Banned for Life

This week, Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, was banned for life from participating in the NBA. A recorded phone conversation between him and his mistress was made public, which revealed blatantly racist comments. Public reaction was swift and strong, overwhelmingly critical of his comments. His own team silently protested in a recent playoff game by wearing their shirts inside out during the introductions.

The comments he made were undeniably racist and are indefensible. I'm not going to argue whether or not a lifelong ban is appropriate for ugly racism. But I am struck by the severity of the reaction. Banned for life, not for racist actions but for racist thoughts. Yes, once public, those words inflict damage to the league, and if the reaction were just for that, there's a good argument that the severity is justified. My impression, however, is that they are not reacting to the actual damage done, but for how much they don't like those thoughts.

I don't like those thoughts, either. Not one bit. They are entirely repugnant. And the league has every right to ban someone for public comments that directly damage their organization. But I'm still brewing on the possibility of a lifelong ban because of what someone thinks.

Other examples are becoming more common. Scientists denied work if they believe the universe originates with God, restaurant owners being denied business licenses if they hold a personal belief about the boundaries of marriage (or shaggy men losing their TV show), CEOs ousted by popular demand for personally supporting a particular bill, and so on. Because of what they think, ugly or not, even if they never treat people unequally, they are banned from engaging in commerce.

I'm not writing a piece on American free speech rights. I'm not writing an alarmist article to incite people to hunker down for a fight. Rather, in the face of increasing, severe, and potentially expensive consequences for holding a view deemed unacceptable by a vocal crowd, Christians have a decision to make now.

We must decide in this moment that we're willing to be banned for life for what we believe - banned from a league, from a job, from an industry, from a community. Before the heat comes, before the crowd gets vocal, we must have already established that we would rather be banned than abandon our beliefs. After the heat comes, the temptation to falter is stronger, and for anyone unprepared, resisting will be all the harder. The "heat" may be mild or sizzling hot, but it seems clear that the temperature is rising. We must settle this while it's still relatively cool.

A word of warning: It's crucial that we're sure which beliefs are core and which ones aren't. Put a gun to my head, and I won't deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but I'm not going to insist on a mid-tribulation, pre-millennial eschatology! Burn me at the stake over the Trinity, but it's not even worth breaking a sweat over determining which political party has the most avarice. Fire me for believing God made everything, but it's not important to me that we agree on how long He took to do it.

Be willing to be banned for life over the Gospel. Because others will be banned for eternal life without it.

I'm a low-res kinda guy

I'm a low-res kinda guy. Low on resolutions - New Year's resolutions - that is. I'm just not into making them. If people make them and keep them, great! I just don't do so well in making commitments just because it's a new year.

I think of King Solomon - the son of David who succeeded him on the throne, the one who asked God for, and received, fantastic wisdom. As we learn in Ecclesiastes, Solomon was accomplished in just about every area of life (in the world's eyes). He was king over a nation during a golden period. He was fabulously wealthy. He had a stellar education. He tried every experience a man could try. He had hundreds of women at his disposal. He had monumental wisdom (which he clearly had failed to use often later in life). He had it all.

In other words, Solomon had every human advantage to make and keep resolutions. He had the world at his disposal to keep whatever New Year's resolution you could think of. And he tried ... repeatedly. And he failed ... repeatedly.

Solomon was looking for more than just some weight loss or quitting cigarettes. He was looking for meaning, and he resolved all kinds of things in order to find it. Isn't that what we really want resolutions to bring us - more meaning, more satisfaction, more joy? But - even though Solomon had every resource available to him - he failed. His resolutions failed.

If the one who had the world's best resources for successfully keeping resolutions failed to find one ounce of meaning in those resolutions, I figure I need a better approach. Eventually, Solomon concluded the same thing.

I don't need to turn over a new leaf, I need new life. I don't need to do better at life, I need a better life. Rather than trying harder, Jesus offers us to replace worldly ways with godly ways. The more we abandon our hearts to Him, the more of this life He gives us. And it has meaning.

To me, New Year's resolutions are designed for us to try harder. Submitting to God is not about trying harder - it's about releasing yourself to the full control of the Holy Spirit more and more every day.