Process Matters

I enjoy reading the work of Dr. Richard Beck at Abilene Christian University and his blog "Experimental Theology." I don't always agree with Dr. Beck's theses, but his thoughts are provocative. Recently, he wrote a blog post on social justice and the church. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/03/glenn-beck-social-justice-at-church.html

Here, Dr. Beck pulled some scripture in an attempt to justify social justice as a goal of the church. I take no issue with Dr. Beck regarding this as a goal of the church. What I find problematic with Dr. Beck's thinking is a complete disregard for the process toward achieving that goal. It is that line of thought that has become all too prevalent in our society. We stake out noble goals, but neglect to consider the need for an appropriate process toward those goals.

At the end of this series of posts, I'll address Dr. Beck's theological points in more detail. Theology is just one area where this focus on outcomes over process is destructive. I'll attempt to focus on four areas where I am intimately involved as a coach, educator, citizen, and Christ-follower. In each of these realms, I will show how an overemphasis of preferable outcomes and a neglect of process has resulted in an overall negative for that realm.

Part I-Athletics

I choose to address athletics first because the occurrence of this phenomenon in this field is probably the least controversial, and the solutions in sport are quite often tremendous object lessons for the rest of society (see Jackie Robinson and integration). Once upon a time, the sportswriter Grantland Rice penned these famous lines:

For when the One Great Scorer comes
To write against your name,
He marks-not that you won or lost-
But how you played the game.

Rice's sentiment expressed in this poem seems today as antiquated as leather helmets and peach baskets when viewed in comparison to the contemporary attitude about sports. Today, only winning matters. At the professional level, we see athletes risking their lives and abusing their bodies in pursuit of that alluring end. At the college level, we see administrations, coaches, and players paying but lip service to the "collegiate" side of intercollegiate athletics. Players are routinely coddled through "classes" designed to keep them eligible so their teams can keep winning. Coaches and administrators talk a good game about the protection of the "student-athlete" all the while creating a system that uses up their talents and all too often carelessly throws them out without regard once those talents are used up.

This attitude has even filtered down to the high schools and youth sports. Recently, at my 9 year-old son's baseball game, I witnessed a coach instructing his players to untie their shoes and tie them again and engage in other fabricated tactics designed to delay the start of the next inning and thereby end the game with their team ahead. What are these children learning about competition and fair play, the process of sport which used to be valued above the outcome of the game?

As in all things, process matters; moreover, attending to the proper processes ensure positive outcomes. The legendary John Wooden, who won 10 championships in 12 years at UCLA, was famous for his emphasis of process over outcome. Wooden would start his practices each year by teaching his players how to properly put on their socks and shoes. It was this attention to detail and process that brought about the Bruins' success. Wooden notoriously would not scout his opponents, insisting that if his players executed their roles as best they could, they would be successful. Wooden is still lauded today for his "pyramid of success," a dedication to process toward outcome if there ever was one.



So we can see in sport that attention to process does bring about desired results. Sadly, we also see in today's sport that the allure of instant success and a reticence toward the hard work required to engage in the process often leads people off the path toward true success and onto a path that might lead to temporary riches, but ultimately ends in destruction.

In succeeding posts, we'll examine how this same attitude has manifested itself in education, politics, and religion.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.3

OK, time to dig into the "meat" of what is probably the most influential speech ever given in the history of humanity, the Sermon on the Mount. Thus far, we've established one very important set of principles that will guide our reading of the rest of the sermon:

Jesus is calling for a change in attitude by His followers. He didn't come to add more legal restrictions, nor did He aim to to foster licentiousness. He plead for His disciples to get back to the holy attitude desired by God. This is not a behavioral handbook. Jesus provides a few relational examples to illustrate His point.

