the sermon notes, but may be powerfully appointed for someone in the audience. This is one way I think about the gift of prophecy.
I was acknowledging that leaving America, with all its comforts and securities, may be hard for some of you who are being called by God to be part of the thousands who will teach the nations to observe “all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Then, quite outside my notes, I said, “But then again, some of you may be looking for a reason to leave America, the mess is so great.” I smiled. People laughed.
At that point, instead of returning to my notes, I felt impelled to press in on that, and what came to my mind was that God has used messes and stresses before to move his people out of their comforts into missions. I mentioned the situation in Acts 8.
But so far as we see in the book of Acts, no one had budged out of Jerusalem by the beginning of chapter 8 — let alone made their way to Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth.
What was God’s way of getting his people moving out of their homeland into world missions? Answer: It got really bad at home.
Stephen was one of the greatest spokesmen for the Christian faith in Jerusalem. The leaders “could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (Acts 6:10). So, they killed him.
The result?
That’s what I said in the first service at Bethlehem and then returned to my notes.
What God showed me in that moment is that he has a great calling for his people in this very moment of American history — this very messy, muddy, demoralizing moment. His calling is that we lift up our eyes.
First, lift them up to his triumphant, all-commanding smile as he says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
Then, lift them up far beyond the little scope of American politics to all the nations and all the peoples of the world, and look with joy at the all-authoritative promise:
Then, lift them up above the pathetic inability of political figures to answer straightforward questions. Lift them up against the incapacity of politicians who will not let their “Yes” be “Yes” and their “No” be “No.”
Let your eyes land on the crystal clear, uncompromising, unchanging command: “Go, in my complete authority, to make disciples of all the peoples of the world. Bring them to faith. Baptize them. Teach them to live in accord with everything I taught you. I will be with you always, to the end of the age.”
If God must wake us up by means of disillusioning developments at “home,” it may or may not mean that there is a bright future for America. But it certainly means this: God has far greater purposes for the worship of his Son, Jesus Christ, among the nations of this world than can be hindered by anything that happens in America.
Indeed. Not only will our mess not hinder his mission. I am calling thousands of Jesus’s followers to hear in it a call to the nations, just like the believers in Acts 8 saw God’s hand in the catastrophe in Jerusalem. They didn’t just leave. They left on mission. “Those who were scattered went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).
1. There are thousands of other ships (peoples) whose sinking condition is a thousand times more dire than America’s. Many of them have no access to the truth that millions in America hear and squander.
2. God knows exactly who should stay and who should go. All the inertia is for staying. I am lifting my voice for going. There is not one chance in a million that too many will go. I hope you will be one of them.
3. God’s method of making America well may be utterly different from the calculations which prioritize staying over going. Giving, losing, dying, and leaving are his way of getting, gaining, living, and arriving home. My own guess would be that if America gave 100,000 twenty-somethings and seventy-somethings (and a few in between) to the unreached peoples, God would rise up and clean this house.
For my own part, there are few moments when I feel more alive than when I am working for the cause of world missions. Preaching during Bethlehem’s missions focus was a huge privilege. Being a part of founding the CROSS student missions conference is one of the greatest privileges of my life. Writing this article makes my spine tingle with expectation and hope.
If you are discouraged, personally or politically, join me in lifting up your eyes. Christ has all authority over the world. His mission will be finished. Join him in it. Light will dawn in your heart.
desiringGod.org
What does the present political climate in America have to do with world evangelization?
Recently I preached a message on the Great Commission as part of the annual missions focus at Bethlehem Baptist Church. During the first service Sunday morning, I said something in particular that I had not said in the other two services. I regularly pray, when I preach, that the Holy Spirit will bring things to my mind that may not be in the sermon notes, but may be powerfully appointed for someone in the audience. This is one way I think about the gift of prophecy.
I was acknowledging that leaving America, with all its comforts and securities, may be hard for some of you who are being called by God to be part of the thousands who will teach the nations to observe “all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Then, quite outside my notes, I said, “But then again, some of you may be looking for a reason to leave America, the mess is so great.” I smiled. People laughed.
