Are you broken?

Are you broken?

Sallie has a relative who she cares about a great deal. She's known this relative since she was a little girl, and saw her on holidays, birthdays, and even just casual family gatherings. She loves her relative, but her relative will, on rare occasion, bark at Sallie some of the harshest, most hateful things - especially when Sallie says anything about Jesus or the church. At times, Sallie lashes back - only to deeply regret it. Now, before every holiday, Sallie begins to have gut-knotting anxiety about talking with her relative. In this relationship, Sallie is broken. Are you broken?

Sam has been told all his life two contradictory things: "You're going a good job!" and "You're not doing a good enough job!" Compliments from his parents were always followed by a comment about what mistakes were made. Try as he might, he could never get a perfect score at school - and when tests came, he would tense up and get a full letter grade worse than his own average. At work, he can't seem to finish a full project without some major mistake. Now, when Sam hears both "You're doing a good job" and "You're not doing a good enough job," he's the one saying it. In his self-image, Sam is broken. Are you broken?

David's got a sin habit that he thinks no one else knows about. At least, that's what he keeps telling himself. He's tried to stop - and has. Many times. For about a week. His record is just over two months. And then failure again and again. He's a Christian, and criticizes himself that a Christian shouldn't feel this powerless against sin. He's read everything, prayed constantly, and tried to change the situation. But there he is - a repeat offender. In righteousness, David is broken. Are you broken?

Mary has had to make decisions beyond her years ever since her father died when she was 6. Mom wasn't really much parental help after that - she had her own problems, some in bottle form. But Mary did a good job looking out for herself. She got herself ready for school every day, caught the bus, worked a part-time job, got a few scholarships to work her way through community college, then a good job, and even a Master's degree. She's in middle management at a bank, running her own life, taking care of her own house, relying on herself for her own relationships. But the relationships usually end up in disaster, her job is unfulfilling and her efforts often go unnoticed. Her house has lost so much value that she can't afford to move, but the prices in the neighborhood keep dropping. Mom is bitter at her, and she's just flat out tired of the rat race. In running her own life, Mary is broken. Are you broken?

Jesus says in Matthew 11: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Jesus specializes in broken people. In fact, He doesn't work with anyone else. If you're broken, come to Him. And let someone who knows Him know that you're broken. They are broken, too.

Mini-megalomaniac-based Acceptance

Many of us have heard of the phrase "performance-based acceptance." Set in contrast to "unconditional acceptance," performance-based acceptance is the requirement that someone perform to a certain standard before you are willing to accept him or her. For example, a dad who doesn't truly accept his daughter unless she gets all A's on her report card, or a woman who doesn't accept a another as a friend unless she wears a certain grade of clothing. Certainly, there are more subtle (and more destructive) forms than these rather simplistic examples - such as a husband who won't love a woman unless she compares well to some impossible, airbrushed image.

Most of us know what it's like to be a victim of this. Sometimes, we're guilty of it. But there is a form of performance-based acceptance that I find even more poisonous. To coin a phrase, I'm calling it "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance." A megalomaniac is a severe psychological disorder where someone has delusions of divinity in various forms. What I mean about "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance" is a refusal by Person A to accept Person B unless Person B thinks like Person A does. More than just expecting the person to meet a standard of behavior or performance, it is more narrow, and more like a megalomaniac. My way of thinking is divinely right, and all who think differently are less acceptable.

We see it in our toxic political environment. Some people cannot be friends with others who think differently about politics. Some can't even have a civil discussion. It's a severe form of performance-based acceptance: you must think like the mini-megalomaniac Me before I will accept you.

We see it in marriages. A wife thinks about life in a different way than the husband, and he can't see how she could possibly think that way. He begins to accept her less and less, until he just doesn't accept her. All because she dared think unlike how he thinks. He can't see how another way of thinking is valid (or acceptable), and his opinion of her diminishes (less accepting). He creates an impossible standard, because we are wired to think in certain ways, and that rarely ever changes for anyone.

