The Need to be Right

Anyone ever want to be right? I know I like being right. And even more importantly, many of us like others knowing that we're right (especially when they're wrong, huh? :) ). How many conflicts arise from the insistence on being right (and trying to get others to acknowledge that)? What happens to the way we treat others when we insist on being right? What happens to our emotional state? Do the answers to these questions match with the fruit of the Spirit or most people's goals of life?

One of the concepts in the skill of dialectics in DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy) is to let go of being right. This doesn't mean that there isn't right and wrong or that we shouldn't hold true to our values. Rather, the idea is essentially about letting go of winning an argument.

DBT is focused on targeting emotional dysregulation (emotions being overwhelming and out of control). So all the skills are practically aimed at increasing our ability to regulate ourselves. Trying to be right frequently leads to emotion dysregulation, which in turn leads to poor judgment and interpersonal conflict.

So trying to let go of having to be right allows us to look at what is effective in our long-term goals. Do I really need to convince my wife that dishes should be put in the dishwasher and not left in the sink? While I'm, of course, right, insisting on being right only leads to conflict, fights, and a poor relationship. Are the dishes really worth that? When we're emotionally dysregulated, whatever we're fighting for does seem worth it. But then we calm down, and it seems silly. So the goal is to head off the dysregulation in order to maintain wise decision-making.

This can be hard when relationships aren't at stake. I've been really tempted to take our first adoption attorney to court or make a formal complaint to the state bar association for breach of contract. From one angle, it's a lot of money we lost, and fighting to be right could literally pay off. And it's not like I care whether the guy likes me or not. But how much energy is lost in the process? What are the chances of actually achieving my goals? It's an uphill battle.

But there are times when it bothers me. A lot. I realized it's not really the loss of the money, since we'll get most of it back through the federal adoption tax credit. It's tolerating the idea that he thinks he won (or so I imagine him thinking). I don't want him to think he's right. I want him to think we're right. But what good does that ultimately do? Not much. It'll satisfy my emotions for a bit, then something else will come along to trigger them. Wouldn't it be better to find ways to regulate without relying on others?

There are times to fight for justice, but we need to be wise about it. And when our desire to be right becomes too strong, then we can actually lose sight of justice itself. (I'm afraid this happens sometimes in the legal system when prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officers, etc. behave unethically just to be right rather than seek truth.)

I see Jesus acting this way when Pilate was questioning him. There were so many ways Jesus could have argued he was right. But would it have convinced everyone? Would it have been effective at achieving his ultimate, long-term goals? From this perspective, I can see him saving his energy for what was most important. He could tolerate people thinking he was evil and even forgave them for making such erroneous judgments. He didn't have to be right. And that allowed him to be at peace and make even more powerful impact.

Yet ironically, how often do we insist on being right in the name of Christ? How much good does that bring?

I like being right. I want to be on the right side of things. More importantly, I really like it when people think I'm right (even if I'm wrong). And that desire leads to a lot of unrest. Jesus came to bring us life and peace. Part of that, I believe, is letting go of having to be right.

Saying It Like It Is

"He says it like it is." This can be a compliment or a cursing criticism, depending on the person saying these words. People like Mark Driscoll get praise for their no-holds-barred approach to confrontation. They also get criticized for being rude and wrong in their content.

When it comes to Driscoll, I tend to be the latter camp. Yet when some ethical issues have come up at work lately, I found myself being praised by others for "saying it like it is." And criticized by others for not being serene.

I found myself questioning my actions and wondering what the right approach was. Was Jesus outspoken and angry? Or was he a pacifist? Ultimately, he was both. There are a couple of excerpts from John Eldredge's books that I think really summarize these issues quite nicely.

However, I find it interesting how people really struggle with finding a balance of both. Where I am currently is that the ideal is to be calm, serene, and cooperative. This encourages cooperation, collaboration, and growth within an institution. It also can encourage people to feel safe to grow and face their own challenges.

Yet when that no longer works and major problems continue to manifest, I believe being feistier is warranted. Sometimes we need to stand up for our rights, the rights of others, and right conduct. That means we need to fight at times. There are, of course, better and worse ways to fight, but at times, fight we must.

The problems occur when we stay in one extreme all the time, regardless of circumstances. This creates a lack of a change (with complete serenity) or unsafe, instable environments (with constant condemnation).

What do you think? Is there a balance? Is there a time to say it like it is? What does that even mean?

Remembering God's Continual Incarnation

Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation: God becoming flesh in Jesus Christ. God is still embodied in the world through the Holy Spirit inhabiting all of us (no, we're not gods, but we present God's continual Incarnation to the world around us).

So in celebration of the Ultimate Incarnation:
How do you continue to experience God's presence and Incarnation around you?
How are you living and showing God's presence to other people around you?

Merry Christmas!!

The Selfish Gospel @9MarksOnline @nextchristians @christianaudio @caReviewers

The latest book I got to review for christianaudio's reviewer program (meaning I received a complimentary copy) was Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel? This book is actually part of a series from 9marks, going in-depth about what that organization considers to be the nine marks of a healthy church, as argued by Mark Dever.