Jesus first discussed how we are to treat one another. The essence of Jesus' instruction is consistent with his thesis: don't just follow the letter of the law, adopt the spirit behind it. Now he will go on to talk about another relational issue: how we treat our spouses.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus used marital references to illustrate His concepts. As Jesus presented it, there was no earthly relationship that more closely resembled that which God desired with His creation than marriage. The unconditional love, the passion, the commitment, the intimacy; these are all ideals presented throughout scripture describing how God desires to relate to us. The problem was, in Jesus' time (and ours), the people had lost the essence of what the marriage relationship was supposed to be. Like with other matters, the people had become concerned with legalistic obeisance rather than faithful following. Not surprisingly, that created incentives for finding loopholes.

Jesus again begins with His rhetorical motif: "You have heard..." Once again, Jesus contrasts the letter of the law with an instruction to go beyond the mere letter. This is a section where many contemporary legalists get bogged down. On one hand, they want to use this section as a literal command for how marital relationships should be: monogamous and lasting. No doubt, that is what God wants for our relationships. But it is clear also that Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate the need to act beyond the law; He is not advocating a literal justice system.

Rather than looking at this as a proof text for disciplining or disfellowshipping the sexually immoral and/or divorced, let's look at this text as Jesus' intended. It's not enough, Jesus' says, to merely avoid an adulterous sexual relationship. If our minds are drifting toward sin, our bodies will soon follow. He then instructs us to engage in acts of dismemberment to prevent our sin. Literal? I think not. It's pretty obvious if we look at this passage in its rhetorical context that Jesus is instructing us to "go the extra mile" to stay faithful to Him, and that was based in how we relate to each other. The essence of this passage is simple: don't treat one another as sexual objects. It doesn't matter whether we "did not have sexual relations with that woman." What matters is our attitude toward that woman, and our commitment to our marriage vows and God. It does not condemn or prescribe punishment, rather it convicts the offender toward repentance and reconciliation.

Similarly, Jesus' proscription of divorce in verses 31 and 32 is not intended to be interpreted as legal code. The Jews had developed an elaborate system to circumvent the requirements for marriage. Countless loopholes had been developed that allowed a man to divorce his wife. In this patriarchal society, that was as much as a death sentence to a woman who was no longer chaste and had no means to provide for herself. No, Jesus says, unless this woman breaks her vow, then the man must keep his. There is no getting out of the commitment simply because she's grown older, or another attractive woman has caught one's eye. The loopholes of the Mosaic system might have saved the husband from accusations of adultery, but it was disastrous for those left behind. It's also important to note here that Jesus was not adding anything new here. His was merely stating the status quo, reminding them that the consequences of their behavior didn't just impact themselves.

The rest of the Sermon on the Mount follows the same pattern. Jesus reminds the audience of the Mosaic commands, and then illustrates the attitude behind the commands. Jesus, from beginning to end, is instructing us in how to live a "fulfilled" life. Sadly, rather than accentuate these attitudes, many have adopted the Pharisaical attitude of trying to make this sermon into just another legal code. It's so much more than that.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.2

Yesterday, we discussed the importance of looking at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in its totality. It is ironic that we who proclaim Him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords often do not accord to him the same respect for His rhetorical skills as we would Billy Graham or Max Lucado. Instead, we look at this sermon as if Jesus were reading a grocery list full of scattered, random thoughts. This is obviously an erroneous method of interpretation. No, Jesus spoke here in a clear, unmistakably organized fashion, declaring a clear thesis and providing multiple supports for his claims. We established the thesis in the previous post; Jesus here wants to accentuate two main ideas: First, that His followers were to be the "preservatives" of a rotting world, a light in a world of darkness. Second, Jesus accentuated that He did not come to contradict the law, but to fulfill it. He makes it abundantly clear that His grace is not a license to ignore God's calling. In verses 21-48, He will expand on this idea.