Imagine if God required us to think like He does before He's willing to accept us. Given that we can't think like He does, we immediately see the impossibility. And yet, we can apply the same impossible standard to others.

Grace is the reality that while we were still rebellious sinners against God, Christ died for us out of God's love for us (Rom 5:8). He accepts us - not in the since that He just waved His hand and we can all enter into heaven, but that He does not require us to perform or to think like He does before He's willing to love us completely and offer us salvation. Not even God in His true divinity displays any hint of megalomaniac-based acceptance.

Others think differently than you do. Does that disqualify them from your love? It doesn't disqualify us from His love. That is grace.

Retreating

This weekend is the annual Men's Retreat at Tall Oaks Conference Center. Our very special guest speaker is Pastor Bill Ross, who served as our interim pastor for almost two years (and serves as a personal mentor to me).

Years ago at a different church, my leaders and I instituted annual men's retreats (which they had not had for many years). We camped out, cooked on Coleman stoves, and had a great time discussing matters of faith and ministry. But it was at that retreat that I was able to encapsulate the value of men's retreats in just one sentence. It wasn't the material we studied. It wasn't that we had time away from the hustle and bustle. It wasn't the food (although the "Low Country Boil" and dutch oven Georgia peach cobbler were always a big hit). It was what one of the younger men said.

I asked him how he liked the retreat, and he said it was great! So, I asked him why (half-anticipating an answer that would boost my terrible ego). Rather, what he said was, "I didn't know the elders laughed." That was the most important takeaway for him. Of course, it was more than just learning the fact - it was getting to know the elders on a personal level.

I spent a lot of time with the elders, of course, and knew readily that they laughed a lot. But this very active member of the church did not. It was always business - church business - with the elders. It was never just about life and fun and joking around. All this man knew of the elders is that they were men who were serious about church business. At the retreat, he learned who they were as regular guys. That's the great value of men's retreats.

Not just that people get to know the elders in particular, but that they get to know each other outside of church business - just getting to know each other as men. That particular church, as well as Grace and many others, had lots of good fellowship ... in pockets, but not necessarily across the board. The men's retreat is about the best chance throughout the year to get to know the men of the church, especially those you don't get to spend much time with otherwise.

I'm looking forward to Bill's talks - we will learn a lot. I'm looking forward to the times of prayer, the activities, and peeling away from the hustle and bustle. But mainly, I'm looking forward to finding out each guy's individual laugh.

A Simple Reading Guide

If you're reading this ... well ... you can read. You know how letters fit together, how punctuation generally works, and what English words mean. You can read. Which also means that you can read the Bible and comprehend much of what it says. Even though intense study of the Bible is rich enough to warrant a legion of men and women to dedicate their careers to the discipline, the plain truth of the Bible is easily understood by anyone who can read. The basic message of the Bible is obvious enough, not hidden behind cryptic clues that only the secret few can decipher.

If this is true, why then do we have so many controversies over what the Bible says?

A short weekly article is never going to be able to resolve this great dilemma, but there are two driving principles: First, if we so determine, we can manipulate the text to say whatever we want it to. Second, even though we know how to read, we don't necessarily know how to read the Bible well.

Let me provide a few helpful practices, even though a short article cannot do justice to a mature discipline. My hope is that we can at least see the kinds of things we need to consider when reading the Bible well.

1. There and Then. What did the author intend to say to the original readers of the book? What the text means is what the author intended it to mean, not "what I got out of it." So, what did the author intend? He was writing to a particular group of people in a particular context of life, living in a particular culture. Perhaps there was a specific occasion or reason for writing that particular book. Every passage of Scripture means one thing. Whether a small passage or a large passage, there is one intended meaning. Before we ever thing about how the Word applies to our lives in our contexts in our culture, we've got to spend a little time understanding what the author intended. Some of this we can do just by observing the text carefully, and some of it we can do just through our accumulation of biblical knowledge over the years. Sometimes, we need to consult other resources, such as Bible dictionaries and commentaries. As you can see, this discipline can be taken to far greater depths than most of us are prepared for, but don't despair - most of the time, we can get a pretty good feel for what the author intended without earning an advanced degree!
   