I actually finished this audiobook over a week ago, but I didn't feel any urge to get a review out quickly because I really didn't care for the book. I was also trying to figure out good ways to positively engage with it.

The purpose of this tome is to answer the question of the title: What is the Gospel? Gilbert makes the excellent point that Christians are fragmented in our definitions of what the Gospel is. While I see that (generally) more as an element of different people emphasizing different aspects of the Gospel, Gilbert seems to almost take offense that there is not a simple, unified definition. His writing seems to question the salvation of people who do not understand the Gospel in the same way he does of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as paramount.

He begins the book by arguing that the Gospel is larger than most people make it to be, a statement with which I agree. However, he quickly simplifies it to issues of salvation. I find it somewhat interesting that his book was offered to review at the same time as The Next Christians, which I loved. The latter does a much better job at explaining how the Gospel is much more than simply salvation from Hell.

In any case, I think I found some of the reasons I had problems with Gilbert's text. First of all, he states that as Christians, we value the Bible as infallible and inerrant, thus taking a literal view. This is a big theological assertion, as the majority of Christendom does not view Scripture as both infallible and inerrant. This is an example of how Gilbert implies that if one does not interpret Scripture the same way he does, that individual is not actually a Christian. There are people who take this view. I am not one of them and feel very strongly about this.

This approach to Scripture shapes all of his interpretations, which is where my problems begin. With a literal view, people often approach the Bible from a "plain meaning" perspective, assuming they understand it from a simple reading. Therefore, explanation is not often needed. Gilbert exemplifies this approach by providing evidence for his statements by simply stating, "see Revelation," without additional explanation.

While he makes some good points about the Gospel, this approach of simply citing Scripture without providing his interpretation of it makes his arguments unsupported, in my view. Further, I simply disagree with his reading of many elements of Scripture because I do not approach the Bible as inerrant.

I believe many other things should be considered to help us understand the Bible, including tradition, intuition, science, etc. These things should not supersede the Bible, but they are relevant, as the Bible is not always clear. Gilbert, however, argues that relying on tradition, intuition, etc. for truths, leads to unanswered questions. And he indicates that unanswered questions are unacceptable. This is an area with which I strongly disagree. I think God gives us many unanswered questions, and that is not a problem. In fact, it creates a rich space for growth. And ironically, Gilbert uses the Bible the same way the people he criticizes use tradition and intuition--just accepting what they have been told and not critically engaging it to find Truth.

One of the things Gilbert frequently says is that the Good News of the Bible is that we can be rescued (I agree). However, he says, that unless we know we need to be rescued, it's not good news. So we need to emphasize the sinful, wicked nature of people to point out how depraved they are. I disagree with this. Most people I know actually know very well how much they need help. They don't need others reminding them. That just makes things worse. And sometimes the way we find out we need help is by getting the help and getting out of the situation.

In any case, Gilbert seems to emphasize how we need to know how the Gospel is Good News for me. Not for other people. For me. There's a selfish feel to it, in my opinion. In many ways, he presents what Gabe Lyons describes in The Next Christians as a view of doing good for the most people rather than for all people. Jesus and the Gospel definitely focus on emphasizing good for all people, not just a few. While only a few may take advantage of it, they do not only offer it to those few.

So therefore, cultural change is a powerful thing that is very holy and central to the Gospel. Gilbert argues that cultural transformation is not part of the Gospel. However, the way he describes it seems to be more related to Lyons' description of cultural Christians, those who take Christ in-name-only and look like the culture. In contrast, the restorers are people who are deeply connected to Christ and want to restore the world and the culture to God's hope and dream for the world in a way that will benefit all people. That's a powerful and True Gospel.

Are We Good Or Evil? @jonathanbrink

Jonathan Brink recently released his book, Discovering the God Imagination, and he provided me a complimentary copy to review.

In this book, he tackles the assumptions most Christians have over the salvation story. He nicely argues that most theories and interpretations place the problem outside of us: On God, on Satan, on the law. And the solution is that a ransom has to be paid to one of those things. Each way of approaching this problem has major problems of its own (which Brink details).

Rather, he argues that the problem is actually our perception of ourselves, specifically how we answer the question, "Are we good or evil?"

Beginning with the creation story, Brink argues that God has judged humanity as good. What happened with the Fall is that we have given into a lie that we are evil and only redeemable through violence and bloodshed.

Brink continues through major stories within the Bible, exploring how God is not judging humanity as evil, but rather engaging in redemptive acts. What Brink says is that God's actions are not for him or for Satan, but rather for us. WE are the ones who need the violence, judgment, etc. Without that, we are unable to see the lie we have given into.

The best analogy I can think of is the standard interpretation of the establishment of kings in Israel. God didn't want or need kings. Israel wanted them. And God gave them a king to show them that this would not solve the problem. As Brink ays, "The long, slow progression of God interacting with a chosen group of people reveals an astonishing idea. God establishes and uses the human constructs in Israel to exhaust their possibility. God allows Israel to explore pride, social comparison, relationships, the law, and religion to see that they don't work" (p. 195).