In this, the body of Jesus' sermon, He uses the rhetorical technique of contrast. He begins a series of thoughts with "you may have heard," referencing the teachings of Moses, and then contrasts them with "but I say to you," in which Jesus tells us what He really wants from these teachings. Again, Jesus has stated clearly that He has not come to destroy the law, so this passage cannot be taken as Jesus contradicting any of the law of Moses. Rather Jesus here is showing us the spirit of these laws which had been diluted over generations into merely legalistic guidelines. Jesus wants His followers to forsake seeking the "letter" of the law like the Pharisees, and begin to grasp the full intent of His commandments.

In this passage, Jesus teaches about three main subjects: how we should treat our brothers and sisters in the church, how we should treat our spouses, and how we should treat our neighbors. It's important to note that Jesus could have spoken about any number of Mosaic commands, but He chose these. Let's look at the first section, how we are to treat our brothers and sisters.

Jesus begins this section by referencing the clearest commandment in all scripture: do not murder. This is perhaps the least debated point in all of God's word. Even those who deny the existence of Jehovah God would be in agreement with this commandment. Jesus says, however, that's not enough. It's not enough only to follow the letter of this command. We must, he says, follow it in spirit. He illustrates that by extending this commandment not just to cover the taking of a physical life, but for "character assassination" as well.

As many have experienced, the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is one of the biggest lies ever put forth. Words hurt. They injure, maim, and sometimes even kill. They can cause lasting damage. Here, Jesus tells us that if we are in the habit of assassinating the character of our brothers and sisters, we are as liable for "hell fire" as if we had physically murdered them.

Then Jesus goes on to present what I believe is a revolutionary thought, one that we really need to take a closer look at in our day. He says if you have a problem with your brother, don't come and worship me until you've settled that problem. We can take a couple of very important conclusions from this. First, Jesus is telling us that our relationship with Him is not just a dyad, nor are our relationships with one another. Our fellowship with one another is triangular. I cannot fellowship with God without having healthy relationships with my brothers and sisters. Similarly, I cannot have healthy relationships with my brothers and sisters without a relationship with God. We are part of an inseparable system, much like the Trinity itself. Jesus goes so far with this concept as to imply that worshipping God while in conflict with our brothers and sisters is a worthless exercise. He strongly intimates here that our offerings to God are not acceptable while we are still in conflict with our brothers and sisters.

I ask each of you today: what does this say about the nature of today's divided church? Are we even able to worship God "in spirit and in truth" while living cut off from our fellow believers?

In our next discussion, we'll look at Jesus' teachings about marriage and divorce, another source of great contention in the church.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.1

One of the pitfalls of biblical exegesis is getting bogged down in verse-by-verse interpretations. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the Bible wasn't written that way. It was written prosaically, with an organizational structure and paragraphs not any different than writers do today. When we hyper-focus on verses or even passages taken out of the context of the rhetorical structure of the overall piece, we run the risk of misinterpreting the intention of the text.

This tendency is well illustrated when we look at the Sermon on the Mount. For centuries, theologians have picked this sermon apart, using Jesus' words as a basis for establishing a new set of laws. This interpretation is the polar opposite of what Jesus was teaching here.

When we look at Matthew 5, we have to remember that Jesus was speaking to a crowd here. He was delivering a message, one with a central thesis, a beginning, middle and end. His audience would have been oblivious, not having a textual companion, to any verse-by-verse interpretation of this speech. Rather they would have been focused on the central ideas of Jesus' speech. With that in mind, let's take a fresh look at what Jesus is saying in this most important message.

Jesus begins his sermon with what we know today as "the beatitudes." Here, Jesus uses a fairly common rhetorical technique: he begins his speech with a "hook," an attention-getting device designed to orient the audience's attention toward the speaker and lead them directly into the thesis. Given that purpose, what is it then that Jesus is leading us to here?