2. Everywhere and Forever. The second discipline, which can only come after we've worked on the first, is to ask what the eternal truth is behind what the author meant. For example, when Moses writes about "gleaning the fields" in Leviticus, the first discipline tells us we need understand what this particular farming practice was to understand what Moses intended to say to his original readers. But, most people today don't farm for a living, so does that mean that this passage doesn't mean anything for us? Of course not! The eternal principle behind the gleaning practice was to sacrificially provide for the poor in a way that allows them to work (if they can) in order to labor for their food. That's an eternal truth! It's a very particular kind of compassion. The second discipline is to discover what eternal truths are being expressed by what the author intended to say to the original readers. Sometimes, the contextual meaning is the same as the eternal truth ("don't lie"). Sometimes, the eternal truth is bigger than the specific idea expressed by the author to his original readers.
   
3. Here and Now. The third discipline is one we typically jump straight to, ignoring the first two. More often than not, if we skip the first two disciplines, we will be very inaccurate with the third. This discipline is to discover how the eternal truth applies to our context in our culture in our situations. For example, how can we who do not farm for a living specifically employ the gleaning principle today? (Or the bigger question, how does a modern Christian look at Old Testament laws in general?) Scripture means one thing, but it may have many different applications for our lives. The passage in Leviticus means one thing - exercise a particular kind of compassion. How we do that in our lives could take many different flavors, but still retain the eternal truth (that was originally expressed in a particular context). This is not "what it means to me," but "how this can be lived out in my life?" 

We must exercise the first two disciplines, first. If we skip them, then we could end up with nonsense, such as "God is telling me that my job is like a field, and I need to plow my job carefully by studying hard and working late hours, but not to harvest the 'corners' of my job by making sure I don't report all my hours." That's no where near what we should gain from Leviticus, but we can get there easily if we neglect the first two disciplines.

There are far more disciplines and techniques that I advocate to help us understand what we read in the Bible (for example, reading a passage no fewer than three times). These three, however, work together to show a sequence of thought we should go through every time we read. Sometimes, we can go through all three pretty quickly, but other times, it may take a fair bit of effort.

Resources: There are plenty of good books on reading the Bible well, but two that I recommend are: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, and Playing with Fire. Click on the titles to see more information about each.

I Don't Dance

I don't dance. Not a bit. Not only do I not attempt to dance, but when I have attempted to, I still didn't dance ... because I can't dance. No rhythm, no coordination, no desire, no ability. I don't have a religious objection to dancing, but people of all religions would object if they saw me try.

I don't like it, I'm not good at it, so I don't do it.

That's fine for dancing or hockey or scrapbooking. But what about something like prayer? There have been times in my life, and I hear others express the same, that we don't pray because we feel awkward at it, don't have "rhythm," or don't feel like we know how. So, we don't. Sometimes, we just don't pray out loud in front of others. Sometimes, we just don't pray. We avoid the things that we don't feel that we do well, because we don't like feeling inept.

Rather than combat this with a "how to" article on prayer, which would probably only make us feel even more inept, let's look at it differently. We feel inept because we don't feel we do something well. And we don't feel we do it well because we don't feel we meet the standard. Rather than a "how to" to set a more intimidating standard, I question the standard.

What makes dancing good is based on style, skill, flare, and coordination. But that's not what makes for good praying.

If you look at Jesus' prayers and His teaching on prayer, He never sets a standard of flair. He never clicks a clicker every time you say "um" (like I saw a speech making club do). The most basic lesson on how to pray well is to just PRAY! I don't dance because I don't dance. We don't pray because we don't pray. Jesus says pray honestly, frequently, persistently, and trustingly. Just pray.

Babies are really horrible at talking, aren't they? But if they never talk terribly, they will never learn to talk well. If you never pray terribly, you will never pray well. And "well" has nothing to do with style.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again

I'm partisan. I have particular political preferences. And I'm a little too eager to engage others in political discussions, both with people I agree (politically) with and with people I disagree with. These conversations are with people inside the Church (from both sides of the political aisle) as well as those outside the Church (again, from both angles). So ... full disclosure ... I'm partisan.