All our ways of trying to save ourselves don't work. We need Jesus. However, it is not God, Satan, or the law who requires this sacrifice. It is humanity:

The religious contract is our final demand for satisfaction. We need the atonement. We need a way to appease our own sense of guilt. We demand something so perfect that it will fill our sense of violence with a nauseating stench. The brutality of this act is seen the moment we place our own children in the hands of the crowd. What we would never do, God does for us. The final act of atonement is the father giving up his son at the demands of humanity. (p. 239)

This is a rather radical idea and one I haven't heard before. I'm still processing it and its theological consequences (many of which Brink skillfully tackles). I can see many more conservative Christians getting up in arms with this "new" perspective. But that's the problem: Our perspective. We need to change it anyway. And the theological implications of this interpretation are actually quite in line with traditional, orthodox Christianity. It just approaches it all differently. And that can be quite good.

Everything he says fits with what I know about the Bible, God, and humanity. It all fits. I've had a lot of problems with many of the traditional salvation interpretations. There's hole that just don't fit with what we know about God.

As a result, I highly recommend this book. Not only does Brink present a very good, well written theological treatise, he does so while approaching the Bible as completely true (unlike even some of the traditional theologians). He knows the Bible well. And truly the arguments come from the Bible.

Additionally, Brink is part of the emerging conversation, which has contributed to a lot of deconstruction of our preconceived notions of church, theology, God, ourselves, etc. One of the things I particularly appreciate about this book and Brink is summarized in the book's subtitle: "Reconstructing a Whole New Christianity." Deconstruction is important, but so is reconstructions, which is the purpose of this blog.

My one complaint about the book is actually the cover. It looks a cheesy, bad theology book or some lame New Age, self-help book. But we have to remember not to judge a book by its cover, right? :)

Christian Humanitarianism @christianaudio @caReviewers

I received two complimentary audiobooks from christianaudio at the same time: Jesus Manifesto (reviewed yesterday) and Humanitarian Jesus by Christian Buckley and Ryan Dobson. I was expecting to like the former more than the latter, but that's exactly the opposite of what happened.

Humanitarian Jesus was much more engaging and legitimately struggling with real-life issues that many Christians are facing today. As being "missional" is one of the hot new things for young Christians, it is important to know what it actually means to be missional.

Social justice is important. So is evangelism. But how do you define each?

That's exactly what this book tackles. The first half of the book is Buckley's argument for finding a delicate balance between both social justice and evangelism (he says both are needed explicitly). And yes, Buckley wrote the whole thing. He says that in the introduction. Dobson helped him get the interviews that comprise the second half. His name probably helps sell copies, but I don't think he was particularly involved.

Buckley is an excellent writer and is definitely on the more conservative end of the missional/social justice spectrum. However, unlike the negative and unfair stereotype of conservatives being unwilling to consider alternatives, Buckley does a great job of looking at all the options when engaging humanitarianism.

This is particularly seen in the second half, in which Buckley interviews a very wide variety of well-known (on the order of Franklin Graham and Tony Campolo) and not-so-well known Christian leaders who also engage in humanitarian work. I found the second half much more interesting and engaging. This is where the reader (or listener) gets to hear from the people who are actually doing the work and how they approach the balance of humanitarianism and evangelism.

The views are on both extremes and everywhere in between. And that is a good thing. It helps the reader/listener really engage all the nuanced issues in the arena of missional living. As Buckley states, the goal of the book is not necessarily to convince people of one perspective or another, but to get people to look at their views again and understand the complexity of the issues. For that, I have a lot of respect. And the book achieves that.

As with other audiobooks, I wish Buckley would have read it himself. The narrator was excellent (one of the best non-author narrators). However, there is something lost when the author does not read his own work, particularly when it comes out of a particular passion.

Jesus Deficit Disorder @christianaudio @caReviewers @FrankViola @lensweet

Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola's The Jesus Manifesto looked rather interesting when I got a review copy of the audiobook from christianaudio. I've heard many good things about Sweet and Viola, so I was excited to listen to this book.

For a text that is based in so much passion, I once again was disappointed by the fact that neither of the authors read their text. So much is missed when the author does not read their own text.

I think that would have made a big difference here. Much of the passion was lost. In fact, a lot of the book seemed overstated. Although God can never truly be overstated, the use of metaphor and hyperbolic adjectives was just too extreme. The point was lost.

While I agree with the intended worshipful comments, I got bored with the book.

Also, the basic premise that the church has Jesus Deficit Disorder (a lack of focus on Christ) is just not one I really buy. I agree that many churches and people definitely suffer from this, the communities of which I have been a part have focused a lot on Christ.

The "Jesus Deficit Disorder" is just one example of a metaphor or phrase that appears clever at first, but just comes across as cheesy when paired with so many other such phrases. It gets old.

It's not a bad book. If you want a book that is a devoted worhsip of Jesus, Jesus Manifesto does it well. You can even sign a Jesus Manifesto. These are good things. The audiobook just didn't really move me at all...