If we look at the beatitudes in total and in the context of Jesus' entire ministry, Jesus is boldly instructing his audience to become the antithesis of the religious leaders of the day. Rather than the haughty power-wielding of the Pharisees, Jesus tells his followers to be meek, mournful, and merciful. Rather than being arrogant and convinced of one's own righteousness, Jesus instructs his followers to be humble and constantly searching for the righteousness of the Father. Further, Jesus adds the twin metaphors of salt and light. Here, he is instructing his audience on their role in God's Kingdom. As he will tell the Pharisees later, the Kingdom is rotting from the inside out. Jesus implores his followers to be the "preservative" of the Kingdom. Similarly, Jesus foreshadows the Great Commission here by telling his audience they are to be a "light to the world." He is preparing them for a revolutionary message.

Then, just before Jesus embarks on the "body" of his speech, he reminds his audience that paradoxically, though he is coming to revolutionize the world, he is not changing the foundations that the Father laid. This is going to be a new covenant, not one that negates the old one, but one that clears away the dross that has gathered and prepares the way for building on God's foundation. He reminds his audience that the Pharisees are not condemned for being doctrinally unsound. They know and keep the law better than any. If we are to be righteous in the sight of God, Jesus reminds us, it's not about forsaking the law and the prophets.

If that's the case, then what is it? That will be the essence of Jesus sermon, the body of his speech, which we'll look at in detail in the next post.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt. 4: Don't destroy the work of God

Paul adds a concluding thought to how we ought to view one another within the Body of Christ here in Romans 14. The essence of his thought is this: outside of matters of the cross, don't destroy each other over matters of practice. In doing so, we destroy the work of God.

In the context here, Paul is dealing with cultural issues within the Roman church. There are divisions developing over the eating of meat, the observation of certain feast days, and other cultural issues. We see this throughout Paul's epistles, but perhaps most here in his letter to the Romans. The Roman culture was without a doubt the most diverse in all the Empire to which Paul was preaching. He was writing here to Roman converts who used to worship idols, Jewish converts who struggled with observing Mosaic law, as well as a variety of immigrants from other ethnicities who brought with them their own traditions. Paul's message to this pluralistic group is a simple one, one that should resonate with us today: Let's keep the main thing the main thing.

Paul correctly points out in this chapter that judging (condemning, not discerning) over these kinds of practices is an act of selfishness and pride on our part. Should we condemn our brother in this regard, we divide the Body unnecessarily and lay waste to the work of God, which is Christ's sacrifice to establish His Kingdom on earth. Similarly, if we stubbornly cling to certain rituals and flaunt them in the face of our brothers, we may cause division, causing them to "stumble."

Paul correctly points out that in matters such as these, the individual is answerable to God, not other members of the Body. "Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats because he is not eating from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

There's the definition to live by. There are countless non-salvific issues on which Christians in good faith disagree. In a pluralistic society, it cannot help but be so. And certainly, Jesus anticipated this eventuality as He encouraged His disciples to "go into all the world." As Paul points out here, our faith in God and His Son is of central importance. If we're not acting out of genuine faith, then we're no different than the Pharisees, who acted out of a sense of legal obligation rather than reverence for God.

Sadly, how often do we witness this in today's church: Self-assured legalists condemning the faithful actions of others and bringing division to the Body. There's nothing wrong with a faithful pursuit of God's will in our lives. What is sinful, according to Paul, is condemning our brother who genuinely comes to a different conclusion.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt.3: The burden of the strong

Thus far we've looked at how we need to interact with the world around us, particularly with regard to civil authorities. Paul outlines this in Romans 13. Now let's turn our attention to another matter, how we in the church are to deal with one another.

Like with the secular world, we can expect to find conflict and disagreement from time to time. How we respond to these conflicts is of the utmost importance. First, let's look at the dynamics of the relationships. With regard to the secular world, God calls us to be "holy," or set apart. Yet in chapter 13, we see that even despite this separation, we are to be respectful and honorable toward our secular neighbors and authorities. In short, we're not to conform, but we're also not to disrespectfully defy or antagonize those with whom we have conflict. How much more so then should we take on an attitude of respect and honor with our Christian neighbors with whom we come into conflict?