But, I've concluded that partisanship is not the best scale for determining my vote. I don't need to abandon my political preferences, but for years, now, I've been gravitating away from deciding my vote based on who is the most partisan for my particular views. I still vote for people even if they have strong views, but I don't regard the strength of their partisanship as the most important factor in casting my vote.

My thinking is this: In the last generation, we've watched this litmus test (who is the most partisan for my view) create a crippled Congress session after session. Why? Because we voted the most partisan people we could find - using that as our criteria. So, of course, we're going to end up with gridlock! We chose the most bull-headed, unbending people as if unbending bull-headedness was going to fix up Washington (or Topeka, or wherever).

Perhaps finding the most belligerently partisan candidate is not the best way to choose. So then, how then should I vote?

I will not tell you who you should vote for in any of the elections. But I would offer this as a general voting consideration: Which candidates (in any election) are more likely to display the kind of wisdom we find in the Bible? There is a wealth of wisdom found in the Bible that is good for everyone to follow, regardless of where they are in their faith. I would rather vote for someone who displays that kind of wisdom than for someone who makes a bunch of noise about his faith but rarely ever displays that wisdom.

Ecclesiastes 10 declares woe to the city that has a fool for a leader. Not someone who fails a political litmus test, not someone who isn't overtly religious, but someone who is a fool. The implication is that there are blessings for the city that has wise leaders.

Think of it this way: Who we want in leadership: the most partisan people we can find or the wisest people we can find? And I can't think of many people who display both qualities.

What's a "Cadenza?"

What's a "Cadenza"?

I've heard this question more than a few times about the name of this weekly column. (I've also heard, "What's a 'credenza'?" from a handful of people.) Perhaps it would be good to explain the term and the idea behind it.

First of all, a "credenza" is a piece of furniture, and is a more familiar term to us than "cadenza." It would make for a very odd column title indeed - what's a piece of furniture have to do with this column in a church newsletter? However, the term we're using here is a less familiar term "cadenza."

A "cadenza" is a musical term. Perhaps you've noticed a consistent theme in Grace Notes using musical terminology. "Grace Notes" itself is a musical term (a notation in printed music to describe "ornamented" notes). "New Notes" is the section for all the latest-breaking news. "Your Cue" lists opportunities for ministry and service. "Parent Beat" is the column for parenting issues. "A Tempo" (which means "back to the regular speed") is for listing events coming up. "Reprise" (which means to do something again) lists those items that have been in previous issues of Grace Notes.

So, the reason for using the word "cadenza" is thematic. And now to the meaning...

The word "cadenza" refers to a part of a song that is a solo, and usually a solo with a tempo set by the musician rather than a regular beat. So, you could call this column "off-beat stuff where the pastor is way out there by himself"!

I use the Cadenza column as a platform to play around with some ideas out loud. Sometimes it's a reflection on Scripture or a theological topic. Sometimes it's just having some fun. And still other times I want to draw attention to happenings within the church (locally and globally).

There have been a few times where someone expressed some disagreement with what I wrote, and that's perfectly fine with me. A musician doesn't always perform every "solo" well, and I know in advance that I will make a few mistakes (and I try to correct the more serious ones). Or, perhaps we just have a difference of opinion, which is going to happen in a healthy church. But you have always been full of grace, which I appreciate and want to extend back to you in return.

Thanks for your feedback - I welcome it! I pray that at least some of the articles are helpful and interesting to you. Thanks to Christina (and Ashley during the summer) for putting Grace Notes together every week. It's not always an easy task, and I truly appreciate the effort. I hope you do, too.

One final note (to stick with the musical theme), I want to publicly thank Damon Jasperson for the fantastic series of "Parent Beat" articles recenly. Every one of them has been thought-provoking (and I am jealous of his writing style). We weren't sure we'd continue the quality of articles that Susan Harrison had been submitting, but Damon has allayed those concerns. Thanks, Damon. We'll take as many as you've got within you!