At that point, instead of returning to my notes, I felt impelled to press in on that, and what came to my mind was that God has used messes and stresses before to move his people out of their comforts into missions. I mentioned the situation in Acts 8.
Really Bad at Home
Jesus had told the apostles in Acts 1:8, just before he ascended to heaven, that he was going to send the Holy Spirit to empower them to be his witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”But so far as we see in the book of Acts, no one had budged out of Jerusalem by the beginning of chapter 8 — let alone made their way to Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth.
What was God’s way of getting his people moving out of their homeland into world missions? Answer: It got really bad at home.
Stephen was one of the greatest spokesmen for the Christian faith in Jerusalem. The leaders “could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (Acts 6:10). So, they killed him.
The result?
There arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria. . . . Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. (Acts 8:1, 4)Thus the global mission of the Christian church was launched. It had to get so dangerous at home that Judea and Samaria and the ends of the earth finally looked feasible.
That’s what I said in the first service at Bethlehem and then returned to my notes.
Disillusioned About America
Whether that was a word of “prophecy” for a particular person in that service, I am not sure. But I write about it here because I believe it is so relevant to this moment in our history, as thousands of young people wonder about the future of America. Many voting-age young people are disillusioned and perplexed about this country’s political climate. There are no heroes. No great statesmen. No champions of a vision worth living and dying for.What God showed me in that moment is that he has a great calling for his people in this very moment of American history — this very messy, muddy, demoralizing moment. His calling is that we lift up our eyes.
First, lift them up to his triumphant, all-commanding smile as he says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
Then, lift them up far beyond the little scope of American politics to all the nations and all the peoples of the world, and look with joy at the all-authoritative promise:
All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before you.
For kingship belongs to the Lord,
and he rules over the nations. (Psalm 22:27–28)
Then, lift them up above the pathetic inability of political figures to answer straightforward questions. Lift them up against the incapacity of politicians who will not let their “Yes” be “Yes” and their “No” be “No.”
Let your eyes land on the crystal clear, uncompromising, unchanging command: “Go, in my complete authority, to make disciples of all the peoples of the world. Bring them to faith. Baptize them. Teach them to live in accord with everything I taught you. I will be with you always, to the end of the age.”
The Moment for Missions
Every moment is a moment for world missions. Because Jesus reigns at every moment. And his commission stands at every moment. But some moments are like a thunderclap of awakening to reality. America is not our home. Political power is not our strategy. Privilege and political freedom in this age is not the birthright of the new birth. “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20).If God must wake us up by means of disillusioning developments at “home,” it may or may not mean that there is a bright future for America. But it certainly means this: God has far greater purposes for the worship of his Son, Jesus Christ, among the nations of this world than can be hindered by anything that happens in America.
Indeed. Not only will our mess not hinder his mission. I am calling thousands of Jesus’s followers to hear in it a call to the nations, just like the believers in Acts 8 saw God’s hand in the catastrophe in Jerusalem. They didn’t just leave. They left on mission. “Those who were scattered went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).
Lift Up Your Eyes
If this sounds like a call to abandon a sinking ship, consider this:1. There are thousands of other ships (peoples) whose sinking condition is a thousand times more dire than America’s. Many of them have no access to the truth that millions in America hear and squander.
2. God knows exactly who should stay and who should go. All the inertia is for staying. I am lifting my voice for going. There is not one chance in a million that too many will go. I hope you will be one of them.
3. God’s method of making America well may be utterly different from the calculations which prioritize staying over going. Giving, losing, dying, and leaving are his way of getting, gaining, living, and arriving home. My own guess would be that if America gave 100,000 twenty-somethings and seventy-somethings (and a few in between) to the unreached peoples, God would rise up and clean this house.
For my own part, there are few moments when I feel more alive than when I am working for the cause of world missions. Preaching during Bethlehem’s missions focus was a huge privilege. Being a part of founding the CROSS student missions conference is one of the greatest privileges of my life. Writing this article makes my spine tingle with expectation and hope.
If you are discouraged, personally or politically, join me in lifting up your eyes. Christ has all authority over the world. His mission will be finished. Join him in it. Light will dawn in your heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)