Paul begins chapter 14 with a hypothetical conflict between a "faith-based" vegetarian, whom Paul describes as "weak," and one who "eats everything." Paul clearly paints the one who eats everything as the stronger brother here. In context, we can presume that this brother represents the one in a "new" relationship with Christ who enjoys the freedom this relationship brings. On the other hand, the vegetarian brother is maintaining a legalistic attitude from the old covenant. He has yet to realize the fullness of freedom in Christ. Given that context, it is interesting to examine Paul's words and his instructions to the "stronger" brother.

First note that his instruction is to the stronger brother, not the weaker. The onus here is clearly on the part of the stronger to not sit in judgment of the weaker. Paul's clear implication in the first eight verses of chapter 14 is that "strong" and "weak" are matters of perception. His advice echoes that of Christ who cautioned us to "judge not, lest we be judged." Paul is not relativistically asserting that one brother's belief is as good as another's, as some in the post-modern church are wont to do. No, Paul here clearly defines which point of view is "right" and which is "wrong," and he recognizes that these matters are "disputable." What he does address, however, is the attitude of the right to the wrong.

In the Greek, the world for "weak" Paul uses here is synonymous with "ill" or "failing." In other words, our brother's viewpoint is not rebellious or defiant, but it is one that renders him spiritually "sick." It implies not a permanent condition, that would require isolation or palliative care, but a temporary one, that can be improved depending on the "treatment" by the stronger brother. This should inform our response to our brethren in Christ with whom we have conflict.

How did Jesus minister to the sick, particularly the lepers and those whom society had given up on? Did he judge them incurable and leave them to die in their isolation, or did he come to them? Paul is clear here: even if we believe a brother to be in error, we are to respond to him in care, not with contention. He goes on to say about these matters of "dispute" that each is responsible to God for his own conscience. We must not pretend that out brethren are answerable to us, or that we have been put in a position of authority over them. Even as an elder, I must understand that God has appointed me a "shepherd," not a judge. Those with whom I deal are not answerable to me, but to God, the same as I.

How would this change the church if we were to adopt this attitude? I'll examine those thoughts next.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt. 2

Romans 13 and 14 are written as the beginning of a new thought for Paul in his letter to the church in Rome. This is important to note, as sometimes we as modern readers get lost in "chapter and verse" and forget that Paul was writing a single document to an intended audience. He worked in "paragraph and sentence" not in chapter and verse. In context then, we see that these two chapters come on the heels of a profound conclusion from Paul: Love everybody. Bless those who persecute you and live in harmony with those around you. This reminder of the core of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is the foundation for the next two chapters.

Chapter 13 begins with instructions about dealing with civil authorities. Paul is crystal clear in this regard: We are to honor and respect those place in civil authority, as they are suffered to be there by God. This includes paying taxes and submitting to government authority. Now plenty has been written on this subject, not the least being the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is easy to excuse this passage by justifying rebellion against "unjust" civil authorities. We need to keep mind, however, that the civil authorities Paul is writing about here make Bull Connor look like Mother Theresa. If indeed, as is generally accepted, Paul is writing this letter during the reign of Nero, this admonition to honor those in civil authority is quite a weighty command.

Why then, would Paul instruct us to endure tyranny and injustice? The answer follows in what is the third full paragraph of Chapter 13:

"...whatever other commandment(s) there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (v.9b-10 NIV)

This is the heart of the matter. There are many times that we feel righteous in our anger and rebellion, particularly against civil government. There is no question that we see injustice on a daily basis. We, however, are operation on imperfect knowledge, as Paul reminded the Corinthian church. Justice is not ours to dispense, or even to pursue (see 13:1-5) I would contend that Dr. King's policy of non-violent disobedience COULD fit into this mold. It is possible to resist the government without showing dishonor (see Daniel, Shadrach, et al).

I do think we need to think long and hard about how we as Christians react to the civil authorities. The unbelieving world is watching. Sadly, too many times, they see Christians acting not unlike themselves, engaging in petty politics and personal attacks. This is clearly what Paul was proscribing.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at how we're to respond to community living.